Speaking of "making unfounded claims " you might want to check my posts on the NY fraud trial before saying that I'm "coming off as dipshits trying to spin these miscarriage of justice lawsuits as above board."
I've agreed with Ganny several times that it's the weakest of the cases and I'm not a fan of it other than it's fun to see the 4D chess master squirm.
So you don't care that it's a miscarriage of justice. Thats okay Mr TDS. It was obvious you are driven more by hatred than appreciation of fairness.
awwwwww....does somebody need a tissue for their issue.....?
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
Leaving voters with incomplete information about his guilt is election interference. Trials need to be accelerated so that voters know if he's guilty or not.
And not allowing enough time for a conviction to be overturned (DC) on appellate and/or SCOTUS before early voting began would be leaving voters with incomplete information about his innocence.
He should have beem more careful about when to be engaging in his criminal enterprises.
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
Yes, those same banks he "defrauded" said they were fine with his statements and asked for more business.
You, Klamala and StUni sure are coming off as dipshits trying to spin these miscarriage of justice lawsuits as above board.
You sure you weren't a "technical" IE and not a professional? Really more of a methods process analyst (aka: Average Joe).
You mad bro? Have some repressed butthurt about Average Joes?
Here, I'll type it slow this time: doesn't matter whether or not the bank's officers were active participants in the scheme or just willing to turn a blind eye to obvious bullshit - the banks shareholders were defrauded of $168,000,000 in interest due to the fraudulent financial statement. womp womp.
No. This is a completely new interpretation of the law and in addition requires three factors for fraud. Your Uncle Edgeron said he only needed one factor.
This is douchebaggery at it's finest. No wonder you like it.
houndawg wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 7:49 pm
You mad bro? Have some repressed butthurt about Average Joes?
Here, I'll type it slow this time: doesn't matter whether or not the bank's officers were active participants in the scheme or just willing to turn a blind eye to obvious bullshit - the banks shareholders were defrauded of $168,000,000 in interest due to the fraudulent financial statement. womp womp.
No. This is a completely new interpretation of the law and in addition requires three factors for fraud. Your Uncle Edgeron said he only needed one factor.
This is douchebaggery at it's finest. No wonder you like it.
Is that why trump is so angry? He's getting a taste of his own medicine?
Expected response - tDS, tDS, tDS ... but please don't mention my compulsion to defend my false god trump against all criticism and mockery.
Last edited by UNI88 on Thu Feb 22, 2024 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
No. This is a completely new interpretation of the law and in addition requires three factors for fraud. Your Uncle Edgeron said he only needed one factor.
This is douchebaggery at it's finest. No wonder you like it.
Is that why trump is so angry? He's getting a taste of his own medicine?
Expected response - tDS, tDS, tDS ... but please don't mention my compulsion to defend my false god trump against all criticism and mockery.
Trump is a judge now? You don't make any sense at all.
You mad bro? Have some repressed butthurt about Average Joes?
Here, I'll type it slow this time: doesn't matter whether or not the bank's officers were active participants in the scheme or just willing to turn a blind eye to obvious bullshit - the banks shareholders were defrauded of $168,000,000 in interest due to the fraudulent financial statement. womp womp.
No. This is a completely new interpretation of the law and in addition requires three factors for fraud. Your Uncle Edgeron said he only needed one factor.
This is douchebaggery at it's finest. No wonder you like it.
I'm impressed! Where did you say you went to law school?
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
kalm wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 9:57 am
Just more stalling but imagine a ruling in his favor.
To be accurate I believe trump's argument is that a President is immune unless s/he is impeached. So biden could still be impeached if he did those things and then tried.
trump's argument is bullsh!t. A POTUS is not immune for words and actions not related to their official duties as President. What trump has been indicted for are words and actions not related to his official duties.
Last edited by UNI88 on Fri Feb 23, 2024 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
A president who’s above law is common sense? Go on…
We have one already…
If SCOTUS were to rule in Trump’s favor on this, that President who you think lacks common sense would be able to do whatever he wants as long as he doesn’t get impeached. You do know that was part ofTrump’s impeachment defense, right?
If SCOTUS were to rule in Trump’s favor on this, that President who you think lacks common sense would be able to do whatever he wants as long as he doesn’t get impeached. You do know that was part ofTrump’s impeachment defense, right?
They could pay off the national debt with pay per view waterboarding
You matter. Unless you multiply yourself by c squared. Then you energy.
"I really love America. I just don't know how to get there anymore."John Prine
If SCOTUS were to rule in Trump’s favor on this, that President who you think lacks common sense would be able to do whatever he wants as long as he doesn’t get impeached. You do know that was part ofTrump’s impeachment defense, right?
Who cares… impeachment in a Banana Republic is as common as the sunrise
If SCOTUS were to rule in Trump’s favor on this, that President who you think lacks common sense would be able to do whatever he wants as long as he doesn’t get impeached. You do know that was part ofTrump’s impeachment defense, right?
Who cares… impeachment in a Banana Republic is as common as the sunrise
1). It is? I don’t remember that many dictators and oligarchs being impeached.
2). Trump and MAGA are now pro-impeachment. You know that, right?
You want to see something funny… hit the streets with a video crew and ask regular people (not constipada like Doggie)
Why was Donald Trump impeached ?
The first trump impeachment was similar to biden's impeachment. Built on rumors and innuendo but no solid proof.
The second trump impeachment was absolutely deserved and the Senate should have convicted him. Unfortunately the first impeachment poisoned the well and Senators were afraid to do the right thing and put politics before country.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
