Delaware US Attorney Blocked Hunter Biden Warrants

[RockyTop85]

Lol… sick burn… the only thing that is important is the USA chose to play politics and it’s clear as hell today there was fire under all that smoke. What he should have done was his damn job and let the cards fall where they may.

I’ll bet he appreciates you providing a sack support for him though

Right, so if he finds something and takes it in front of a jury picked from a state that Biden won by almost 20 points, any half assed defense attorney gets to tell them it was all a political witch hunt.

Or Biden still wins and has a ready made excuse to **** can him and appoint somebody that will scuttle the investigation.

Or he doesn’t find anything and has **** on the president’s kid and nobody will believe that Biden hasn’t just told him to squash it.

Or the other half of America, the half not including you since you already swallowed this hook line and sinker, can get sold on the idea that the justice department is just targeting politicians and their families to interfere with the election process.

Yeah, you’ve got it all figured out. There are absolutely no perfectly reasonable justifications for doing this to preserve the integrity of the investigation or institution. None of them were perfectly obvious to any reasonably intelligent person who actually read the facts published in the article instead of just diving in on the take fronted by this conspiracy laden rag.

But that can’t be what happened, because you said you don’t care about the conspiracy laden rag.

 

[Septic]

By a lightweight such as yourself? Absolutely not, it's entertainment.

Truthfully, I've never seen you come out on top of any engagement. Not just with me, with anyone.

Did you ever figure out what "self proclaimed" means? Maybe you could ask an adult.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Right, so if he finds something and takes it in front of a jury picked from a state that Biden won by almost 20 points, any half assed defense attorney gets to tell them it was all a political witch hunt.

Or Biden still wins and has a ready made excuse to **** can him and appoint somebody that will scuttle the investigation.

Or he doesn’t find anything and has **** on the president’s kid and nobody will believe that Biden hasn’t just told him to squash it.

Or the other half of America, the half not including you since you already swallowed this hook line and sinker, can get sold on the idea that the justice department is just targeting politicians and their families to interfere with the election process.

Yeah, you’ve got it all figured out. There are absolutely no perfectly reasonable justifications for doing this to preserve the integrity of the investigation or institution. None of them were perfectly obvious to any reasonably intelligent person who actually read the facts published in the article instead of just diving in on the take fronted by this conspiracy laden rag.

But that can’t be what happened, because you said you don’t care about the conspiracy laden rag.

Lulz. Weak ****. This investigation started in 2018. By summer 2020 by his own admission there was enough information to issue subpoenas and start grand jury inquiries. Instead he played politics. I thought you were a lawyer? Your tripe reads like “oh well it was just a waste of time so why bother”. LMFAO

 

[RockyTop85]

Lulz. Weak ****. This investigation started in 2018. By summer 2020 by his own admission there was enough information to issue subpoenas and start grand jury inquiries. Instead he played politics. I thought you were a lawyer? Your tripe reads like “oh well it was just a waste of time so why bother”. LMFAO

Nowhere did I say or even suggest that it was a waste of time, so it would only read like that if you’re a complete moron of they type who says “I don’t care about this opinion” and then triples down on defending the opinion, even though it has absolutely no basis.

…

Ok, yeah, I can see how there might be a problem. Allow me to clarify:

It’s not a waste of time. There is just no apparent motive for corruption at the time the decision was made and zero indication of corrupt intent, other than the fact that the decision was made to delay the warrants. However, as there are a number of non-corrupt reasons to delay issuing those warrants - I provided a nonexhaustive list of examples, above - the fact that a decision was made to delay is not necessarily evidence of corruption.

So while corruption cannot be entirely ruled out, it is melodramatic hysteria for you and the trash article’s author, “Sundance,” to claim that this was “clearly” a corrupt decision.

Furthermore, the “logic” of this contrived idea that “strategy be dammed, let the chips fall where the may,” leads to some asinine results. For example, the way the feds go after organized crime, by using plea bargaining to get people to snitch, would arguably be impermissible; managing case loads to allow more focus on serious cases by picking and choosing which cases to prosecute would also be impermissible. The federal court system would become as bloated and unwieldy as state systems.*

Hope that helps.

*- Again, this is a nonexhaustive list of examples of stupid results from following your method of denying US Attorneys the autonomy to make strategic decisions because you and some guy who won’t put his name on his work think they’re corrupt.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Nowhere did I say or even suggest that it was a waste of time, so it would only read like that if you’re a complete moron of they type who says “I don’t care about this opinion” and then triples down on defending the opinion, even though it has absolutely no basis.

…

Ok, yeah, I can see how there might be a problem. Allow me to clarify:

It’s not a waste of time. There is just no apparent motive for corruption at the time the decision was made and zero indication of corrupt intent, other than the fact that the decision was made to delay the warrants. However, as there are a number of non-corrupt reasons to delay issuing those warrants - I provided a nonexhaustive list of examples, above - the fact that a decision was made to delay is not necessarily evidence of corruption.

So while corruption cannot be entirely ruled out, it is melodramatic hysteria for you and the trash article’s author, “Sundance,” to claim that this was “clearly” a corrupt decision.

Furthermore, the “logic” of this contrived idea that “strategy be dammed, let the chips fall where the may,” leads to some asinine results. For example, the way the feds go after organized crime, by using plea bargaining to get people to snitch, would arguably be impermissible; managing case loads to allow more focus on serious cases by picking and choosing which cases to prosecute would also be impermissible. The federal court system would become as bloated and unwieldy as state systems.*

Hope that helps.

*- Again, this is a nonexhaustive list of examples of stupid results from following your method of denying US Attorneys the autonomy to make strategic decisions because you and some guy who won’t put his name on his work think they’re corrupt.

Absolutely stupid…

So the USA shouldn’t just do his job and give Biden a reason to fire him so he should play politics. As he had a reason to expect that he wouldn’t be asked to resign under the new admin.

Remind me again what is the normal procedure to submit at the start of a new admin and DOJ head appointment? And he should kiss ass hoping he won’t get removed? Hell right now it looks like that’s exactly what he did Einstein good job!

And this semi-illiterate engineer has to point that out to a “lawyer”.

Ok got to ask again, what’s your win loss record?

 

[RockyTop85]

Absolutely stupid…

So the USA shouldn’t just do his job and give Biden a reason to fire him so he should play politics. As he had a reason to expect that he wouldn’t be asked to resign under the new admin.

Remind me again what is the normal procedure to submit at the start of a new admin and DOJ head appointment? And he should kiss ass hoping he won’t get removed? Hell right now it looks like that’s exactly what he did Einstein good job!

And this semi-illiterate engineer has to point that out to a “lawyer”.

Ok got to ask again, what’s your win loss record?

Champion in your own mind, as always.

His job is not to issue warrants and subpoenas in a timely fashion. He’s not a clerk or a Social Security ALJ.

His job is to manage investigations in a way that maintains his office’s ability to achieve whatever outcome is warranted by the facts they uncover.

Whatever he believes that requires him, whether it’s to maintain the political cost of scuttling the investigation; preserve credibility in front of a jury; keep the investigation from becoming a political football in an election cycle; or to simply issue the warrants immediately; that’s what he should do.

It’s not a scientific field with knowable outcomes, so it requires that prosecutors be given a degree of autonomy. If you don’t trust this prosecutor to exercise that discretion, that’s an issue that has to be reconciled with support for the President who appointed him.

I’m confident that even you are not too stupid to understand this, and that this attempt to mischaracterize the fundamental role of a US Attorney is a ruse to save face. I’m good with it, because I enjoy seeing you make a fool of yourself and this ignorance, feigned or otherwise, is far more humiliating than if you had just moved on.

P.S. I was going to dunk on the win/loss thing as another gratuitous self own that demonstrates your fundamental ignorance of this exact subject, but the post got too long. I’m confident that you actually are too stupid to understand that, and that a bare minimum of taunting will be enough to get you to step on that rake again. Looking forward to laughing at you more, tomorrow.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Champion in your own mind, as always.

His job is not to issue warrants and subpoenas in a timely fashion. He’s not a clerk or a Social Security ALJ.

His job is to manage investigations in a way that maintains his office’s ability to achieve whatever outcome is warranted by the facts they uncover.

Whatever he believes that requires him, whether it’s to maintain the political cost of scuttling the investigation; preserve credibility in front of a jury; keep the investigation from becoming a political football in an election cycle; or to simply issue the warrants immediately; that’s what he should do.

It’s not a scientific field with knowable outcomes, so it requires that prosecutors be given a degree of autonomy. If you don’t trust this prosecutor to exercise that discretion, that’s an issue that has to be reconciled with support for the President who appointed him.

I’m confident that even you are not too stupid to understand this, and that this attempt to mischaracterize the fundamental role of a US Attorney is a ruse to save face. I’m good with it, because I enjoy seeing you make a fool of yourself and this ignorance, feigned or otherwise, is far more humiliating than if you had just moved on.

P.S. I was going to dunk on the win/loss thing as another gratuitous self own that demonstrates your fundamental ignorance of this exact subject, but the post got too long. I’m confident that you actually are too stupid to understand that, and that a bare minimum of taunting will be enough to get you to step on that rake again. Looking forward to laughing at you more, tomorrow.

Lulz. I don’t blame you I’d go the ad hom route too after the dumbassery around rationalizing why he should play politics with an expectation to keep his job. Thanks for playing

 

[RockyTop85]

Lulz. I don’t blame you I’d go the ad hom route too after the dumbassery around rationalizing why he should play politics with an expectation to keep his job. Thanks for playing

I don’t blame you, I’d go the laughable mischaracterization/crying about ad hominem route after the dumbassery of saying an article that I didn’t read said something it didn’t. Except I would have skipped the part where I tried to Dunning-Kruger my way through a subsequent discussion of a subject about which I had zero education, zero experience, and zero understanding.

Actually, no, I wouldn’t have done any of that. I would have just kept my mouth shut until I read the article and thought about what it said instead of relying on an unmarked opinion piece with an unnamed author from a website with partisan branding in its URL.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I don’t blame you, I’d go the laughable mischaracterization/crying about ad hominem route after the dumbassery of saying an article that I didn’t read said something it didn’t. Except I would have skipped the part where I tried to Dunning-Kruger my way through a subsequent discussion of a subject about which I had zero education, zero experience, and zero understanding.

Actually, no, I wouldn’t have done any of that. I would have just kept my mouth shut until I read the article and thought about what it said instead of relying on an unmarked opinion piece with an unnamed author from a website with partisan branding in its URL.

LMFAO it’s clear to anybody paying attention that your premise he was playing politics to keep from getting canned isn’t supported by the historical process on admin change.

If anything having an investigation on record in his purview would be the clear means to protect his job, not kissing ass and playing politics hoping he doesn’t get canned

 

[RockyTop85]

LMFAO it’s clear to anybody paying attention that your premise he was playing politics to keep from getting canned isn’t supported by the historical process on admin change.

If anything having an investigation on record in his purview would be the clear means to protect his job, not kissing ass and playing politics hoping he doesn’t get canned

That’s not what my premise is, that’s why it’s a laughable mischaracterization. But, again, I can see how you might prefer that tact over explaining why a prosecutor should sabotage his own investigation by trying to adhere to arbitrary deadlines concocted by a guy whose most pertinent qualification is that he’s slept at a Holiday Inn a few times.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That’s not what my premise is, that’s why it’s a laughable mischaracterization. But, again, I can see how you might prefer that tact over explaining why a prosecutor should sabotage his own investigation by trying to adhere to arbitrary deadlines concocted by a guy whose most pertinent qualification is that he’s slept at a Holiday Inn a few times.

Oh yeah it was. You made a long list of various reasons why the USA didn’t need to press forward with subpoenas which was based on the political environment at the time. He played politics. You rationalized why he needed to play politics abd why it was ok. One of which was to insure he doesn’t get canned. Completely stupid and counter intuitive

 

[RockyTop85]

Oh yeah it was. You made a long list of various reasons why the USA didn’t need to press forward with subpoenas which was based on the political environment at the time. He played politics. You rationalized why he needed to play politics abd why it was ok. One of which was to insure he doesn’t get canned. Completely stupid and counter intuitive

Maybe you’d like to google what “premise” means and try that again?

Better yet, find somebody to orally explain it to you. A kindergarten or preschool teacher might be best. Someone with experience talking with obstinate children.

I feel confident that they’ll find a nicer way of explaining that it’s not “another laughable mischaracterization of one item in a long list of examples that prove the actual premise,” than I would.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Maybe you’d like to google what “premise” means and try that again?

Better yet, find somebody to orally explain it to you. A kindergarten or preschool teacher might be best. Someone with experience talking with obstinate children.

I feel confident that they’ll find a nicer way of explaining that it’s not “another laughable mischaracterization of one item in a long list of examples that prove the actual premise,” than I would.

Lol. Your very first rationalization was how he should play politics to protect his job if Biden wins. But you made up for that dumbassery with content not quality on the other rationalizations why he should play politics instead of just do his job and let the chips fall where they fall amirite?

 

[Impossible Girl]

Delaware US Attorney Blocked Hunter Biden Warrants and Subpoenas in Order to Protect the Joe Biden 2020 Election Effort
July 16, 2021 | Sundance | 67 Comments
Baselines are always important when reviewing information; I cannot stress this enough. When the corrupt instititional officials within the DOJ and FBI need to justify their corrupt activity, or get out in front of any exposure of their corrupt activity, they consistently run to two media outlets, The New York Times and Politico. [State Dept use CNN, Intelligence Community use Washington Post] This is the one constant you will notice in all reporting.

That is the baseline for Politico writing today about U.S. Attorney David Weiss intentionally burying information about an investigation of Hunter Biden in the summer and fall of 2020 in order to protect the candidacy of Joe Biden. USAO Weiss of Delaware stopped the investigation of Hunter Biden, stopped issuing grand jury subpoenas, and stopped the issuance of search warrants in order to keep the public from knowing that Hunter Biden was under a criminal investigation.
~ Two Tiers of Justice ~
Contrast that –now confirmed– defensive activity, with these exact same DOJ and FBI officials leaking everything they could about investigations of Donald Trump, or anyone in Trump’s orbit, even when those investigative statements were false, in order to undermine his candidacy and presidency.
This glaring contrast is one of the most brutally obvious examples of political manipulation within the DOJ as an institution. Two solid and confirmed tiers of justice.
POLITICO (with the DOJ spin) – Last summer, federal officials in Delaware investigating Hunter Biden faced a dilemma. The probe had reached a point where prosecutors could have sought search warrants and issued a flurry of grand jury subpoenas. Some officials involved in the case wanted to do just that. Others urged caution. They advised Delaware’s U.S. Attorney, David Weiss, to avoid taking any actions that could alert the public to the existence of the case in the middle of a presidential election.

“To his credit, he listened,” said a person involved in the discussions, reported here for the first time. Weiss decided to wait, averting the possibility that the investigation would become a months-long campaign issue.
Since taking office, President Joe Biden has left Weiss — a Republican appointed by Donald Trump on the recommendation of Delaware’s two Democratic senators — in place. That puts him in one of the most sensitive positions in the Justice Department, deciding how to proceed with an investigation of the president’s son that has proven politically fraught on several fronts. (read more)
Of course there is no reason for Joe Biden to remove USAO Weiss… by his action and inaction Mr. Weiss has shown his intention to protect the installed occupant of the White House from any corrupt investigative scrutiny. Additionally, David Weiss now holds a get-out-of-jail leverage card against any action by the DC machine. This is the way of the swamp.
However, and I share this with full intent and seriousness, these examples of corruption within the DOJ and FBI that continue piling up upon each-other will not end well for these institutions. You cannot have the American people see this many examples of ‘two-tiered justice’ and simultaneously expect the American people to have any confidence in the rule of law.
This is not going to end well. I’m not sure exactly how this is going to end, but I am certain that a bulging and tenuous powder-keg of unstable nitroglycerine exists in the minds of the overwhelming majority of Americans.
When the justice system of a nation is subverted for one-sided political benefit by a small group of institutional elites, and it happens so openly and brazenly while the participants act with such incredible hubris, there will -eventually- be a response in direct proportion to the severity of the corruption.
The administration efforts to have the allied communication platforms control information is a sign of desperation and fear. The regime knows that something very bad is possible because the scale of their corruption is too vast to continue hiding. The evidence is leaking out everywhere. They are exposed, naked and vulnerable. Their grip on the control aspect is tenuous at best.
History tells us there will eventually be a reckoning of biblical proportions; and it will be very, very uncomfortable for everyone.

Weiss was appointed by………,

Trump

 

[hog88]

Weiss was appointed by………,

Trump

Then I think we know how he kept his job.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Then I think we know how he kept his job.

That’s a reasonable takeaway in hindsight honestly. At the start of a new admin it’s customary for current USAs to submit their resignation for consideration. It isn’t automatic that they will be replaced but it’s very common. To the best of my knowledge he never submitted his resignation and this clearly looks like he played politics in his decision making which isn’t his concern.

That being said after that dipshit Comey did what he did in 2016 I’d guess any DOJ official would cringe on being in a position where they had to pursue a candidate or their family in a national race and election year. But that’s the job. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.

 

[RockyTop85]

Lol. Your very first rationalization was how he should play politics to protect his job if Biden wins. But you made up for that dumbassery with content not quality on the other rationalizations why he should play politics instead of just do his job and let the chips fall where they fall amirite?

A laughable mischaracterization of one item in a long list of things still isn’t the premise, even if it’s the first item in the list. I’ll take your word for it that it was first. (If the teachers think you’re creepy and rude, you can still try Google).

I’ve stated the main idea twice. I don’t think it was unclear. That you’re struggling with it says more about you than me.

Though I’ll admit I hadn’t accounted for someone who doesn’t know what main idea means. If you’d like, I can start labeling it and putting it in bold at the bottom of my posts to you. You needn’t be too embarrassed, there’s another poster on here who has needed that particular assistive device from time to time.

 

[NorthDallas40]

A laughable mischaracterization of one item in a long list of things still isn’t the premise, even if it’s the first item in the list. I’ll take your word for it that it was first. (If the teachers think you’re creepy and rude, you can still try Google).

I’ve stated the main idea twice. I don’t think it was unclear. That you’re struggling with it says more about you than me.

Though I’ll admit I hadn’t accounted for someone who doesn’t know what main idea means. If you’d like, I can start labeling it and putting it in bold at the bottom of my posts to you. You needn’t be too embarrassed, there’s another poster on here who has needed that particular assistive device from time to time.

Just stop. The post is there for everyone to interpret on their own “lawyer” your premise was **** and your whole diatribe was rationalizing why it was ok for him to play politics. And yeah you went back and read it to see if you could weasel out. You know you can’t so you down play it. Run along now.

 

[hUTch2002]

Oh yeah it was. You made a long list of various reasons why the USA didn’t need to press forward with subpoenas which was based on the political environment at the time. He played politics. You rationalized why he needed to play politics abd why it was ok. One of which was to insure he doesn’t get canned. Completely stupid and counter intuitive

Maybe you’d like to google what “premise” means and try that again?

Better yet, find somebody to orally explain it to you. A kindergarten or preschool teacher might be best. Someone with experience talking with obstinate children.

I feel confident that they’ll find a nicer way of explaining that it’s not “another laughable mischaracterization of one item in a long list of examples that prove the actual premise,” than I would.

This is like watching a long rally in tennis. I declare the winner to be the first person to say, “I fart in your general direction!”

 

[NorthDallas40]

This is like watching a long rally in tennis. I declare the winner to be the first person to say, “I fart in your general direction!”

Lol

 

[RockyTop85]

Just stop. The post is there for everyone to interpret on their own “lawyer” your premise was **** and your whole diatribe was rationalizing why it was ok for him to play politics. And yeah you went back and read it to see if you could weasel out. You know you can’t so you down play it. Run along now.

View attachment 381888

Yes, my actual posts are still there, still don’t say what you’re attributing to me, and are still correct. Which is why you’ve completely stopped defending your “it’s clearly corrupt!!!1!!!one!!!” hysteria in favor of some tears about ad hominem, a pitiful strawman, and the quoted temper tantrum when you get called out for it.

Main Idea: (for the third time) his role is to maintain the office’s ability to pursue whatever outcome is warranted by the fruits of the investigation.

Feel free to explain how his actual job is to meet the arbitrary deadlines of some internet rando who doesn’t know what the word “premise” means. That might be even more entertaining than this.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Yes, my actual posts are still there, still don’t say what you’re attributing to me, and are still correct. Which is why you’ve completely stopped defending your “it’s clearly corrupt!!!1!!!one!!!” hysteria in favor of some tears about ad hominem, a pitiful strawman, and the quoted temper tantrum when you get called out for it.

Main Idea: (for the third time) his role is to maintain the office’s ability to pursue whatever outcome is warranted by the fruits othe investigation.

Feel free to explain how his actual job is to meet the arbitrary deadlines of some internet rando who doesn’t know what the word “premise” means. That might be even more entertaining than this.

So let’s see you started with he’s a Trump appointee so it isn’t a wash that he would protect Biden.

Then it’s well he would not act in a way to given Biden a reason to can him… when it’s expected he will tender his resignation anyway which is customary for USAs on an admin change and being a Trump appointee there is no reason for him to expect to be retained.

Then we move on to a litany of rationalization why he should play politics.

And I haven’t used corrupt in quite a while. I’ve been sticking to everything you’ve said is full of ****. And I’ll stick with that.

And by the politico article they already admitted there was enough to pull subpoenas and interviews so that’s a dry hole too.

Last summer, federal officials in Delaware investigating Hunter Biden faced a dilemma. The probe had reached a point where prosecutors could have sought search warrants and issued a flurry of grand jury subpoenas. Some officials involved in the case wanted to do just that. Others urged caution. They advised Delaware’s U.S. Attorney, David Weiss, to avoid taking any actions that could alert the public to the existence of the case in the middle of a presidential election.

“To his credit, he listened,” said a person involved in the discussions, reported here for the first time. Weiss decided to wait, averting the possibility that the investigation would become a months-long campaign issue.

If he played politics he isn’t doing his job. Thanks for playing. Here’s your sign.

 

[RockyTop85]

So let’s see you started with he’s a Trump appointee so it isn’t a wash that he would protect Biden.

Then it’s well he would not act in a way to given Biden a reason to can him… when it’s expected he will tender his resignation anyway which is customary for USAs on an admin change and being a Trump appointee there is no reason for him to expect to be retained.

Then we move on to a litany of rationalization why he should play politics.

And I haven’t used corrupt in quite a while. I’ve been sticking to everything you’ve said is full of ****. And I’ll stick with that.

And by the politico article they already admitted there was enough to pull subpoenas and interviews so that’s a dry hole too.




If he played politics he isn’t doing his job. Thanks for playing. Here’s your sign.

Because you didn’t even make an attempt to address the main idea after having your nose rubbed in it, I’m going to assume you cannot do so and move on. If you think of anything better than this pathetic mischaracterization gambit, you’re welcome to try again. Reruns were always a disappointment.

While we wait on those rusty old gears to churn out something witty, who is the “they” that did this “admitting?”

Looks to me like it’s an anonymous source who actually agreed with the decision. Did I overlook their name or have you come a long long way from “nobody gets to use anonymous sources” to just assuming corruption from the statements of anonymous sources who don’t say there was corruption… in fact they say the opposite?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Because you didn’t even make an attempt to address the main idea after having your nose rubbed in it, I’m going to assume you cannot do so and move on. If you think of anything better than this pathetic mischaracterization gambit, you’re welcome to try again. Reruns were always a disappointment.

While we wait on those rusty old gears to churn out something witty, who is the “they” that did this “admitting?”

Looks to me like it’s an anonymous source who actually agreed with the decision. Did I overlook their name or have you come a long long way from “nobody gets to use anonymous sources” to just assuming corruption from the statements of anonymous sources who don’t say there was corruption… in fact they say the opposite?

LMAO. Beautiful. Even after getting your nose clearly rubbed in your dumbassery you declare victory and take the victory lap. Stay clueless pettifogger, stay clueless

I’ll hold pat on my conclusion. You’re full of **** as usual.

Edit: oh and just so we’re clear since I know you’ll pull that dumbassery again I’m not ignoring your basic premise as you’ve claimed everything I’ve listed are the your supporting methods for your basic premise… which are all ********. Thus your premise is ********. Womp womp.

 

[RockyTop85]

LMAO. Beautiful. (1)Even after getting your nose clearly rubbed in your dumbassery you declare victory and take the victory lap. Stay clueless pettifogger, stay clueless

I’ll hold pat on my conclusion. (2)You’re full of **** as usual.

Edit: oh and just so we’re clear since I know you’ll pull that dumbassery again I’m not ignoring your basic premise as you’ve claimed everything I’ve listed are the your supporting methods for your basic premise… (3)which are all ********. Thus (4)your premise is ********. Womp womp.

I guess putting the main idea in bold was insufficient and you need me to connect all the dots for you, too.

You claimed that delaying the warrants was “plain and simple… corrupt as hell… thumb on the scale of justice,” behavior and later that it was inconsistent with his job duties.

The main idea of my response to that, for the fourth time, is that his job is to preserve the ability to pursue whatever outcomes (E.g. conviction) are necessitated by the investigation.

The list I gave was a set of examples of how his decision prevented various events that might have frustrated their ability to do what needed to be done to reach those goals.

Because there is no actual evidence of corrupt intent and I’ve provided a number of explanations for why it’s consistent with his job and was arguably prudent, your allegation is unconvincing unless you can explain why I’m wrong.

You’ve chosen not to refute, address, or even “list,” any of my comments at all. You simply mischaracterized one example, declared your madeup nonsensical argument to be my entire premise, and announced that it was wrong.

Your persistence with this strawman, despite multiple corrections, raises a fair inference that you’re being disingenuous to avoid addressing the gaping holes in your allegation. That’s not a declaration of victory, it’s just an observation.

Despite all that, I said I’d be happy to humiliate you some more of you ever come up with something approaching a cogent, relevant, or substantive theory of why this was plain and simple corrupt thumb on the scale of justice behavior. The only way that’s a declaration of victory is if the actual probability of you making a decent rebuttal is so small as to render the condition illusory.

P.S. - If I might make a suggestion, it’s probably not a great idea to deride an activity in a post where you do it 4 times. (See bold, above). This is especially true when you have to resort to false allegations of said activity.