WestCanMan Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 2 hours ago, myata said: "No matter what the court rules" sums it up. We don't need "justice" if it wouldn't serve us and our purpose. Two centuries of history, for nothing. Republicans you cannot and will not be able to stay out of it and pretend it's not happening. Either you stand to it, for the Constitution and the principles. Or you'll go down with it. Only two options and you'll have to pick one or it'll pick you. This path can be seen very clearly in the history. You absolutely will not fool the Time by playing with lying words. I don't know what you're worse at: thinking, telling the truth, or speaking English. 1 Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
myata Posted January 11 Author Report Posted January 11 (edited) 18 hours ago, herbie said: would get anyone else locked up for contempt of court. That has all the appearances of the end of about a century or more of the struggle for independent and impartial justice - and back to square one. Nothing is certain. All bets are off. Any future is possible. What contempt of something that behaves itself like a laughing stock? The erosion by entropy is slow and steady - a grain here, a piece there. But when the whole edifice collapses it would take a lot more to rebuild it. What, you gonna make a proclamation, it's over now and you have to respect us again? All in white and like new? But it's in the critical moments of history that the true worth of any institution or individual is tested. Why would anyone want it if it holds only when the things are going great and breaks under the first serious load? Edited January 11 by myata Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
ironstone Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 13 hours ago, robosmith said: So you still don't understand the Douchowitz is a DEFENSE LAWYER, constantly looking for high profile clients like Trump, cause that's HIS BUSINESS. That means you cannot trust what he says outside of court, cause it's ALL JUST MARKETING for his PRACTICE. Just like Trump is always LYING about his Real Estate. In his courtroom career, a lot of his cases have been pro bono. You're not aware of that because of your enormous built in bias. Do you have this intense hatred for all defense lawyers, or only those that have represented clients considered to be conservative? Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
myata Posted January 11 Author Report Posted January 11 Brainless idea of "justice" would be their One Lying Baby calling the justice at night to get the verdict he wants. Why not? What could be wrong? Vlad does it all the time and look. You knew everything. There are no justifications for stupidity. And here, I'll tell you what you already know if hate to admit aloud: you'll be in a very high luck, ridiculously high if this time around it's only in dollars that you'll get to pay the price of your stupidity. No assurances of that though, just none as you already know. Yes, no doubt one has a natural sovereign and undeniable right to be/become/behave stupid and stupidly. And it always comes with consequences. Disappointed? Disillusioned? Well you can complain to the mirror when the payday comes. The universe isn't listening. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
User Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 4 minutes ago, myata said: Disappointed? Disillusioned? Well you can complain to the mirror when the payday comes. The universe isn't listening. What are you rambling on about? Quote
myata Posted January 11 Author Report Posted January 11 So, what could be wrong with Our Lying Baby calling the justice at night to get the verdict he wants? As a private citizen, like you and me. Let's try it one more time, the count is reset: - Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 1 hour ago, ironstone said: In his courtroom career, a lot of his cases have been pro bono. You're not aware of that because of your enormous built in bias. I'm completely aware that ALL defense lawyers ROUTINELY take HIGH PROFILE cases pro bono for the PUBLICITY. There is nothing virtuous about that. 1 hour ago, ironstone said: Do you have this intense hatred for all defense lawyers, or only those that have represented clients considered to be conservative? I don't hate defense lawyers and it is VERY RUDE of you to make that ASSumption. I do hate lawyers who LIE to appeal to HIGH PROFILE DEFENDANTS to get their business and the resulting PUBLICITY. Quote
User Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 27 minutes ago, myata said: So, what could be wrong with Our Lying Baby calling the justice at night to get the verdict he wants? As a private citizen, like you and me. Let's try it one more time, the count is reset: - Beep. Boop. Bop. 1 Quote
ironstone Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 54 minutes ago, robosmith said: I do hate lawyers who LIE to appeal to HIGH PROFILE DEFENDANTS to get their business and the resulting PUBLICITY. By that standard, you should hate Fani and her lover Wade to name but two. How about all of those in the legal profession that lied about the veracity of the Steele dossier? Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 5 minutes ago, ironstone said: By that standard, you should hate Fani and her lover Wade to name but two. What is the relevance of lying about an affair? Has NO BEARING on the trial. 5 minutes ago, ironstone said: How about all of those in the legal profession that lied about the veracity of the Steele dossier? Like who? They have no role in the prosecution of Trump unless they work for the DoJ AND assigned to that case like Douchowitz worked for Trump in the impeachment and was trying to get on board with his defense AGAIN. What LIES were told about the dossier to get a role in DEFENDING Trump? LMAO Quote
ironstone Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 11 minutes ago, robosmith said: What is the relevance of lying about an affair? Has NO BEARING on the trial. Like who? They have no role in the prosecution of Trump unless they work for the DoJ AND assigned to that case like Douchowitz worked for Trump in the impeachment and was trying to get on board with his defense AGAIN. What LIES were told about the dossier to get a role in DEFENDING Trump? LMAO Lying under oath? Shouldn't that be a rather big deal? https://www.businessinsider.com/fani-willis-credibility-damaged-perjury-charges-unlikely-legal-experts-2024-3?op=1 A cursory examination of the Steele Dossier should have convinced the CIA or the FBI that it was fake news. Any residual doubt would have vanished after learning that its author, Christopher Steele, was an opposition researcher paid by the Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump. That our most sophisticated government officials acted as if the Dossier were legitimate leads to only one conclusion. They were a knowing and willing part of the Democratic and media smear of a presidential contender, and then president, that paralyzed U.S. politics for three years. We now know that the Steele Dossier is bogus. Inspector General Michael Horowitz drove the final stake through its heart. He found that the Dossier was compiled from hearsay and third-hand gossip from two low-level sources and that they denied the testimony attributed to them. The only “verified” information that Horowitz found was available from public sources. Let me spare you the trouble of responding to this: LMAO...FOS LIES...Duh🙄 Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
robosmith Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 (edited) 38 minutes ago, ironstone said: Lying under oath? Shouldn't that be a rather big deal? https://www.businessinsider.com/fani-willis-credibility-damaged-perjury-charges-unlikely-legal-experts-2024-3?op=1 Depends. What does it have to do with the trial. She didn't lie about the law to prospective jurors like Douchowitz. Your own cite says she likely won't be charged with perjury. 38 minutes ago, ironstone said: A cursory examination of the Steele Dossier should have convinced the CIA or the FBI that it was fake news. Any residual doubt would have vanished after learning that its author, Christopher Steele, was an opposition researcher paid by the Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump. That our most sophisticated government officials acted as if the Dossier were legitimate leads to only one conclusion. They were a knowing and willing part of the Democratic and media smear of a presidential contender, and then president, that paralyzed U.S. politics for three years. We now know that the Steele Dossier is bogus. Inspector General Michael Horowitz drove the final stake through its heart. He found that the Dossier was compiled from hearsay and third-hand gossip from two low-level sources and that they denied the testimony attributed to them. The only “verified” information that Horowitz found was available from public sources. Let me spare you the trouble of responding to this: LMAO...FOS LIES...Duh🙄 IT was NOT public until AFTER the election. AKA NO election INFLUENCE. Duh The Steele dossier: A reckoning CNN https://www.cnn.com › 2021/11/18 › politics › steele-d... Nov 18, 2021 — When it came to light in January 2017, just days before Donald Trump took office, the so-called Steele dossier landed like a bombshell and ... Edited January 11 by robosmith Quote
CrakHoBarbie Posted January 11 Report Posted January 11 (edited) On 1/10/2025 at 9:15 AM, West said: Should be tried for treason Who? Do you mean donald? Or, the jury that found him guilty? You must of forgotten that donald hatched and implemented a plan to install fake electors in multiple states. He then attempted to coerce his vice president to certify those fraudulent electors over the legitimate electors, or at the very least, refuse to certify the legitimate electors. Had donald succeeded with his plan, he would of also succeeded in disenfranchising millions of voters. Such election interference is clearly an act of treason. Donalds upcoming case (which was canceled because he was re-elected) about donalds failed efforts to illegally remain in power, would of shown donalds culpability. Which is why he is fighting so hard to get the evidence collected by Jack Smith blocked from public scrutiny. Donalds a dirty traitor, but his sycophants are far too busy licking his scrotum to notice. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjU8oHPy-6KAxVNKEQIHVHoCjMQFnoECCIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fapnews.com%2Farticle%2Ftrump-special-counsel-report-election-interference-4ef4ba2508baf3bb269abd4bcdc8e102&usg=AOvVaw3pRewavxzV6X8z8IeMAItm&opi=89978449 Edited January 11 by CrakHoBarbie 1 1 Quote
myata Posted January 13 Author Report Posted January 13 (edited) Interesting is the thought process of the Republicans - and I mean those who think of themselves to have integrity, principles and an obligation to serve the country and the Constitution who have acquitted him of the subversion charge. That it would just go away as a bad dream? That the bully will not return, emboldened by the impunity? Or really and factually, winning one election is worth of dropping the effective checks and balances and the principle of universal justice, very foundations of the democracy? Edited January 13 by myata Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
User Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 6 hours ago, myata said: Or really and factually, winning one election is worth of dropping the effective checks and balances and the principle of universal justice, very foundations of the democracy? Let me know the day you can articulate exactly how any of this happened, putting forth an actual specific argument. Quote
myata Posted January 13 Author Report Posted January 13 Republicans will not be able to keep swallowing whatever comes out the mad baby's lying mouth because it's a test to it. Failure of democratic duty does not make a liar the leader of a modern democracy; but it can take the democracy down the lying paths and curves easily. One's loyalty is with the constitutional duty; or is it with a liar and budding dictator? We will see. We know very well, everyone knows that these are two different paths. And the choices they make will define them. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
User Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 2 hours ago, myata said: Republicans will not be able to keep swallowing whatever comes out the mad baby's lying mouth because it's a test to it. Failure of democratic duty does not make a liar the leader of a modern democracy; but it can take the democracy down the lying paths and curves easily. One's loyalty is with the constitutional duty; or is it with a liar and budding dictator? We will see. We know very well, everyone knows that these are two different paths. And the choices they make will define them. You don't even have enough courage to directly engage with me here, but yeah, sure, keep on preaching. LOL Quote
Legato Posted January 13 Report Posted January 13 On 1/11/2025 at 2:15 PM, robosmith said: I'm completely aware that ALL defense lawyers ROUTINELY take HIGH PROFILE cases pro bono for the PUBLICITY. You do know that say's pro bono and not pro boner eh? Quote
Recommended Posts
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.