Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Ms Oyer’s resume: Georgetown, Harvard, partner at Mayer Brown, 10 years as a federal defender. Whoever the jack*ss here trying to impugn here is, you are a complete joke.


https://www.justice.gov/archives/pardon/staff-profile/former-pardon-attorney-oyer

Are you suggesting that her credentials mean she is above politics?

Here are her publicly stated complaints:

1. She was escorted off premises after she was involuntarily terminated after a policy disagreement with administration officials. Please tell me what is wrong with this fairly standard practice of escorting people off premises after involuntary termination? What is wrong with firing a civil servant who disagrees with an administration on policy issues?

2. She was given a letter reminding her of her duty to keep confidential information to herself under the privilege doctrine. Tell me what is illegal or even out of the ordinary about this? Lawyers get these kinds of letters all the time with regards to privilege or conflicts.

3. Marshals were dispatched to her home to hand deliver notice after she had failed to acknowledge receipt of notice delivered to her email address. After she acknowledged receipt the marshals were recalled. The marshals never reached her house. They did not have contact with her or her family. Exactly what is wrong here? Even if you think this was heavy handed it hardly rises to tampering or intimidation.

I think everyone except you understands that when an attorney with that resume is fired and testifies before Congress, we tend to take it seriously. And no matter what you claim, the US Marshals being used to send a letter to a former employee is highly irregular and not backed by the law or DOJ policy. You are just transparently embarrassed that Trump’s antics go so far as to (check notes) try to get a gun back for a weirdo washed up Hollywood wife beater.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is Ms Oyer’s resume: Georgetown, Harvard, partner at Mayer Brown, 10 years as a federal defender. Whoever the jack*ss here trying to impugn here is, you are a complete joke.


https://www.justice.gov/archives/pardon/staff-profile/former-pardon-attorney-oyer

Are you suggesting that her credentials mean she is above politics?

Here are her publicly stated complaints:

1. She was escorted off premises after she was involuntarily terminated after a policy disagreement with administration officials. Please tell me what is wrong with this fairly standard practice of escorting people off premises after involuntary termination? What is wrong with firing a civil servant who disagrees with an administration on policy issues?

2. She was given a letter reminding her of her duty to keep confidential information to herself under the privilege doctrine. Tell me what is illegal or even out of the ordinary about this? Lawyers get these kinds of letters all the time with regards to privilege or conflicts.

3. Marshals were dispatched to her home to hand deliver notice after she had failed to acknowledge receipt of notice delivered to her email address. After she acknowledged receipt the marshals were recalled. The marshals never reached her house. They did not have contact with her or her family. Exactly what is wrong here? Even if you think this was heavy handed it hardly rises to tampering or intimidation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Congress has no oversight over the pardon and clemency power. That belongs solely to the Executive. Deliberations and processes around clemency are squarely legal issues and would easily fall under privilege. A notice reminding her not to disclose privileged information is perfectly legitimate and there has been no evidence offered that it was intended to bully her into silence in either form or substance.

She disagreed with the policy choice of the executive branch. She refused to execute on that policy choice and she was fired for it. Her complaints seem to be that she was escorted off premises (fairly standard practice after involuntary termination of employment). She was sent a notice letter reminding her of executive privilege in the event she chose to testify before Congress members. She didn’t acknowledge receipt of the email notice. Marshals were dispatched to deliver the notice by hand, after she acknowledged receiving the privilege notice electronically the marshals were recalled and never had contact with her or her family.

She’s grandstanding in hopes that weakly implied impropriety will smear her political opponents.

True, there is no way to deliver a notice in person other than armed US Marshalls.

So if she had acknowledged the email notice, the Marshals wouldn't have shown up at her door? If that's the case, then it seems like she left the Government no choice and put herself in the situation for which she now wants sympathy?

We all know this isn’t about her wanting sympathy.

And why don’t you tell us how often it is that US Marshals are used as a courier service?

Marshals are used for service of civil process all the time. It says so on their website. So really often is the answer to your question.

Again, the marshals were recalled as soon as she electronically acknowledged receipt of the notice letter. That doesn’t sound like someone was hell bent on intimidating her.

Anonymous wrote:Here is Ms Oyer’s resume: Georgetown, Harvard, partner at Mayer Brown, 10 years as a federal defender. Whoever the jack*ss here trying to impugn here is, you are a complete joke.


https://www.justice.gov/archives/pardon/staff-profile/former-pardon-attorney-oyer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And YOU are desperately flailing, trying to claim against everything that is obvious, that Trump’s DOJ is acting in a normal manner.

The number 3 from DOJ, Matt Colangelo, left the DOJ and joined Alvin Bragg's political prosecutorial team to go after Trump. Time for pay back.

No sympathy whatsoever. Let the games begin.

Anonymous wrote:It's not enough for DOJ personnel to resign. They need to be arrested and prosecuted. Make it very public and very loud.

Make the process the punishment. They wanted to play, so let's oblige their willingness to weaponize the DOJ under Biden.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Congress has no oversight over the pardon and clemency power. That belongs solely to the Executive. Deliberations and processes around clemency are squarely legal issues and would easily fall under privilege. A notice reminding her not to disclose privileged information is perfectly legitimate and there has been no evidence offered that it was intended to bully her into silence in either form or substance.

She disagreed with the policy choice of the executive branch. She refused to execute on that policy choice and she was fired for it. Her complaints seem to be that she was escorted off premises (fairly standard practice after involuntary termination of employment). She was sent a notice letter reminding her of executive privilege in the event she chose to testify before Congress members. She didn’t acknowledge receipt of the email notice. Marshals were dispatched to deliver the notice by hand, after she acknowledged receiving the privilege notice electronically the marshals were recalled and never had contact with her or her family.

She’s grandstanding in hopes that weakly implied impropriety will smear her political opponents.

True, there is no way to deliver a notice in person other than armed US Marshalls.

So if she had acknowledged the email notice, the Marshals wouldn't have shown up at her door? If that's the case, then it seems like she left the Government no choice and put herself in the situation for which she now wants sympathy?

We all know this isn’t about her wanting sympathy.

And why don’t you tell us how often it is that US Marshals are used as a courier service?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And YOU are desperately flailing, trying to claim against everything that is obvious, that Trump’s DOJ is acting in a normal manner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Congress has no oversight over the pardon and clemency power. That belongs solely to the Executive. Deliberations and processes around clemency are squarely legal issues and would easily fall under privilege. A notice reminding her not to disclose privileged information is perfectly legitimate and there has been no evidence offered that it was intended to bully her into silence in either form or substance.

She disagreed with the policy choice of the executive branch. She refused to execute on that policy choice and she was fired for it. Her complaints seem to be that she was escorted off premises (fairly standard practice after involuntary termination of employment). She was sent a notice letter reminding her of executive privilege in the event she chose to testify before Congress members. She didn’t acknowledge receipt of the email notice. Marshals were dispatched to deliver the notice by hand, after she acknowledged receiving the privilege notice electronically the marshals were recalled and never had contact with her or her family.

She’s grandstanding in hopes that weakly implied impropriety will smear her political opponents.

True, there is no way to deliver a notice in person other than armed US Marshalls.

So if she had acknowledged the email notice, the Marshals wouldn't have shown up at her door? If that's the case, then it seems like she left the Government no choice and put herself in the situation for which she now wants sympathy?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Congress has no oversight over the pardon and clemency power. That belongs solely to the Executive. Deliberations and processes around clemency are squarely legal issues and would easily fall under privilege. A notice reminding her not to disclose privileged information is perfectly legitimate and there has been no evidence offered that it was intended to bully her into silence in either form or substance.

She disagreed with the policy choice of the executive branch. She refused to execute on that policy choice and she was fired for it. Her complaints seem to be that she was escorted off premises (fairly standard practice after involuntary termination of employment). She was sent a notice letter reminding her of executive privilege in the event she chose to testify before Congress members. She didn’t acknowledge receipt of the email notice. Marshals were dispatched to deliver the notice by hand, after she acknowledged receiving the privilege notice electronically the marshals were recalled and never had contact with her or her family.

She’s grandstanding in hopes that weakly implied impropriety will smear her political opponents.

True, there is no way to deliver a notice in person other than armed US Marshalls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Congress has no oversight over the pardon and clemency power. That belongs solely to the Executive. Deliberations and processes around clemency are squarely legal issues and would easily fall under privilege. A notice reminding her not to disclose privileged information is perfectly legitimate and there has been no evidence offered that it was intended to bully her into silence in either form or substance.

She disagreed with the policy choice of the executive branch. She refused to execute on that policy choice and she was fired for it. Her complaints seem to be that she was escorted off premises (fairly standard practice after involuntary termination of employment). She was sent a notice letter reminding her of executive privilege in the event she chose to testify before Congress members. She didn’t acknowledge receipt of the email notice. Marshals were dispatched to deliver the notice by hand, after she acknowledged receiving the privilege notice electronically the marshals were recalled and never had contact with her or her family.

She’s grandstanding in hopes that weakly implied impropriety will smear her political opponents.

Anonymous wrote:

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.