Anonymous
04/11/2025 06:28
Subject: Re:DOJ, RIP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you always this gullible and easily misled?
No, but clearly you are.
Also, I can spell “marshals” and you cannot.
Good day.
If you can get your discernment skills up to the level of your spelling, you might have something to work with there.
You’re being played by Oyer and her grandstanding and either you don’t see it or you don’t want to see it.
Good day to you, as well.
This president and his administration have always said that anyone’s conversations with the president are confidential. About everything. It’s not true when Congress has oversight over the executive branch.
Anonymous
04/11/2025 00:05
Subject: Re:DOJ, RIP
Anonymous wrote:Are you always this gullible and easily misled?
No, but clearly you are.
Also, I can spell “marshals” and you cannot.
Good day.
If you can get your discernment skills up to the level of your spelling, you might have something to work with there.
You’re being played by Oyer and her grandstanding and either you don’t see it or you don’t want to see it.
Good day to you, as well.
Anonymous
04/11/2025 00:02
Subject: Re:DOJ, RIP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Did you read the article? There was no evidence given. The testimony was either about policy decisions the former prosecutors disagreed with or about how they were treated. None of it amounts to illegality from the POTUS or his delegates.
“The letter was a warning to me about the risks of testifying here today. But I am here because I will not be bullied into concealing the ongoing corruption and abuse of power at the Department of Justice,” Oyer said. Testimony under oath is evidence, dear. And you didn’t answer the question. Are you OK with armed marshals showing up at this woman’s house to warn her against testifying to Congress? If true, that’s witness intimidation which absolutely “amounts to illegality from the POTUS or his delegates.”
Bless your heart, you read it but you didn’t understand it. So, I’ll help you out:
She was sent a letter reminding her not to reveal attorney client protected information about the executive branch to congress or the courts. This is pretty standard legal practice as you provide written notice to your ex-lawyers to maintain privilege so they can’t after the fact claim they thought the privilege was waived. In that notice you also spell out consequences of failing to maintain privilege. This is what she claims was an “attempt to bully” her into silence. There is nothing illegal about that type of notice. Hint: if anything illegal was actually in the letter it would be blasted all over the world right now. But it isn’t because she’s trying to use the reference of a mysterious letter to claim she was being bullied and she hopes easily manipulated people like you won’t look behind the curtain.
Second, ask yourself why she keeps saying “ARMED marshalls” (my emphasis added). By definition, US Marshalls are armed. Is it not curious to you that she keeps using redundant wording? Hint: She’s using redundant wording to scare you and manipulate your feelings. Using US Marshalls to deliver notice is perhaps a bit heavy handed, but apparently Oyer had not acknowledged receipt of the DOJ notice after it had been emailed to her estilice in the week.
She claims the notice was sent to a secondary email she wasn’t checking, but once she acknowledged receipt of the notice the Marshalls were called off and not sent to her house. My read is that the Marshalls were dispatched after DOJ felt like Oyer was possibly intentionally refusing to acknowledge receipt of legal notice. Marshalls were probably used so that she couldn’t claim she was not given notice because Marshalls are very credible witnesses in court. Perhaps a bit heavy handed, but far from the witness intimidation you are suggesting. No, I don’t have a problem with the use of the Marshalls in these circumstances and they were called off once she acknowledged receipt of the notice.
This whole story is framed to tug at your heart strings and allow you to jump to conclusions about something more nefarious than what actually happened. Are you always this gullible and easily misled?
do YOU think we’re gullible after reading that steaming pile of cr*p you just wrote desperately trying to convince us that she was not fired improperly and then intimidated from testifying about it?
Here is a Reuters story on it. Are they just making it up?
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-dept-mobilized-armed-marshals-warn-ex-lawyer-over-congressional-2025-04-07/
“In the letter to Oyer, Associate Deputy Attorney General Kendra Wharton said the department has "significant confidentiality interests."
These were particularly strong in Oyer's case because of the role Oyer played in making clemency recommendations for the president, Wharton said, referring to the executive privilege doctrine that shields some presidential communications from disclosure to Congress.
"Should you choose to appear before Congress, the department expects that you will abide by your obligations under the law, Department policy, and the applicable rules of professional responsibility," Wharton wrote.
"Those matters include the deliberative processes that underlie pardons, clemency, the restoration of firearm rights, and related decisions."
Please, tell me what is intimidating or illegal about the quoted language? You are being played and happy to go along with it because it confirms your biases. Oyer even admitted that the marshals were called off once she acknowledged receipt of the letter.
Anonymous
04/10/2025 21:45
Subject: Re:DOJ, RIP
Are you always this gullible and easily misled?
No, but clearly you are.
Also, I can spell “marshals” and you cannot.
Good day.
Anonymous
04/10/2025 21:40
Subject: Re:DOJ, RIP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Did you read the article? There was no evidence given. The testimony was either about policy decisions the former prosecutors disagreed with or about how they were treated. None of it amounts to illegality from the POTUS or his delegates.
“The letter was a warning to me about the risks of testifying here today. But I am here because I will not be bullied into concealing the ongoing corruption and abuse of power at the Department of Justice,” Oyer said. Testimony under oath is evidence, dear. And you didn’t answer the question. Are you OK with armed marshals showing up at this woman’s house to warn her against testifying to Congress? If true, that’s witness intimidation which absolutely “amounts to illegality from the POTUS or his delegates.”
Bless your heart, you read it but you didn’t understand it. So, I’ll help you out:
She was sent a letter reminding her not to reveal attorney client protected information about the executive branch to congress or the courts. This is pretty standard legal practice as you provide written notice to your ex-lawyers to maintain privilege so they can’t after the fact claim they thought the privilege was waived. In that notice you also spell out consequences of failing to maintain privilege. This is what she claims was an “attempt to bully” her into silence. There is nothing illegal about that type of notice. Hint: if anything illegal was actually in the letter it would be blasted all over the world right now. But it isn’t because she’s trying to use the reference of a mysterious letter to claim she was being bullied and she hopes easily manipulated people like you won’t look behind the curtain.
Second, ask yourself why she keeps saying “ARMED marshalls” (my emphasis added). By definition, US Marshalls are armed. Is it not curious to you that she keeps using redundant wording? Hint: She’s using redundant wording to scare you and manipulate your feelings. Using US Marshalls to deliver notice is perhaps a bit heavy handed, but apparently Oyer had not acknowledged receipt of the DOJ notice after it had been emailed to her estilice in the week.
She claims the notice was sent to a secondary email she wasn’t checking, but once she acknowledged receipt of the notice the Marshalls were called off and not sent to her house. My read is that the Marshalls were dispatched after DOJ felt like Oyer was possibly intentionally refusing to acknowledge receipt of legal notice. Marshalls were probably used so that she couldn’t claim she was not given notice because Marshalls are very credible witnesses in court. Perhaps a bit heavy handed, but far from the witness intimidation you are suggesting. No, I don’t have a problem with the use of the Marshalls in these circumstances and they were called off once she acknowledged receipt of the notice.
This whole story is framed to tug at your heart strings and allow you to jump to conclusions about something more nefarious than what actually happened. Are you always this gullible and easily misled?
do YOU think we’re gullible after reading that steaming pile of cr*p you just wrote desperately trying to convince us that she was not fired improperly and then intimidated from testifying about it?
Anonymous
04/10/2025 21:34
Subject: Re:DOJ, RIP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Did you read the article? There was no evidence given. The testimony was either about policy decisions the former prosecutors disagreed with or about how they were treated. None of it amounts to illegality from the POTUS or his delegates.
“The letter was a warning to me about the risks of testifying here today. But I am here because I will not be bullied into concealing the ongoing corruption and abuse of power at the Department of Justice,” Oyer said. Testimony under oath is evidence, dear. And you didn’t answer the question. Are you OK with armed marshals showing up at this woman’s house to warn her against testifying to Congress? If true, that’s witness intimidation which absolutely “amounts to illegality from the POTUS or his delegates.”
Bless your heart, you read it but you didn’t understand it. So, I’ll help you out:
She was sent a letter reminding her not to reveal attorney client protected information about the executive branch to congress or the courts. This is pretty standard legal practice as you provide written notice to your ex-lawyers to maintain privilege so they can’t after the fact claim they thought the privilege was waived. In that notice you also spell out consequences of failing to maintain privilege. This is what she claims was an “attempt to bully” her into silence. There is nothing illegal about that type of notice. Hint: if anything illegal was actually in the letter it would be blasted all over the world right now. But it isn’t because she’s trying to use the reference of a mysterious letter to claim she was being bullied and she hopes easily manipulated people like you won’t look behind the curtain.
Second, ask yourself why she keeps saying “ARMED marshalls” (my emphasis added). By definition, US Marshalls are armed. Is it not curious to you that she keeps using redundant wording? Hint: She’s using redundant wording to scare you and manipulate your feelings. Using US Marshalls to deliver notice is perhaps a bit heavy handed, but apparently Oyer had not acknowledged receipt of the DOJ notice after it had been emailed to her estilice in the week.
She claims the notice was sent to a secondary email she wasn’t checking, but once she acknowledged receipt of the notice the Marshalls were called off and not sent to her house. My read is that the Marshalls were dispatched after DOJ felt like Oyer was possibly intentionally refusing to acknowledge receipt of legal notice. Marshalls were probably used so that she couldn’t claim she was not given notice because Marshalls are very credible witnesses in court. Perhaps a bit heavy handed, but far from the witness intimidation you are suggesting. No, I don’t have a problem with the use of the Marshalls in these circumstances and they were called off once she acknowledged receipt of the notice.
This whole story is framed to tug at your heart strings and allow you to jump to conclusions about something more nefarious than what actually happened. Are you always this gullible and easily misled?
Anonymous
04/10/2025 18:26
Subject: Re:DOJ, RIP
Anonymous wrote:
Did you read the article? There was no evidence given. The testimony was either about policy decisions the former prosecutors disagreed with or about how they were treated. None of it amounts to illegality from the POTUS or his delegates.
“The letter was a warning to me about the risks of testifying here today. But I am here because I will not be bullied into concealing the ongoing corruption and abuse of power at the Department of Justice,” Oyer said. Testimony under oath is evidence, dear. And you didn’t answer the question. Are you OK with armed marshals showing up at this woman’s house to warn her against testifying to Congress? If true, that’s witness intimidation which absolutely “amounts to illegality from the POTUS or his delegates.”
Anonymous
04/10/2025 18:00
Subject: Re:DOJ, RIP
Did you read the article? There was no evidence given. The testimony was either about policy decisions the former prosecutors disagreed with or about how they were treated. None of it amounts to illegality from the POTUS or his delegates.
Anonymous
04/10/2025 08:54
Subject: DOJ, RIP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Glad someone is willing to stand up to Bondis corruption!
Which dictionary did you use for "Corruption"?
Bondi is completely corrupt.
Anonymous
Anonymous
04/06/2025 09:12
Subject: DOJ, RIP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is terrible— firing a lawyer for being honest with the court
She was working against the President.
Does he represent trump, or Justice on behalf of the constitution and the people of the United States
The government's position was that this person would not be brought back from El Salvador. This lawyer said he would try to make it happen.
Was that before or after the judge ordered that he was wrongfully imprisoned?
Anonymous
04/06/2025 00:21
Subject: DOJ, RIP
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is terrible— firing a lawyer for being honest with the court
She was working against the President.
Does he represent trump, or Justice on behalf of the constitution and the people of the United States
The government's position was that this person would not be brought back from El Salvador. This lawyer said he would try to make it happen.