Trump found guilty then not guilty!

Poor Richard Saunders said:
What are you even talking about? Transcripts of what? The transcripts of the trial were released within a day for each day of the trial. That is very abnormal for court transcripts to be released that quickly.


The statute of limitations is the statute of limitations. It can't be stretched. Your argument doesn't make any sense legally. And this is about a legal proceeding so your argument has to make legal sense. Did Trump get a benefit by hiding the payment? The answer would be yes. The benefit doesn't have to be cash to be a benefit.


There is no such thing as lawfare in the legal world. It is a made up term that has no legal meaning. Anyone that uses the phrase "lawfare" does NOT have a grip on reality. The payments were not legal fees for an NDA. They were reimbursements for payments to Stormy Daniels that were falsely claimed to be legal fees.

OMFG. The evidence is right there on the court's website.
Click the first link that says "evidence" then confirm you are a human and then you will have access to the prosecution and defense exhibits.

At this point you are only proving you know absolutely nothing about the facts of the case since you are claiming you can't see things that are publicly available for everyone to see.
Click to expand...
Poor Richard Saunders said:
What are you even talking about? Transcripts of what? The transcripts of the trial were released within a day for each day of the trial. That is very abnormal for court transcripts to be released that quickly.


The statute of limitations is the statute of limitations. It can't be stretched. Your argument doesn't make any sense legally. And this is about a legal proceeding so your argument has to make legal sense. Did Trump get a benefit by hiding the payment? The answer would be yes. The benefit doesn't have to be cash to be a benefit.


There is no such thing as lawfare in the legal world. It is a made up term that has no legal meaning. Anyone that uses the phrase "lawfare" does NOT have a grip on reality. The payments were not legal fees for an NDA. They were reimbursements for payments to Stormy Daniels that were falsely claimed to be legal fees.

OMFG. The evidence is right there on the court's website.
Click the first link that says "evidence" then confirm you are a human and then you will have access to the prosecution and defense exhibits.

At this point you are only proving you know absolutely nothing about the facts of the case since you are claiming you can't see things that are publicly available for everyone to see.
Click to expand...
You are right, I always admit when I'm wrong, which, I've never seen a Libtard do the same. Apparently Gemini didn't like how I asked the question about the availability of the transcripts and answered: They are not yet public. and when I asked if that's the usual? answer, transcripts are usually released quickly, but because of the nature of the Trump trial it could be a lengthy wait. When I asked again if they were released each day, it came back with yes. So??, OPPS probably won't be the last time, that's why I think incorrect comments should always be admitted and corrected. However, I am very much glad you pointed out I was wrong.

I've just had the pleasure of diving into the 'evidence' presented by the 'people,' and holy shit, I'm now more certain than ever that this verdict will be yeeted back to the Stone Age. Saying this evidence is pathetic? That's like saying the Titanic had a slight leak. I've never witnessed such a parade of media stories, most from the land of libtard make-believe, masquerading as actual courtroom evidence.

We've got an avalanche of public photos, X posts, and Truth Social rants, alongside a dumpster fire of media deal docs for some spicy "information" (because, who needs sworn statements when you can just buy your own truth?). And the emails about that bus recording? Absolute comedy gold. Even more completely useless emails and texts. The only direct Trump link is him calling the accusations "bullshit" on a phone call and discussing a $150k payment for an NDA, demanding check form rather than cash, clearly, because checks are the pinnacle of secrecy, right?

So, if you've actually navigated this shitstorm of 'evidence,' do enlighten me—what's supposed to be the nail in the coffin here? I'm just itching to understand how the libtard brain thinks this clown show qualifies as a legitimate legal proceeding. Yes, I know you'll say it was legitimate because it happened, but I think you should be able to get what I'm sayin'. Just like over half of Americans living in reality know what the term 'lawfare' means, and happens to agree it's been the norm for this Stalinist Administration.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
What are you even talking about? Transcripts of what? The transcripts of the trial were released within a day for each day of the trial. That is very abnormal for court transcripts to be released that quickly.


The statute of limitations is the statute of limitations. It can't be stretched. Your argument doesn't make any sense legally. And this is about a legal proceeding so your argument has to make legal sense. Did Trump get a benefit by hiding the payment? The answer would be yes. The benefit doesn't have to be cash to be a benefit.


There is no such thing as lawfare in the legal world. It is a made up term that has no legal meaning. Anyone that uses the phrase "lawfare" does NOT have a grip on reality. The payments were not legal fees for an NDA. They were reimbursements for payments to Stormy Daniels that were falsely claimed to be legal fees.

OMFG. The evidence is right there on the court's website.
Click the first link that says "evidence" then confirm you are a human and then you will have access to the prosecution and defense exhibits.

At this point you are only proving you know absolutely nothing about the facts of the case since you are claiming you can't see things that are publicly available for everyone to see.
Click to expand...

You are so patient. I am but your grasshopper.
 
ThatOwlCoward said:
This latest influx of MAGAT socks
Click to expand...
What's a MAGAT? Why are you so paranoid that you see socks where there aren't any? Aaaaah, you're an honestophobe. Got it.

ThatOwlCoward said:
is really formulaic and boring, aren't they?
Click to expand...
You're truly desperate to find someone in your same mindless shithole.

ThatOwlCoward said:
And they're so juvenile, too.
Click to expand...
Oh, the irony.

ThatOwlCoward said:
I wish they would put more effort into recruiting actual intelligent, worthy opponents.
Click to expand...
You can't, on the one hand, demand that they totally dumb it down for you, and then bitch and whine if they happen to go a tad too far.

ThatOwlCoward said:
It's sad to be insulted by such low level trollish morons.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are simply missing all the intelligence that is flying miles over your head.

ThatOwlCoward said:
"You're a big fat poopyhead trans lesbian commie!" *yawn* lol
Click to expand...
So, you don't get the joke?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
This latest influx of MAGAT socks is really formulaic and boring, aren't they? And they're so juvenile, too. I wish they would put more effort into recruiting actual intelligent, worthy opponents. It's sad to be insulted by such low level trollish morons. "You're a big fat poopyhead trans lesbian commie!" *yawn* lol
Click to expand...
Owl, you little fibber, I tried to keep civil with you, but surprise, surprise, you flew the coop. I've attempted this with countless other drones, but, as per usual, Libtards all dive into the insult pool at the first whiff of defeat. I've posted some detailed, insult-free comments, and like clockwork, the drones revert to their default setting of hurling insults. Occasionally, some libtard tries to keep up, but the moment they feel the argument slipping, it's back to name-calling. So, I've decided to return the favor, and occasionally test the waters for a possible real debate.

It's adorable watching you perch on your 'high horse,' acting like you've got some special insight on the issues and a heart of gold—except maybe on refrigerators, because, who knows, you might be the Fridge Whisperer.

Anyways, it's cute seeing you and your pals patting each other on the back with those 'thumbs up.' It must be soothing, like a security blanket shielding you from the harsh, inconvenient truths. Keep on keeping on, I guess.
 
Tobytone said:
Owl, you little fibber, I tried to keep civil with you, but surprise, surprise, you flew the coop. I've attempted this with countless other drones, but, as per usual, Libtards all dive into the insult pool at the first whiff of defeat. I've posted some detailed, insult-free comments, and like clockwork, the drones revert to their default setting of hurling insults. Occasionally, some libtard tries to keep up, but the moment they feel the argument slipping, it's back to name-calling. So, I've decided to return the favor, and occasionally test the waters for a possible real debate.

It's adorable watching you perch on your 'high horse,' acting like you've got some special insight on the issues and a heart of gold—except maybe on refrigerators, because, who knows, you might be the Fridge Whisperer.

Anyways, it's cute seeing you and your pals patting each other on the back with those 'thumbs up.' It must be soothing, like a security blanket shielding you from the harsh, inconvenient truths. Keep on keeping on, I guess.
Click to expand...
Brilliant :thumbsup:
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Trump is guilty of 34 felonies. He got special treatment because he is Trump.
Click to expand...
So? Doesn't change a word of what I said. This case was a farce from the beginning, and now it's a surreal farce as the judge gives Trump nothing for a sentence. Kafka couldn't have written this insanity.

R.a8d449a18203ab9523f8c9e6bc7829b7
 
Tobytone said:
You are right, I always admit when I'm wrong, which, I've never seen a Libtard do the same. Apparently Gemini didn't like how I asked the question about the availability of the transcripts and answered: They are not yet public. and when I asked if that's the usual? answer, transcripts are usually released quickly, but because of the nature of the Trump trial it could be a lengthy wait. When I asked again if they were released each day, it came back with yes. So??, OPPS probably won't be the last time, that's why I think incorrect comments should always be admitted and corrected. However, I am very much glad you pointed out I was wrong.

I've just had the pleasure of diving into the 'evidence' presented by the 'people,' and holy shit, I'm now more certain than ever that this verdict will be yeeted back to the Stone Age. Saying this evidence is pathetic? That's like saying the Titanic had a slight leak. I've never witnessed such a parade of media stories, most from the land of libtard make-believe, masquerading as actual courtroom evidence.

We've got an avalanche of public photos, X posts, and Truth Social rants, alongside a dumpster fire of media deal docs for some spicy "information" (because, who needs sworn statements when you can just buy your own truth?). And the emails about that bus recording? Absolute comedy gold. Even more completely useless emails and texts. The only direct Trump link is him calling the accusations "bullshit" on a phone call and discussing a $150k payment for an NDA, demanding check form rather than cash, clearly, because checks are the pinnacle of secrecy, right?

So, if you've actually navigated this shitstorm of 'evidence,' do enlighten me—what's supposed to be the nail in the coffin here? I'm just itching to understand how the libtard brain thinks this clown show qualifies as a legitimate legal proceeding. Yes, I know you'll say it was legitimate because it happened, but I think you should be able to get what I'm sayin'. Just like over half of Americans living in reality know what the term 'lawfare' means, and happens to agree it's been the norm for this Stalinist Administration.
Click to expand...
You were here pretending you knew all about the trial and conviction and now admit you know nothing but you still want to pretend you have actually looked at the evidence and found it wanting?

The thing about trials is there is usually not a single nail in the coffin. It is the weight of the total evidence that causes the conviction. If you are examining each piece of evidence independent of the other evidence then you are not examining it the way a jury normally does in a trial. Physical evidence presented at trial is a very small part of the evidence presented at trial. Most of the evidence is presented to the jury be witnesses. The physical evidence is just there to support what the witness testifies to and show they are not lying. Until you have looked at the transcript for all the days of the trial, you might want to not claim there is no evidence of fraud. It only reveals how idiotic your argument is when you argue from complete ignorance.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So? Doesn't change a word of what I said. This case was a farce from the beginning, and now it's a surreal farce as the judge gives Trump nothing for a sentence. Kafka couldn't have written this insanity.
Click to expand...
Trump is still a convicted felon. Whether you think the case is a farce doesn't change that fact.

Anyone writing fiction showing Trump could be re-elected after what he did would be laughed at for not being realistic. Unfortunately, the American voter has gone into the surreal.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Trump was found guilty but went free of punishment because enough steaming piles of pigshit voted for him
that the judge could not practically compromise the office of the president.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Trump was found guilty and Merchan, knowing the whole trial was a farce meant to keep Trump from getting elected at all, has recognized that he's on the equivalent of the Titanic after hitting the iceberg and wants to be in one of the lifeboats rather than going down with the ship as the band plays. Bragg and Merchan screwed the pooch bigtime bringing this case. Instead of wrecking Trump's reelection--as Bragg undoubtedly intended, with Merchan's help--it totally backfired and helped Trump get elected.
NiftyNiblick said:
America is dead, killed by its own highly deficient citizenry.
Ridiculous and horrid happenstances like this will now, and possibly forever, be the norm.
Click to expand...

As with everywhere else, the Left fucked everything up and we're now paying the price for it.
NiftyNiblick said:
Nice job, troglodytes.
Click to expand...

If that's how you describe the Left.
NiftyNiblick said:
I lack the communicative skills to begin to describe the horrific, excruciating misery that I sincerely wish on every single person who voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

Sucks to be you.
NiftyNiblick said:
I regret being elderly and thus severely limited as to the extent of that misery that I can personally bring down on you.
What I wish on you, however, makes the Holocaust look like a block party with live music, free food and open bar.
Click to expand...

Double sucks to be you.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You were here pretending you knew all about the trial and conviction and now admit you know nothing but you still want to pretend you have actually looked at the evidence and found it wanting?

The thing about trials is there is usually not a single nail in the coffin. It is the weight of the total evidence that causes the conviction. If you are examining each piece of evidence independent of the other evidence then you are not examining it the way a jury normally does in a trial. Physical evidence presented at trial is a very small part of the evidence presented at trial. Most of the evidence is presented to the jury be witnesses. The physical evidence is just there to support what the witness testifies to and show they are not lying. Until you have looked at the transcript for all the days of the trial, you might want to not claim there is no evidence of fraud. It only reveals how idiotic your argument is when you argue from complete ignorance.
Click to expand...
SORRY, I apologized and everything, but you couldn't gracefully accept. Regardless of what you think, I did go through all of the 'peoples' evidence, ( I know this is surprising to Libtards because they never actually look into things for themselves, they're parrots, remember ) and you're right, it is suppose to back up testimony. If the jury wasn't so obviously a bunch of Trump haters I'd feel sorry for them having to go through the piles of useless 'evidence' that in large part is not at all related to charges.

Like I said, I'm very confident along with many legal scholars and real attorneys, actual legal experts, not Libtards trying their best to sound intelligent on CNN or MSNBC. (or drones like you) My challenge still stands, and feel free to copy/paste several pieces of evidence that you see as important. Oh and you don't need to lecture me on how things are done by the jury, I've had the pleasure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top