I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

(10-13-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

I can’t get past laughing at ‘checking the box’ went full circle(s) …

(10-13-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

Oh my! What a troll job. I’d rep you but I don’t know how

(10-13-2023 11:02 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I bet he got a C in civ pro which is why he does transactional work.

Maddy poo, sparkles?

(10-13-2023 11:09 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

Oh my! What a troll job. I’d rep you but I don’t know how

Well that hurts

(10-13-2023 11:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:09 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

Oh my! What a troll job. I’d rep you but I don’t know how

Well that hurts

He’s writing another War and Peace in response

(10-13-2023 11:06 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

I can’t get past laughing at ‘checking the box’ went full circle(s) …

(10-13-2023 11:12 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:09 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

Oh my! What a troll job. I’d rep you but I don’t know how

Well that hurts

He’s writing another War and Peace in response

Don't you threaten me with something I'll glance over.

(10-13-2023 11:14 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:12 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:11 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:09 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

Oh my! What a troll job. I’d rep you but I don’t know how

Well that hurts

He’s writing another War and Peace in response

Don't you threaten me with something I'll glance over.

Have we finally put an end to this?

(10-13-2023 11:32 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Have we finally put an end to this?

Two certain posters:

(10-12-2023 10:03 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 09:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:Does it not bother you even a little? Or is it okay because the laws are just being "used"?

He's okay with it because the target is Trump... and that apparently the AG (before she was AG) was able to adjudicate Trump's guilt without the need for an investigation, judge OR jury.

But when she does we got this judge. Just coincidence I’m sure.

The fact that she was correct that running on a platform of 'getting Trump would get her elected speaks volumes

(10-12-2023 10:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Changing a civil fraud prosecution of a person who seemingly has performed acts of fraud to a comment on cops pulling over blacks is simply stupid, Ham.

I never did that, demonstrably.

I changed targeting someone because they are a Republican to targeting them because they are black.

Quote:Im noting that that judge knows just a little fing more than Ham in the respect of whom might be engaged in NY 63(12) fraud.

Sure, but he clearly knows vastly LESS than Ham about how you might value a business entity and/or how even misrepresentations about that value might impact the lending system.

Quote:But please get so mad at that note that, compared to a jurist of 20+ years, that you probably dont know **** from shinola over your conclusory statement above about the case in front of him.

Dude... the idiot quite literally used 'tax assessments' as part of his evidence of that fraud.

Yes, he is a highly skilled liberal judge, who clearly knows how to manipulate the law to get his preferred outcome. You seem to think this is a virtue... to me, numbers and most of the rest of the people on this forum, that is a risk, not a virtue.

Quote:Did I get that sequence correct Ham? Lolz. Quite the display there…..

The next time you accurately represent a conversation between us will be the first time on this forum.

Quote:From my perspective, it looks like James said 'I will investigate Trump" --

A self-serving perspective.

Here... just the first one I found... USNWR, a generally respected source... 9.28.23...

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Letitia James fixated on Donald Trump as she campaigned for New York attorney general, branding the then-president a “con man” and ″carnival barker” and pledging to shine a “bright light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings.”

That sounds to me and anyone else with a brain like a conclusion, not something yet to be investigated.... and she said it during her campaign... apparently BEFORE she had even LOOKED into his 'dark corners'.

Quote:

Quote:As I've repeatedly said... I never GET to the facts of the case, because all that matters to me is that the 'system' is corrupt.

Glad to know you are willingly ignorant of the facts then. Seems about right considering the gist of many of our recent conversations.

Noce to know you dont give a **** about the facts. Yay. (I guess).

If this is your position, then don't whine like a ***** when you are accused of supporting 'the ends justifying the means'.... and of course, you ignore that 'I never GET to the facts of this case' doesn't mean I ignore them... it simply means that they have not yet entered the equation. If the system is corrupt, then it does not hold the moral ground to judge ANYONE.

Quote:Are you now trying to defend you shallow **** statement about 'they wrote the law to simply charge political opponents'? Lolz.

Nope... I don't need to defend your lack of reading comprehension. You later hedge this accusation by saying 'some similar comment'... and you're right, it IS similar... like how innocent and not guilty are similar, but not the same. I say this because I have never once argued that he is innocent... not once... I have merely argued that unjust prosecution sometimes lead to 'not guilty' findings.... so it makes sense to insure the former before I even bother with the latter. You seem to prefer 'getting the bad guy', even if it means using unjust means.... yet you bristle at the suggestion.

I said they (the judge and AG) used the law they (the government, of which they are a part) wrote to charge political opponents. I did not remotely say that this law was written for the purpose of doing so... I said it was being USED to do so. I've repeatedly ASKED you to tell me what the purpose of this filing (which is only part of the law, and the part that leads to the 'guilt' of fraud') is, and you have danced around it. So I'll ask again... what is the purpose of this filing? Who relies on this information that cannot defend themselves and would be victimized from misrepresentations in it? Use the facts of which you are so proud in this case for simplicity. Who in this case relied on Trump's disclosures to even the POTENTIAL risk of any other borrower?

You've repeatedly declined to answer such a simple question using straight forward words. The words the judge used to answer this question are not true.

FTR, I'm no longer interested in your answer nor opinion... on anything really.

Quote:

Quote:No you wouldn't... because I have never once argued that Trump was innocent. Not once. I've never gotten to that part because IMO, the judge and AG have acted inappropriately.

Lolz. Ham the Great OPINES that the 20+ year jurist acted inappropriately. The WORLD must make note. Lolz.

More evidence of your delusions of grandeur.

This is a mostly inconsequential internet forum... and since you're arguing not only with me, but about half a dozen others on this same topic, it seems that the one of us that things of themselves and their opinions as 'the great' is obvious... I couldn't make up more damning evidence than you are here.

Quote:

Quote:They, the government or as I said, the legal system has numerous parts of which the AG and Judge are only a part... but 'they' the government wrote a law that 'they' the government are enforcing, prosecuting and adjudicating. Only to a complete idiot must that 'they' be the same identical people.

I am glad to know that the NY law was written to go after (someone's) political opponents. We still cant get the (someone) straight, mainly because it is a load of utter bull**** -- but Ham keeps digging. And in true Ham fashion he lashes out at getting his own specious rhetorical crap called out. Yay.

Yeah... this is just more of you either lying or being an idiot.

There is a perfectly legitimate reason for requiring operational tail lights... I know what it is... There MAY be a perfectly legitimate reason for this requirement. I haven't seen it, but because it isn't an 'bad' thing I have only suspected that it might be unnecessary in the manner in which it is being applied here... as in if the lender doesn't rely on it, then it does not add risk to the loan.... but just like the racist cop, even if the law IS perfectly legitimate, that doesn't mean that those enforcing it are.

Quote:

Quote:Damn, I know a place that was targeted because they were drug sellers. And funnily, they were charged with drug selling. That is *so* bad. So unjust. Lolz.

Okay... you did this to yourself...

Let the forum be on notice that Tanq just compared 'being black' to 'being drug sellers'.

Not at all, I made a completely independent scenario. Leave it to you for the kneejerk specious crap.
[/quote]
Go **** yourself Tanq. You do this to me every single time I post, and not ONE of my posts says what you absolutely said here. Repeating what you always say... I'm just responding to precisely what you wrote.

I used an analogy of a racist cop targeting people who are black for enforcement as being a bad thing, even if the people were guilty of crimes...
and you offered the counter position that it was perfectly okay to target criminals, because they are criminals.

Your analogy was not remotely 'independent'.

Quote:He's okay with it because the target is Trump... and that apparently the AG (before she was AG) was able to adjudicate Trump's guilt without the need for an investigation, judge OR jury.

It is fairly clear to see that Cohen talked a lot in 2018. To the extent that at least 3 agencies, federal and state based, started investigations in that year. Do you think James is deaf, dumb, and blind?[/quote]

How are all of those investigations coming? Do you recall in law school (or really, civics class) the concept of 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'? As I said, she didn't promise to INVESTIGATE Trump... She promised to CONVICT him.... to an audience that was all too happy to elect her to do just that... and you're not surprised when she finds a sympathetic judge in that same jurisdiction?

Seriously, laughable.

Quote:PS: tough three days of testimony against yor guy. My guess is you dont follow it because you are sticking your fingers in your ears?

Funny that you make this claim, while demonstrably doing it yourself.

I said from the start and have repeated it numerous times... I am not really that interested in whether Trump is guilty or innocent. That (I trust and hope) will work itself out through the ENTIRE system (though perhaps over years) and not just through a favorable (to the prosecution) one. What I care about is being certain that the system is not unjust.

I've said this dozens of times, and you just stick your fingers in your ears and keep making it about the outcome.

Ignorant.

Literally your excuse here is that the evidence that you have that the system is not unjust is that in your infallible opinion, Trump is guilty... which of course has nothing to do with whether or not the system is just. Even a guilty man deserves a fair trial... the presumption of innocence... an unbiased adjudication... choose your adjectives... and of course, that the claims of fact (like the value of the properties, the purpose of the laws and the risks to the system that justify the prosecution, since there IS no victim here etc) are actually facts and not opinions.

(10-13-2023 01:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I do not know whether Donald Trump is guilty or innocent of any crime.

I am fairly certain that those in law enforcement pursuing him are dishonest and biased, and that they have cherry picked similarly dishonest and biased judges to hear their cases.

We have a huge bureaucracy in law enforcement and other areas of government who believe that imposing their will on the populace is more important than doing the will of the people or following our Constitution, and the patRIOT act and its progeny have enabled them like never before. And I see that as the biggest threat, by far, to our democratic republic.

My entire point from the start. Just be glad 'JD" has not decided to challenge you on every concept... I mean honestly numbers... you must be sticking your fingers in your ears or believing nonsense and pulling ideas out of your ass to not see Trump's guilt and to even remotely THINK about questioning the motivations or actions of this prosecution. I mean, the evidence is clear against Trump which makes any bias in the system irrelevant.... except to an idiot. lol

(10-13-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

The victim is a liberal's favorite victim.... the one who FEELS victimized.... not anyone who actually is.

Geez Ham.. That's alot to digest.

(10-13-2023 10:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 09:39 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 09:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 09:41 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-12-2023 05:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The AG checking the 'no jury' box isnt the end of it as you seemingly make it to be above.

Only one party needs to 'check the jury box' for a jury trial to be considered. And Allina could have 'checked the jury box', and could have made a motion for it if the judge tossed it. And then nothing prevented her from arguing that motion.

The fact that there was no jury at the outset absolutely means that both sides *chose* non-jury. In that case, either Trump specifically chose to agree to a bench trial, or Habba never talked to her client about it and chose that route herself.

Bummer. Keep digging.

Bummer. Basic Civ Pro.

Its amazing how you keep doubling down on stupid.

We warned you not to fall for a Tom post that talked about the jury box not being checked. But it was anti-Trump, so you swallowed it.

When I presented you with lawyers from NJ, who were no fans of Trump, who said there was no jury trial option for this charge, you instead believed Tom. You didt believe the lawyers who deal with this in NY, you believed Tom.

ANd that doesnt touch the issue of any attorney, and a client (any attorney, any client) can *request* a jury trial (checking one of two boxes in a Note of Issue), make a motion, and argue it. Habba never filed any Notice of Issue. She simply went with the flow of a no jury trial.

Just like the judge commented.

I dont care which way she went -- but it is ridiculous to complain about it when they very much could have motioned it, and argued it.

Quote:Now that the judge has had to correct his own record, in which he falsely proclaimed Trumps team did not request a jury trial,

Read the above. Not just that, you misstate what the judge said. Here is his direct quote at the start of the trial: "“Neither side asked for one (a jury trial)". Kind of 180 degrees apart from what you say he proclaimed above.

Quote:and instead, a jury trial was not available due to the charge, you STILL BELIEVE TOM.

it may not. But again, *nothing* prevents an attorney, or a client (any attorney, any client) from *requesting* the jury trial, making a motion, and arguing that motion that a jury trial is proper. Sometimes a judge will grant that to a limited extent.

The only issue is Trump complaining loudly about the lack of a jury trial. Which is funny, because if he *really* wanted a jury trial -- nothing, and I mean *nothing* prevented him from instructing his attorneys to 'check the box for a jury trial', file a motion, and argue it.

Quote:And the sad fact is if Trump's attorney did check a box for a jury trial, you'd be sky screaming for them to get disbarred because they attempted to grab a jury trial when it wasnt available.

Trumps attorney, and Trump, has every right to request a jury (by checking the box for a jury in a Note of Issue), and argue for it in a motion.

Any attorney has that right. Any client has that right.

Period. Nice 'whatif' though.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawyer-vi...al-1833941

Quote:"But Trump's legal team absolutely could have requested a jury, litigated the issue, and then appealed had they lost," Honig added.

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/04/trump-f...-york-jury

Quote: Trump has claimed it's "unfair" that the judge in the case opted for a bench trial, without a jury. But the court docket shows that while Attorney General Letitia James filed a document requesting a bench trial, Trump's lawyers never filed any corresponding document requesting a jury.

If Trump's team had requested a jury, then Judge Arthur Engoron would have had to consider both sides' requests.

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/...fraud-case

Quote:To get a ruling on the issue, Trump’s lawyers could have filed a jury demand and then litigated their right to one,

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/10/03/t...check-box/

Quote: As Schoen noted, however, there is no reason why the Trump legal team could not have at least attempted to [request a jury trial], as First American Corporation did in their failed appeal for a jury trial in 2011.

My issues isnt that Habba didnt request a jury triel -- that is clearly a decision for a defendant. My issue is that the defendant's team (and Trump) complained about no jury --- yet never lifted a finger to try and get one. When they could have actually requested it, made a motion, and argued for it.

Water off my back on whether they did or not -- their choice. But it is a choice -- and it is stupid to complain when they *could* have at least tried to get one, since it isnt entirely clear that a jury is available or not under that law.

oh FFS, now you are quoting snopes? You're going to get another -3 for that.

Also, while I was neg repping you, I see that almost all of your positive reps are coming from Tom. A 12 year old girl in heat wouldnt give justin Bieber that much knob slobbing. Its disgusting, and you should take a giant hint that your mental state has pushed you that far to the clueless side.

(10-13-2023 12:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I used an analogy of a racist cop targeting people who are black for enforcement as being a bad thing, even if the people were guilty of crimes...
and you offered the counter position that it was perfectly okay to target criminals, because they are criminals.

I offered the position it is okay to target someone you think is bent, it is okay to investigate that concern, and okay to charge them if/when you have evidence.

At least get that straight.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:He's okay with it because the target is Trump... and that apparently the AG (before she was AG) was able to adjudicate Trump's guilt without the need for an investigation, judge OR jury.

It is fairly clear to see that Cohen talked a lot in 2018. To the extent that at least 3 agencies, federal and state based, started investigations in that year. Do you think James is deaf, dumb, and blind?

How are all of those investigations coming?

Bragg -- indictment
NY felony case against trump organizations and CFO -- guilty.
This civil fraud case -- ongoing.

Summary Judgment in tis case for persistent fraud to wit.

Next point, please.

Quote:Do you recall in law school (or really, civics class) the concept of 'innocent until PROVEN guilty'? As I said, she didn't promise to INVESTIGATE Trump... She promised to CONVICT him.... to an audience that was all too happy to elect her to do just that... and you're not surprised when she finds a sympathetic judge in that same jurisdiction?

Care to post the comments on where she promised to "CONVICT" Trump?

"Shining a bright light into every dark corner of his real estate holdings" -- uhh. Not there.

"I will never be afraid to challenge [Trump]" -- uh..... not there.

"[Trump] should be charged with obstructing justice" (again with reference the Cohen-Daniels stuff that got Cohen to sing, and a point to be made with Trump handling that end of it) --- uh.... not there. Not only that there hasnt been a charge of obstructing justice from her.

"I believe [Trump] can be indicted for criminal offenses" --- still not there on the promise to convict.

"demanding truthfulness at every turn" --- ooohh.... thats a scary one.

All the above at --- https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023...tm-vpx.cnn

Quote:In interviews during her campaign, James said that not pursuing evidence of wrongdoing by Trump or the NRA would have been a “dereliction of my duty”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023...%E2%80%9D.

Hmm.... pursuing 'evidence'. Amazing that.

Let me ask you the same question Ham -- Do you understand the issue of 'promising to convict' vs 'promising to investigate'. Same basic civics background, Ham. And some English language. And a little bit of not repeating whole exaggerations all at once.

Once again -- facts.

Quote:Seriously, laughable.

In light of the facts above, yes it is laughable, Ham. The statements I found don’t seem to track your claim very well. There well may a quote where she promises a conviction, or even promises a criminal charge during her 2018 campaign. I can’t find one. If you want to link where James said she promises to CONVICT, I’m all ears.

Post 2018 there were investigations galore. I still can’t find statements by her promising a conviction, as you claim above after the 2018 election. Again, if you wish, love to see a link to those statements and promises you claim above.

Quote:

Quote:PS: tough three days of testimony against yor guy. My guess is you dont follow it because you are sticking your fingers in your ears?

Funny that you make this claim, while demonstrably doing it yourself.

I knew that would rile you -- for a point.

And you consistently bang your feet that I am 'nothing but get Trump' -- all the while studiously ignoring my own comments, past and present, to the contrary. Said them twice yesterday. Noce of you to continuously overlook them in the manner, Ham.

Funny that. Just like you ***** above.

I havent rolled that one out since another of your temper tantrums. Now that you ignore my comments, I thought it would be a great way to make the point to you.

If you are going to be a hypocritical ******* on the issue, bummer.

Quote:I said from the start and have repeated it numerous times... I am not really that interested in whether Trump is guilty or innocent. That (I trust and hope) will work itself out through the ENTIRE system (though perhaps over years) and not just through a favorable (to the prosecution) one. What I care about is being certain that the system is not unjust.

I've said this dozens of times, and you just stick your fingers in your ears and keep making it about the outcome.

Funny you do the same fing thing -- even in light of my comments as to 'Trump has a every opportunity to present his evidence, and it may very well change my mind.' I think four times yesterday and today. Even more previously.

And my continued comments on the Bragg charge.

But please squawk some more about how aggrieved you are on that, when you pull the exact same fing **** time after time. Just as you do bolded below in your response, and literally countless times this week elsewhere.

I knew you would flip a Ham lid and say the above --- thank you for opening that subject up in a very predictable manner.

Quote:Ignorant.

Yes, claiming what Letitia said in a false, overly exaggerated manner as an ultimte truth actually is ignorant. Highly ignorant. Absolutely.

As is roping me for 'nothing but get Trump', notwithstanding many comments to the opposite.

Ripping me for the above (and I acknowledge that you hammer and jump on the above issue) is *actually* correct. You dont seem to recognize that same exact **** from you, for some odd reason.

The fact that you squawk like a fing little baby when you *studiously* ignore my own comments that are not 'get Trump at all costs' is priceless in light of the temper tantrum I evoked in you above. Absolutely priceless.

The fact you ***** like a little baby on that, and *continue* your own version of that is *absolutely* ignorant Ham. Thank you for your entree to that. (standing ovation)

Quote:Literally your excuse here is that the evidence that you have that the system is not unjust is that in your infallible opinion, Trump is guilty.. which of course has nothing to do with whether or not the system is just.

Absolutely not Ham. I had a conversation on just that point with a fellow board member yesterday -- which he seemed to understand my position pretty well. As opposed to your continued screaming and gnashing.

If you want to discuss my opinion on this matter -- James absolutely promised to investigate Trump. She did. With help (a lot) from Cohen, and a lot of help with discovery in felony fraud convictions of the Trump organizations and the CFO, she seemingly has evidence to proceed to the next step.

And for about the 8th time in last two days, the testimony looks bad. Trump has every opportunity to defend himself. If trump puts forth evidence that counters the stuff James has brought to court, both in the trial and in the SJ, I reserve the right to change my opinion on the matter.

Yep, so amazingly 'get Trump at any cost there'. But please keep acting like the took I acted as when I rolled out the 'your guy' stuff above. I studiously avoided tagging you with that after a previous Ham temper tantrum. I am glad to catch your attention to yor studious lack of self-awareness in that avenue.

Lol. (slow clap)

Quote:Even a guilty man deserves a fair trial... the presumption of innocence... an unbiased adjudication... choose your adjectives... and of course, that the claims of fact (like the value of the properties, the purpose of the laws and the risks to the system that justify the prosecution, since there IS no victim here etc) are actually facts and not opinions.

Nice speech. Where do I oppose a fair trial , Ham? Or a presumption of innocence? Or unbiased adjudication?

And you consistently miss the purposed of disgorgement. Along with some very good background testimony.

Maybe you missed the testimony of the Deutsche Bank private wealth banker who detailed why Trump's continued lies were a material issue for his bank?

Or the several policy articles I sent you that spell out a fairly basic truism that persistent fraud, no matter what it is, distorts whatever market it is introduced in.

Damn! I thought this was over but the black knight says it’s only a flesh wound

(10-13-2023 11:09 AM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-13-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

Oh my! What a troll job. I’d rep you but I don’t know how

(10-13-2023 01:11 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Damn! I thought this was over but the black knight says it’s only a flesh wound

Its as bad a beatdown as ive seen in a long time

Tanq
As I'm sure you know, I had a 'section by section' refutation of your multiple missives, mostly centering on the fact that she singled out one person for prosecution, even with specific charges (obstruction) before ANY investigation into ANY of the allegations you mentioned... and two of the three STILL do not have verdicts... but upon further thought, I realized that you have no interest in actual dialogue... you simply want to hammer your points and ignore anything that doesn't support your conclusion... just as you have for more than a year now... so I decided to abandon that act...

I DO however want to respond to this... which I think is mostly a mic drop on your narcissistic BS.

(10-13-2023 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:PS: tough three days of testimony against yor guy. My guess is you dont follow it because you are sticking your fingers in your ears?

Funny that you make this claim, while demonstrably doing it yourself.

I knew that would rile you -- for a point.

Now that you ignore my comments, I thought it would be a great way to make the point to you.

If you are going to be a hypocritical ******* on the issue, bummer.

Let's start with this.
First, you have admitted to trolling. This is not the right forum for that.

More important though... you have equated our actions which means if I am being hypocritical, then so are you... by your own words... which means you have also admitted to being a hypocrite.

For someone who obviously thinks themselves intelligent, this is not demonstrating 'that'.

That said, I can clearly differentiate between our positions... using the words (from memory) that we have both used.

I am skeptical of the integrity of the prosecution... and I want that critically vetted before I even delve into the guilt or innocence of the accused. Much, but certainly not all nor even a majority of what they have said supports my belief. You alternatively have said on numerous occasions that you would at least somewhat agree with some of the contentions, IF Trump were not a criminal... so much of your contention is predicated on Trump's guilt. He broke the law, so you are willing to look past much of what concerns me... and many others.

The problem with your repeated insulting contention is that at least one of the other people whom I suspect you respect agrees very much with my position... and you just choose to gloss over that. I am reticent to throw numbers under the bus, but the facts are the facts.

So if I am a hypocrite, like you have admitted to being, then so too is he.

He may have (in your mind) a better argument for his position, but that really makes no difference because we're talking about hypocrisy... and if it is demonstrable against me... someone who has NEVER voted for Trump and challenges the prosecution first, then it is also demonstrable against him.... someone who similarly has never voted for Trump, and challenges the prosecution here first.

I am confident you don't want to say that... but no matter what BS you want to spew in response, those are the clear and simple facts.

The BEST you can respond to this would be that 'you think' that what I think is not what I say, that I have not gotten to Trump's guilt or innocence... is not what I really think.... and that instead you are more of an expert on what I think than I am.... which is of course, your narcissism showing through.

[/end]

(10-13-2023 11:05 AM)gdunn Wrote:  I'm still trying to figure out who the victim in this is.. If the banks and partners made money and didn't file a complaint, what's the problem?

There is no victim. This is 100% nothing more than a political witch hunt to try and keep Trump off the ballot. We've seen it before. It's nauseating.