Justice Dept. Issues 40 Subpoenas in a Week, Expanding Its Jan. 6 Inquiry

[Tom 1]

I see clear evidence, I have no idea what it is not clear to some people.

Because it’s imaginary. Where in anything you have posted or linked to is there evidence Clinton destroyed classified information?

 

[disciple Clint]

That’s blatantly untrue. You claimed you have evidence Clinton ‘destroyed’ classified information, then claimed that the articles you linked to prove that. They don’t. So what are you basing your claims on?

The evidence is there and that is as far as I am going to go.

 

[disciple Clint]

Because it’s imaginary. Where in anything you have posted or linked to is there evidence Clinton destroyed classified information?

I have provided the information, Game over have a nice day.

 

[Tom 1]

I have provided the information, Game over have a nice day.

No, you didn’t. Nothing in anything you linked to supports your claim of evidence that Clinton destroyed classified information. That evidence simply isn’t there - it’s not in the articles you linked to. None of them even claims to have proof of that. The question is, then, why do you think it is? Where is it? They’re your offered response to a request for evidence - so where is it? If it is there, as you say, you should be able quote it.

 

[Tom 1]

The evidence is there and that is as far as I am going to go.

Where? Please quote anything from the articles you linked to that you think of as evidence.

 

[disciple Clint]

No, you didn’t. Nothing in anything you linked to supports your claim of evidence that Clinton destroyed classified information. That evidence simply isn’t there - it’s not in the articles you linked to. None of them even claims to have proof of that. The question is, then, why do you think it is? Where is it? They’re your offered response to a request for evidence - so where is it? If it is there, as you say, you should be able quote it.

our discussion is over.

 

[disciple Clint]

Where? Please quote anything from the articles you linked to that you think of as evidence.

have a nice day

 

[DaisyDay]

our discussion is over.

Cognitive dissonance is painful.

 

[disciple Clint]

Cognitive dissonance is painful.

is it? Please tell me about it.

 

[Bradskii]

is it? Please tell me about it.

See the post above yours.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Federal agents with court-authorized search warrants took phones last week from at least two people: Boris Epshteyn, an in-house counsel who helps coordinate Mr. Trump’s legal efforts, and Mike Roman, a campaign strategist who was the director of Election Day operations for the Trump campaign in 2020, people familiar with the investigation said.

Former Trump campaign official cooperating with special counsel in 2020 election interference probe​

Former Donald Trump campaign official Mike Roman is cooperating with prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s team in the ongoing criminal probe related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Roman, who received a grand jury subpoena months ago and had his phone seized, was involved in efforts to put forward slates of fake Trump electors following the 2020 election.

 

[disciple Clint]

Former Trump campaign official cooperating with special counsel in 2020 election interference probe​

Former Donald Trump campaign official Mike Roman is cooperating with prosecutors from special counsel Jack Smith’s team in the ongoing criminal probe related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Roman, who received a grand jury subpoena months ago and had his phone seized, was involved in efforts to put forward slates of fake Trump electors following the 2020 election.

"two sources familiar with the matter told CNN". Will CNN ever have a real source that they can identify so that others can verify the reliability of their reports, frankly I doubt it since they specialize in being a rumor factory.

 

[Pommer]

"two sources familiar with the matter told CNN". Will CNN ever have a real source that they can identify so that others can verify the reliability of their reports, frankly I doubt it since they specialize in being a rumor factory.

Why is “who gave the ‘facts?” more important than the “facts”?

 

[KCfromNC]

Why is “who gave the ‘facts?” more important than the “facts”?

Maybe more of a "when" than a "why" - in this case, when the facts look bad for a particular GOP frontrunner and when they can't be countered in any reasonable way.