ironstone Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 hour ago, robosmith said: ^The LIES of a DEFENSE lawyer, NOT UNDER OATH, of course. You sure have an intense dislike for defense lawyers. Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
CdnFox Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 6 minutes ago, ironstone said: You sure have an intense dislike for defense lawyers. Only republican ones 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Hodad Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 4 hours ago, ironstone said: Didn't bother to actually listen to the show did ya' ?😉 Of course not. Jeebus, the number of things in life higher on my list than that is almost endless. I read the indictment. I don't need spin from Trumpworld to pre-chew my food. Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 You guys do realize that no one is talking about this fake news piece of crap? It is Steele dossier 2.0 and it is old, fake news already. 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.
Hodad Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said: You guys do realize that no one is talking about this fake news piece of crap? It is Steele dossier 2.0 and it is old, fake news already. Bullshit. The report contains thoroughly documented crimes. Not hunches or rumors or allegations. The facts of the coup attempt, for example, are not remotely in question. 1 Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 minute ago, Hodad said: Bullshit. The report contains thoroughly documented crimes. Not hunches or rumors or allegations. The facts of the coup attempt, for example, are not remotely in question. LOL, so well documented... they waited years to indict him. There was no coup. 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 minute ago, User said: LOL, so well documented... they waited years to indict him. There was no coup. And SCOTUS threw it out so Jack Smith rebranded it. It's just worthless crap. He knows it. He just can't admit it. 1 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 17 Author Report Posted January 17 2 hours ago, ironstone said: You sure have an intense dislike for defense lawyers. LYING DEFENSE LAWYERS do NOT SERVE JUSTICE. Do you believe OJ was guilty? Or know anything about that trial? IMO, he was guilty as sin and got off due to tricks of the defense team and a history of LA cops abusing the rights of blacks. Quote
Hodad Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: And SCOTUS threw it out so Jack Smith rebranded it. It's just worthless crap. He knows it. He just can't admit it. Again, complete bullshit--and you know it The SCOTUS did not make any judgement on the facts of this case. They did not "throw it out." They ruled that presidents cannot be tried for any official act, no matter how illegal. So Smith had to revise his charges to provide the legal reasoning for why Trump's criminality was not an official act. Your defense of Trump's outrageous crimes is just pathetic. You can't even argue that he didn't do what he's accused of. Because he did exactly what he's accused of. The corrupt conservative justices pushed through an absolute travesty of a decision, but they never once claimed that Trump wasn't guilty. -- And the second they made that decision Biden should have "officially" thrown a few of them in prison to see how much they really like the tyranny they have enabled. 1 Quote
godzilla Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 (edited) 7 hours ago, CdnFox said: I don't know, i've never seen them. Nor would i be able to authieticate them if i could. That's why we have judges and courts, they can determine the validity of relevant evidence. let me help you out then... since you seem to refuse to read cites. confirmation bias. Arizona Republican becomes first fake elector to plead guilty for role in Trump scheme "Lorraine Pellegrino, one of 11 Arizona Republicans who falsely posed as Trump’s electors that year, accepted a guilty plea to a single charge for filing a “false instrument” — the fraudulent Electoral College certificate." adjudicated by a judge. so they exist? Edited January 17 by godzilla Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 25 minutes ago, Hodad said: They ruled that presidents cannot be tried for any official act, no matter how illegal. That is not what they ruled. I swear, you are like a mindless robot for the most brain-dead leftist talking points. Quote
godzilla Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 5 minutes ago, User said: That is not what they ruled. I swear, you are like a mindless robot for the most brain-dead leftist talking points. enlighten us. also, those certificates of ascertainment identifying Trump in states that Biden won... do they exist? 1 Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 minute ago, godzilla said: enlighten us. also, those certificates of ascertainment identifying Trump in states that Biden won... do they exist? Read the actual ruling, not the left-wing brain-dead talking points: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf 4 minutes ago, godzilla said: also, those certificates of ascertainment identifying Trump in states that Biden won... do they exist? Ask this question better. Either way, it is an unnecessary question. Just make whatever point you want to make. Quote
godzilla Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 (edited) 15 minutes ago, User said: Read the actual ruling, not the left-wing brain-dead talking points: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf Ask this question better. Either way, it is an unnecessary question. Just make whatever point you want to make. i read it. "There is no immunity for unofficial acts." you're right about my unnecessary question... one just needs to dig a little more. Texts reveal Trump co-defendant Chesebro’s role in ‘fake electors’ plot "Chesebro has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to file false documents" here is the settlement agreement with the electors: https://www.lawforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/40p7182-fake-electors-press-release.pdf "On December 14, 2020, in compliance with requests received from the Trump campaign and the Republican Party of Wisconsin, we met at the Wisconsin State Capitol and executed a document titled “Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Wisconsin.” That document stated, in part, that we were “the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Wisconsin.” The Elector Defendants took the foregoing action because they were told that it was necessary to preserve their electoral votes in the event a court challenge may later change the outcome of the election in Wisconsin. That document was then used as part of an attempt to improperly overturn the 2020 presidential election results. note that i'm only identifying evidence that has to date been adjudicated by a judge! since people who fail to admit that anything was going on are using it as some excuse. so i'm asking you again... do those documents exist? Edited January 17 by godzilla 1 Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 Just now, godzilla said: i read it. OK... and? The quote you provided certainly did not add anything to the discussion. 1 minute ago, godzilla said: you're right about my unnecessary question... one just needs to dig a little more. Who needs to dig a little more? I am well versed on this subject. 2 minutes ago, godzilla said: note that i'm only identifying evidence that has to date been adjudicated by a judge! since people who fail to admit that anything was going on are using it as some excuse. Are you going to get to a point? Quote
godzilla Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 (edited) 5 minutes ago, User said: OK... and? The quote you provided certainly did not add anything to the discussion. Who needs to dig a little more? I am well versed on this subject. Are you going to get to a point? sorry did i miss something? you are in agreement that there was a plot by Trump to circumvent the election results using illegitimate certificates of ascertainment? Edited January 17 by godzilla Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 minute ago, godzilla said: sorry did i miss something? Apparently. You took issue with my comment about the Supreme Court ruling... is that going to go anywhere? 2 minutes ago, godzilla said: you are in agreement that there was a plot by Trump to circumvent the election results using illegitimate certificates of ascertainment? Nope. Quote
godzilla Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 minute ago, User said: Nope. so what part of the scheme are you arguing never happened? CdnFox will probably stop responding to my simple questions because he's gotten wise to my logic traps. you apparently... have not. Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 Just now, godzilla said: so what part of the scheme are you arguing never happened? You keep asking loaded questions. Just like this one. 4 minutes ago, godzilla said: CdnFox will probably stop responding to my simple questions because he's gotten wise to my logic traps. you apparently... have not. They are not simple questions and they are not logic traps, they are just fallacious questions. I don't play these games. Here is a hint, why are the alternate electors in 2 of the states facing no charges and no matter how much they try to twist and contort the law to try to get them, they won't be able to. Quote
godzilla Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 minute ago, User said: You keep asking loaded questions. Just like this one. They are not simple questions and they are not logic traps, they are just fallacious questions. I don't play these games. Here is a hint, why are the alternate electors in 2 of the states facing no charges and no matter how much they try to twist and contort the law to try to get them, they won't be able to. not loaded. its called questioning presumptions. if you can't answer them... then there is a problem with your rational argument. what do you mean by twist the law? are the judge, lawyers, defendants and litigants all lying in the adjudicated decisions i've already cited? 1 Quote
User Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 1 minute ago, godzilla said: not loaded. its called questioning presumptions. if you can't answer them... then there is a problem with your rational argument. Yes loaded. There is no "scheme" so there is no part of it to segment out for disagreement. To your first question, you loaded it with words like "plot" "circumvent" and "illegitimate" I am doing just fine with my ability to argue. You not so much. 4 minutes ago, godzilla said: what do you mean by twist the law? are the judge, lawyers, defendants and litigants all lying in the adjudicated decisions i've already cited? I mean it took years for these DA's to scounge up something to threaten and charge folks with... in only 2 of the states... because the folks there were not careful enough to use the magic words explicitly. Do you not get how much power the government has to wield over people like this? They can threaten them with years of litigation and onerous charges to try to squeeze out a plea deal for something like misdemeanor filing false documents. Oh boy, got em! Quote
CdnFox Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 4 hours ago, Hodad said: Of course not. Jeebus, the number of things in life higher on my list than that is almost endless. I read the indictment. I don't need spin from Trumpworld to pre-chew my food. "I CHOOSE TO REMAIN UNEDUCATED AND THEREFORE FEEL I"M FULLY QUALIFIED TO COMMENT". LOL, only a democrat .... Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
godzilla Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, User said: Yes loaded. There is no "scheme" so there is no part of it to segment out for disagreement. To your first question, you loaded it with words like "plot" "circumvent" and "illegitimate" I am doing just fine with my ability to argue. You not so much. I mean it took years for these DA's to scounge up something to threaten and charge folks with... in only 2 of the states... because the folks there were not careful enough to use the magic words explicitly. Do you not get how much power the government has to wield over people like this? They can threaten them with years of litigation and onerous charges to try to squeeze out a plea deal for something like misdemeanor filing false documents. Oh boy, got em! did Pence lie to the grand jury? "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" https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/01/Report-of-Special-Counsel-Smith-Volume-1-January-2025_1648e2.pdf Edited January 17 by godzilla Quote
gatomontes99 Posted January 17 Report Posted January 17 7 hours ago, Hodad said: Again, complete bullshit--and you know it The SCOTUS did not make any judgement on the facts of this case. They did not "throw it out." They ruled that presidents cannot be tried for any official act, no matter how illegal. So Smith had to revise his charges to provide the legal reasoning for why Trump's criminality was not an official act. Your defense of Trump's outrageous crimes is just pathetic. You can't even argue that he didn't do what he's accused of. Because he did exactly what he's accused of. The corrupt conservative justices pushed through an absolute travesty of a decision, but they never once claimed that Trump wasn't guilty. -- And the second they made that decision Biden should have "officially" thrown a few of them in prison to see how much they really like the tyranny they have enabled. Yeah. Like i said. Scotus threw it ot and Jack Smith rebranded it.. 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 17 Report Posted January 17 (edited) On 1/15/2025 at 10:13 PM, CdnFox said: I don't find the first one to be true. This is a position contrary to the facts and to logic. Edited January 17 by Radiorum 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.