Who would still defend Trump?
Oct 6, 2023 11:49:31 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
The Aardvark Is Ready wrote:
What do I base it on? The fact that I'm not stupid... (show quote)
And you're not a cultist?
Oct 6, 2023 11:53:18 #
Oct 6, 2023 12:00:49 #
thom w wrote:
"yes, SOME of his trials are politically moti... (show quote)
The courts and juries don't agree with you. I agree with them.
It's evident you've never been involved in filing corporate reports and the rules surrounding them. Also, juries are unpredictable - they are instructed to do what they believe is justice within the parameters of the crime.
Oct 6, 2023 12:08:20 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
Triple G wrote:
The courts and juries don't agree with you. I agree with them.
It's evident you've never been involved in filing corporate reports and the rules surrounding them. Also, juries are unpredictable - they are instructed to do what they believe is justice within the parameters of the crime.
It's evident you've never been involved in filing corporate reports and the rules surrounding them. Also, juries are unpredictable - they are instructed to do what they believe is justice within the parameters of the crime.
I believe the post should have been directed to Aardvark.
Oct 6, 2023 13:01:21 #
thom w wrote:
I believe the post should have been directed to Aardvark.
You are correct...my apologies. Covid fog!
Oct 6, 2023 14:08:30 #
Triple G wrote:
The courts and juries don't agree with you. I agree with them.
It's evident you've never been involved in filing corporate reports and the rules surrounding them. Also, juries are unpredictable - they are instructed to do what they believe is justice within the parameters of the crime.
It's evident you've never been involved in filing corporate reports and the rules surrounding them. Also, juries are unpredictable - they are instructed to do what they believe is justice within the parameters of the crime.
So you believe in courts and juries when it suits your political leanings. Did you agree with the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict? Just be honest and admit you're just like me, you obviously favor the decisions you like.
You're 100% correct. I am like the majority of people in this country in that I am unfamiliar with filing corporate reports. Are you referring to the Daniels case or the current fraud case? If it's the current case, who are the aggrieved parties?
Oct 6, 2023 14:22:04 #
The Aardvark Is Ready wrote:
So you believe in courts and juries when it suits your political leanings. Did you agree with the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict? Just be honest and admit you're just like me, you obviously favor the decisions you like.
You're 100% correct. I am like the majority of people in this country in that I am unfamiliar with filing corporate reports. Are you referring to the Daniels case or the current fraud case? If it's the current case, who are the aggrieved parties?
You're 100% correct. I am like the majority of people in this country in that I am unfamiliar with filing corporate reports. Are you referring to the Daniels case or the current fraud case? If it's the current case, who are the aggrieved parties?
I'm not going to call you a Cultist, but it is obvious, to me and others, you are a Defender. It's okay to come out of the MAGA closet. You might think you are passing as... neutral? You are not. lol
Oct 6, 2023 14:51:31 #
ArtzDarkroom wrote:
Are there still Trump defenders? Just curious. br ... (show quote)
I recall Archie stating that he is better than Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. Here in this forum.
Oct 6, 2023 14:59:23 #
The Aardvark Is Ready wrote:
So you believe in courts and juries when it suits your political leanings. Did you agree with the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict? Just be honest and admit you're just like me, you obviously favor the decisions you like.
You're 100% correct. I am like the majority of people in this country in that I am unfamiliar with filing corporate reports. Are you referring to the Daniels case or the current fraud case? If it's the current case, who are the aggrieved parties?
You're 100% correct. I am like the majority of people in this country in that I am unfamiliar with filing corporate reports. Are you referring to the Daniels case or the current fraud case? If it's the current case, who are the aggrieved parties?
Aggrieved parties aren't needed--fraud is fraud.
I didn't agree with the case you mentioned, but I accept it as determined by the court. See the difference?
Oct 6, 2023 14:59:55 #
ArtzDarkroom wrote:
I'm not going to call you a Cultist, but it is obvious, to me and others, you are a Defender. It's okay to come out of the MAGA closet. You might think you are passing as... neutral? You are not. lol
Definitely not neutral.
Oct 6, 2023 15:03:03 #
ArtzDarkroom wrote:
I'm not going to call you a Cultist, but it is obvious, to me and others, you are a Defender. It's okay to come out of the MAGA closet. You might think you are passing as... neutral? You are not. lol
Why not? You seem to want to. Just be honest and say it.
You seem to be not following along. When Have I ever, ever, claimed to be neutral? I am definitely 100% not neutral. Apparently you didn't even read the post you're responding to very thoroughly. In it I very clearly said I have biases. Go read it again.
So you've admitted that you can't believe someone can defend someone they don't like on some issues. You're too emotional and not very rational.
Is Alan Dershowitz a member of the MAGA cult? I know he has become the new boogeyman of the left. But he has a whole career that you can go back and examine and show us his MAGA tendencies. Or was he a secret Cultist all along and just now came out of the "closet?"
But anyway, I'm glad I amuse you. My mission is accomplished.
Oct 6, 2023 15:04:41 #
Triple G wrote:
Definitely not neutral.
When have I ever claimed to be neutral? I stated in my post to you I have biases just like you. Did you miss it.
Oct 6, 2023 15:11:00 #
[quote=Triple G]Aggrieved parties aren't needed--fraud is fraud.
Yes I see the difference. That's why I asked you the question. As I stated you AGREE with the juries and courts when it's a decision you agree with. I didn't ask you if you accepted it. You have no choice but to accept it. So who was defrauded?
Yes I see the difference. That's why I asked you the question. As I stated you AGREE with the juries and courts when it's a decision you agree with. I didn't ask you if you accepted it. You have no choice but to accept it. So who was defrauded?
Oct 6, 2023 15:35:53 #
[quote=The Aardvark Is Ready]
Everyone who relied on Trump (his accountants) and on the Trump financial documents.
Triple G wrote:
Aggrieved parties aren't needed--fraud is fraud.
Yes I see the difference. That's why I asked you the question. As I stated you AGREE with the juries and courts when it's a decision you agree with. I didn't ask you if you accepted it. You have no choice but to accept it. So who was defrauded?
Yes I see the difference. That's why I asked you the question. As I stated you AGREE with the juries and courts when it's a decision you agree with. I didn't ask you if you accepted it. You have no choice but to accept it. So who was defrauded?
Everyone who relied on Trump (his accountants) and on the Trump financial documents.
Oct 6, 2023 15:47:41 #
Triple G wrote:
Everyone who relied on Trump (his accountants) and on the Trump financial documents.
Again I admit I know very little when it comes to this kinda stuff. How were his accountants defrauded? Why did they not sue? Who else relied on the documents? The banks certainly don't. They don't rely on an applicants self reported numbers. They have their own assessors, don't they?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.