(03-13-2024 10:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: (03-13-2024 09:22 AM)appst89 Wrote: Three different times you responded to something I didn't say just so you could regale us all with one of your 50,000 word diatribes. I pointed out your error and instead of owning up to it, you said it was my fault that you misunderstood what I said.
I sense a pattern... lol.
Also, to the 'I said I didn't know how it would turn out' is in and of itself indicative of misleading. This is a place for opinions, and people are entitled to them, regardless of 'how' they reach their conclusions. Tanq is no stranger to presenting his own opinion... nor to presenting his reasoning. Here for some reason (when it seems obvious to everyone else especially in light of Roe being returned to its original jurisdiction) that it was going to be at least 5-4... and with one simple question before the court... it ends up in a 9-0 decision, he is suddenly gobsmacked?? Odd.
I stated in this forum I did not know how it was going to turn out. Amazing that. I did not know at that time. Bummer for you.
Quote:and with one simple question before the court
And there were actually 7 or 8 questions in front of the court. All of which were first impression. Facts, Ham. try them. Or just stupid rhetorical flourishes which seems to be your best method. But actual facts are still better.
Kind of like the actual fact that i was asked how I thought it was going to turn out, and I honestly answered that I did not know. Most did not in the legal world. But leave it to you to ignore what I wrote. Again, you are quite devoid when it comes to actual facts divorced from stupid rhetoric.
'The best defense is a good offense' is clearly his mantra. He is after all, a card carrying member of the ABA... Always Be Attacking.
Quote:It's a quality that has value in the law... which is part of why lawyers have such a horrible reputation. They'll do anything to 'win'.
Just like you do above when referring to my comment I did not know how it would turn out, yet you seemingly feel so omniscient (a common occurrence for you) to try and downplay that I really did not have any idea how the 7 or 8 underlying questions presented to the court would turn out.
Quote:A congressman recently made this about as clear as could be during the Hur hearings...
All three of the last major political candidates have been found to have willfully retained and poorly stored top secret documents.
And you misconstrue willfully as with criminal intent. Awesome job there Ham. <slow clap> I think we had this conversation more than once.
Quote:They all knew they had them.
The record in the reports is indeterminate on two of them. And the third will have that decided in a court of law. Another whiff by the Hamdude.
Quote:They all denied repeatedly having them. Only one has been prosecuted for having them.
See the issue on criminal intent Ham. Makes a big difference. Or just ignore that issue as you try to have us do.
Quote: Don't bring up obstruction... that is an other charge...
And the actions therein which tie directly to presence of intent. Again, that issue is the major differentiator in why one is being prosecuted -- notwithstanding your wild gyrations on all the others.
Quote:Hillary destroying evidence... ALSO a crime, for which she will not be prosecuted.
Please do tell the actual facts about the above. Facts, those damn bugaboos for you. Please detail the precise facts that show clear intent by Hillary to do this? The record indicates the technicians did this, that the technicians said they did this of their own accord, and the record also indicates that there is zero evidence to contradict those comments. Even when the technicians were immunized to force their testimony.
The issue is whether there is a credible case to make in court, not whether Ham repeats generalized rhetoric. Amazing that.
Quote:They can't argue with what you said or what really happened, so they have to argue with their preferred version of what you said or what happened.
Coming from the post full of nothing but rhetoric and a few misstatements, your comment above is exceedingly rich. Lol.
My 'preferred' version is the one richer with facts. Not richer with Hamworld thin rhetoric, supposition, and cheap false equivalences.
As a final issue Ham, the number is *four* people with this issue. Not three. Considering you omit a Republican that was 'no billed' (and shoots down your laser like differentiation), was that mission just a stupid oversight on your part, or a convenient oversight that runs counter to your claim of bias?
