DONALD TRUMP - 34 times FELON

[kalm]

Concierge court and you can’t admit it.

No. You and UNI told us there is no such thing when all these cases came up. Trump was going down!

I called out the odd timing and cited Lawfare, but you stood by your claims. Now you've waffled?? I'm confused. Are the courts to be trusted or not?

Lawfare is an excuse for Trump’s behavior. No serious person uses the term. Only those who find no issue with the likes of Bondi and Blanche. Wah! Everything I don’t like is lawfare, DEI, and unfriendly media! Wah!

Judges are humans, prone to errors and inconsistency. Whether the courts should be trusted is not a black or white issue. At its core, the answer is no. Everything in life should questioned.

All of legal scholars were shocked by the presidential immunity decision. I’ll continue to side with the experts.

Hope this helps with your confusion.

[SeattleGriz]

No. You and UNI told us there is no such thing when all these cases came up. Trump was going down!

I called out the odd timing and cited Lawfare, but you stood by your claims. Now you've waffled?? I'm confused. Are the courts to be trusted or not?

Then quote the posts (with time and date stamps) where I said these things.

You could make an argument that the NY charges were lawfare but I didn’t and still don’t think the federal indictments were lawfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reread the threads.

[SeattleGriz]

No. You and UNI told us there is no such thing when all these cases came up. Trump was going down!

I called out the odd timing and cited Lawfare, but you stood by your claims. Now you've waffled?? I'm confused. Are the courts to be trusted or not?

Lawfare is an excuse for Trump’s behavior. No serious person uses the term. Only those who find no issue with the likes of Bondi and Blanche. Wah! Everything I don’t like is lawfare, DEI, and unfriendly media! Wah!

Judges are humans, prone to errors and inconsistency. Whether the courts should be trusted is not a black or white issue. At its core, the answer is no. Everything in life should questioned.

All of legal scholars were shocked by the presidential immunity decision. I’ll continue to side with the experts.

Hope this helps with your confusion.

But concierge courts is benign? Contradicting yourself AND backtracking is not a good look.

No legal scholars were confused. If anything, they were confused on how Bragg and Merchant allowed the case to be built. Hell, they couldn't even figure out his logic because he wouldn't tell anyone.

...and yet another Get Trump fail.

[UNI88]

Then quote the posts (with time and date stamps) where I said these things.

You could make an argument that the NY charges were lawfare but I didn’t and still don’t think the federal indictments were lawfare.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reread the threads.

You made the claim, back it up.

[SeattleGriz]

Reread the threads.

You made the claim, back it up.

This you?

You've told us before, you're not a legal scholar and it's showing. The documents, which you have no idea as to what they are, should be a civil case and it's not. I think he’s highly leveraged and the net value is less than a billion. That’s my opinion, no hard evidence needed. Don’t like my opinion, prove me wrong.

As you didn't answer my question about Trump's net worth, I'll say it. His tax returns were illegally leaked. Has a Presidents information ever been leaked like Trump's?

Then the person who leaked them should be charged. Has a modern presidential candidate ever refused to submit their returns?

I’ve told you why trump’s defying a subpoena, lying to the courts and obstructing the return of classified documents is different than it was for previous presidents but you’ve ignored those parts of my posts because it doesn’t fit the MAGAt yahoo narrative. You can’t refute it so you resort to mischaracterizing the offense.

Inciting a seditious riot meant to stop the Constitutional transfer of power is a civil case?

Election fraud (fake electors, threats veiled as requests to “find” votes, trying to bully state officials into not certifying results) is a civil case?

These were serious offenses and the resulting charges are not lawfare or a witch hunt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

You made the claim, back it up.

This you?

Then the person who leaked them should be charged. Has a modern presidential candidate ever refused to submit their returns?

I’ve told you why trump’s defying a subpoena, lying to the courts and obstructing the return of classified documents is different than it was for previous presidents but you’ve ignored those parts of my posts because it doesn’t fit the MAGAt yahoo narrative. You can’t refute it so you resort to mischaracterizing the offense.

Inciting a seditious riot meant to stop the Constitutional transfer of power is a civil case?

Election fraud (fake electors, threats veiled as requests to “find” votes, trying to bully state officials into not certifying results) is a civil case?

These were serious offenses and the resulting charges are not lawfare or a witch hunt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was and I stand by it. The federal indictments were not lawfare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk