ICE agents committing assaults and other crimes

[Into the Night]

View attachment 71301

What 'papers'?

Did you know that arresting a criminal with a long history of criminal activity is enforcing the law?
Did you know that arresting an illegal alien and deporting him is enforcing the law?
Did you know that arresting a domestic terrorist is enforcing the law?
Did you know that arresting someone interfering with police is enforcing the law?

What 'papers'?

 

[goat]

View attachment 71301

Trump needs to send ICE to invade Greenland.

 

[Monad Portal]

Trump needs to send ICE to invade Greenland.

dumb.

 

[Tobytone]

The definition of 'shill' hasn't changed.

A shill is a job in a casino. It is a legitimate job. You get paid for it (as much as when you are dealing, anyway). A shill works in a poker room mostly, but sometimes works in the pit area.

Nine people just don't walk up at once to play poker in a casino. They come in one or two at a time.
A poker table is only attractive to a player if it has lots of players. It's no fun playing alone or with just one other player...the game breaks down very quickly.

A shill plays poker. He uses his own money to play. He, like the other shills in the game are there to start the table, making it attractive for customers to join the game. As seats fill in, shills leave the game, always leaving a couple of seats open. Shills must identify who they are if asked. Most shills are also dealers.

Since you are playing with your own money, shills often are 'rocks', folding early, and betting only when they have a near guarantee win. Such players are losing money, but slowly, due to the blind structure of the game.

So, a shill is a legitimate job. They are a fake player to get a poker table started. The more poker tables started, the more dealers the casino will need for them. It's a win for the players, it's a win for the casino, and it's a win for the dealers. Players now have a choice of games they can play. The casino is making more money in the poker room from the rakes. More dealers are needed to deal all those active tables.

Why he considers a 'shill' to be some kind of insult is simply because he doesn't know much English.


An agenda does not redefine any word. Wackos like you describe speak a different language, which I call Liberal. It looks like English, but the words have no meaning or shift meanings at will. It might as well be gobbledegook.


Neither Google nor any dictionary defines any word (other than Google).
Like any software, Gemini is just a name. It takes it's name from a constellation (The Twins). 'Gemini' is a Latin word and is plural for 'geminus', meaning 'twin'. Thus, the constellation known as The Twins is also called 'Gemini'.

The Gemini portion of the moonshot project is aptly named, since it's purpose was to practice handling two spacecraft at once and docking one with the other. It was designed to practice a maneuver critical to eventually landing on the Moon.

I guess Google just decided to name it that to make it sound futuristic or something. Well, that's marketing for you!

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.

 

[Tobytone]

I see you are just going to ignore the majority of the evidence. That isn't the way it works in court. You have to address all the evidence. Then you don't get to claim things that were not given in evidence.

It is evidence of fraud when a check is written to pay for work that was never done. Once the fraud of paying for work not done is established, in order to include the check writer in the fraud you need evidence that they knew no work was being performed. Trump's public claims that he knew everything that went on in the company and oversaw all payments for work establish that he knew. Trump was free to get on the stand and testify that he didn't know if he wanted to dispute that public claim. The defense was also free to call Allen Weisselberg to testify that Trump didn't know and they didn't call him either.

It's so funny that you want to bring up the fraud of paying for work that was never done while defending the fraud of paying for work that was never done.

Dicky, you still need more help I see. Again, I read all of the evidence and dug in on the case long ago because I knew I'd be dealing with idiots like you offline more than online. You're still not getting it. Luckily, I love to talk about it with dumbasses like you, lol.

First, claiming the checks prove 'fraud' because they paid for work that wasn’t done is laughable. Those reimbursements were labeled as legal expenses for Cohen’s retainer, standard billing practice when paying your lawyer. No actual retainer agreement existed? Big deal. Lawyers get paid monthly retainers all the time without formal contracts sitting in a drawer. Calling it 'fraud' for mislabeling a reimbursement is the kind of stretch only a desperate libtard would make. The checks themselves show Trump paying Cohen, period. They don’t scream 'I’m falsifying records to hide an election crime,” genius.

Second, your big 'gotcha' about Trump’s public statements that he 'knew everything' and 'oversaw all payments”? That’s not evidence of criminal intent, it’s you cherry-picking soundbites to pretend they’re confessions. Trump ran a massive company with thousands of transactions. Saying you oversee payments doesn’t mean you personally scrutinize every line item or know some underling is mislabeling a reimbursement as legal expense. That’s a leap so wide it needs a runway. If every CEO who said 'I watch everything' got convicted for every accounting error below them, half of corporate America would be in prison.

Third, whining that Trump didn’t testify or call Weisselberg is the oldest prosecutor trick in the book. Defendants don’t have to prove their innocence, YOU have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump had zero obligation to take the stand and give your clown show more ammo, and the defense didn’t call Weisselberg because they didn’t need to. The prosecution’s case was already crumbling on its own Cohen lies and circumstantial garbage. Blaming the defense for not bailing out a failing prosecution is pure libtard logic.

Bottom line: those checks prove Trump paid Cohen back. That’s it. They don’t prove he directed falsification, knew the entries were bogus, or intended to conceal some made-up election violation. No direct evidence ties him to creating or approving the 34 falsified records. No smoking gun. Just Cohen’s word (bought with a plea deal), Weisselberg’s scribbles (not linked to Trump’s knowledge), and your fever-dream inferences. The whole thing is a legal house of cards built on hearsay and politics, and it’s getting appealed into oblivion.

And let's not forget about the others: For anyone following along you might be forgetting about the prosecution dragging in 20 other witnesses, subpoenaed Hope Hicks (who choked up and said Cohen went rogue), grilled David Pecker (who danced around without nailing Trump personally), and knew Weisselberg would tank their case like he did before, so they didn’t even call him.(The guy dumbass here believes his notes help make the case, but they wouldn't let him testify under oath to clear that myth up.) They fished everywhere for anyone to finger Trump directly, but got zilch except Cohen’s bought-and-paid-for lies to save his own ass. No one else would play ball in this partisan hit job, so they were stuck with their one sleazy rat as the whole foundation. Pathetic desperation, pure lawfare, and that’s why the whole sham will crumble on appeal.

Keep clutching those checks like they’re the smoking gun, Dick. Those of us that are sane see the scam for what it is: lawfare dressed up as justice that will crumble when the adults correct the desperate actions of people that should, at the very least, all be stripped of their right to practice any kind of law again.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

you are.

It seems you aren't clearly as clever as you pretend to be.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Dicky, you still need more help I see. Again, I read all of the evidence and dug in on the case long ago because I knew I'd be dealing with idiots like you offline more than online. You're still not getting it. Luckily, I love to talk about it with dumbasses like you, lol.

First, claiming the checks prove 'fraud' because they paid for work that wasn’t done is laughable. Those reimbursements were labeled as legal expenses for Cohen’s retainer, standard billing practice when paying your lawyer. No actual retainer agreement existed? Big deal. Lawyers get paid monthly retainers all the time without formal contracts sitting in a drawer. Calling it 'fraud' for mislabeling a reimbursement is the kind of stretch only a desperate libtard would make. The checks themselves show Trump paying Cohen, period. They don’t scream 'I’m falsifying records to hide an election crime,” genius.

Let's deal with this one before we move onto to the next. A retainer is usually a down payment for work before it is done.What work was done? This should be easy if work was actually done but there is no evidence of any work being done. It would have been easy for Trump to provide evidence of that work if it actually existed but he didn't do that to defend himself. No lawyer would have a retainer agreement without a written agreement. It just isn't done because it protects them and the client from any misunderstandings. Please provide your evidence of any lawyer entering into a retainer agreement and only doing it verbally. They would be an idiot to do that because it leaves them with no legal recourse in event payments aren't made or work demand goes beyond the agreement.

As to the fraud for "mislabeling." It wasn't simply mislabeling. It was fraudulently trying to hide the actual reason for the payments. The checks themselves don't prove fraud but are part of the whole that is fraud. The checks to Somalis to feed people don't prove fraud but without the checks existing there could be no fraud because the payments are required for there to be fraud.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Second, your big 'gotcha' about Trump’s public statements that he 'knew everything' and 'oversaw all payments”? That’s not evidence of criminal intent, it’s you cherry-picking soundbites to pretend they’re confessions. Trump ran a massive company with thousands of transactions. Saying you oversee payments doesn’t mean you personally scrutinize every line item or know some underling is mislabeling a reimbursement as legal expense. That’s a leap so wide it needs a runway. If every CEO who said 'I watch everything' got convicted for every accounting error below them, half of corporate America would be in prison.

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..

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Third, whining that Trump didn’t testify or call Weisselberg is the oldest prosecutor trick in the book. Defendants don’t have to prove their innocence, YOU have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump had zero obligation to take the stand and give your clown show more ammo, and the defense didn’t call Weisselberg because they didn’t need to. The prosecution’s case was already crumbling on its own Cohen lies and circumstantial garbage. Blaming the defense for not bailing out a failing prosecution is pure libtard logic.

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.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for the 'whacko' label for being friendly.

I won label you a wacko. That's NoName's problem. It's not being wacko to point out his problem.

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.

Google doesn't define any word (other than Google).

Words like racism for example,

Racism has also not changed it's definition. It is a compositional error fallacy using people as the class and a genetic trait as the property.

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.

Liberal doesn't define words. It's a language made up literally of buzzwords.

When I saw your comment to Dicky, I literally googled shill and Googles definition was completely negative whereas Merrians definition was much more accurate.

No dictionary defines any word.

That's all I was pointing out, I didn't need an explanation

Apparently you do.

or the insult,

The insult was directed to NoName for using 'shill' as an 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.

You don't need to take on NoName's insults. You are far better than this!

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.

You are not a libtard. Don't take on insults directed to others. You are far better than this!
Your posts are intelligent and well worded, but it's important to remember how words are defined. It's not by a dictionary and it's not by Google.

People define words. Most words in English were defined in some other language and imported into English. Others have a vague history. But their meaning doesn't change. The fact that Democrats like to redefine numerous words makes no difference. It the effect of the Liberal language.

You are one of the very few on JPP that knows which way is up. If you think I offended you, I apologize for any such interpretation.

 

[Into the Night]

Dicky, you still need more help I see. Again, I read all of the evidence and dug in on the case long ago because I knew I'd be dealing with idiots like you offline more than online. You're still not getting it. Luckily, I love to talk about it with dumbasses like you, lol.

First, claiming the checks prove 'fraud' because they paid for work that wasn’t done is laughable. Those reimbursements were labeled as legal expenses for Cohen’s retainer, standard billing practice when paying your lawyer. No actual retainer agreement existed? Big deal. Lawyers get paid monthly retainers all the time without formal contracts sitting in a drawer. Calling it 'fraud' for mislabeling a reimbursement is the kind of stretch only a desperate libtard would make. The checks themselves show Trump paying Cohen, period. They don’t scream 'I’m falsifying records to hide an election crime,” genius.

Second, your big 'gotcha' about Trump’s public statements that he 'knew everything' and 'oversaw all payments”? That’s not evidence of criminal intent, it’s you cherry-picking soundbites to pretend they’re confessions. Trump ran a massive company with thousands of transactions. Saying you oversee payments doesn’t mean you personally scrutinize every line item or know some underling is mislabeling a reimbursement as legal expense. That’s a leap so wide it needs a runway. If every CEO who said 'I watch everything' got convicted for every accounting error below them, half of corporate America would be in prison.

Third, whining that Trump didn’t testify or call Weisselberg is the oldest prosecutor trick in the book. Defendants don’t have to prove their innocence, YOU have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump had zero obligation to take the stand and give your clown show more ammo, and the defense didn’t call Weisselberg because they didn’t need to. The prosecution’s case was already crumbling on its own Cohen lies and circumstantial garbage. Blaming the defense for not bailing out a failing prosecution is pure libtard logic.

Bottom line: those checks prove Trump paid Cohen back. That’s it. They don’t prove he directed falsification, knew the entries were bogus, or intended to conceal some made-up election violation. No direct evidence ties him to creating or approving the 34 falsified records. No smoking gun. Just Cohen’s word (bought with a plea deal), Weisselberg’s scribbles (not linked to Trump’s knowledge), and your fever-dream inferences. The whole thing is a legal house of cards built on hearsay and politics, and it’s getting appealed into oblivion.

And let's not forget about the others: For anyone following along you might be forgetting about the prosecution dragging in 20 other witnesses, subpoenaed Hope Hicks (who choked up and said Cohen went rogue), grilled David Pecker (who danced around without nailing Trump personally), and knew Weisselberg would tank their case like he did before, so they didn’t even call him.(The guy dumbass here believes his notes help make the case, but they wouldn't let him testify under oath to clear that myth up.) They fished everywhere for anyone to finger Trump directly, but got zilch except Cohen’s bought-and-paid-for lies to save his own ass. No one else would play ball in this partisan hit job, so they were stuck with their one sleazy rat as the whole foundation. Pathetic desperation, pure lawfare, and that’s why the whole sham will crumble on appeal.

Keep clutching those checks like they’re the smoking gun, Dick. Those of us that are sane see the scam for what it is: lawfare dressed up as justice that will crumble when the adults correct the desperate actions of people that should, at the very least, all be stripped of their right to practice any kind of law again.

Absolutely. No fraud occurred. The whole thing was just a kangaroo court. A judge with TDS, a prosecutor with TDS, and a jury illegally influenced by the judge.

 

[Into the Night]

Let's deal with this one before we move onto to the next.

Here comes the word games.

A retainer is usually a down payment for work before it is done.

Nope. It's simply that...a retainer. No work might be done at all!

What work was done?

None necessary. Not fraud.

This should be easy if work was actually done but there is no evidence of any work being done.

Big hairy deal. None needed.

It would have been easy for Trump to provide evidence of that work if it actually existed but he didn't do that to defend himself. No lawyer would have a retainer agreement without a written agreement. It just isn't done because it protects them and the client from any misunderstandings. Please provide your evidence of any lawyer entering into a retainer agreement and only doing it verbally. They would be an idiot to do that because it leaves them with no legal recourse in event payments aren't made or work demand goes beyond the agreement.

Paying a retainer is not fraud.

As to the fraud for "mislabeling."

'Mislabeling'??

It wasn't simply mislabeling.

What 'mislabeling'?

It was fraudulently trying to hide the actual reason for the payments.

Paying a retainer is not fraud.

The checks themselves don't prove fraud but are part of the whole that is fraud.

What fraud? Who was being defrauded?

The checks to Somalis to feed people don't prove fraud

It's part of their fraud. Defrauding the federal government is a CRIME.

but without the checks existing there could be no fraud because the payments are required for there to be fraud.

Making a payment is not fraud.
Defrauding federal government programs IS. Sending that money overseas to fund wars IS.

 

[Into the Night]

Once again, you try to parse the whole to make individual parts not make guilt.

What 'guilt'?

It would be like saying walking into a bank isn't a crime

It isn't, unless the bank is closed and you are breaking in.

so the bank robber must be innocent.

Robbing a bank is a federal crime. It is not fraud. It's robbery.

Yet one of the elements required to proving a bank robbery is that the perp actually entered the bank.

Nope. Bank robbery can and does occur without even entering the bank.

I have already shown this argument to be bullshit on your part

This is YOUR strawman fallacy. You can't blame it on Tobytone or anybody else.

because Trump could have easily overcome it by going on the stand or calling Weisselberg to the stand.

Overcome what?

Either could have testified Trump knew nothing.

Trump knows what goes on in his own business. He owns it.

Every CEO can take the stand and dispute the claim that they knew about the fraud.

What fraud???

Your argument is a logical fallacy..

Inversion fallacy. Attempted negative proof fallacy. Redefiniion fallacies. Fallacy fallacy. Strawman fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Attempted negative proof fallacy.

Clearly the case wasn't crumbling because the jury found Trump guilty of 34 counts of fraud.

What fraud? Be specific. You cannot justify a kangaroo court.

Your being stupid doesn't make the prosecution weak. It only makes you look stupid.

The prosecutor broke the law, moron.

 

[Monad Portal]

It seems you aren't clearly as clever as you pretend to be.

that's not what it seems.

I am as clever as I pretend to be.

dumbass.

 

[Monad Portal]

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..

no.

you misreprestent the law and reality in all matters to decontextualize, distort and lie.

please don't make me correct you again.

 

[Monad Portal]

Let's deal with this one before we move onto to the next. A retainer is usually a down payment for work before it is done.What work was done? This should be easy if work was actually done but there is no evidence of any work being done. It would have been easy for Trump to provide evidence of that work if it actually existed but he didn't do that to defend himself. No lawyer would have a retainer agreement without a written agreement. It just isn't done because it protects them and the client from any misunderstandings. Please provide your evidence of any lawyer entering into a retainer agreement and only doing it verbally. They would be an idiot to do that because it leaves them with no legal recourse in event payments aren't made or work demand goes beyond the agreement.

As to the fraud for "mislabeling." It wasn't simply mislabeling. It was fraudulently trying to hide the actual reason for the payments. The checks themselves don't prove fraud but are part of the whole that is fraud. The checks to Somalis to feed people don't prove fraud but without the checks existing there could be no fraud because the payments are required for there to be fraud.

shut the fuck up with your stacks and stacks of spurious premisi.

you;re fucking dumb.

 

[Monad Portal]

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.

no they don't.

the jury can just think the whole thing smells.

 

[Tobytone]

I won label you a wacko. That's NoName's problem. It's not being wacko to point out his problem.

Google doesn't define any word (other than Google).

Racism has also not changed it's definition. It is a compositional error fallacy using people as the class and a genetic trait as the property.

Liberal doesn't define words. It's a language made up literally of buzzwords.

No dictionary defines any word.

Apparently you do.

The insult was directed to NoName for using 'shill' as an insult.

You don't need to take on NoName's insults. You are far better than this!

You are not a libtard. Don't take on insults directed to others. You are far better than this!
Your posts are intelligent and well worded, but it's important to remember how words are defined. It's not by a dictionary and it's not by Google.

People define words. Most words in English were defined in some other language and imported into English. Others have a vague history. But their meaning doesn't change. The fact that Democrats like to redefine numerous words makes no difference. It the effect of the Liberal language.

You are one of the very few on JPP that knows which way is up. If you think I offended you, I apologize for any such interpretation.

Dude, get over your obsession. Again, I know Google doesn't literally define words, seriously. I was referring to the answer given at the top of the page when you enter a word in google. Do you understand now? I can't imagine it's much fun to have a conversation with you in person. You'd be constantly butting in to deal with your annoying pet peeve. I didn't need you to talk down to me, again. Maybe you're autistic, I don't know, I don't care, but you're definitely annoying as hell, lol. Just keeping it real. I'll move on now, you can keep doing you.

I won label you a wacko. That's NoName's problem. It's not being wacko to point out his problem.

Google doesn't define any word (other than Google).

Racism has also not changed it's definition. It is a compositional error fallacy using people as the class and a genetic trait as the property.

Liberal doesn't define words. It's a language made up literally of buzzwords.

No dictionary defines any word.

Apparently you do.

The insult was directed to NoName for using 'shill' as an insult.

You don't need to take on NoName's insults. You are far better than this!

You are not a libtard. Don't take on insults directed to others. You are far better than this!
Your posts are intelligent and well worded, but it's important to remember how words are defined. It's not by a dictionary and it's not by Google.

People define words. Most words in English were defined in some other language and imported into English. Others have a vague history. But their meaning doesn't change. The fact that Democrats like to redefine numerous words makes no difference. It the effect of the Liberal language.

You are one of the very few on JPP that knows which way is up. If you think I offended you, I apologize for any such interpretation.

Here is how it went. You tell me what it says.

Sometimes for justifiable reasons, but lately, it far more often a woke agenda that causes the change. I've seen a lot of definitions change over time.

An agenda does not redefine any word. Wackos like you describe speak a different language, which I call Liberal. It looks like English, but the words have no meaning or shift meanings at will. It might as well be gobbledegook.

If you were insulting someone else, you need to learn how to write it correctly, lol. (That's me being a bit like you.) When I say, 'how google defines words' I mean the response one gets when they enter a word in the search engine called Google. I didn't think you'd struggle to understand that so I didn't bother writing it as I just did. I wrote something like, 'as Google defines it' because most people understand that quite easily, which is my goal when writing. You do seem to struggle with that. I'm guessing you are the only one here that didn't completely understand what I was saying. Or you're the only one that would ever complain about how I wrote it. What's the point? I have no idea. That's all.

Again, I don't need really need your 'lesson.' as much as you think I do. The pet peeves or linguistic obsessions that compels you to talk down to me for a comment in which I was essentially agreeing with you. I was letting you know what I found when I 'Googled' Shill. Get over it, I definitely am now, really, I'm over it. Of course it's up to you if you choose to read anything I write and get annoyed, I can't stop you from that, but I can stop replying to your comments to avoid directly annoying you, it's the least I can do. Oh, thanks for the few kind words, right back at you.

 

[Tobytone]

Let's deal with this one before we move onto to the next. A retainer is usually a down payment for work before it is done.What work was done? This should be easy if work was actually done but there is no evidence of any work being done. It would have been easy for Trump to provide evidence of that work if it actually existed but he didn't do that to defend himself. No lawyer would have a retainer agreement without a written agreement. It just isn't done because it protects them and the client from any misunderstandings. Please provide your evidence of any lawyer entering into a retainer agreement and only doing it verbally. They would be an idiot to do that because it leaves them with no legal recourse in event payments aren't made or work demand goes beyond the agreement.

As to the fraud for "mislabeling." It wasn't simply mislabeling. It was fraudulently trying to hide the actual reason for the payments. The checks themselves don't prove fraud but are part of the whole that is fraud. The checks to Somalis to feed people don't prove fraud but without the checks existing there could be no fraud because the payments are required for there to be fraud.

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.