Scott Adams on Trump Indictments

Tinkerpeach said:
1. Testimony from who?
Click to expand...
Devon Archer,
Owner of Burisma
US Ambassador
2. It shows Biden is a known liar. What else is he lying about.
Click to expand...
An interesting claim since you have no testimony from anyone there during those phone calls testifying to what you are claiming. Since you are lying. What else are you lying about?

3. Archer also testified that Biden was aware of the business dealings further corroborated by text messages from Hunters laptop. Who do you think Bursima was referring to when they mentioned the "Big dog"
Click to expand...
Archer testified he never once heard Joe Biden discuss business with Hunter during any phone call.
Archer testified that Burisma was concerned that firing the prosecutor would result in Burisma being investigated since the current prosecutor had dropped the earlier investigation.

If you are going to claim Archer testified that Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings then show where that testimony occurred.
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Devon-Archer-Transcript.pdf
4. The 20 million went through LLC's that were simply registered, there was no actual business there, it was all on paper. Why would foreign nations be given money to companies that don't exist if not to launder it?
Click to expand...
The company exists when it is registered. They gave money to companies that existed. Because you don't think the company did any actual work doesn't mean the company was fraudulent.

I find it rather amusing what you are willing to accept as evidence in one case and then deny in the other.
Click to expand...
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Someone going into a bank demanding money while waving a note and saying not giving them money is illegal could be seen as violating the law.

Or is robbing a bank only illegal if the threat is a gun?
Click to expand...

Demanding money from a bank is illegal whether or not you use a gun.

The gun makes it armed robbery as opposed to robbery or grand larceny.

You really don't know the law so you shouldn't bring up examples you don't know about.

The fact here is that Trump broke no law.

Trump asked them to find votes, he did not threaten them with any action if they did not and in fact nothing happened to them at all when they didn't.

All Trump's legal team has to say is that he was talking about legally finding them and this case is gone.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Demanding money from a bank is illegal whether or not you use a gun.
Click to expand...
I can walk into my bank anytime I want and demand money and it isn't illegal. You seem confused as to what makes it a crime.
Demanding money in and of itself is not a crime. It is asking for something you are not legally entitled to that makes it the crime.
The gun makes it armed robbery as opposed to robbery or grand larceny.

You really don't know the law so you shouldn't bring up examples you don't know about.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It is the exact same federal statute whether you use a gun or not.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2113
The fact here is that Trump broke no law.

Trump asked them to find votes, he did not threaten them with any action if they did not and in fact nothing happened to them at all when they didn't.

All Trump's legal team has to say is that he was talking about legally finding them and this case is gone.
Click to expand...
The fact here is that you are claiming he broke no law while ignoring evidence he did.
Threats don't require follow through to still be threats that violate the law. Look at the guy in Utah who threatened to kill Biden but didn't act on it.
The problem with your argument is that Trump's legal team doesn't get to make their claim in a vacuum. They have to refute evidence presented by the prosecutor. They have to create reasonable doubt. No one can read or hear Trump's words and conclude he is just asking Raffensberger to legally find votes. No reasonable person can believe that

Trump statements on the phone call -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...68e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html
And I know this phone call is going nowhere other than, other than ultimately, you know — Look, ultimately, I win, okay?
Click to expand...
t I’ll tell you it’s going to have a big impact on Tuesday if you guys don’t get this thing straightened out fast.
Click to expand...
I’d like you to perhaps meet with Ryan, ideally tomorrow, because I think we should come to a resolution of this before the election. Otherwise you’re going to have people just not voting.
Click to expand...
And I think that it is really is important that you meet tomorrow and work out on these numbers. Because I know, Brad, that if you think we’re right, I think you’re going to say, and I’m not looking to blame anybody, I’m just saying, you know, and, you know, under new counts, and under new views, of the election results, we won the election.
Click to expand...
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I can walk into my bank anytime I want and demand money and it isn't illegal. You seem confused as to what makes it a crime.
Demanding money in and of itself is not a crime. It is asking for something you are not legally entitled to that makes it the crime.

Wrong. It is the exact same federal statute whether you use a gun or not.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2113

The fact here is that you are claiming he broke no law while ignoring evidence he did.
Threats don't require follow through to still be threats that violate the law. Look at the guy in Utah who threatened to kill Biden but didn't act on it.
The problem with your argument is that Trump's legal team doesn't get to make their claim in a vacuum. They have to refute evidence presented by the prosecutor. They have to create reasonable doubt. No one can read or hear Trump's words and conclude he is just asking Raffensberger to legally find votes. No reasonable person can believe that

Trump statements on the phone call -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...68e0cc-4ddd-11eb-83e3-322644d82356_story.html
Click to expand...

Trump didn't make a threat though.

That is the part you aren't getting.
 
Nomad said:
Well by your standard, you shouldn't be expressing opinions here either.

Nor should anyone else.

Pretty lame attempt at de-legitimizing anything you don't agree with.

Just sayin'.... :whome:
Click to expand...

Yeah,...BUT,...Im an authority on politics, political theory, political history,....AND the fine art of wasting time and getting out of work so.............:cool: ,..Oh, and I make one hell of a Gin ricky!
 
Stone said:
Yeah,...BUT,...Im an authority on politics, political theory, political history,....AND the fine art of wasting time and getting out of work so.............:cool: ,..Oh, and I make one hell of a Gin ricky!
Click to expand...

Well, OK then. :|
 
Stone said:
So tell us, what exactly are your credentials that gives you the authority to just dismiss what Adams is saying. Your years of working at LOWES? :thinking: :laugh: Im betting you arent in the same galaxy as Adams when it comes to what you know or have done with your life. Just another ignorant partisan loud mouth on a soap box.
Click to expand...

We have years of studies and data coming from bipartisan sources saying elections in the US are very fair and there is no amount of fraud even close to impacting results.

So the ignorant loud mouth is the comic book strip guy.
 
Nomad said:
Concrete is forever.
Click to expand...

True,...kinda. In a northern climate its a bit different though. Back in the day I sold quite a few concrete jobs. When a customer would ask if there was a guarantee I would just smile and say,..." YUP, you bet there is ! I guarantee its gonna crack one day!,...maybe even sooner than we think ;)" :laugh:
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I am all for letting Biden defend himself in court.

I was just laying out the evidence against him.

The courts will decide if he is guilty or not of it.

I haven't assigned any guilt to him yet.
Click to expand...

You first need to find a grand jury to reccommend charges and you will have to dream some up. you have no evidence whatsoever Joe has done anything wrong. What are you going to charge him with?
 
Port Tack said:
You first need to find a grand jury to reccommend charges and you will have to dream some up. you have no evidence whatsoever Joe has done anything wrong. What are you going to charge him with?
Click to expand...

Grand jury's don't recommend charges, they decide if there is enough evidence on the charges brought to have a trial.
 
QP! said:
We have years of studies and data coming from bipartisan sources saying elections in the US are very fair and there is no amount of fraud even close to impacting results.
Click to expand...
actually, no one has ever looked at the consequences of unsupervised drop boxes and ballot harvesting.......at least no one that you don't call a liar......there WAS that guy with a video about mules.....I think he may have made some videos of people at ACORN years ago......you didn't like those either.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top