Clear Cut Evidence Laid Out From Jack Smith Transcripts: Trump Is Going To Prison, And So Are His Accomplices

Wrong again, Farty.

They describe alleged evidence. Like any other mere claim which is subject to being actually proved.
if there wasnt some level of evidence, there wouldnt be indictments.

More than 1,800 pages of documents have been released. Until they can be reviewed, nobody can say anything about whats in them. Its a shitload of reading work to do before anyone can say anything about them.
 
if there wasnt some level of evidence, there wouldnt be indictments.

That’s not actually true, unless by “some level” you mean something that sorta kinda looks a little bit like “evidence.”
More than 1,800 pages of documents have been released.
Yeah. And?
Until they can be reviewed, nobody can say anything about whats in them.
Another idiotic assertion.
It’s a shitload of reading work to do before anyone can say anything about them.
Tripling down on your meaningless chatter.
 
The “case” may not even proceed to trial, at all.
True, if Trump wins. Though maybe Chutkan will get it in gear. She has 2 months.

The prosecutors will of course enter into evidence the actual correspondence showing the plans that they described.
 
if there wasnt some level of evidence, there wouldnt be indictments.

More than 1,800 pages of documents have been released. Until they can be reviewed, nobody can say anything about whats in them. Its a shitload of reading work to do before anyone can say anything about them.
Doesn't seem to be stopping the Useful Idiots from wanting to convict based on this press release.
 
True, if Trump wins. Though maybe Chutkan will get it in gear. She has 2 months.

Or, try to follow along here, it might well be determined by higher courts that Smith Was invalidly appointed to the position (because no Senate confirmation). All of his alleged prosecutorial actions would thereby be nullified. Can you say “no indictment of Smith’s left to try?”
The prosecutors will of course enter into evidence the actual correspondence showing the plans that they described.
They might try. They might not succeed. And even that presumes that the case survives to that point.
 
Oh, shit, now you've gone and pissed Indy off. He believes his opinion is the mostest valid opinion that ever was.
Nah, it’s just our banter…or at least I think it is…
 
Correct!

So I act like a normal adult and defer to the objective rules.

How many pages have you wasted, running headfirst into the same brick wall repeatedly? I'm now in a deep sleep.

No, you’re not acting like an adult, you’re acting like a partisan. You’re not concerned because it’s Trump they are after.

Maybe one day the shoe will be on the other foot and we can see how you lefty’s will react when a right winger judge does the same to one of your lefty politicians.
 
Or, try to follow along here, it might well be determined by higher courts that Smith Was invalidly appointed to the position (because no Senate confirmation).
Not likely. Cannon's anomalous decision stands alone. 100% of judges have ruled the other way, including one since she made her anomalous decision.
 
No, you’re not acting like an adult, you’re acting like a partisan.
*by following the objective rules

That sure is a clear and direct comment on your party.

Thanks for the accidental moment of honesty.
 
Last edited:
Not likely. Cannon's anomalous decision stands alone. 100% of judges have ruled the other way, including one since she made her anomalous decision.
Wrong. Her decision actually follows the law.

No wonder you’re so confused.
 
Future fantasy presented as already occurred fact Once Again
 
Future fantasy presented as already occurred fact Once Again
So now you accuse Jack Smith of lying to the court about the evidence he has?

Oh that's right. You freaks think everyone BUT the orange rapist charity thief is corrupt.

That's kind of hilarious.
 
No. Simplistic.

The decisions of a few judges who ruled differently doesn’t mean she is the one who was wrong, you twit.
Not a few. Lots. 100% of them. Including one since her ruling.

They ruled in accordance with the law.

You: my one favorite judge ruled in accordance with the law

The stronger argument is clear. Mine. You chose this line of argument. Whoops.
 
Not a few. Lots. 100% of them. Including one since her ruling.

100% of a few is still a few. You dipstick.
They ruled in accordance with the law.

She did. Not them.
You: my one favorite judge ruled in accordance with the law

Me: the law is the law regardless of how much it bothers some shitlibs.
The stronger argument is clear. Mine. You chose this line of argument. Whoops.
You make no argument at all. Don’t couldn’t be stronger.

My argument remains firmly seated upon the law. Your whining won’t ever change that fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom