Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, BillStime said:


 


Great! You can make it clearer by sourcing and documenting where she has this access to the SC. 

Are just being a pedantic twit because you know it is possible she is the leaker? Otherwise show me something

Posted
14 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Are just being a pedantic twit because you know it is possible she is the leaker? Otherwise show me something


No - that would be you making egregious claims and not being able to back it up.
 

Unfortunately - you do not have the credibility for anyone to just take your word by making such accusations.

 

Back it up or just admit you are full of it because at the end of the day - you would have provided the proof if you could.
 

 

Posted
51 minutes ago, BillStime said:


No - that would be you making egregious claims and not being able to back it up.
 

Unfortunately - you do not have the credibility for anyone to just take your word by making such accusations.

 

Back it up or just admit you are full of it because at the end of the day - you would have provided the proof if you could.
 

 

There go lying again, I did not state she was the leaker, I asked who it was since you said she could not have been it. You have shown no evidence of anything except admitting that you know that she has access to the building since she is a supreme court justice. 

  • Eyeroll 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

There go lying again, I did not state she was the leaker, I asked who it was since you said she could not have been it. You have shown no evidence of anything except admitting that you know that she has access to the building since she is a supreme court justice. 


lol - here we go again - deflecting to lies when you are trapped in a corner.

 

Let’s revisit your accusation:

 

21 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

she has access to the building and intranet where the memo was made


Please source where this woman has access to the building.

 

No more kicking and screaming lol

Posted
11 minutes ago, BillStime said:


lol - here we go again - deflecting to lies when you are trapped in a corner.

 

Let’s revisit your accusation:

 


Please source where this woman has access to the building.

 

No more kicking and screaming lol

She is a confirmed supreme court justice- she has access to the buildings- do you think they bar her from entry until she is gonna sit on the bench? You literally asked me to prove that a supreme court justice has access to the supreme court building. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

She is a confirmed supreme court justice- she has access to the buildings- do you think they bar her from entry until she is gonna sit on the bench? You literally asked me to prove that a supreme court justice has access to the supreme court building. 


This is hilarious.

 

22 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

she has access to the building and intranet where the memo was made


PROVE THIS - your word means NOTHING.

Posted
6 minutes ago, BillStime said:


This is hilarious.

 


PROVE THIS - your word means NOTHING.

As I have stated previously i often think you are a staunch conservative who is trying to prove how out of touch liberals are and it is due to this kind of stuff, demanding proof that a supreme court justice is allowed to work in the supreme court building. There is no evidence that she is not working there currently. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

As I have stated previously i often think you are a staunch conservative who is trying to prove how out of touch liberals are and it is due to this kind of stuff, demanding proof that a supreme court justice is allowed to work in the supreme court building. There is no evidence that she is not working there currently. 


Why would a judge, who has not been sworn in - have access to anything?

 

YOU are claiming she is already in the building w access - PROVE IT.

 

Where in our laws and procedures does it say she can have access early?

 

lol

 

TAKE THE L

 

lolzzzzz

Posted
17 minutes ago, BillStime said:


Why would a judge, who has not been sworn in - have access to anything?

 

YOU are claiming she is already in the building w access - PROVE IT.

 

Where in our laws and procedures does it say she can have access early?

 

lol

 

TAKE THE L

 

lolzzzzz

Last time, she is confirmed, therefore she has access. Sandra Day O'Connor was working in the building within a few days of being confirmed according to her own words, she did not comment on the intranet. So why would they now make KBJ wait? So she can be behind when she is finally seated?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Last time, she is confirmed, therefore she has access. Sandra Day O'Connor was working in the building within a few days of being confirmed according to her own words, she did not comment on the intranet. So why would they now make KBJ wait? So she can be behind when she is finally seated?


BECAUSE THE JUDGE KBJ IS REPLACING IS FINISHING HiS TERM.

 

Sandra Day O’Connor replaced Potter Stewart who retired in July 3, 1981.

 

Regan nominated SDO in August 19, 1981, confirmed September 21 and her term started on September 25.
 

SDO didn’t have to wait because her predecessor was already gone.

 

You’re a teacher? Yikes

Posted
5 minutes ago, BillStime said:


BECAUSE THE JUDGE KBJ IS REPLACING IS FINISHING HiS TERM.

 

Sandra Day O’Connor replaced Potter Stewart who retired in July 3, 1981.

 

Regan nominated SDO in August 19, 1981, confirmed September 21 and her term started on September 25.
 

SDO didn’t have to wait because her predecessor was already gone.

 

You’re a teacher? Yikes

So you have done research to show a difference, you have not shown that she has not been in the building. Show me definitely she has not been in the building and I will agree she is not the leak. I am curious why it is so important to you she is not the leak?

Posted
23 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

So you have done research to show a difference, you have not shown that she has not been in the building. Show me definitely she has not been in the building and I will agree she is not the leak. I am curious why it is so important to you she is not the leak?


No no no no no no no no no - that’s not how this works.

 

YOU MADE THE CLAIM

YOU BACK IT UP

 

PS: I could give two shitz who leaked it AND I am not trying to protect anyone but if someone is going to make a bogus claim - like those in the cult do ALL the time - I am going to speak up.

 

 

 

 

Posted
18 minutes ago, BillStime said:


No no no no no no no no no - that’s not how this works.

 

YOU MADE THE CLAIM

YOU BACK IT UP

 

PS: I could give two shitz who leaked it AND I am not trying to protect anyone but if someone is going to make a bogus claim - like those in the cult do ALL the time - I am going to speak up.

 

 

 

 

Have you noticed how unhinged you’re getting? Go outside and get some air. 

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Agree 3
Posted
21 minutes ago, BillStime said:


No no no no no no no no no - that’s not how this works.

 

YOU MADE THE CLAIM

YOU BACK IT UP

 

PS: I could give two shitz who leaked it AND I am not trying to protect anyone but if someone is going to make a bogus claim - like those in the cult do ALL the time - I am going to speak up.

 

 

 

 

My claim is she could be the leak, yours is she can't be. I made no definite claim, you did. You are doing the same as the news reporter you are attacking, making claims as definite without any real evidence. I do care who leaked it and will state that whoever did it should be charged with whatever crime it could be.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

My claim is she could be the leak, yours is she can't be. I made no definite claim, you did. You are doing the same as the news reporter you are attacking, making claims as definite without any real evidence. I do care who leaked it and will state that whoever did it should be charged with whatever crime it could be.

 

No, your claim NEVER contained the word COULD.  Here is your claim:

 

On 5/5/2022 at 8:00 PM, Buffalo Timmy said:

she has access to the building and intranet where the memo was made

 

You just assumed that she had access because someone 41 years ago was able to join the court immediately.

 

Take the L

 

 

Edited by BillStime
Posted
10 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

No, your claim NEVER contained the word COULD.  Here is your claim:

 

 

You just assumed that she had access because someone 41 years ago was able to join the court immediately.

 

Take the L

 

 

You have provided no evidence I am wrong, are you really such a loser that unless I have 20 documented ways you are wrong that is a win for you? As I stated show me evidence that things have changed and I will believe it 

Posted
27 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

You have provided no evidence I am wrong, are you really such a loser that unless I have 20 documented ways you are wrong that is a win for you? As I stated show me evidence that things have changed and I will believe it 


The onus is on you - man up.

 

I provided you with MORE than enough to go on to discredit you.

 

Take the L

Posted
17 minutes ago, BillStime said:


The onus is on you - man up.

 

I provided you with MORE than enough to go on to discredit you.

 

Take the L

Please show me evidence again? Maybe I missed it.

Posted
13 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Please show me evidence again? Maybe I missed it.


Hilarious - Sandra Day - She was your go to example and that TOO backfired in your face ~ 😆

 

Back up your claim, teacher 

Posted
34 minutes ago, BillStime said:


Hilarious - Sandra Day - She was your go to example and that TOO backfired in your face ~ 😆

 

Back up your claim, teacher 

I will end it here- you admit I have evidence- admittedly older evidence but you have none. So thank you for admitting it and unless you want to present something I am moving on.

×
×
  • Create New...