Virginia Giuffre's tell all memoir to be published on Oct 21st, detailing her time with Epstein and his "many friends"

ZenMode said:
Since you're a big fan of sworn affidavits, what do you think of this one:
Click to expand...
This is obviously counterfeit. The so-called affidavit was supposedly signed/filed in June of 2016, only mentions Donald Trump and Epstein (and no other people, especially no Democrats) and unlike an actual affidavit but more like a porn flick, abandons all the surrounding detail and story line and jumps straight to the hard core sex. Unbelievably, no Democrats thought to use this against Trump's Presidential campaign. Instead, Democrats decided to keep this particular affidavit under wraps until Trump's 2025 assumption of office.

So if we apply a modicum of critical reasoning, ...
 
IBDaMann said:
This is obviously counterfeit. The so-called affidavit was supposedly signed/filed in June of 2016, only mentions Donald Trump and Epstein (and no other people, especially no Democrats) and unlike an actual affidavit but more like a porn flick, abandons all the surrounding detail and story line and jumps straight to the hard core sex. Unbelievably, no Democrats thought to use this against Trump's Presidential campaign. Instead, Democrats decided to keep this particular affidavit under wraps until Trump's 2025 assumption of office.

So if we apply a modicum of critical reasoning, ...
Click to expand...
Obviously a counterfeit because you don't want to acknowledge it exists because doing so would force you to either a) acknowledge that affidavits are meaningless, which is literally all you have to support your nonsensical beliefs about the election, or b) admit Trump is a pedophile.

Talk about tipping your king. Your king went down like Mia Khalifa.
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope, apply the critical reasoning. I laid it all out for you.


Are you about to already?
Click to expand...
You gave no reasoning. You want to declare it to be counterfeit so you can continue believing what you want to believe. Up until now, sworn affidavits were as good as gold in your mind, but that's only because they allowed you to continue believing the election was stolen.

Surely you haven't forgotten the importance of sworn affidavits...

IBDaMann

Post in thread 'And So It Begins.... Goodbye, America. It's Been Real.'

ZenMode said:
I have read some of them and regardless of which one you read, they are ALWAYS what someone BELIEVES they saw until what they believe they saw is confirmed.
Click to expand...
Nope. You haven't read even a flake of the affidavits, and regardless, you do not get to redefine words.

Eyewitness testimony: a formal account, either written or oral, by an individual who directly observed an event, providing relevant details thereof.
Sworn Affidavit: a formal written account given under oath by an individual who directly observed an event, providing relevant details thereof.

Your attempts to redefine...
  • Like

IBDaMann

Post in thread 'And So It Begins.... Goodbye, America. It's Been Real.'

ZenMode said:
Again, you can't claim specific people were complicit in an event you haven't proved happened.
Click to expand...
The sworn affidavits claim the specific people and bad actors who perpetrated the steal that they observed. You obviously aren't going to understand anything about the steal until you stop devoting all your effort to denying the sworn affidavits, the eyewitness testimony and the observations of We the People.

Your pathetic denial of the observed is insufficient to revise history. Your attempts to redefine the word "affidavit" are insufficient to alter history. Your focus...
  • Like

IBDaMann

Post in thread 'And So It Begins.... Goodbye, America. It's Been Real.'

ZenMode said:
Right. As if on command you go to the affidavit card, like a Dem goes to the race card.
Click to expand...
Aaaaah, so I would be the first person to teach you that sworn affidavits are not canards. I'll take the opportunity to mention that you should have learned this long ago, but heck, better late than never, right? How deep do you need me to go on this lesson?

ZenMode said:
Interestingly enough, literally all you have is a few affidavits to focus on
Click to expand...
Aaaaah, so I would be the first person to teach you that "voluminous, overwhelming compelling sworn affidavits" is not "a few affidavits". I'll...
  • Like

IBDaMann

Post in thread 'Trump's Not Going to Leave in 2029'

ZenMode said:
Here's the type of person you're putting your "sword affidavit" hopes on:
Click to expand...
Don't talk to me about people. All you leftists know how to do is to shoot the messenger. Talk to me about specific sworn affidavit testimony.
  • Like
 
IBDaMann said:
You're a liar and a coward. You are too stupid to learn.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
ZenMode said:
You gave no reasoning. You want to declare it to be counterfeit so you can continue believing what you want to believe. Up until now, sworn affidavits were as good as gold in your mind, but that's only because they allowed you to continue believing the election was stolen.

Surely you haven't forgotten the importance of sworn affidavits...

IBDaMann

Post in thread 'And So It Begins.... Goodbye, America. It's Been Real.'

ZenMode said:
I have read some of them and regardless of which one you read, they are ALWAYS what someone BELIEVES they saw until what they believe they saw is confirmed.
Click to expand...
Nope. You haven't read even a flake of the affidavits, and regardless, you do not get to redefine words.

Eyewitness testimony: a formal account, either written or oral, by an individual who directly observed an event, providing relevant details thereof.
Sworn Affidavit: a formal written account given under oath by an individual who directly observed an event, providing relevant details thereof.

Your attempts to redefine...
  • Like

IBDaMann

Post in thread 'And So It Begins.... Goodbye, America. It's Been Real.'

ZenMode said:
Again, you can't claim specific people were complicit in an event you haven't proved happened.
Click to expand...
The sworn affidavits claim the specific people and bad actors who perpetrated the steal that they observed. You obviously aren't going to understand anything about the steal until you stop devoting all your effort to denying the sworn affidavits, the eyewitness testimony and the observations of We the People.

Your pathetic denial of the observed is insufficient to revise history. Your attempts to redefine the word "affidavit" are insufficient to alter history. Your focus...
  • Like

IBDaMann

Post in thread 'And So It Begins.... Goodbye, America. It's Been Real.'

ZenMode said:
Right. As if on command you go to the affidavit card, like a Dem goes to the race card.
Click to expand...
Aaaaah, so I would be the first person to teach you that sworn affidavits are not canards. I'll take the opportunity to mention that you should have learned this long ago, but heck, better late than never, right? How deep do you need me to go on this lesson?

ZenMode said:
Interestingly enough, literally all you have is a few affidavits to focus on
Click to expand...
Aaaaah, so I would be the first person to teach you that "voluminous, overwhelming compelling sworn affidavits" is not "a few affidavits". I'll...
  • Like

IBDaMann

Post in thread 'Trump's Not Going to Leave in 2029'

ZenMode said:
Here's the type of person you're putting your "sword affidavit" hopes on:
Click to expand...
Don't talk to me about people. All you leftists know how to do is to shoot the messenger. Talk to me about specific sworn affidavit testimony.
  • Like
Click to expand...
@IBDaMann

Back to the topic of this thread and affidavits....

You don't get to arbitrarily declare one sworn affidavit as counterfeit because you don't like what it says.

Again, since you're a big fan of sworn affidavits, what do you think of this one:

 
ZenMode said:
You don't get to arbitrarily declare one sworn affidavit as counterfeit because you don't like what it says.
Click to expand...
You don't get declare any "because".

You presented an obviously counterfeit testimonial, and are expecting me to somehow accept it on the mere basis that you were totally unable to refute any of the affidavits showing the stealing of the election. It doesn't work that way. You have to present a genuine affidavit, not one that was purchased by the DNC.

ZenMode said:
Again, since you're a big fan of sworn affidavits,
Click to expand...
That's your characterization. Here's mine. You HATE sworn affidavits that you can't refute, and that reveal your dishonesty, e.g. supporting stolen elections.

You had your chance. You had all the time in the world. You weren't rushed. All you had to do was to refute the eyewitness testimony of the stolen 2020 election. Of course, you could not, mainly because the election was stolen.

On the other hand, the obviously fraudulent drivel you cite is easily refutable, as I did but you were too cowardly and deceitful to be honest.

ZenMode said:
what do you think of this one:
Click to expand...
The Democrats didn't use this information against Trump ... because they didn't have it, because it is a counterfeit that was backdated.
 
IBDaMann said:
You don't get declare any "because".

You presented an obviously counterfeit testimonial, and are expecting me to somehow accept it on the mere basis that you were totally unable to refute any of the affidavits showing the stealing of the election. It doesn't work that way. You have to present a genuine affidavit, not one that was purchased by the DNC.
Click to expand...
"Obviously counterfeit" because you don't want to believe it. When the affidavit says something you want to believe, it's as good as gold.
IBDaMann said:
That's your characterization. Here's mine. You HATE sworn affidavits that you can't refute, and that reveal your dishonesty, e.g. supporting stolen elections.
Click to expand...
Deflection. Good idea!
IBDaMann said:
You had your chance. You had all the time in the world. You weren't rushed. All you had to do was to refute the eyewitness testimony of the stolen 2020 election. Of course, you could not, mainly because the election was stolen.
Click to expand...

Again, eye witness testimony that you believe because you want to believe it. I posted a sworn affidavit, based on eye witness testimony, but you write it off as counterfeit because you don't want to believe it
IBDaMann said:
On the other hand, the obviously fraudulent drivel you cite is easily refutable, as I did but you were too cowardly and deceitful to be honest.
Click to expand...
"Easily" in the mind of a crazy person....aka in your mind.
IBDaMann said:
The Democrats didn't use this information against Trump ... because they didn't have it, because it is a counterfeit that was backdated.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you were able to convince yourself. That's all that matters.

The king is tipped once again....

tenor.gif
 
IBDaMann said:
Just another ZenMode dishonest mischaracterization. You highlight why it is pointless to respond to you.

How about I just leave it at "You're a moron who is never honest and who is too stupid to learn"? Yeah, I think we'll go with that.


Chanting...as usual.
Click to expand...
Translation: “I have nothing to support my beliefs”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top