Funny, nice list, talk about reaching to make it seem like I got so much wrong. lol
I didn't have to reach to find all the untruths you told. They were pretty obvious
For example, the actual thing Trump did wasn't a crime let alone a felony, it took Bragg being let's say...creative to come up with a reason to 'stretch the statute of limitations' he didn't even bother to prove it with the so-called "evidence" I looked through. Like I pointed out, even the NYC justice department, which is about as left-wing as it gets, looked at everything and decided not to proceed.
There is no such thing as "stretching the statute of limitations." He charged the crime as a felony which has a statute of limitations that the indictment was within. There is no way to "stretch the statute of limitations." The phrase is used by people that are completely ignorant of the law. That you keep using the phrase proves you are ignorant of the law and are simply relying on the opinions of those in the RW media.
When I asked for the felonies he was charged with, I told you it was a simple question, I just wanted to walk you through it like you're a toddler. I didn't hide that fact. And that 'lawfare' comment? It's like a flashing neon sign saying you're a Libtard, so forgive me for being right on the money. Any non-libtard knows what the term means and that it's the playbook for Biden's admin. So, don't blame me for calling you a Libtard; you did that to yourself.
The only problem is you are the one that is the toddler. "Libtard" is a phrase used by toddlers that can't actually discuss an issue with any depth. So far you have only shown yourself to be completely ignorant on a topic that you think you know more than anyone else.
I was wrong about the transcripts and apologized, granted I did accurately label you a libtard in the process, but that doesn't mean I'm any less sorry for my mistake, and I thanked you for the link. I then dove into every single day's evidence and went through them all. It was a comedy goldmine. I highly recommend anyone that reads this do the same.
Another backhanded swipe. That seems to all you can do.
Finally, the jury: it's true that Trump's team got to deny and pick from the jury pool, as I said, I've been on a jury and know how this shitshow works. All I'll say is, it doesn't matter how many they deny if the whole pool in and outside the courtroom is full of Trump Derangement Syndrome patients; they'd say anything just to get a shot at Trump. The fact is, Trump's team made a very compelling case for moving the trial that had it been anyone but Trump, that request would have been granted for obvious reasons of the extensive media coverage and the predominantly left wing TDS libtards in NYC. If you're honest you know that's true.
You seem to be completely ignorant of the process of how a jury is selected or that they are charged with being unbiased. Manhattan did not vote 100% for Biden. If Trump's lawyers were competent there should have been 2-3 Trump voters on the jury. Saying anything to get a shot at him would cause Trump's verdict to be overturned. Trump already filed one motion claiming the jury was biased but that was denied because he had no evidence to support the claim. That is the thing about courts. They require evidence.
Did Trump sign the checks?
Was Trump aware that the payment was a reimbursement and not legal fees?
Was there another crime that could be covered up by the falsification?
If the answer to all 3 of those is yes, then Trump is guilty.
Can you provide a truthful answer to those 3 questions like the jury did?
All of that said, it's clearly pointless to continue this Libtard dance, as it usually is. I asked you for what you thought was the most compelling evidence, whether it was one single thing or a group of as many as you like. I actually did read it, I doubt you have, if you have, you know there isn't shit worth a damn for evidence. That's never been more crystal clear thanks to you giving me that link.
We'll just have to wait for the appeals, and I'll eat a big handful of shit if I'm wrong, but only if you do the same. To be clear, only when the case makes it to the SC if necessary.
OMFG. You really are an idiot. Why would the case go to the Supreme Court? What is the specific constitutional question in the case? Trump's legal motions have been ridiculous for the most part. Why did the sentencing occur? It's because all of Trump's appeals were turned down by higher courts including his appeal to prevent the sentencing.
Answer the 3 questions I asked of you that they jury had to answer yes to to convict Trump. When you want to answer those three and discuss your answers get back to me. Otherwise you can just be another troll calling people "libtards" because you think it makes you look smart. It doesn't.
www.theguardian.com
There was no clue what the post was actually about..
Your crime was posting to me...
The jury wasn't "most people," EW.
