gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 12 minutes ago, Radiorum said: maybe to you. No, this is what happened. I know, the truth can be hard to accept. No. It's the bastardized characterization of what happened, fueled by partisan hatred. The reality is Trump was incredulous that GA let Joe "find" votes in the middle of the night. Then he concocted alternate electors to serve if the legal challenges worked. They did not. He then asked the Senate to consider certifying them, they did not. Election over. It wasn't illegal. It was a bit of a Hail Mary. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Radiorum Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, West said: securing elections is within his perview Lol, his only goal was to secure the election (that he lost) for himself 2 minutes ago, West said: he said to peacefully walk to the Capitol. He used the word "Fight!" ten times during his speech at the Ellipse on January 6 3 minutes ago, West said: Smith is a partisan and a danger to a functioning legal system I'm sure you are repeating something that you have been told. Find out for yourself 1 Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 31 minutes ago, Radiorum said: We know why this never came to trial, but that does not alter its factuality. From page 21: In repeated conversations, day after day, Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Pence to use his ministerial position as President of the Senate to change the election outcome, often by citing false claims of election fraud as justification; he even falsely told Mr. Pence that the "Justice Department [was] finding major infractions." 82 When Mr. Pence repeatedly refused to act as Mr. Trump wanted, 83 Mr. Trump told him that "hundreds of thousands" of people would "hate his guts" and think he was "stupid," and that Mr. Pence was "too honest." Trump says the quiet part out loud. AKA backs the fact that Pence was telling the TRUTH. LMAO 31 minutes ago, West said: Except the fact the Supreme Court has already ruled on this nonsense PROVE that the SCOTUS found "nonsense." You CANNOT. Smith wrote his report in COMPLIANCE with their immunity ruling. Duh Quote
WestCanMan Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 This is the leftard equivalent of the meme thread. There's a lot of hilarious sh!t here. Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 31 minutes ago, herbie said: Anyone with eyes, ears and a brain knows the scumbag only ran to avoid jail. It's the mass of people without any moral standing whatsoever who helped him do that. And to get REVENGE. Quote
Radiorum Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: It's the bastardized characterization of what happened, fueled by partisan hatred No, that's not true. Who are you listening to? They are lying to you. 5 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Then he concocted alternate electors to serve if the legal challenges worked. They did not. He then asked the Senate to consider certifying them, they did not. Election over. It wasn't illegal. It was a bit of a Hail Mary. So do you also believe that attempted murder should not be considered a crime? 1 Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 6 minutes ago, West said: He can't be tried on this because he was a presiding president and securing elections is within his perview. It most certainly IS NOT. There is NO Constitutional role for the POTUS in certifying votes. Not even if you like viewing pervs. LMAO 6 minutes ago, West said: They lied about him inciting violence even though he said to peacefully walk to the Capitol. His double talk may have fooled you MAGA CULT, just as it was designed to. 6 minutes ago, West said: Smith is a partisan and a danger to a functioning legal system Prove it. You merely making a CLAIM is meaningless, Canuck. Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: This is the leftard equivalent of the meme thread. There's a lot of hilarious sh!t here. OTC, this is SWORN TESTIMONY before a Grand Jury, which is the gold standard HERE. Sorry you're unfamiliar with the US JUSTICE SYSTEM. FOS LIES won't tell you the truth. LMAO Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, Radiorum said: No, that's not true. Who are you listening to? They are lying to you. So do you also believe that attempted murder should not be considered a crime? Do you think a failed law suit should be fraud? Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Radiorum Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Do you think a failed law suit should be fraud? No-one has had more failed lawsuits than Trump Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, Radiorum said: No-one has had more failed lawsuits than Trump Is it fraud? Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
West Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 10 minutes ago, robosmith said: It most certainly IS NOT. There is NO Constitutional role for the POTUS in certifying votes. Not even if you like viewing pervs. LMAO His double talk may have fooled you MAGA CULT, just as it was designed to. Prove it. You merely making a CLAIM is meaningless, Canuck. I'm just not a delusional lefty who reads my delusions into everyone's statement. Quote
WestCanMan Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 Cultist retards, you have to complete this captcha link if you want to see the pic below it: Good job, dummy. You clicked all the squares. You can look at the photo below: 1 Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
Radiorum Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 (edited) 4 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: Is it fraud? I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I think you may mean that Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election amount to a failed lawsuit. In that regard, you are completely wrong. Edited January 15 by Radiorum Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 7 minutes ago, Radiorum said: I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I think you may mean that Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election amount to a failed lawsuit. In that regard, you are completely wrong. I'm asking if a failed law suit is fraud. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Radiorum Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said: asking if a failed law suit is fraud. if you have a point, please make it, and stop playing games. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 Just now, Radiorum said: if you have a point, please make it, and stop playing games. I'm not playing games. I'm asking a simple question. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
Radiorum Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 Speaking of fraud, Trump knew he lost the election, but continued to spread lies. From page 40 of Smith's Report: ... the law of fraud. See US. ex rel. Schutte v. Super Valu Inc., 598 U.S. 739, 750-752 (2023); 1 J. Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 193 (10th ed. 1870) ("Whether the party, thus misrepresenting a material fact, knew it to be false, or made the assertion without knowing whether it were true or false, is wholly immaterial; for the affirmation of what one does not know or believe to be true is equally, in morals and law, as unjustifiable as the affirmation of what is known to be positively false."). Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 12 minutes ago, Radiorum said: if you have a point, please make it, and stop playing games. You haven't answered the question because you understand the question, if answered accurately, disproves your position. The avenues that the Trump team used were law suits. It is not illegal to file a law suit. It is not illegal to ask the Senate to consider alternate electors. This is all just DNC talking points. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 22 minutes ago, West said: I'm just not a delusional lefty who reads my delusions into everyone's statement. Maybe not. But you certainly post your delusions here a LOT. And you STILL have no proof that "Smith is a partisan and a danger to a functioning legal system" From your posts here, you know nothing about the US legal system. Quote
Radiorum Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 Just now, gatomontes99 said: You haven't answered the question because you understand the question, if answered accurately, disproves your position. The avenues that the Trump team used were law suits. It is not illegal to file a law suit. It is not illegal to ask the Senate to consider alternate electors. This is all just DNC talking points. Oh God, this is a joke. No, they didn't stop at lawsuits. It was only once their lawsuits failed that the real plans were put into action. Please read Jack Smith's final report (and my previous posts) to get some idea of what Trump did. Quote
robosmith Posted January 15 Author Report Posted January 15 24 minutes ago, Radiorum said: I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I think you may mean that Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election amount to a failed lawsuit. In that regard, you are completely wrong. They amount to 60+ failed lawsuits, and a very violent attack on Congress to stop the EC vote certification. 1 1 Quote
West Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 9 minutes ago, robosmith said: Maybe not. But you certainly post your delusions here a LOT. And you STILL have no proof that "Smith is a partisan and a danger to a functioning legal system" From your posts here, you know nothing about the US legal system. It's my opinion based on his behavior that he's a danger to a functioning legal system. For all the talk about Trump abusing the institutions, that was done way more these past four years to smear Trump's base as well as to silence oppisition to the Biden regime Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 9 minutes ago, robosmith said: Maybe not. But you certainly post your delusions here a LOT. And you STILL have no proof that "Smith is a partisan and a danger to a functioning legal system" From your posts here, you know nothing about the US legal system. SCOTUS on Jack Smith's political persecution of McDonnell: Quote https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-mcdonnell-19 There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term "official act" leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court. The SCOTUS attacked Jack Smith's tactics as distasteful and certified it 8-0. He is a danger to a functional legal system. Q. E. D. Quote The Rules for Liberal tactics: If they can't refute the content, attack the source. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition. If they are wrong, blame the opponent. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa. If all else fails, just be angry.
West Posted January 15 Report Posted January 15 31 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said: SCOTUS on Jack Smith's political persecution of McDonnell: The SCOTUS attacked Jack Smith's tactics as distasteful and certified it 8-0. He is a danger to a functional legal system. Q. E. D. Thank you. 1 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.