Donald Trump on why he decided to stop providing Ukraine with air defenses: “I am doing it to stop death.”

Prove it.
To the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence, I'd say it is proven. To one of beyond doubt, no, it hasn't been.




That particular case is definitely one that could be proven in civil court proceedings, and might even rise to the standards of a criminal trial.
 
To the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence, I'd say it is proven. To one of beyond doubt, no, it hasn't been.




That particular case is definitely one that could be proven in civil court proceedings, and might even rise to the standards of a criminal trial.
Someone should take it to Court, where evidence would be required... stop pretending.
 
Someone should take it to Court, where evidence would be required... stop pretending.
Whether it has gone to court or not, the evidence is there and is pretty damning. You just want to use the reductio ad absurdum fallacy to ignore what's plainly in front of you. Bagman was on the take bigtime, and he was enough of a drug addled moron to not be able to cover his tracks.
 
Whether it has gone to court or not, the evidence is there and is pretty damning. You just want to use the reductio ad absurdum fallacy to ignore what's plainly in front of you. Bagman was on the take bigtime, and he was enough of a drug addled moron to not be able to cover his tracks.
I do not see any significant evidence. I am sure you pretend to see it.

If it is true, why wont Bondi prosecute?
 
I do not see any significant evidence. I am sure you pretend to see it.

If it is true, why wont Bondi prosecute?
OIP.Tf-D2BrJWQQ3Y9zr5HrVZgAAAA


You just refuse to see what's plainly in front of your face. As for prosecution, that's just another fallacy, argument from incredulity. That is, you can't accept what's obviously true because you are adding conditions that haven't been met, that add little to what's been presented.

That is, just because Bagman hasn't been prosecuted for his money laundering doesn't mean he wasn't taking bribes and doing money laundering.
 
Your ilk makes up so much shit, its hard to take anything seriously, especially from unknown sources.
Both the Malta Times, and Times of Malta are newspaper sources local to Malta--that's a country in the Mediterranean. They are known sources.

Here's a few more saying the same thing:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hu...rows?msockid=21fbbea4efa763842064acc4ee526280




 
Both the Malta Times, and Times of Malta are newspaper sources local to Malta--that's a country in the Mediterranean. They are known sources.

Here's a few more saying the same thing:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hu...rows?msockid=21fbbea4efa763842064acc4ee526280




There is nothing to these stories but innuendo. The guy worked with a now defunct bank, so?
 
Both the Malta Times, and Times of Malta are newspaper sources local to Malta--that's a country in the Mediterranean. They are known sources.

Here's a few more saying the same thing:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hu...rows?msockid=21fbbea4efa763842064acc4ee526280




The Reds held congress for 2 years of Biden's term. They investigated him nonstop. They promised to find great crimes, and fools like you bought into it 100 percent. There was NOTHING. You still are unable to see the truth. You never will. Joe was charged with nothing. If they found anything, they would have put on a show trial.
The bank of Cyprus was run by Ross, one of Trump's administration people. One of the presidents of that bank was Putin.
 
The Reds held congress for 2 years of Biden's term. They investigated him nonstop. They promised to find great crimes, and fools like you bought into it 100 percent. There was NOTHING. You still are unable to see the truth. You never will. Joe was charged with nothing. If they found anything, they would have put on a show trial.
The bank of Cyprus was run by Ross, one of Trump's administration people. One of the presidents of that bank was Putin.
That is no proof that the Bidens weren't engaged in quid pro quo and money laundering, instead there's plenty to show they were. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans didn't bring charges prematurely based on bullshit evidence. They wanted an airtight case. That was necessary to bring criminal charges. Civil charges wouldn't fly for the most part because there was no one bringing a case that could show they were the one(s) harmed.

Now that Biden's out of office, like with the Clinton's, the Bidens aren't going to get piles of cash to buy their influence as they have no influence to sell anymore. The case is dead politically.

It's the Democrats (and Left) that do show trials. Those only work in a dictatorship which is why they failed against Trump.
 
That is no proof that the Bidens weren't engaged in quid pro quo and money laundering. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans didn't bring charges prematurely based on bullshit evidence. They wanted an airtight case. That was necessary to bring criminal charges. Civil charges wouldn't fly for the most part because there was no one bringing a case that could show they were the one(s) harmed.

Now that Biden's out of office, like with the Clinton's, the Bidens aren't going to get piles of cash to buy their influence as they have no influence to sell anymore. The case is dead politically.

It's the Democrats (and Left) that do show trials. Those only work in a dictatorship which is why they failed against Trump.
No proof that they did not? You actually typed that? If you claim they did, it is your job to provide proof. Yes, wild-ass right-wing claims are all people of your level require. You should be ashamed.
 
No proof that they did not? You actually typed that? If you claim they did, it is your job to provide proof. Yes, wild-ass right-wing claims are all people of your level require. You should be ashamed.
There's plenty of proof they engaged in quid pro quo and money laundering. Sorry if I poorly worded that, your ad hominem aside.
 
There's plenty of proof they engaged in quid pro quo and money laundering. Sorry if I poorly worded that, your ad hominem aside.
There is absolutely none. Do you think the Reds would have let Joe slide if they had proof? You are so sucked in by right wing sources. the you are completely illogical. Why did they let him go?
 
Back
Top