Trump is Heading to Prison

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

He didn’t outwit anyone, his cronies like his AG Bill Barr who covered for him. Despite being a 1-term president Trump had to fire his first 2 AGs before finding someone who would do that. Barr is not a Buffoon  

Ahhh - so it was his Cronies that were able to outwit the FBI. Gotcha  

 

Quote

1) Because he is very rich and with a couple of exceptions it is almost impossible to convict a rich person of anything in the USA

 

ROFLMAO - sure kiddo

Quote

2) Because he was POTUS and it is literally impossible to convict a sitting POTUS of anything. Now that he’s out of office the bills are coming due. 

But the fbi didn't even find evidence of 'collusion'. And he's not potus now.

Here's another thought - he didn't actually commit a crime and you've been fed a load of bullshit claiming he did that's on par with 'they stole the election'. 

I swear - both sides in this are equally thick sometimes

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You know, despite your lack of evidence for ^this claim, it is completely in character for the pathological LIAR which is Trump.

Ahh - so you're fine with no evidence as long as you like the conclusion    Your hypocrisy is appreciate LOL!

[robosmith]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So then he's not convicted of being a sexual predator at all.  He was found to be liable - that isn't the same thing in the slightest. Civil court is no where near the same standard.

And i'm sure there was some reason why they couldn't prosecute but it wouldn't be the statute of limitations - there is none on sex crimes for criminal prosecutions.

I suspected they were being dishonest when they made that claim.  But - you always like to give the benefit of the doubt.

You don't know what you're talking about, AS USUAL

Quote

In most states, the statute of limitations for felony sexual assault is between 3 and 10 years. However, a few states have no statute of limitations for felony sexual assault. Felony sex assault (sex crimes) typically involves criminal sexual activity for certain sex crimes, including: Forcible rape.

 

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ahh - so you're fine with no evidence as long as you like the conclusion    Your hypocrisy is appreciate LOL!

Nope. The evidence for your CLAIM is already public KNOWLEDGE. Duh.

[CdnFox]

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You don't have ANY IDEA how long it takes SOME cases to wind their way through the US Justice system.

THIS OPINION is MEANINGLESS without PROOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooOOF!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote

And it's taken much longer in Trump's case because he controlled the DoJ, and interfered with dangling and actual pardons to keep witnesses from testifying against him.

so why didn't they get pardons?

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You don't know what you're talking about, AS USUAL

ROFLMAO -  I SAID CRIMINAL CHARGES!!!  What you just quoted was CIVIL CASES!!!!  LOLOOLL

Holy shit kid - you are dumber than a stump We KNOW the statute hadn't run out on civil cases because this WAS A CIVIL CASE. What i said was that there's no statute on cirminal cases - and that's still true ':) LOL

If you're going to try to speed google something AT LEAST READ IT!   Good god you're SO stupid

Quote

Nope. The evidence for your CLAIM is already public KNOWLEDGE. Duh.

So - still no evidence   LOL  - what a hypocrite the left is  

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, NYLefty said:

Yes, as a matter of fact he did.

so -  i can see why  you didn't feel like answering my question.

You lied. He was not convicted of a sex offense.  Was he.

He lost a civil suit. Whole different thing,

Here's a hint in life kid - if you have to lie to make your point... you probably don't have a very good point.

[Aristides]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So then he's not convicted of being a sexual predator at all.  He was found to be liable - that isn't the same thing in the slightest. Civil court is no where near the same standard.

And i'm sure there was some reason why they couldn't prosecute but it wouldn't be the statute of limitations - there is none on sex crimes for criminal prosecutions.

I suspected they were being dishonest when they made that claim.  But - you always like to give the benefit of the doubt.

He wasn't prosecuted because the woman didn't come forward at the time. Pretty intimidating to go up against a billionaire. What made her believable was that she discussed the incident with others at the time, who backed her up during the trial. She didn't just make it up years later.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

He wasn't prosecuted because the woman didn't come forward at the time. Pretty intimidating to go up against a billionaire. What made her believable was that she discussed the incident with others at the time, who backed her up during the trial. She didn't just make it up years later.

There's no statute of limitations - there would have been criminal charges now if there was sufficient evidence. So while the others may have been convincing enough for a civil trial where the burden will be clear and convincing or balance of probabilities, obviously it didn't raise to the level of reasonable doubt.

Which doesn't mean it didn't happen - but we can't say he was convicted of sexual abuse, that's for sure.

 

[Aristides]

Carrol's case wasn't for sexual assault, it was for defamation. She is suing him again for defamation because of remarks he made after the trial. The guy just doesn't know when to shut up, it might play to his base but not to a court.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

THIS OPINION is MEANINGLESS without PROOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooOOF!!!!!!!!!!!!

The proof is your posting here.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

so why didn't they get pardons?

SOME (like Manafort and Bannon) did. Others were just DANGLED.

Thanks for demonstrating you really don't know what happened.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO -  I SAID CRIMINAL CHARGES!!!  What you just quoted was CIVIL CASES!!!!  LOLOOLL

Holy shit kid - you are dumber than a stump We KNOW the statute hadn't run out on civil cases because this WAS A CIVIL CASE. What i said was that there's no statute on cirminal cases - and that's still true ':) LOL

If you're going to try to speed google something AT LEAST READ IT!   Good god you're SO stupid

So - still no evidence   LOL  - what a hypocrite the left is  

Feel free to POST EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM. I was giving YOU a PASS, but you're too dumb to take it. Duh.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

There's no statute of limitations - there would have been criminal charges now if there was sufficient evidence. So while the others may have been convincing enough for a civil trial where the burden will be clear and convincing or balance of probabilities, obviously it didn't raise to the level of reasonable doubt.

Which doesn't mean it didn't happen - but we can't say he was convicted of sexual abuse, that's for sure.

 

Already posted EVIDENCE ^this is WRONG. There are statutes of limitations in MANY STATES.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO -  I SAID CRIMINAL CHARGES!!!  What you just quoted was CIVIL CASES!!!!  LOLOOLL

Holy shit kid - you are dumber than a stump We KNOW the statute hadn't run out on civil cases because this WAS A CIVIL CASE. What i said was that there's no statute on cirminal cases - and that's still true ':) LOL

If you're going to try to speed google something AT LEAST READ IT!   Good god you're SO stupid

So - still no evidence   LOL  - what a hypocrite the left is  

Leftards did the same thing with Caroll's ridiculous rape cases that they did with collusion: they refer to multiple charges at once, and when they cite the guilty verdicts they omit the fact that they are all completely unrelated to collusion/rape. It's called "lying by omission". 

Trump was found guilty of telling the truth about Caroll. 

I hope that Jaunita Broderick et all sue Hillary for name-calling them when they credibly accused her husband of rape. 

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

^Interesting but completely SPECIOUS speculation.

If you pull your head out of the left's ass, you'll see that it makes perfect sense. 

[robosmith]

25 minutes ago, Deluge said:

If you pull your head out of the left's ass, you'll see that it makes perfect sense. 

That's NOT how debate works. You either MAKE YOUR CASE HERE or YOU LOSE the debate.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

He actually backed down on that promise the day after the election. He didn't try to get a prosecution.

So you’re saying he was just lying to get elected. “Lock her up” was centrepiece of his campaign that he abandoned literally the day after?

 

 

 

 

[BeaverFever]

55 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

they refer to multiple charges at once, and when they cite the guilty verdicts they omit the fact that they are all completely unrelated to collusion/rape.

“‘I’m not guilty of murder,  I was found guilty of concealing evidence of a murder, willfully obstructing the investigation of a murder, and committing an indignity to a corpse!  Totally unrelated, leftards!  Haha you got pwned!”

 

?

[Deluge]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

That's NOT how debate works. You either MAKE YOUR CASE HERE or YOU LOSE the debate.

That is how THIS debate works. What I just told you is what is most likely. If you disagree with that then come up with a more likely scenario. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

That's NOT how debate works. You either MAKE YOUR CASE HERE or YOU LOSE the debate.

THAT OPINION IS USELESS without  PROOOOOOOOFFFF!!!

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So then he's not convicted of being a sexual predator at all.  He was found to be liable - that isn't the same thing in the slightest. Civil court is no where near the same standard.

O.J. Simpson Likes this post

Edited June 10, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Deluge]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Your opinion of Trump's innocence does not make it true. I just makes YOU BLIND to the clear evidence against Trump.

It's like you haven't even heard THE RECORDING of Trump demanding and threatening the GA SoS to change the vote count in HIS FAVOR. LMAO.

I didn't hear any threats in that recording, creampuff. I mean, sure, disagreeing with woketards is an act of violence in your books, but in the normal world, it's everyday life. 

Point out the threats. 

Dems are a bunch of f*cking cheaters and everyone whose head isn't up the left's ass knows it. 

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There's no statute of limitations - there would have been criminal charges now if there was sufficient evidence. So while the others may have been convincing enough for a civil trial where the burden will be clear and convincing or balance of probabilities, obviously it didn't raise to the level of reasonable doubt.

Which doesn't mean it didn't happen - but we can't say he was convicted of sexual abuse, that's for sure.

 

At the time when Carroll alleges Trump raped her, the statute of limitations for rape in the state of New York was five years. In 2006, New York changed the law and abolished the statute of limitations for certain types of assault, but that change does not apply retroactively to crimes committed before 2006.
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/e-jean-carroll-sued-trump-defamation-last-resort-blame-statute-ncna1077321

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So you’re saying he was just lying to get elected. “Lock her up” was centrepiece of his campaign that he abandoned literally the day after?

Here's a little clue in life -  whenever you use the phrase "so  you're saying'  in life to rewrite what someone said (in a serious conversation and not as a joke) then you're signalling to the whole world you know you're wrong.  it's what losers do.

And i doubt he was. Truth be told i don't think he expected to get elected.  And i think after he was some people pulled him aside and said 'that's not a thing you want to do' and he decided against pursuing it. At the time he said basically 'she's suffered enough'  or 'been through enough' -  which makes no sense. It's not even the kind of lie he'd come up with.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

At the time when Carroll alleges Trump raped her, the statute of limitations for rape in the state of New York was five years. In 2006, New York changed the law and abolished the statute of limitations for certain types of assault, but that change does not apply retroactively to crimes committed before 2006.
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/e-jean-carroll-sued-trump-defamation-last-resort-blame-statute-ncna1077321

Well why didn't you lead with something like that instead of looking like an !diot with what you posted before?

So there's no statute for that NOW - but there was then and it still counts. Well that makes more sense. Although that's a really odd thing to grandfather.

Edited June 10, 2023 by CdnFox

[BeaverFever]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Truth be told i don't think he expected to get elected.  And i think after he was some people pulled him aside and said 'that's not a thing you want to do' and he decided against pursuing it. At the time he said basically 'she's suffered enough'  or 'been through enough' -  which makes no sense. It's not even the kind of lie he'd come up with.

 

Oh Trump the kind-hearted and merciful always taking pity on his enemies lol  If he could have put her on the electric chair, he would haveNn He didn’t go after her because he had nothing  to go after her over  

He also lied about releasing his tax returns…promised it on the campaign trail and then reneged as soon as he won  

 

 

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well why didn't you lead with something like that instead of looking like an !diot with what you posted before?

So there's no statute for that NOW - but there was then and it still counts. Well that makes more sense. Although that's a really odd thing to grandfather.

You’re confused. I didn’t post anything before about limitations. You gotta pay attention who you’re talking to. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, BeaverFever said:

Oh Trump the kind-hearted and merciful always taking pity on his enemies lol 

See, if he'd come out and said something like THAT then i might believe it was his idea, that's the kind of crap he'd sell about himself.

Quote

If he could have put her on the electric chair, he would have He didn’t go after her because he had nothing  to go after her over  

Nope, that's stupid.  We've seen him in action again and again - he would have tried and pushed his people and made every effort for months before giving up if he wanted to.  He caved within like 48 hours.  He totally didn't want to.

Quote

He also lied about releasing his tax returns…promised it on the campaign trail and then reneged as soon as he won  

And look how long he fought that before giving up. Thanks for proving my point

[BeaverFever]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

See, if he'd come out and said something like THAT then i might believe it was his idea, that's the kind of crap he'd sell about himself.

Nope, that's stupid.  We've seen him in action again and again - he would have tried and pushed his people and made every effort for months before giving up if he wanted to.  He caved within like 48 hours.  He totally didn't want to.

And look how long he fought that before giving up. Thanks for proving my point

No it proves my point.  “Lock her up” and “Ill release my taxes just like every other candidate has done in the past 50 years” were both baseless campaign lies he had no intention of keeping and he abandoned both immediately after winning 

Edited June 10, 2023 by BeaverFever