Why would Bloomberg lie about a court filing?
Ah yes, the classic courtroom strategy: when you don’t understand legal procedure, just scream ‘MURDER!’ and hope someone takes you seriously. Thanks for the dramatic sobbing interlude too — really drives home the point that you’re less informed about separation of powers than a high school civics student. Maybe next time read the DOJ filing before auditioning for a soap opera, you Slack-Jawed Bitch.Blackvegetable » 26 Nov 2025, 7:46 am » wrote: ↑ https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopeq ... said-cuts/
DOJ Tries To Block Musk Deposition In Lawsuit Over USAID Cuts
The lawsuit filed by current and former USAID employees and contractors claims the Department of Government Efficiency, which was once led by Musk, canceled government contracts, slashed the agency’s workforce and shuttered its headquarters without congressional approval, allegedly violating the separation of powers.
The Justice Department filing, which was first reported by Bloomberg, argues against the deposition of Musk and two former USAID officials, Peter Marocco and Jeremy Lewin.
The Justice Department cited limitations on having executive branch officials testify in court, arguing the depositions can only be required in exceptional circumstances.
In the interest of Transparency, of course...
"All the behind closed doors stuff...MURDER! MURDER, I tell you!..(....sob....)
So **** g'ddammned stupid
Coozie will explain the joke to you.MR-7 » 26 Nov 2025, 8:15 am » wrote: ↑ Ah yes, the classic courtroom strategy: when you don’t understand legal procedure, just scream ‘MURDER!’ and hope someone takes you seriously. Thanks for the dramatic sobbing interlude too — really drives home the point that you’re less informed about separation of powers than a high school civics student. Maybe next time read the DOJ filing before auditioning for a soap opera, you Slack-Jawed Bitch.
really drives home the point that you’re less informed about separation of powers than a high school civics student.
what did I miss?Maybe next time read the DOJ filing before auditioning for a soap opera, you Slack-Jawed Bitch.
A normal life.Blackvegetable » 26 Nov 2025, 9:10 am » wrote: ↑ Coozie will explain the joke to you.
You struggle with simple division.
Don't presume to explain "separation of powers".
what did I miss?
You think wallowing in your abysmal ignorance is "normal"?
You're not worried I might stomp a mud hole in your *** one day?Blackvegetable » 26 Nov 2025, 9:36 am » wrote: ↑ You think wallowing in your abysmal ignorance is "normal"?
:rofl:RebelGator » 26 Nov 2025, 10:20 am » wrote: ↑ You're not worried I might stomp a mud hole in your *** one day?
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?Blackvegetable » 26 Nov 2025, 7:46 am » wrote: ↑ https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopeq ... said-cuts/
DOJ Tries To Block Musk Deposition In Lawsuit Over USAID Cuts
The lawsuit filed by current and former USAID employees and contractors claims the Department of Government Efficiency, which was once led by Musk, canceled government contracts, slashed the agency’s workforce and shuttered its headquarters without congressional approval, allegedly violating the separation of powers.
The Justice Department filing, which was first reported by Bloomberg, argues against the deposition of Musk and two former USAID officials, Peter Marocco and Jeremy Lewin.
The Justice Department cited limitations on having executive branch officials testify in court, arguing the depositions can only be required in exceptional circumstances.
In the interest of Transparency, of course...
"All the behind closed doors stuff...MURDER! MURDER, I tell you!..(....sob....)"
So **** g'ddammned stupid
Deal:Let me prove how predictable you narcissists are. Watch this:
1. Phase 1: You will say that you answered it.
Phase 2: I will remind you of :"are these your words?" from yesterday and if "will" is future tense.
Phase 3: You will deny that I showed you, because of your meltdown with my link provided...and then you will say "I didn't ask for a link."
Repeat
2. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah..
3. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers.
Moron.
Deal: If Veghead can prove that he answered the survivorship multiple choice question, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back for as long as I live. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
You remember Ricky Tavy, BV's butt buddy? Well, turns out he is a bigger narcissist than BV is.Vegas » 26 Nov 2025, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑ Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Predictions:
Deal:
V ain't on the Repetitive Multiple Choice..Huey » 26 Nov 2025, 2:04 pm » wrote: ↑ You remember Ricky Tavy, BV's butt buddy? Well, turns out he is a bigger narcissist than BV is.
The shambo twins' grandpa says he "Deserves Answers".Blackvegetable » 26 Nov 2025, 7:46 am » wrote: ↑ https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopeq ... said-cuts/
DOJ Tries To Block Musk Deposition In Lawsuit Over USAID Cuts
The lawsuit filed by current and former USAID employees and contractors claims the Department of Government Efficiency, which was once led by Musk, canceled government contracts, slashed the agency’s workforce and shuttered its headquarters without congressional approval, allegedly violating the separation of powers.
The Justice Department filing, which was first reported by Bloomberg, argues against the deposition of Musk and two former USAID officials, Peter Marocco and Jeremy Lewin.
The Justice Department cited limitations on having executive branch officials testify in court, arguing the depositions can only be required in exceptional circumstances.
In the interest of Transparency, of course...
"All the behind closed doors stuff...MURDER! MURDER, I tell you!..(....sob....)"
So **** g'ddammned stupid
So are you part of the rich elite child sex trafficking ring? Just wondering as I have been labeled as such here by the mods.roadkill » 26 Nov 2025, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑ The shambo twins' grandpa says he "Deserves Answers".
Remember when these leftist hillbillies demanded Russian collusion answers? Me neither.
And they were actually guilty.

You must be some kind of damned idiot.nefarious101 » 26 Nov 2025, 3:31 pm » wrote: ↑ they aren't a reliable source when it comes to politics dickhead...just like you
You're a serious idiot....roadkill » 26 Nov 2025, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑ The shambo twins' grandpa says he "Deserves Answers".
Remember when these leftist hillbillies demanded Russian collusion answers? Me neither.
And they were actually guilty.
Blackvegetable » 26 Nov 2025, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑ You must be some kind of damned idiot.
Name what you consider a "reliable" source...

Brave, Naffy...nefarious101 » 26 Nov 2025, 3:47 pm » wrote: ↑ why dickhead?
you're just trying to waste my time
it's all you do