ICE agents committing assaults and other crimes

Tobytone said:
I've laid this out as simple as possible for morons like yourself. If you choose to skip over inconvenient realities I've already explained to you, I can't help you any further. For example, this line of bullshit overlooks that fact that Trump along with every other American doesn't need to prove his innocence, the court has to show his guilt, dumbass. What radicalized libtards 'think' isn't important. A trial isn't there for libtards to try to connect dots and imply guilt because they're pretty sure of it, lol. Everything I've have written is 100% true. You've failed to refute that again. I'm wrong? Prove it, you sure as hell didn't do that here, again.
Click to expand...
34 felonies.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Once again, you try to parse the whole to make individual parts not make guilt. It would be like saying walking into a bank isn't a crime so the bank robber must be innocent. Yet one of the elements required to proving a bank robbery is that the perp actually entered the bank.

I have already shown this argument to be bullshit on your part because Trump could have easily overcome it by going on the stand or calling Weisselberg to the stand. Either could have testified Trump knew nothing. Every CEO can take the stand and dispute the claim that they knew about the fraud. Your argument is a logical fallacy..
Click to expand...
Broken record alert**** Trump doesn't need to prove his innocence dumbass. You claim to prove guilt because of something Trump didn't do, hilarious if it wasn't so stupid.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
You are correct, defendants don't have to take the stand. But in order to not be found guilty they do have to present enough of a defense that the jury doesn't find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Clearly the case wasn't crumbling because the jury found Trump guilty of 34 counts of fraud. Your being stupid doesn't make the prosecution weak. It only makes you look stupid.
Click to expand...
I know that the left is used to throwing out accusations, the libtard press performs a public trial by clickbait and the talking heads hand out the guilty charge, but luckily for now, our legal system doesn't work that way. AGAIN, The prosecution needs to show that beyond a reasonable doubt Trump was guilty of the crime(s) charged, period. AGAIN, it's not Trump's job to prove he's not guilty as much as you'd like it. I suspect if you were in the defendants seat, you'd think differently. In this case, the judge gave the jurors a menu of choices of separate predicate offenses under NY Election Law to conclude Trump's guilt. That's called a big no-no, lol. Why did the judge do that? He obviously didn't think he'd get a guilty verdict without doing so. He wasn't going to let that happen. After all, his adoring fans won't care if he followed the law or not, they wanted blood no matter what.

You're argument that the case wasn't crumbling because he was found guilty is peak libtard. The entire debate has been about the verdict being bullshit, so you can't use the verdict as evidence that it's not bullshit, lmao.

As I said in the beginning, enjoy your child like chants of 'Felon, Felon, Felon,' it is only temporary like every other dose of libtard dope you fools inject. That said, I know that this one is going to really hurt when the needle goes dry. It helped Trump when you first stuck the needle in and it will help him again when it is overturned. This time the needle will be empty, ouch.
 
Tobytone said:
I've laid this out as simple as possible for morons like yourself. If you choose to skip over inconvenient realities I've already explained to you, I can't help you any further. For example, this line of bullshit overlooks that fact that Trump along with every other American doesn't need to prove his innocence, the court has to show his guilt, dumbass. What radicalized libtards 'think' isn't important. A trial isn't there for libtards to try to connect dots and imply guilt because they're pretty sure of it, lol. Everything I've have written is 100% true. You've failed to refute that again. I'm wrong? Prove it, you sure as hell didn't do that here, again.
Click to expand...
It seems you can't read. First you provided not support for your claim that lawyers do verbal retainer agreements. Then you don't seem to understand that the defense can cast doubt on a prosecution claim by simply providing evidence that shows the claim to be false.

The court doesn't have to show guilt. The prosecution has to show guilt. The jury is the trier of fact and has to decide if the evidence shows guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable way to show guilt in a court of law. You keep trying to parse the evidence instead of allowing it to be taken as a whole. Everything you have written is not 100% true. You don't even know what questions the appeals court can look at on appeal. or what Trump's appeal was.
 
Tobytone said:
Broken record alert**** Trump doesn't need to prove his innocence dumbass. You claim to prove guilt because of something Trump didn't do, hilarious if it wasn't so stupid.
Click to expand...
Toby the toddler alert ***** Toby doesn't understand that the purpose of a defense is to dispute the prosecution's claims. Showing work performed by Cohen would have destroyed the argument that he wasn't being paid for work and made it impossible to convict him.
 
Tobytone said:
Thanks for the 'whacko' label for being friendly. I know what a shill is, I simply said to google it, so you would google it as I did. I have witnessed definitions changing in the last thirty years. Words like racism for example, I've seen the response Google has given along with many other words since the woke silicon valley leftist ideology entered into the business of defining words. When I saw your comment to Dicky, I literally googled shill and Googles definition was completely negative whereas Merrians definition was much more accurate. That's all I was pointing out, I didn't need an explanation or the insult, but if that's your thing, have at it, it's not the first insult of the day and won't be the last. I'm guessing you read my comment as a libtard my say 'google it' as if, you don't know what you're talking about, not as I meant, 'google it' you'll find the answer interesting as was meant, if so, your reply makes more sense.
Click to expand...
yes.

into the night has become a lib faggot who gaslights people about words.

thanks for also noticing this mental leper and his tricks.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It seems you can't read. First you provided not support for your claim that lawyers do verbal retainer agreements. Then you don't seem to understand that the defense can cast doubt on a prosecution claim by simply providing evidence that shows the claim to be false.

The court doesn't have to show guilt. The prosecution has to show guilt. The jury is the trier of fact and has to decide if the evidence shows guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable way to show guilt in a court of law. You keep trying to parse the evidence instead of allowing it to be taken as a whole. Everything you have written is not 100% true. You don't even know what questions the appeals court can look at on appeal. or what Trump's appeal was.
Click to expand...
He can read. Toby Tedious appears to be a bit saner and a little better educated than the average MAGAt, but like all MAGAts, he only sees what he wants to see.
 
ICE came to my brother-in-law Saly’s apartment, broke down the door, trashed the place, handcuffed him, and put a gun to his daughter-in-law’s head. They did not allow him to put on proper clothing and forced him outside in freezing weather.
Saly is a naturalized U.S. citizen. He has NO criminal record.
ICE drove him around for nearly an hour, questioned him, and fingerprinted him. Only after all of that did they realize he had no criminal history and no reason to be detained. They then dropped him back off at his apartment like nothing happened.

www.facebook.com

Hmong American Experience

ICE came to my brother-in-law Saly’s apartment, broke down the door, trashed the place, handcuffed him, and put a gun to his daughter-in-law’s head. They did not allow him to put on proper clothing...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com

The pictures of him being taken out into temperatures in the single digits and below zero windchill while wearing shorts and crocs are pretty horrifying for anyone that knows what cold weather can do to a person. At least they took him home instead of dropping off in the cold miles from home.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ICE came to my brother-in-law Saly’s apartment, broke down the door, trashed the place, handcuffed him, and put a gun to his daughter-in-law’s head. They did not allow him to put on proper clothing and forced him outside in freezing weather.
Saly is a naturalized U.S. citizen. He has NO criminal record.
ICE drove him around for nearly an hour, questioned him, and fingerprinted him. Only after all of that did they realize he had no criminal history and no reason to be detained. They then dropped him back off at his apartment like nothing happened.

www.facebook.com

Hmong American Experience

ICE came to my brother-in-law Saly’s apartment, broke down the door, trashed the place, handcuffed him, and put a gun to his daughter-in-law’s head. They did not allow him to put on proper clothing...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com

The pictures of him being taken out into temperatures in the single digits and below zero windchill while wearing shorts and crocs are pretty horrifying for anyone that knows what cold weather can do to a person. At least they took him home instead of dropping off in the cold miles from home.
Click to expand...


is your brother in law "Chicken George" ?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It seems you can't read. First you provided not support for your claim that lawyers do verbal retainer agreements. Then you don't seem to understand that the defense can cast doubt on a prosecution claim by simply providing evidence that shows the claim to be false.

The court doesn't have to show guilt. The prosecution has to show guilt. The jury is the trier of fact and has to decide if the evidence shows guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is an acceptable way to show guilt in a court of law. You keep trying to parse the evidence instead of allowing it to be taken as a whole. Everything you have written is not 100% true. You don't even know what questions the appeals court can look at on appeal. or what Trump's appeal was.
Click to expand...
If I can't read you sure as hell can't write, 'you provided not support' lol dumbass.

Dicky, you're going around in circles again. I'll put it this way and leave it for the final ruling. You are a radicalized drone not capable of seeing things clearly, as usal. The prosecution didn't prove intent or falsification beyond reasonable doubt without leaning hard on Cohen's self-serving story and some creative lawyering to elevate a misdemeanor into 34 felonies. The crazy jury rules are the nails in the coffin, not to mention the evidence was circumstantial at best, riddled with holes, and the judge's bias (those donations, his daughter's Dem ties, ethics panel or not, it's obvious) didn't help. Remember this when it is overturned, lol. Thank God we have appeals. Otherwise, radicalized libtard judges would be ruling the country from their low level courtroom. If that happened, we'd be doomed very quickly. Libtards in charge never ends well.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Toby the toddler alert ***** Toby doesn't understand that the purpose of a defense is to dispute the prosecution's claims. Showing work performed by Cohen would have destroyed the argument that he wasn't being paid for work and made it impossible to convict him.
Click to expand...
Poor Dicky keeps pretending that the evidence he's provided proves Trump was guilty as charged but it is somehow linked to what Trump's defense didn't say, lol. Because they could have simply said what work the checks were for and didn't, that makes the evidence more compelling. It does not, they have to make it more compelling without the defense helping. You don't convict someone for what they didn't say dumbass. The prosecution has the burden to prove the charge. The charge wasn't Trump signed checks or he must of known the checks were not for other work or whatever theory they wanted the jury to believe. That's the whole game. The defense never says a word they don't need to, and this was not unusual at all. What proof did they have? Cohen. I've been over his problems with credibility already. Typically they would find more credible witnesses, but they couldn't get anyone else to lie for them, so Cohen was their man. Dick doesn't seem to understand this simple fact. It's ok Dicky, you got your conviction, remember? I'm only pointing out that the high you got is only temporary like every other high you've gotten. AGAIN, time will tell.
 
Tobytone said:
If I can't read you sure as hell can't write, 'you provided not support' lol dumbass.

Dicky, you're going around in circles again. I'll put it this way and leave it for the final ruling. You are a radicalized drone not capable of seeing things clearly, as usal. The prosecution didn't prove intent or falsification beyond reasonable doubt without leaning hard on Cohen's self-serving story and some creative lawyering to elevate a misdemeanor into 34 felonies. The crazy jury rules are the nails in the coffin, not to mention the evidence was circumstantial at best, riddled with holes, and the judge's bias (those donations, his daughter's Dem ties, ethics panel or not, it's obvious) didn't help. Remember this when it is overturned, lol. Thank God we have appeals. Otherwise, radicalized libtard judges would be ruling the country from their low level courtroom. If that happened, we'd be doomed very quickly. Libtards in charge never ends well.
Click to expand...
It seems you have decided to just shit all over yourself. Appeals court can only rule on the actual appeal. It appears you have no understanding of what Trump has appealed and even less of an understanding of what he could appeal at this point. The bias of the judge is not appealable. Only the judge's rulings can be appealed. The time for new appeals has expired. Trump is stuck with the appeals he has made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top