Jump to content

Candidate for POTUS claims indicted opponent should not be allowed to run


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

You heard it here, folks.  "They did not have a defense - but rather competent legal representation."

They hear it everywhere  :)  If you're not charged with a crime and you don't go to court  there's no 'defense' :) 

you realize you're just making yourself look dumber and dumber with every Ing it out you hi Mr guitar okay what floor okay I'll let the volunteers know you bet thanks bye-byepost LOL!!!   Apparently there is no such thing as legal representation in your world :) 

"THIS IS MY DEFENSE LAWYER!!!"

ok but this is a contract negotiation 

"WHAT?!?!? HOW DARE YOU? LAWYER -  DEFEND ME!!!!"

LOLOL - Freud could have made a career trying to figure out how you got so messed up :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Defendant, in criminal cases, is the person accused of the crime

Yes. That is what i said. 

The defendant is defended by the defense lawyer. 

If there is no person accused of the crime, then there's no defense. 

If there is a defense presented to deal with charges, then the lawyer who does so is referred to as the defense lawyer or counsel or the like. 


You literally just confirmed what i said. :)   That's a bit of a running gag with you at this point, given a little time you will dig up the information necessary to prove me right :) 

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

"THIS IS MY DEFENSE LAWYER!!!"

ok but this is a contract negotiation 

"WHAT?!?!? HOW DARE YOU? LAWYER -  DEFEND ME!!!!"

You have to be formally accused of something to mount a legal defense against it. 

I'm not sure what contract negotiations have to do that, but here you are again, spiraling into nonsense and making things up to debate against.  It was always inevitable.  Eventually, you always end up just arguing with yourself.  🥱

 

 

  • Thanks 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If there is a defense presented to deal with charges, then the lawyer who does so is referred to as the defense lawyer or counsel or the like. 

No donkey.  You argued that a defense attorney has to go to trial.  Joe Tacopina wasn't a defense attorney for Trump, because he didn't make it to trial.  

Caught lying again.  🤣

  • Thanks 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moonbox said:

You have to be formally accused of something to mount a legal defense against it. 

I'm not sure what contract negotiations have to do that,

 

You're very clearly not sure of a lot of things. Including your own position :) You keep flip flopping back and forth

I will say it again: The lawyer who presents the person's defense is the defense lawyer. 

I know you are desperate and frantic to try and look less foolish but you are digging yourself in deeper and deeper with every post.

I also know that you are desperately trying to avoid the fact that this case is very clearly a political attempt to suppress an opponent and interfere with the democratic process. But it is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

No donkey.  You argued that a defense attorney has to go to trial.

Sigh. What i said: 

If they presented the defendant's defense, they're a defense lawyer for that person.

If the person puts up no defense, admits to the crime, or the state doesn't pursue the case, or the like then there IS no defendent. I was very clear.  A lawyer who puts the defendants defense forward is the defense lawyer. 

 

I take it you're in full melt down mode :)  Why are you like this? Following me around the forum yapping like a little dog barking at the big dogs behind a fence and making the stupidest claims in the universe in this thread. 

 

Sorry kiddo - no matter how you look at it trump's defense lawyer had a problem with the judge, and the entire case looks like a witch hunt to use the courts to silence a political opponent. And that's a bad thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I take it you're in full melt down mode :)  Why are you like this? Following me around the forum yapping like a little dog barking at the big dogs behind a fence and making the stupidest claims in the universe in this thread. 

He says, despite the fact that he was the one that responded to me first in this thread.  🤡

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh. What i said: 

If they presented the defendant's defense, they're a defense lawyer for that person.

image.thumb.png.de220b47f0279d8d7bc082964f163abd.png

These two things aren't the same.  🙃

Which one is it?  

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

He says, despite the fact that he was the one that responded to me first in this thread.  🤡

image.thumb.png.de220b47f0279d8d7bc082964f163abd.png

These two things aren't the same.  🙃

Which one is it?  

Sorry kid, I know you like to lie to try and make your point but at the end of the day nothing changes the fact that this was a political witch hunt to try and Use the court to shut down a political opponent

You cannot lie your way out of it. You can't twist other people's words to try and pretend otherwise. That's a simple fact and I realize it upsets you but that's the way it is.

By the way, total time for this post was 18 seconds :) It's easy when you're not a m0r0n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sorry kid, I know you like to lie to try and make your point but at the end of the day nothing changes the fact that this was a political witch hunt to try and Use the court to shut down a political opponent

You just got caught lying (with the quotes side by side proving it), and you limply try to project it on me. 

I don't think you've ever had a a day you've made yourself look this pathetic. The standard of clueless belligerent you've set here is a lofty one, but I have to congratulate you on managing to lower the bar further.  😆👌

Edited by Moonbox

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You just got caught lying (with the quotes side by side proving it), and you limply try to project it on me. 

I don't think you've ever had a a day you've made yourself look this pathetic. The standard of clueless belligerent you've set here is a lofty one, but I have to congratulate you on managing to lower the bar further.  😆👌

That's hard to believe since he looks pathetic every time I make an exception to the ignore and take a peek at his latest idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You just got caught lying (with the quotes side by side proving it), and you limply try to project it on me. 

 

No, you took two sentences out of  context.  I was clear from the beginning. It's pretty sad, even the small little victory alludes you because you're completely incompetent.

You keep avoiding this, are you in agreement that this trial looks like nothing more than a witch hunt designed to suppress a political opponent by the democrats? You seem to be saying it is, let's hear your answer one way or another

 

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That's hard to believe since he looks pathetic every time I make an exception to the ignore and take a peek at his latest idiocy.

Awwww robo -- you still afraid to talk to me directly? Poor little guy :)   I forget how many lefties here i've emotionally scarred to the point where they can't even face me :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, you took two sentences out of  context.  I was clear from the beginning. It's pretty sad, even the small little victory alludes you because you're completely incompetent.

Nothing was out of context.  You just lied to cover up your obvious,  nonsensical bullshitting, and I even asked you to clarify.  You (unsurprisingly) chose not to.  

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You keep avoiding this, are you in agreement that this trial looks like nothing more than a witch hunt designed to suppress a political opponent by the democrats?

LOL!  What the actual F***!?  🤣

My answer was pretty clear over a week ago

You read this and you responded to it, but in the reality distortion bubble, you just sort of wave your hands around and it magically disappears, or something?  

  • Thanks 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

1. Politician... a bizarre and confounding creature. They promise the world, deliver nothing.

2. They also adamantly oppose something but then change their tune instantly when it does not help their cause.

3. Finally, they are always working on a given cause but do not actually do any work. 

1. Your take is "bizarre and confounding" since politicians OFTEN deliver useful things to their constituents. 

2. RepubliCONS are famous for opposing spending and then taking credit for the services delivered that they voted against.

3. Do you really believe that sitting in meetings, doing research, casting votes and raising campaign funds is not work? LMAO

You couldn't pay me enough to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, robosmith said:

1. Your take is "bizarre and confounding" since politicians OFTEN deliver useful things to their constituents. 

2. RepubliCONS are famous for opposing spending and then taking credit for the services delivered that they voted against.

3. Do you really believe that sitting in meetings, doing research, casting votes and raising campaign funds is not work? LMAO

You couldn't pay me enough to do that.

Your passion/diehard partisan bias precludes you from reading something and actually interpreting it... As for point #2.. you do realize that I was referring to Trump? Of course not.  

3. Talking about something is not working. They take credit for policies for which they mostly know nothing about the details. I work with them and when pressed for details.. you get blank stares. They say, "talk to my aide or assistant". If you actually knew something.. you would not say that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Dershowitz explains the trial and it's merit(or lack thereof).

Dershowitz also says OJ Simpson was framed, that Jeffrey Epstein did nothing wrong and that the age of consent should be lowered to 15.  🤡

  • Haha 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

Nothing was out of context.  You just lied to cover up your obvious,  nonsensical bullshitting, and I even asked you to clarify.  You (unsurprisingly) chose not to.  

 Of course it was out of context.  I Had been clear from the start and clarified MANY times.  For there to be a defense lawyer there has to be a defendant. The defense lawyer is the one who presents the argument for the defense. 

Said it plain as day.   My claim is that trump's defense lawyer is the guy who went to court and made his defense. You say that's not true. You're wrong. It's that simple. 

And it's absolutely pathetic and yet hilarious that you'd try to pretend otherwise just because your ego is bruised.  :) 

 

 LOL!  What the actual F***!?  🤣

Quote

 

My answer was pretty clear over a week ago:

 

 

So you can't remember what i said yesterday in a thread stating my clear position but you're FUUUUURRRIOUS i don't recall something from a week ago :)  

LOL  the only thing consistent about you is your hypocrisy :) 

And i just gave you a chance to clarify right now and you chose not to.  :P  

In any case you seem to have changed your mind.  You're avoiding answering that question like the plague. 

So  the judge expressed anti trump bias previously, the charges have never been done like this before, they waited 8 years to lay them till 2 months after trump announced his nomination, and the instructions to the jurors included believing in crimes that have never been charged or proven including ones outside of the court's jurisdiction. 

Can you explain WHY none of that makes it look like a political hit job? It's a simple question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Dershowitz also says OJ Simpson was framed, that Jeffrey Epstein did nothing wrong and that the age of consent should be lowered to 15.  🤡

He is a well known defense lawyer. And defense lawyers rarely admit their clients are guilty, before, during and after trials.

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So you can't remember what i said yesterday in a thread stating my clear position but you're FUUUUURRRIOUS i don't recall something from a week ago

I'm saying I already clearly and emphatically answered that question, so accusing me of dodging it makes you look stupid. 

Maybe you're too old to remember a week ago, but I suspect this was just your standard performative jackassing  Lord knows, you'll do anything you can to avoid being pinned down on anything specific.  You need all the room you can get for your flapping and flailing. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Said it plain as day.   My claim is that trump's defense lawyer is the guy who went to court and made his defense. You say that's not true. You're wrong. It's that simple. 

I'm saying you said: 

image.thumb.png.c99df7e3829c60b2ec6ecbf736df0b12.png

Which you did say, unless the reality-distortion bubble makes that go away. 

What are you actually trying to say?  "Went to court?"  or "took it to trial"?  

You're wrong either way, but be specific so we can at least help correct your malfunction. 🙃

  • Thanks 1

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

He is a well known defense lawyer. And defense lawyers rarely admit their clients are guilty, before, during and after trials.

Right? So why are we listening to this guy pontificate on his client Trump?  When he's already gone out of his way to defend an obvious pedo and almost certain murderer?

"A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Moonbox said:

Right? So why are we listening to this guy pontificate on his client Trump?  When he's already gone out of his way to defend an obvious pedo and almost certain murderer?

I hate to point out the obvious, but there are lot's of lawyers pontificating on the media about Trump.

Now you're saying Trump is a pedo and almost certain murderer???

Believe me, if there was any evidence of that, they would have charged him with that too.

The hyperbole of you guys!!

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

46 minutes ago, ironstone said:

I hate to point out the obvious, but there are lot's of lawyers pontificating on the media about Trump.

Now you're saying Trump is a pedo and almost certain murderer???

Believe me, if there was any evidence of that, they would have charged him with that too.

The hyperbole of you guys!!

You misread that. Dershowitz gained fame defending von Bulow on attempted murder charges. They made a movie about it in the way back.

Dershowitz befriended and defended Jeffrey Epstein, known abuser of underage girls, also known to traffic them to his famous and powerful friends. Despite being close, Dershowitz claims to have not known about Epstein's hobby.

Dershowitz was also accused by one of Epstein's victims. Couple that with Dershowitz's outspoken advocacy that the age of consent be lowered to 14 or 15 and it starts to paint a pretty ugly picture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,795
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    RobMichael
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • zzbulls went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • slady61 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • RobMichael earned a badge
      First Post
    • slady61 earned a badge
      First Post
    • Old Guy went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...