Trump found guilty then not guilty!

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Based on your reading level, I will restrict my replies to words that you already know. I wouldn't want to show you up by using words you don't know.

Cohen's testimony was backed up by the testimony of other witnesses. I guess you didn't really look at all the evidence if you were unaware of that testimony. Then you claim not a single exhibit supports his testimony. Cohen testified that he met with Trump at the White House. There were two exhibits that backed up the testimony by Cohen met with Trump. So we see you are wrong about not one exhibit supporting his testimony.

I guess you do think that Trump is writing the legal briefs. That would be the only way you could continue down this road intellectually. Or are you just trolling? Based on how little intelligence you have exhibited so far, it's a toss up.

Trump is a country or a group? I guess you really showed me up by claiming Trump is a country.

You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between evidence and exhibits. Evidence includes all the testimony by witnesses.
Pecker testified that he agreed to buy stories and kill them - (A violation of campaign finance laws.)
Stormy Daniels testified that she was paid for her silence.
Cohen testified that he paid Stormy and was later reimbursed by Trump by payments disguised as a retainer
At least two people from the Trump organization testified as to the agreement of payments to Cohen that were reimbursements.

Aren't you a cute toddler. You get all excited and happy when you throw your poop around.
Click to expand...
GOOD COMEBACK!

You and D Boy are just the epitome of intellectual might, aren't you? I'm not going to waste time on your repetitive drivel? I'm not Jesus, I can't perform miracles on the brain-dead.

You clearly didn't even glance at the evidence - not that I'll waste my breath explaining how I know. You're nothing but a drone, parroting whatever nonsense you last heard; that's a fact most sane people would nod along to.

You obviously struggle with concepts so basic they'd confuse a chimp. But hey, just for kicks, to ensure even the densest Libtard like you can grasp how utterly nonexistent your logic is, I'll make one final point - for your benefit, of course.

Dumbass, hasn't the Trump's trial already been in the SC?? hmmmm, I thought that could never happen, and he isn't even President yet. Ahh..Dauhhh. I guess you're right, A state case involving a President could never make it to the SC.

From the words of Brad Pitt in Kalifornia..."Dip Shit' LOL
 
Tobytone said:
GOOD COMEBACK!

You and D Boy are just the epitome of intellectual might, aren't you? I'm not going to waste time on your repetitive drivel? I'm not Jesus, I can't perform miracles on the brain-dead.
Click to expand...
Basically you are simply telling us you can't actually discuss the case but you can only name call and deflect.
Tobytone said:
You clearly didn't even glance at the evidence - not that I'll waste my breath explaining how I know. You're nothing but a drone, parroting whatever nonsense you last heard; that's a fact most sane people would nod along to.
Click to expand...
Once again. You don't know the difference between evidence and exhibits. Your use of language and your failure to understand the difference explains why you are avoiding an actual discussion by puffing yourself up.
Tobytone said:
You obviously struggle with concepts so basic they'd confuse a chimp. But hey, just for kicks, to ensure even the densest Libtard like you can grasp how utterly nonexistent your logic is, I'll make one final point - for your benefit, of course.
Click to expand...
More self congratulatory puffery for yourself that doesn't do anything to support your claims you know anything about the trial or the evidence.
Tobytone said:
Dumbass, hasn't the Trump's trial already been in the SC?? hmmmm, I thought that could never happen, and he isn't even President yet. Ahh..Dauhhh. I guess you're right, A state case involving a President could never make it to the SC.

From the words of Brad Pitt in Kalifornia..."Dip Shit' LOL
Click to expand...

No. Trump's trial hasn't already been to the SC. The Supreme Court refused to issue a stay of sentencing because Trump was President-elect and it wouldn't interfere in his duties. The stay was requested saying that the President-Elect should have the same immunity as a President which is a Constitutional question. They didn't look at any of the evidence of the trial but said that needed to go through the normal appeals process. Refusal to issue a stay is the Supreme Court saying, we don't want to get involved at this time. They didn't hear any arguments but simply refused to accept Trump's claims of Presidential immunity when he is not President.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Basically you are simply telling us you can't actually discuss the case but you can only name call and deflect.

Once again. You don't know the difference between evidence and exhibits. Your use of language and your failure to understand the difference explains why you are avoiding an actual discussion by puffing yourself up.

More self congratulatory puffery for yourself that doesn't do anything to support your claims you know anything about the trial or the evidence.


No. Trump's trial hasn't already been to the SC. The Supreme Court refused to issue a stay of sentencing because Trump was President-elect and it wouldn't interfere in his duties. The stay was requested saying that the President-Elect should have the same immunity as a President which is a Constitutional question. They didn't look at any of the evidence of the trial but said that needed to go through the normal appeals process. Refusal to issue a stay is the Supreme Court saying, we don't want to get involved at this time. They didn't hear any arguments but simply refused to accept Trump's claims of Presidential immunity when he is not President.
Click to expand...

See what I've been saying people? It's crystal clear you're a genius, but you still haven't read shit. You can hide behind your mantra of "I'm right, you're wrong" all day and night, pretending you have a clue. It doesn't change the fact that you haven't even glanced at the prosecution's evidence because apparently you're an intellectual sloth. Don't feel bad, it's a standard for Libtard drones.

Reality check: we can argue until the cows come home about this trial, and it'll mean as much as a Libtard promise - jack shit. I really just want to see you squirm while I challenge you to pick out any piece of evidence, or hell, several, that is even kind of strong. It's all right there in the link you so graciously provided. It proves the evidence is pathetic, it's that bad. Tabloid articles are the strongest "evidence"?? Articles are not evidence at all, it's embarrassing that there's even one let alone dozens.

By the way, the Supreme Court considered arguments from both sides and made a ruling. In the real world, that means the case went to the SC, and unfortunately, because NY is crawling with TDS-infected Libtard judges, it'll likely end up there again.

PREDICTION: Richy will come back with "it's not called evidence"lol"There wasn't a trial at the SC"lol"you've been wrong, I've been right"lol"I'm not a drone, you are" ROFL again. Go team up with Dutchy Boy and come up with another pathetic response.

Do yourself a favor and put down the crack pipe for a good long break.
 
Tobytone said:
See what I've been saying people? It's crystal clear you're a genius, but you still haven't read shit. You can hide behind your mantra of "I'm right, you're wrong" all day and night, pretending you have a clue. It doesn't change the fact that you haven't even glanced at the prosecution's evidence because apparently you're an intellectual sloth. Don't feel bad, it's a standard for Libtard drones.

Reality check: we can argue until the cows come home about this trial, and it'll mean as much as a Libtard promise - jack shit. I really just want to see you squirm while I challenge you to pick out any piece of evidence, or hell, several, that is even kind of strong. It's all right there in the link you so graciously provided. It proves the evidence is pathetic, it's that bad. Tabloid articles are the strongest "evidence"?? Articles are not evidence at all, it's embarrassing that there's even one let alone dozens.

By the way, the Supreme Court considered arguments from both sides and made a ruling. In the real world, that means the case went to the SC, and unfortunately, because NY is crawling with TDS-infected Libtard judges, it'll likely end up there again.

PREDICTION: Richy will come back with "it's not called evidence"lol"There wasn't a trial at the SC"lol"you've been wrong, I've been right"lol"I'm not a drone, you are" ROFL again. Go team up with Dutchy Boy and come up with another pathetic response.

Do yourself a favor and put down the crack pipe for a good long break.
Click to expand...
Evidence includes testimony by witnesses. The majority of the evidence in the trial was witness testimony. Your argument that I haven't looked at the evidence is nothing but the babbling of a toddler. You are the one that hasn't read the transcripts since you didn't even know the existed two days ago.

The fact that the SC heard arguments from both sides on whether Trump as President-Elect had the immunity of a President and as such his sentencing should be stayed does not mean the case went to the SC.

Testimony is called evidence. Exhibits entered into the record are evidence. It is you that is arguing that only the exhibits are evidence when they make up a very small amount of the evidence presented at the trial. There was no trial at the SC. They ruled based on the filings.

As to evidence of Trump's guilt, the testimony by Cohen on his first day of testifying would be evidence of Trump's guilt. Trump was aware of the payment and Trump knew the payment was not a retainer for legal work done by Cohen.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Evidence includes testimony by witnesses. The majority of the evidence in the trial was witness testimony. Your argument that I haven't looked at the evidence is nothing but the babbling of a toddler. You are the one that hasn't read the transcripts since you didn't even know the existed two days ago.

The fact that the SC heard arguments from both sides on whether Trump as President-Elect had the immunity of a President and as such his sentencing should be stayed does not mean the case went to the SC.

Testimony is called evidence. Exhibits entered into the record are evidence. It is you that is arguing that only the exhibits are evidence when they make up a very small amount of the evidence presented at the trial. There was no trial at the SC. They ruled based on the filings.

As to evidence of Trump's guilt, the testimony by Cohen on his first day of testifying would be evidence of Trump's guilt. Trump was aware of the payment and Trump knew the payment was not a retainer for legal work done by Cohen.
Click to expand...
SAME DODGE EVERY TIME, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. STOP BEING SO LAZY, OK RICHY
 
Tobytone said:
SAME DODGE EVERY TIME, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER. STOP BEING SO LAZY, OK RICHY
Click to expand...
LOL. Resorting to ALL CAPS because it makes your lack of argument look like an argument? You didn't address anything I brought up.
Why can't you defend you claim about the SC hearing the case? Did you not read the filings made to the court? Did you not read the ruling by the court?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
LOL. Resorting to ALL CAPS because it makes your lack of argument look like an argument? You didn't address anything I brought up.
Why can't you defend you claim about the SC hearing the case? Did you not read the filings made to the court? Did you not read the ruling by the court?
Click to expand...
Anyone can go back through this endless chain and see for themselves that you're a tool. I'll give you some time to respond as much as you like. I'll come back later when I get super bored and respond. I've got others to help with different issues, got to mix things up. Again, you can stay here and play with yourself for a while. Don't worry I'll be back, promise. lol
 
Tobytone said:
Please, I've read it, but I'll admit I didn't commit the numbers to memory, you TOOL. If you're finally looking at it and you've got the damning piece of evidence, please enlighten us all.
Click to expand...
You read it? ROFLMAO. You really read it?
I guess we know you are lying because you couldn't have read it.

Can you tell us why it was impossible for you to read it?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You read it? ROFLMAO. You really read it?
I guess we know you are lying because you couldn't have read it.

Can you tell us why it was impossible for you to read it?
Click to expand...
I'm getting a little worried about you now. You're using ?'s where you should be using periods, You're putting the word 'you' where it should be 'I' your also obsessed with avoiding the inevitable, LawFare.

Let me help, again. The entire ridiculous thread boils down to the following.
Here it is: (don't go all, Libtard crazy again)

This case is undeniably a grotesque blot on the current state of our Justice Department. Among countless examples of the DOJ abusing its power to target, discredit, and try to lock up not only the President-elect but also his associates and supporters, all in the name of political warfare. The NYC case is the epitome of this disgrace, setting a horrific precedent for any political party moving forward.

NEVER WAS A TRUER STATEMENT MADE. That's the essence of the argument stripped down to its core. You either get it or you don't. The majority sees the truth; the minority, the Libtard drones, are still in denial.
I'll mark you down as don't get it. LOL

:rofl:
 
Tobytone said:
You're not alone thinking I'm someone from your past or a previous member that changed his name and profile. Several drones have made the same claim, of course, that's what drones do. You're sheep that talk like parrots and behave as a hive with a mind of a Libtard Drone. That's who you are, I don't need to invent someone or be paranoid that you could be concealing your true identity. lol Drones are nearly all the same, so it doesn't matter where you live, what your name is, how many times you shave your head, how many times you put on masks, break windows, start fires, hit old people because they like Trump, etc, etc. you're still just an average run of the mill Libtard Drone. I'm just the one pointing that out.
Click to expand...
Yawn
 
Diesel said:
@Tobytone is like a bot. Repetitive and monotonous. I only think they're a real person because they're too dumb to be a bot.
Click to expand...
Agreed. He's tedious. Like most JPP MAGAts, he's just a lonely geezer sitting in his room all day with nothing to do except blather online and watch "The View".

9giyab.jpg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Obviously, they saw this as a states issue, not a federal or constitutional one, and passed on ruling on it.

Better a felon that will do something useful than a fool who will just fuck everything up.
Click to expand...
Thank you for perfectly capturing the mantra of modern "conservatives". "Anyone except a liberal. Even a felon, rapist, cheater, liar." The right doesn't have a single standard anymore.
 
Tobytone said:
I'm getting a little worried about you now. You're using ?'s where you should be using periods, You're putting the word 'you' where it should be 'I' your also obsessed with avoiding the inevitable, LawFare.

Let me help, again. The entire ridiculous thread boils down to the following.
Here it is: (don't go all, Libtard crazy again)

This case is undeniably a grotesque blot on the current state of our Justice Department. Among countless examples of the DOJ abusing its power to target, discredit, and try to lock up not only the President-elect but also his associates and supporters, all in the name of political warfare. The NYC case is the epitome of this disgrace, setting a horrific precedent for any political party moving forward.

NEVER WAS A TRUER STATEMENT MADE. That's the essence of the argument stripped down to its core. You either get it or you don't. The majority sees the truth; the minority, the Libtard drones, are still in denial.
I'll mark you down as don't get it. LOL

:rofl:
Click to expand...
It's very funny that you claimed you read a video.

It's also funny that you claimed to examine 256 exhibits in less than 2 hours while also reading and responding to 9 posts with well over 1,000 words. (I doubt you can type over 70 wpm.) At this point we can all see that you are nothing but a liar. You did not read all the evidence. You didn't even look at all the evidence. You certainly didn't listen to the audio or watch the video evidence.

Anyone that claims they read a video is not having a conversation with.

You have now done nothing but lie repeatedly. In a court if you were to try to pull this shit you would be fined and then jailed when you repeated with the lies.
 
Tobytone said:
GOOD COMEBACK!

You and D Boy are just the epitome of intellectual might, aren't you? I'm not going to waste time on your repetitive drivel? I'm not Jesus, I can't perform miracles on the brain-dead.

You clearly didn't even glance at the evidence - not that I'll waste my breath explaining how I know. You're nothing but a drone, parroting whatever nonsense you last heard; that's a fact most sane people would nod along to.

You obviously struggle with concepts so basic they'd confuse a chimp. But hey, just for kicks, to ensure even the densest Libtard like you can grasp how utterly nonexistent your logic is, I'll make one final point - for your benefit, of course.

Dumbass, hasn't the Trump's trial already been in the SC?? hmmmm, I thought that could never happen, and he isn't even President yet. Ahh..Dauhhh. I guess you're right, A state case involving a President could never make it to the SC.

From the words of Brad Pitt in Kalifornia..."Dip Shit' LOL
Click to expand...
How old are you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top