Trump Must Pay Half a Billion Dollars Before He Can Appeal New York Decision

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: LeXoXeL

You're saying it was Trump's speech that is the reason for the high price?


Do I have that right?

So it was a speech and not his defense? Interesting take. I am guessing you have never had to face a judge, never been in a court of law? There are so many responses from you about law precedence, interpretations, but have you never been in front of a judge? You show them respect (cuz you know, law and order) you say please and thank you. Call him or her your honor or honorable. You argue your merits, pleade your case. You curry the judges favor because he or she holds your punishment in their hands. Those who show respect for the system (law and order) may or may not receive a slightly better or worse outcome. However, Trump did the literal opposite of that in every sense. He went out of his way to piss that judge off. Why? My guess is so he WOULD receive a harsher fine, which he could then use to bolster his idiotic "witch hunt" mantra. He didn't win and he certainly didn't play anyone as a sucker, except for maybe his loyal and unshakable throng.

a reply to: JinMI

Like Klassified said, you really ought not waste anymore of your time. They were schooled pages ago with your direct quote from Hur. You're never gonna get them to say they were wrong because they're not here for honest, intellectual discussion. They're here to shill.

I sometimes engage people like that as well. But after a few pages, once your points are made and the only people left in the thread are the extraordinarily closed-minded, the only good you might be doing is straightening the record for lurkers. And anyone lurking and still reading this thread saw their contradictions pages ago. There's not much else you can accomplish at this point.

They'll come with the same fascism-cheering nonsense to another thread, and by all means let them have it again just in case anyone new happens to be reading there.

Of course you're free to spend your time as you wish, that's just my two cents.

a reply to: LeXoXeL

Paragraphs, theyre a thing.

Regardless, your post indicated that Trumps speech was the reason for the high amount.


Is that an accurate representation of what you said?

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

While I do appreciate the sentiments, you also aptly described my purpose.


I also have to have some entertainment.

a reply to: JinMI

Feigned?

No just fed up with banging my head against your brick wall of a mind.

Feel free to have the last word. I know how important that is to you


Me? I couldn't give a monkey's.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Feigned?

No just fed up with banging my head against your brick wall of a mind.

Feel free to have the last word. I know how important that is to you


Me? I couldn't give a monkey's.

Youre awfully concerned about things you dont seem to care about.

Why do you think its ok to degrade people and their opinions then cry foul when the sentiment is returned?

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

We have concluded that there is not a prosecutable case against Biden. Although there was a basis to open the investigation based on the fact that classified documents were found in Biden’s homes and office space, that is insufficient to establish a crime was committed. The illegal retention or dissemination of national defense information requires that he knew of the existence of such documents and that he knew they contained national defense information. It is not a crime without those additional elements. Our investigation, after a thorough year-long review, concludes that there is an absence of such necessary proof. Indeed, we have found a number of innocent explanations as to which we found no contrary evidence to refute them and found affirmative evidence in support of them.

That's the conclusion of the Hur Report.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: LeXoXeL

Paragraphs, theyre a thing.

Regardless, your post indicated that Trumps speech was the reason for the high amount.


Is that an accurate representation of what you said?

Read the post, ask that question again. Then again. Then I will answer with just some snarky remark and not respond with any attempts to address your actual content.

Lol actually I'm not a dick. Let's replace the word speech since that infers a long winded declaration. His rhetoric got him in more trouble than he could have been. Yes. As happens to "we the people" in a court of law. As happens to everyone in front of a judge, since they are being "judged" hence the name.

Could I throw in my ignorant two penneth in. Firstly ALL cases can only be used once for any new law ie. even though you can barrack JinMi other cases DO matter. All prosecutions , bar the first one work, on precedence. That's why these top class lawyers consult these heavy tomes on past cases. ie. you can't find someone guilty of a crime is a precedence has been set in a previous or on going trial for the same offence. And as I see it that is exactly what they are doing and as a remit they are admitting that no one will be prosecuted for the same offence in the future. This "preferential" "selective" prosecutions should be addressed by the government as unlawful.

a reply to: LeXoXeL

His rhetoric got him in more trouble than he could have been.

Again.


Is it your position here and on the previous page that it was Trump's speech that resulted in the high damages decision?

a reply to: Klassified

Vlad the kremlin gang chief will help him pay.
Trump is a puppet of the Kremlin.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: LeXoXeL

His rhetoric got him in more trouble than he could have been.

Again.


Is it your position here and on the previous page that it was Trump's speech that resulted in the high damages decision?

Again

Answered your question. Not my fault you don't like the answer. That's a you problem.

Still waiting for answers on mine. For that matter others here have asked you questions as well. Yet here we are, you doing it better than everyone else lol

a reply to: JinMI

Because you are boring the tits off me?

Go find another mark.

a reply to: LeXoXeL

Yes, you did answer my question of:

Is it your position here and on the previous page that it was Trump's speech that resulted in the high damages decision?

Here:

His rhetoric got him in more trouble than he could have been.

Here:

He went out of his way to piss that judge off.

And here:

Political or not, Trump's court antics and social media posts about the judge got him that price tag.

You've zero credibility nor integrity.

A demonstrable liar.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Because you are boring the tits off me?

Go find another mark.

Yet you can't stop replying......


Fascinating.