Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny everyone thinks J6 is relevant. Do you believe the Subway Assaulter will be allowed to introduce evidence of J6, and the judge will acquit?

Did you miss the part where the grand jury didn’t indict him? And in fact the defense attorneys in these cases have raised the J6 pardons in court.

That is separate from his employment case and has no bearing in whether he violated DOJ conduct policies. a jury does not have to find that I violated the law in order for my government employer to fire me. This is a huge logical gap in your argument.

He’s not getting fired you pos
He did the right thing for gods sake it was a sandwich

Shut up you anti American maga fool

Um Subway guy already got fired

No sandwich guy isn’t getting fired the DOJ would be sued they don’t want that discovery will suck for them and Bondi knows this.

Sandwich guy has a great case and he would win millions

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny everyone thinks J6 is relevant. Do you believe the Subway Assaulter will be allowed to introduce evidence of J6, and the judge will acquit?

Did you miss the part where the grand jury didn’t indict him? And in fact the defense attorneys in these cases have raised the J6 pardons in court.

That is separate from his employment case and has no bearing in whether he violated DOJ conduct policies. a jury does not have to find that I violated the law in order for my government employer to fire me. This is a huge logical gap in your argument.

He’s not getting fired you pos
He did the right thing for gods sake it was a sandwich

Shut up you anti American maga fool

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny everyone thinks J6 is relevant. Do you believe the Subway Assaulter will be allowed to introduce evidence of J6, and the judge will acquit?

Did you miss the part where the grand jury didn’t indict him? And in fact the defense attorneys in these cases have raised the J6 pardons in court.

That is separate from his employment case and has no bearing in whether he violated DOJ conduct policies. a jury does not have to find that I violated the law in order for my government employer to fire me. This is a huge logical gap in your argument.

Of course it has bearings. If DOJ allows Jared Wise to be employed, it means that they are not fairly applying their conduct policy.

Please supply the video of Jared Wise actually hitting a federal officer. I have asked at least 20 times and you apparently do not have the evidence.

So the distinction for the people who are logic challenged is that sandwich jizz guy is ON FILM assaulting an officer. Wise is not on film If you have the video of Wise hitting an officer post it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny everyone thinks J6 is relevant. Do you believe the Subway Assaulter will be allowed to introduce evidence of J6, and the judge will acquit?

Did you miss the part where the grand jury didn’t indict him? And in fact the defense attorneys in these cases have raised the J6 pardons in court.

That is separate from his employment case and has no bearing in whether he violated DOJ conduct policies. a jury does not have to find that I violated the law in order for my government employer to fire me. This is a huge logical gap in your argument.

Of course it has bearings. If DOJ allows Jared Wise to be employed, it means that they are not fairly applying their conduct policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

That would be awesome. He’s on video tape assaulting a federal officer.

Multiple current senior officials from DOJ were at January 6th. None of this matters anymore. Law enforcement are suckers, they got rolled by Trump.

And they are on film assaulting cops like this person did?

Trump thinks it’s okay to beat police officers with a flag pole because he pardoned the guys who did. So, are you saying this would be moot if he had a hostile and not a sandwich?

Please clarify if you’d rather be beaten with a flag pole in a mob or if you’d prefer to have some rando hit you in the shoulder with a meatball sub?

I am asking you if any current Trump officials are on film hitting a police officers. I guess the answer is no.

What is the meaning of being at January 6th. If I was standing at Constitution and 1st but did not enter the Capitol was I "at January 6?" Or was I just hanging out on Constitution?

Stop being obtuse.

I don’t think it’s deliberate.

MAGA be dumb AF.

OK well I still have a job as an attorney while your hero is at home crying and eating Subway sandwiches.

Your flaccid d*ck job at Heritage is not something to brag about.

It's better than your sandwich hero who is unemployed.

Only to a person with no conscience or moral integrity.

Conscience and morality do not pay the rent in an expensive place like DC

Spoken like a true amoral POS Republican.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

That would be awesome. He’s on video tape assaulting a federal officer.

Multiple current senior officials from DOJ were at January 6th. None of this matters anymore. Law enforcement are suckers, they got rolled by Trump.

And they are on film assaulting cops like this person did?

Trump thinks it’s okay to beat police officers with a flag pole because he pardoned the guys who did. So, are you saying this would be moot if he had a hostile and not a sandwich?

Please clarify if you’d rather be beaten with a flag pole in a mob or if you’d prefer to have some rando hit you in the shoulder with a meatball sub?

I am asking you if any current Trump officials are on film hitting a police officers. I guess the answer is no.

What is the meaning of being at January 6th. If I was standing at Constitution and 1st but did not enter the Capitol was I "at January 6?" Or was I just hanging out on Constitution?

Stop being obtuse.

I don’t think it’s deliberate.

MAGA be dumb AF.

OK well I still have a job as an attorney while your hero is at home crying and eating Subway sandwiches.

Your flaccid d*ck job at Heritage is not something to brag about.

😂😂😂😂😂. Perfect description. These MAGA lawyers attached to Heritage and Federalist Society really are the classic limp d*ck types.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

That would be awesome. He’s on video tape assaulting a federal officer.

Multiple current senior officials from DOJ were at January 6th. None of this matters anymore. Law enforcement are suckers, they got rolled by Trump.

And they are on film assaulting cops like this person did?

Trump thinks it’s okay to beat police officers with a flag pole because he pardoned the guys who did. So, are you saying this would be moot if he had a hostile and not a sandwich?

Please clarify if you’d rather be beaten with a flag pole in a mob or if you’d prefer to have some rando hit you in the shoulder with a meatball sub?

I am asking you if any current Trump officials are on film hitting a police officers. I guess the answer is no.

What is the meaning of being at January 6th. If I was standing at Constitution and 1st but did not enter the Capitol was I "at January 6?" Or was I just hanging out on Constitution?

Stop being obtuse.

I don’t think it’s deliberate.

MAGA be dumb AF.

OK well I still have a job as an attorney while your hero is at home crying and eating Subway sandwiches.

Your flaccid d*ck job at Heritage is not something to brag about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny everyone thinks J6 is relevant. Do you believe the Subway Assaulter will be allowed to introduce evidence of J6, and the judge will acquit?

DCUM isn’t a court of law. Posters are allowed to take the entirety of Trump’s and his minions’ actions into account when forming their opinions on this administration’s policies, the motives behind them, their implementation, and the end results. We can appreciate the context of this month’s events.

OK but if you are fired from a government job you need evidence for MSPB. You are not going to win your termination case by pointing out posts on DCUM. So your argument about other Trump supporters at DOJ does not help the terminated employee in any way.

Is this an MSPB hearing?

No. The point is the lack of indictment does nothing positive for the person's employment case.

Is this about his employment case? No it is not. Although if I was his lawyer I would absolutely use the fact that Wise is employed at DOJ to challenge the action.

Having the DOJ on your resume during this time period is probably a red flag, anyway. Best to move on if you want to he taken seriously later, and he’s a young guy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny everyone thinks J6 is relevant. Do you believe the Subway Assaulter will be allowed to introduce evidence of J6, and the judge will acquit?

DCUM isn’t a court of law. Posters are allowed to take the entirety of Trump’s and his minions’ actions into account when forming their opinions on this administration’s policies, the motives behind them, their implementation, and the end results. We can appreciate the context of this month’s events.

OK but if you are fired from a government job you need evidence for MSPB. You are not going to win your termination case by pointing out posts on DCUM. So your argument about other Trump supporters at DOJ does not help the terminated employee in any way.

Is this an MSPB hearing?

No. The point is the lack of indictment does nothing positive for the person's employment case.

Is this about his employment case? No it is not. Although if I was his lawyer I would absolutely use the fact that Wise is employed at DOJ to challenge the action.

Losing his gravy job is enough punishment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny everyone thinks J6 is relevant. Do you believe the Subway Assaulter will be allowed to introduce evidence of J6, and the judge will acquit?

DCUM isn’t a court of law. Posters are allowed to take the entirety of Trump’s and his minions’ actions into account when forming their opinions on this administration’s policies, the motives behind them, their implementation, and the end results. We can appreciate the context of this month’s events.

OK but if you are fired from a government job you need evidence for MSPB. You are not going to win your termination case by pointing out posts on DCUM. So your argument about other Trump supporters at DOJ does not help the terminated employee in any way.

Is this an MSPB hearing?

No. The point is the lack of indictment does nothing positive for the person's employment case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope that he sues over the loss of his job.

That would be awesome. He’s on video tape assaulting a federal officer.

Multiple current senior officials from DOJ were at January 6th. None of this matters anymore. Law enforcement are suckers, they got rolled by Trump.

And they are on film assaulting cops like this person did?

Trump thinks it’s okay to beat police officers with a flag pole because he pardoned the guys who did. So, are you saying this would be moot if he had a hostile and not a sandwich?

Please clarify if you’d rather be beaten with a flag pole in a mob or if you’d prefer to have some rando hit you in the shoulder with a meatball sub?

I am asking you if any current Trump officials are on film hitting a police officers. I guess the answer is no.

What is the meaning of being at January 6th. If I was standing at Constitution and 1st but did not enter the Capitol was I "at January 6?" Or was I just hanging out on Constitution?

Stop being obtuse.

I don’t think it’s deliberate.

MAGA be dumb AF.

OK well I still have a job as an attorney while your hero is at home crying and eating Subway sandwiches.

Your flaccid d*ck job at Heritage is not something to brag about.

It's better than your sandwich hero who is unemployed.

Only to a person with no conscience or moral integrity.

Conscience and morality do not pay the rent in an expensive place like DC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny everyone thinks J6 is relevant. Do you believe the Subway Assaulter will be allowed to introduce evidence of J6, and the judge will acquit?

DCUM isn’t a court of law. Posters are allowed to take the entirety of Trump’s and his minions’ actions into account when forming their opinions on this administration’s policies, the motives behind them, their implementation, and the end results. We can appreciate the context of this month’s events.

OK but if you are fired from a government job you need evidence for MSPB. You are not going to win your termination case by pointing out posts on DCUM. So your argument about other Trump supporters at DOJ does not help the terminated employee in any way.

Is this an MSPB hearing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's funny everyone thinks J6 is relevant. Do you believe the Subway Assaulter will be allowed to introduce evidence of J6, and the judge will acquit?

Did you miss the part where the grand jury didn’t indict him? And in fact the defense attorneys in these cases have raised the J6 pardons in court.

That is separate from his employment case and has no bearing in whether he violated DOJ conduct policies. a jury does not have to find that I violated the law in order for my government employer to fire me. This is a huge logical gap in your argument.