Trumps fraud case: Dems now begging to not be sanctioned

[F1erce 88]

The judge really laid into the Dem prosecutors & they even gave them hours to try to find evidence. Couldn’t find it every single time. Now their closing arguments are them begging to not be sanctioned  

Remind me again, which retards here kept claiming Trump was guilty?  

[jerryskids 6,558]

 

[shadrap 220]

not a lot of libs in here on this.

[Strike 5,185]

Waiting for something more official than a Tik Tok video, but that's pretty much what a bunch of us predicted throughout that trial, but @The Real timschochet assured us that case was valid because he trusts the government to never do anything nefarious.

[MDC 7,124]

5 hours ago, F1erce said:

The judge really laid into the Dem prosecutors & they even gave them hours to try to find evidence. Couldn’t find it every single time.

Reminds me of Don’s muh fraud court cases.

[WhiteWonder 2,675]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Reminds me of Don’s muh fraud court cases.

 

Don 

[Mike Honcho 5,096]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

Waiting for something more official than a Tik Tok video, but that's pretty much what a bunch of us predicted throughout that trial, but @The Real timschochet assured us that case was valid because he trusts the government to never do anything nefarious.

Makes you smarter than Elon. 

[Horseman 2,354]

Not a felon.

[Strike 5,185]

Does anyone have a link to an actual news story on this?  The only stuff I've been able to find is from a hearing on 9/26.  I actually watched the appeals court testimony and, while I think it favors Trump, it isn't as damning as the video Elon posted makes it.  So I'm trying to see if there's something new that I'm missing.  Otherwise, we might want to slow our roll and wait for the decision from the appeals court. 

[shadrap 220]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Does anyone have a link to an actual news story on this?  The only stuff I've been able to find is from a hearing on 9/26.  I actually watched the appeals court testimony and, while I think it favors Trump, it isn't as damning as the video Elon posted makes it.  So I'm trying to see if there's something new that I'm missing.  Otherwise, we might want to slow our roll and wait for the decision from the appeals court. 

yes, you are right.

[F1erce 88]

22 hours ago, Strike said:

Does anyone have a link to an actual news story on this?  The only stuff I've been able to find is from a hearing on 9/26.  I actually watched the appeals court testimony and, while I think it favors Trump, it isn't as damning as the video Elon posted makes it.  So I'm trying to see if there's something new that I'm missing.  Otherwise, we might want to slow our roll and wait for the decision from the appeals court. 

They had it live on YT and the video is on there if you’re curious. Either way, it looks like this case is going to be reversed, Trump will get his money back, and the prosecutor will, more likely than not, be sanctioned & disbarred. All those other felonies will, more likely than not, will be dismissed as well cause they’re also bogus charges. All this does is make the Dems look worse & shows how they’re weaponizing the federal government against their political rival 

[Strike 5,185]

6 minutes ago, F1erce said:

They had it live on YT and the video is on there if you’re curious. Either way, it looks like this case is going to be reversed, Trump will get his money back, and the prosecutor will, more likely than not, be sanctioned & disbarred. All those other felonies will, more likely than not, will be dismissed as well cause they’re also bogus charges. All this does is make the Dems look worse & shows how they’re weaponizing the federal government against their political rival 

Is this the heading from 9/26?  I watched that yesterday.   Have you?

[F1erce 88]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Is this the heading from 9/26?  I watched that yesterday.   Have you?

Yes I watched

[Strike 5,185]

Just now, F1erce said:

Yes I watched

Then you are grossly inflating how favorable it was for Trump.  Not sure if you're trolling or just didn't interpret it correctly but I'll wait for the official decision before celebrating. 

[F1erce 88]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Then you are grossly inflating how favorable it was for Trump.  Not sure if you're trolling or just didn't interpret it correctly but I'll wait for the official decision before celebrating. 

Are you retarded? They literally begged to not be sanctioned during their closing arguments  I don’t know if YOU are trolling or just trying be an ass & argue. But the facts remain: judges flat out told them their case is bogus, judges gave them time to find any case similar & they couldn’t, prosecution couldn’t back up any of the charges or why the amount was so high, and the prosecution begged to not be sanctioned during their closing arguments. 
 

Not celebrating but you’d have to be a retarded moron to think it went favorable for the prosecution & not for Trump

[Horseman 2,354]

 

 

[Mike Honcho 5,096]

16 hours ago, F1erce said:

Are you retarded? They literally begged to not be sanctioned during their closing arguments  I don’t know if YOU are trolling or just trying be an ass & argue. But the facts remain: judges flat out told them their case is bogus, judges gave them time to find any case similar & they couldn’t, prosecution couldn’t back up any of the charges or why the amount was so high, and the prosecution begged to not be sanctioned during their closing arguments. 
 

Not celebrating but you’d have to be a retarded moron to think it went favorable for the prosecution & not for Trump

Strike and I don't agree on much, but if you think he said anything about it being favorable for the prosecution & not for Trump, well you shouldn't be throwing calling anyone retarded. 

[F1erce 88]

30 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Strike and I don't agree on much, but if you think he said anything about it being favorable for the prosecution & not for Trump, well you shouldn't be throwing calling anyone retarded. 

You REALLY are retarded Cause you obviously are seeing as how you don’t understand basic English syntax 

“Then you are grossly inflating how favorable it was for Trump” sounds pretty much like he said it was favorable for prosecution & NOT for Trump. But I mean what do I know. I’ve just got a bachelors, publish research journal article, and went to med school. But yea, I’m the one that doesn’t understand basic English

[The Real timschochet 6,407]

On 10/10/2024 at 12:54 PM, Strike said:

Waiting for something more official than a Tik Tok video, but that's pretty much what a bunch of us predicted throughout that trial, but @The Real timschochet assured us that case was valid because he trusts the government to never do anything nefarious.

Is this about the Georgia case? What I wrote was that I didn’t think that whatever Leticia James might have done wrong had nothing to do with the issues of the case, and that I believe Trump is guilty of a crime based on that taped phone call that we all heard. I’ve honestly never understood why it took two years to indict him. Why all the need for grand jury and witnesses? The phone call was incriminating IMO. I think the local authorities in Georgia really screwed this up. 
But is there an update to this story? 

[The Real timschochet 6,407]

1 hour ago, F1erce said:

But I mean what do I know. I’ve just got a bachelors, publish research journal article, and went to med school. 

Damn some of the Trumpers in this forum seem really insecure. Always telling us how much money they have or their hot wives or their college education. 
 

Listen: based on your posts you’re either an idiot or pretending to be one. There really are no other alternatives. 

[F1erce 88]

46 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Damn some of the Trumpers in this forum seem really insecure. Always telling us how much money they have or their hot wives or their college education. 
 

Listen: based on your posts you’re either an idiot or pretending to be one. There really are no other alternatives. 

Squeak squeak goes the rat  

[squistion 1,946]

56 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Is this about the Georgia case? What I wrote was that I didn’t think that whatever Leticia James might have done wrong had nothing to do with the issues of the case, and that I believe Trump is guilty of a crime based on that taped phone call that we all heard. I’ve honestly never understood why it took two years to indict him. Why all the need for grand jury and witnesses? The phone call was incriminating IMO. I think the local authorities in Georgia really screwed this up. 
But is there an update to this story? 

I would doubt it as I don't recalling seeing this in the news. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,925]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Is this about the Georgia case? What I wrote was that I didn’t think that whatever Leticia James might have done wrong had nothing to do with the issues of the case, and that I believe Trump is guilty of a crime based on that taped phone call that we all heard. I’ve honestly never understood why it took two years to indict him. Why all the need for grand jury and witnesses? The phone call was incriminating IMO. I think the local authorities in Georgia really screwed this up. 
But is there an update to this story? 

“Why all the need for a grand jury and witnesses?” Sigh.   Like I have been telling people like this, you’re not an American anymore. You just live here.  

[Strike 5,185]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Is this about the Georgia case? What I wrote was that I didn’t think that whatever Leticia James might have done wrong had nothing to do with the issues of the case, and that I believe Trump is guilty of a crime based on that taped phone call that we all heard. I’ve honestly never understood why it took two years to indict him. Why all the need for grand jury and witnesses? The phone call was incriminating IMO. I think the local authorities in Georgia really screwed this up. 
But is there an update to this story? 

So much wrong with this post.   And yet, despite all the inaccuracies, Squis jumps right on bored!!! 

[jonmx 2,424]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

Is this about the Georgia case? What I wrote was that I didn’t think that whatever Leticia James might have done wrong had nothing to do with the issues of the case, and that I believe Trump is guilty of a crime based on that taped phone call that we all heard. I’ve honestly never understood why it took two years to indict him. Why all the need for grand jury and witnesses? The phone call was incriminating IMO. I think the local authorities in Georgia really screwed this up. 
But is there an update to this story? 

You are so clueless about law.  No, this was the fake case in New York concerning the supposed incorrect valuation of his Mar-a-Lago property.  The one where there were no misrepresentations, no injured parties, no complaints, and zero damages, but yet they still brought a case and got $454 million in damages. One of the other gross abuses of authoritarian power cases you  bootlicked for.   Could not even get a bunch of Trump hating justices in New York to buy off on it.   But they will probably wait until after the election to make the ruling official.  

[The Real timschochet 6,407]

7 minutes ago, jonmx said:

You are so clueless about law.  No, this was the fake case in New York concerning the supposed incorrect valuation of his Mar-a-Lago property.  The one where there were no misrepresentations, no injured parties, no complaints, and zero damages, but yet they still brought a case and got $454 million in damages. One of the other gross abuses of authoritarian power cases you  bootlicked for.   Could not even get a bunch of Trump hating justices in New York to buy off on it.   But they will probably wait until after the election to make the ruling official.  

Ah. Well I didn’t open the link and somebody mentioned Leticia James so whatever. 
 

I really didn’t follow the case you’re referring to, so I have no opinion. 

[jonmx 2,424]

12 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Ah. Well I didn’t open the link and somebody mentioned Leticia James so whatever. 
 

I really didn’t follow the case you’re referring to, so I have no opinion. 

You commented on the case a dozen times and I told you specifically what a crook of crap the case was.   Now you don't follow it.   Lol. 

[Strike 5,185]

40 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Ah. Well I didn’t open the link and somebody mentioned Leticia James so whatever. 
 

I really didn’t follow the case you’re referring to, so I have no opinion. 

1). Yes you do know the case.  it's the one I had to correct you on months ago.

2). Fannie Willis is the DA in Georgia so the fact that they're talking about Leticia James should not lead you to the conclusion this is the Georgia case.  Leticia James is in New York.

[Engorgeous George 2,125]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

1). Yes you do know the case.  it's the one I had to correct you on months ago.

2). Fannie Willis is the DA in Georgia so the fact that they're talking about Leticia James should not lead you to the conclusion this is the Georgia case.  Leticia James is in New York.

In fairness they are both obese and stupid but with an aire of entitlement born of their belief that their race puts them above criticism.  Sometimes it is difficult to tell them apart.  James is New York.  Willis is Georgia, the one who had to take the stand to defend her hiring of her lover with tax dollars to prosecute Trump.  One might have thought her office had a prosecutor capable of handling the matter better than her lover, but no

[The Real timschochet 6,407]

30 minutes ago, Strike said:

1). Yes you do know the case.  it's the one I had to correct you on months ago.

2). Fannie Willis is the DA in Georgia so the fact that they're talking about Leticia James should not lead you to the conclusion this is the Georgia case.  Leticia James is in New York.

I got them confused, obviously. Not for the reasons that @Engorgeous George offered. They both seem bright and very capable to me. 

[Engorgeous George 2,125]

27 minutes ago, Strike said:

1). Yes you do know the case.  it's the one I had to correct you on months ago.

2). Fannie Willis is the DA in Georgia so the fact that they're talking about Leticia James should not lead you to the conclusion this is the Georgia case.  Leticia James is in New York.

That is my memory as well.  I seem to remember suggesting that on appeal the case, or certainly elements thereo,f would be tossed and that the Court of Appeals would order the lower court to grant remittur of the amount awarded.  I seem to remember Tim even partially adopting that stance and using the term remittur which I doubt he knew prior to my posting of the term and the procedure.  Still, I suppose my memory might be faulty and I have him confused with someone else.  I do know this, I am far too lazy to go and look for the history in that old, lengthy, thread so I will never know for certain.

[The Real timschochet 6,407]

Just now, Engorgeous George said:

That is my memory as well.  I seem to remember suggesting that on appeal the case, or certainly elements thereo,f would be tossed and that the Court of Appeals would order the lower court to grant remittur of the amount awarded.  I seem to remember Tim even partially adopting that stance and using the term remittur which I doubt he knew prior to my posting of the term and the procedure.  Still, I suppose my memory might be faulty and I have him confused with someone else.  I do know this, I am far too lazy to go and look for the history in that old, lengthy, thread so I will never know for certain.

Could be. So many cases against Trump I can’t remember them all. 

[Engorgeous George 2,125]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I got them confused, obviously. Not for the reasons that @Engorgeous George offered. They both seem bright and very capable to me. 

Which simply emphasizes how little you understand litigation, attorneys, and really people.

[Engorgeous George 2,125]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Could be. So many cases against Trump I can’t remember them all. 

He certainly does have quite a few, which is the basis of the claims of lawfare.  Of course the other explanation for his numerous cases is he regularly steps outsides of the bounds of the law.  I suspect the truth lies in a mixture of those two possible explanations.

[The Real timschochet 6,407]

4 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Which simply emphasizes how little you understand litigation, attorneys, and really people.

Always a possibility. I am not an attorney myself though I seem to deal with them on a regular basis. I now have 3 attorneys that work for me regularly. I’m honestly confused as to how that happened. 

I’m honestly amused by the hubris implied in your opinion of me. 

[The Real timschochet 6,407]

6 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

He certainly does have quite a few, which is the basis of the claims of lawfare.  Of course the other explanation for his numerous cases is he regularly steps outsides of the bounds of the law.  I suspect the truth lies in a mixture of those two possible explanations.

I doubt it. Lawfare requires a conspiracy of people in pretty high positions acting without integrity. In our political system that is not impossible, but it is very rare and when it happens it’s usually discovered because of incompetence and stupidity. 

[Engorgeous George 2,125]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Always a possibility. I am not an attorney myself though I seem to deal with them on a regular basis. I now have 3 attorneys that work for me regularly. I’m honestly confused as to how that happened. 

I’m honestly amused by the hubris implied in your opinion of me. 

That is a good way to avoid self-examination, but so be it.  I am happy to provide amusement.  Generally that is my first instinct.  Sharing serious insights a distant second instinct as they are rarely well-recieved.  

[Engorgeous George 2,125]

2 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I doubt it. Lawfare requires a conspiracy of people in pretty high positions acting without integrity. In our political system that is not impossible, but it is very rare and when it happens it’s usually discovered because of incompetence and stupidity. 

I agree, which is why Trump has done fairly well thus far on his appeals.  The higher courts are finding that incompetence and stupidity.  This is not to say that Trump will excape in all instances, as he is arrogant and stupid and his advisors and attorneys are incompetent to the extent that he overrides their adive and gets them to do what he wants, not what they know is advisable.  Trump always has been, and remains, his own worst enemy.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,925]

16 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I doubt it. Lawfare requires a conspiracy of people in pretty high positions acting without integrity. In our political system that is not impossible, but it is very rare and when it happens it’s usually discovered because of incompetence and stupidity. 

Sure thing. High ranking officials in the DOJ often step down to take a position in a local DA’s office.  

[TimHauck 2,608]

21 hours ago, Horseman said:

 

 

Is the alleged begging supposed to be in this video?  Because it’s not.  Neither is Letitia James saying anything for that matter.  Even Ms Vale hardly says anything in this clip, despite starting to say that yes she does have what is being asked of her.