|
Post by jeffersoncody on Apr 25, 2024 11:10:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 25, 2024 12:34:38 GMT
He's allowed to cite articles that call the trial a sham.
He's not allowed to cite articles that call the witnesses a sham.
Even someone as dumb as bricks as you are should know the difference between a trial and witnesses.
Which articles about this case don't mention Michael Cohen or Stormy Daniels?
Do you realize how retarded you are? Not half as retarded as your reality-challenged attempt to claim I supported the Colorado vote ban on page 6 of this thread, imbecile. Noticed you didn’t try one of your cutesy comebacks on that one, also. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 25, 2024 18:01:04 GMT
Which articles about this case don't mention Michael Cohen or Stormy Daniels?
Do you realize how retarded you are? Not half as retarded as your reality-challenged attempt to claim I supported the Colorado vote ban on page 6 of this thread, imbecile. Noticed you didn’t try one of your cutesy comebacks on that one, also. Why not? Except that's not what I said. I said to stop getting your legal analyses from the same people who bought into the Colorado ballot removal.
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 25, 2024 18:12:45 GMT
Not half as retarded as your reality-challenged attempt to claim I supported the Colorado vote ban on page 6 of this thread, imbecile. Noticed you didn’t try one of your cutesy comebacks on that one, also. Why not? Except that's not what I said. I said to stop getting your legal analyses from the same people who bought into the Colorado ballot removal. I gave you lots of evidence that I considered the Colorado claim to be on thin ice from day one. Put up or shut up, Bucky. Find one shred of proof I have, to use your own words, been "getting your legal analyses from the same people who bought into the Colorado ballot removal."
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 25, 2024 18:18:20 GMT
Except that's not what I said. I said to stop getting your legal analyses from the same people who bought into the Colorado ballot removal. I gave you lots of evidence that I considered the Colorado claim to be on thin ice from day one. Put up or shut up, Bucky. Find one shred of proof I have, to use your own words, been "getting your legal analyses from the same people who bought into the Colorado ballot removal." You're not tracking the conversation. The 'legal experts' who say the documents case is a strong case are the same legal experts who said the Colorado ballot case was a strong case, and therefore the opinions of these 'experts' cannot be trusted.
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 25, 2024 23:34:57 GMT
I gave you lots of evidence that I considered the Colorado claim to be on thin ice from day one. Put up or shut up, Bucky. Find one shred of proof I have, to use your own words, been "getting your legal analyses from the same people who bought into the Colorado ballot removal." You're not tracking the conversation. The 'legal experts' who say the documents case is a strong case are the same legal experts who said the Colorado ballot case was a strong case, and therefore the opinions of these 'experts' cannot be trusted. Name two that I trust that said anything positive about the Colorado case, Bucky. That theory exists only in your rich inner life.
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 25, 2024 23:46:05 GMT
You're not tracking the conversation. The 'legal experts' who say the documents case is a strong case are the same legal experts who said the Colorado ballot case was a strong case, and therefore the opinions of these 'experts' cannot be trusted. Name two that I trust that said anything positive about the Colorado case, Bucky. That theory exists only in your rich inner life. The 'experts' who contribute to CNN/MSNBC/NYTimes such as Conway and Luttig who numerous times claimed the Colorado Supreme Court decision was 'masterful' and 'unassailable' are the same people who claim the documents case is strong, while the experts who correctly claimed the Colorado Supreme Court decision was a judicial disgrace are saying the documents case is weak.
I have not found a single expert who has said the ballot case was weak but the documents case was strong, but you're free to point it out if you find one.
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Apr 26, 2024 9:46:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Apr 26, 2024 9:56:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 26, 2024 10:11:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 26, 2024 14:36:16 GMT
Name two that I trust that said anything positive about the Colorado case, Bucky. That theory exists only in your rich inner life. The 'experts' who contribute to CNN/MSNBC/NYTimes such as Conway and Luttig who numerous times claimed the Colorado Supreme Court decision was 'masterful' and 'unassailable' are the same people who claim the documents case is strong, while the experts who correctly claimed the Colorado Supreme Court decision was a judicial disgrace are saying the documents case is weak.
I have not found a single expert who has said the ballot case was weak but the documents case was strong, but you're free to point it out if you find one.
And your “proof” I relied on those TV lawyers, Bucky? Have you noticed I cite to actual legal documents and not TV pundits, Bucky? This theory of yours must have sounded real clever when you were thinking about it. Should have kept it there.
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Apr 30, 2024 13:50:30 GMT
Wham. Bam. (He already did the thank you ma'am)
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on May 3, 2024 20:02:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on May 6, 2024 18:49:47 GMT
This is an interesting 🧵
|
|
|
Post by thekindercarebear (A/S/L) on May 7, 2024 17:08:22 GMT
ugh. this is not a flatterting drawing of stormy daniels. wth.
|
|