|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 22, 2024 13:32:06 GMT
Literally the only way you can claim that is by ignoring a slew of facts INCLUDING TRUMP HIMSELF acknowledging he was in possession of government property thst he repeatedly refused to return. Like I said, we all already know you'll ignore all the facts you need to in order to repeat your talking point. The law does not say what you claim it says. And you know those were copies that Trump had, right? NARA already had their own copies. So you are fine with Trump getting off on a technicality? But not Jussie Smolett? That's racist. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 22, 2024 13:33:02 GMT
It was a logistical nightmare from the beginning.
By letting the Osundairo brothers go, the police basically admitted it wasn't a big deal.
If it's not a big deal for the Osundairos to receive payment, buy the supplies, and commit the act, then it's not a big deal for Smollett to pay them to do it and report it.
MAGA needed to let it go, but couldn't.
Why are you OK with hate crime hoaxes? dancer is not okay with hate crime hoaxes. But DA's have to follow the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Factchecker3Point0 on Nov 22, 2024 13:39:10 GMT
So because a corrupt DA dropped charges once without justification he gets his conviction reversed. See "PA vs Cosby" |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 22, 2024 14:58:00 GMT
The guy who thinks "keep your stuff seperate" is the same thing as "you can declare anything you want yours" is in no position to talk about what the law says...lol And yes, we all noticed yoy trying to shift the discussion away from your reliance on ignoring most of the facts. Maybe a nice tech themed series of threads from you would be a good addition to the boards. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the exchange you've decided to stick your nose in. But thanks for playing. |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 22, 2024 15:00:11 GMT
You've already repeated your thoroughly debunked talking points and ignored most of the facts in dozens of threads. Come up with some new material. Everything I said is fact. No, it isn't. Especially the part where you claim that it was all Trump's property despite Trump on at least two separate occasions acknowledging that there was government property in the boxes he was refusing to return. Let me guess...you'll ignore that fact that's been bought up to you at least 4 times now and continue parroting your talking points. |
|
|
|
Post by tommcclarey on Nov 22, 2024 15:08:39 GMT
Jussie Smollett exonerated. Finally.
The Nelson Mandela of our time.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 22, 2024 16:07:00 GMT
Everything I said is fact. No, it isn't. Especially the part where you claim that it was all Trump's property despite Trump on at least two separate occasions acknowledging that there was government property in the boxes he was refusing to return. Let me guess...you'll ignore that fact that's been bought up to you at least 4 times now and continue parroting your talking points. jackspicer is like Forrest Gump. No matter what you tell him, he responds with, "Trump (technically) broke no laws." Jack complains about Jussie Smollet getting off on a technicality. But defends Trump getting off on a technicality. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Nov 22, 2024 16:11:06 GMT
The law does not say what you claim it says. And you know those were copies that Trump had, right? NARA already had their own copies. So you are fine with Trump getting off on a technicality? But not Jussie Smolett? That's racist. Trump didn't commit any crimes. Jussie Smollett did. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Nov 22, 2024 16:13:15 GMT
Everything I said is fact. No, it isn't. Especially the part where you claim that it was all Trump's property despite Trump on at least two separate occasions acknowledging that there was government property in the boxes he was refusing to return. Let me guess...you'll ignore that fact that's been bought up to you at least 4 times now and continue parroting your talking points. What you call talking points I call facts and law. Trump had a right to copies of those documents. The case was dismissed, by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 22, 2024 16:18:45 GMT
So you are fine with Trump getting off on a technicality? But not Jussie Smolett? That's racist. Trump didn't commit any crimes. Jussie Smollett did. Baloney. Everybody knows he did. Your blindness or refusal to see the obvious doesn't change the fact that he is a convicted felon with numerous charges still pending. Donald Trump is way more dangerous than Jussie Smollet. |
|
|
|
Post by gwyn on Nov 22, 2024 16:36:37 GMT
It was a logistical nightmare from the beginning.
By letting the Osundairo brothers go, the police basically admitted it wasn't a big deal.
If it's not a big deal for the Osundairos to receive payment, buy the supplies, and commit the act, then it's not a big deal for Smollett to pay them to do it and report it.
MAGA needed to let it go, but couldn't.
Holy fucking shit. Did the Osundairo brothers call 911 and repeatedly make false reports to the police? No. Guess what. That is what Smollett was indicted, charged and convicted for. The check was presented as proof that Smollett designed the entire staged incident which showed there was no crime for him to report… which is why he was prosecuted for false reporting of a crime. Jfc 🤦♀️ www.cnn.com/2020/02/11/us/jussie-smollett-indictment/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 22, 2024 16:40:01 GMT
No, it isn't. Especially the part where you claim that it was all Trump's property despite Trump on at least two separate occasions acknowledging that there was government property in the boxes he was refusing to return. Let me guess...you'll ignore that fact that's been bought up to you at least 4 times now and continue parroting your talking points. What you call talking points I call facts and law. Trump had a right to copies of those documents. The case was dismissed, by the way. ^ As predicted, continues to ignore the fact that TRUMP HIMSELF has acknowledged that there was GOVERNMENT PROPERTY in those boxes. Pathetic. Yeah, the case was dismissed because a Trump appointed judge found the FACTS OF THE CASE irrelevant in favor of questionable partisan political arguments. What's your point, other than you hate facts? lol |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 22, 2024 16:57:11 GMT
What you call talking points I call facts and law. Trump had a right to copies of those documents. The case was dismissed, by the way. ^ As predicted, continues to ignore the fact that TRUMP HIMSELF has acknowledged that there was GOVERNMENT PROPERTY in those boxes. Pathetic. Yeah, the case was dismissed because a Trump appointed judge found the FACTS OF THE CASE irrelevant in favor of questionable partisan political arguments. What's your point, other than you hate facts? lol jackspicer likes facts when they support what he wants to believe. He doesn't dislike facts when they contradict what he wants to believe. He just ignores and dismisses them then. |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 22, 2024 17:56:27 GMT
^ As predicted, continues to ignore the fact that TRUMP HIMSELF has acknowledged that there was GOVERNMENT PROPERTY in those boxes. Pathetic. Yeah, the case was dismissed because a Trump appointed judge found the FACTS OF THE CASE irrelevant in favor of questionable partisan political arguments. What's your point, other than you hate facts? lol jackspicer likes facts when they support what he wants to believe. He doesn't dislike facts when they contradict what he wants to believe. He just ignores and dismisses them then. Yup. Something he's made PAINFULLY obvious in the course of this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Nov 22, 2024 18:00:34 GMT
jackspicer likes facts when they support what he wants to believe. He doesn't dislike facts when they contradict what he wants to believe. He just ignores and dismisses them then. Yup. Something he's made PAINFULLY obvious in the course of this discussion. You're agreeing with someone who thinks Trump is ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment. |
|
