Megyn Kelly debunks Smith's claims against Trump and makes the case he is election interfering

[Marener]

Funny, I saw no deadlines handed down by SCOTUS or the judge in the case. The timing was deliberate on smith's part.

.

Did you bother to look to see if there were deadlines handed down by the judge? Be honest.

 

[OKTexas]

Did you bother to look to see if there were deadlines handed down by the judge? Be honest.

I did, it just said she asked for a brief, there was no timeline mentioned.

.

 

[Marener]

I did, it just said she asked for a brief, there was no timeline mentioned.

.

Where did you look exactly? I looked at the actual court documents.

Do you think judges ask for things without putting a timeline to it? That’s not how criminal trials work.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.233.0_2.pdf

 

[OKTexas]

Where did you look exactly? I looked at the actual court documents.

Do you think judges ask for things without putting a timeline to it? That’s not how criminal trials work.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.233.0_2.pdf

View attachment 1022559

Dumb ass I looked at the link YOU PROVIDED, this is what it said:

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan then decided she should start by seeking a brief from prosecutors, making their best argument about how Trump’s conduct could still be prosecuted in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.

There were no hot links in what YOU PROVIDED, to any other source material. I understand now what took you so long to reply, you were scrambling trying to find something else. And why were there no sanctions on smith when he missed the date specified by the judge? And what was the judges hurry on releasing them publicly?

.

 

[Marener]

Dumb ass I looked at the link YOU PROVIDED, this is what it said:

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan then decided she should start by seeking a brief from prosecutors, making their best argument about how Trump’s conduct could still be prosecuted in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.

There were no hot links in what YOU PROVIDED, to any other source material. I understand now what took you so long to reply, you were scrambling trying to find something else. And why were there no sanctions on smith when he missed the date specified by the judge? And what was the judges hurry on releasing them publicly?

.

So you’re a moron who didn’t actually look into the question as to whether there were any deadlines and don’t understand how criminal proceedings work. There are deadlines for everything.

You just make assumptions to suit your purposes. Next time do your research before running your mouth.

 

[OKTexas]

So you’re a moron who didn’t actually look into the question as to whether there were any deadlines and don’t understand how criminal proceedings work. There are deadlines for everything.

You just make assumptions to suit your purposes. Next time do your research before running your mouth.

Retard don't try to turn this around on me, I responded to what you posted. I even posted what your link said, there was no deadline mentioned. Perhaps you should of gotten off your lazy commie ass and posted the second link first. And why didn't you answer my question as to why the judge didn't sanction smith for missing her deadline?

.

 

[Marener]

Retard don't try to turn this around on me, I responded to what you posted. I even posted what your link said, there was no deadline mentioned. Perhaps you should have gotten off your lazy commie ass and posted the second link first. And why didn't you answer my question as to why the judge didn't sanction smith for missing her deadline?

Of course it’s about you. You’re the one running your mouth without having any idea what you’re talking about and being too lazy to figure it out on your own.

You just want a narrative, which is easier to believe when you’re not told the facts.

The entire article is about how Smith is following the court’s calendar about what to submit and when. Don’t like it? Tough. That’s what you get for nominating a guy with tons of ongoing legal issues.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You wouldn't know the rules if you were rightfully bitch slapped with them.

"Zone 2": All other forums not specified as Zone 1 or Zone 3: Baiting and polarizing opening posts and thread titles risk the thread being locked, moved, or trashed. Keep it relevant, choose wisely. Replies must contain significant and specific thread topic content to advance the discussion. No trolling. No hit and run flames. No hijacking or derailing threads. (Trolling means discussing another forum member(s) and not the topic of the thread.)

The post I reported contained zero specific on topic content.

Care to whine again?

.

You are a wannabee mod? OK. Megyn has it wrong. You have it wrong. Harris is going to win.

 

[OKTexas]

Of course it’s about you. You’re the one running your mouth without having any idea what you’re talking about and being too lazy to figure it out on your own.

You just want a narrative, which is easier to believe when you’re not told the facts.

The entire article is about how Smith is following the court’s calendar about what to submit and when. Don’t like it? Tough. That’s what you get for nominating a guy with tons of ongoing legal issues.

When YOU make a claim, it's on YOU to back it up. Deal with it commie.

.

 

[Marener]

When YOU make a claim, it's on YOU to back it up. Deal with it commie.

.

When the fuck do you ever back anything up that you say?

I had to explain to you how the criminal justice system works because you were too ignorant and too lazy to look anything up.

Don’t stop you from making ignorant claims that have no basis in reality.

 

[OKTexas]

You are a wannabee mod? OK. Megyn has it wrong. You have it wrong. Harris is going to win.

Nope, I just aid in keeping the board a bit more clean. I point out trash that needs to be addressed.

.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

When YOU make a claim, it's on YOU to back it up. Deal with it commie.

.

You made a claim that you failed to evidence, so it is up to you, bupkis.

 

[OKTexas]

You made a claim that you failed to evidence, so it is up to you, bupkis.

And that claim would be?????????????????

.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And that claim would be?????????????????

.

You forgot already? I will remind you when you do it again.

 

[Marener]

And that claim would be?????????????????

.

You claimed there was no reason for the motion from Jack Smith.

 

[OKTexas]

You forgot already? I will remind you when you do it again.

So once again all you have is running your mouth, typical commie.

.

 

[OKTexas]

You claimed there was no reason for the motion from Jack Smith.

At that point I hadn't seen one. And why haven't you answered even one of the many questions I asked about it?

.

 

[Marener]

At that point I hadn't seen one. And why haven you answered even one of the many questions I asked about it?

.

Ah, good. A claim out of ignorance. Clearly you spent no time trying to figure out the reason before you made your partisan assertion.

I’ve answered a ton of your questions and explained a lot to you. You’re welcome.

 

[OKTexas]

Ah, good. A claim out of ignorance. Clearly you spent no time trying to figure out the reason before you made your partisan assertion.

I’ve answered a ton of your questions and explained a lot to you. You’re welcome.

You spewed crap about things I didn't ask, but I asked specific questions you chose to ignore. I guess you're not as all knowing as YOU might think. LMAO

 

[Marener]

You spewed crap about things I didn't ask, but I asked specific questions you chose to ignore. I guess you're not as all knowing as YOU might think. LMAO

I gave you facts which disproved you ignorant assertion.

Your questions don’t change any of that.