Proof Obama and Schiff tried to overthrow the government

[markef]

No dummy, he concealed damaging information during an election by the means of criminal conduct: falsification of bussiness records in the first degree.

Thats what the jury unanimously found.

I find it almost unbelievable that the democrats got away with electing a racist black woman DA with Soros' money who campaigned on the promise to take Trump down by whatever means she could find. Tish James used crooked legal maneuvers to bypass statute of limitations laws to unjustly charge Trump with lying about his property values in a case that had no victims and which was never seen as a crime by any prosecutors for years before James turned it into one. How the democrats got away with this weaponization of the justice system to commit this crime against a sitting US president is beyond me. The corrupt Trump-hating biased democrat judge said the property was worth far less that it was worth, proving the corrupt judge knew nothing about property values. James charged Trump with mortgage fraud which he did not commit while continuing a long history of committing mortgage frauds which she did commit. You cannot make this stuff up.

 

[AntonToo]

I find it almost unbelievable that the democrats got away with electing a racist black woman DA with Soros' money who campaigned on the promise to take Trump down by whatever means she could find. Tish James used crooked legal maneuvers to bypass statute of limitations laws to unjustly charge Trump with lying about his property values in a case that had no victims and which was never seen as a crime by any prosecutors for years before James turned it into one. How the democrats got away with this weaponization of the justice system to commit this crime against a sitting US president is beyond me. The corrupt Trump-hating biased democrat judge said the property was worth far less that it was worth, proving the corrupt judge knew nothing about property values. James charged Trump with mortgage fraud which he did not commit while continuing a long history of committing mortgage frauds which she did commit. You cannot make this stuff up.


View attachment 1236545

...wrong case dummy.

Also, in that picture is the white man who ruled on the the civil case against Trump Co., not the black woman who was making the case.

 

[BackAgain]

Nice you think I am inside the Government.

That little chumpy dumpy is not known for her intellect.

 

[BackAgain]

Did you all forget when you impeached Clinton over a blow job?

Untrue — ss you know each time you repeat that lie.

 

[Robert W]

Did you all forget when you impeached Clinton over a blow job?

No. But that is not true as others tell you.
Do you recall when Clinton lost to Paula Jones?

 

[markef]

...wrong case dummy.

Did James not unjustly charge Trump with mortgage fraud while committing mortgage fraud herself? How is she getting away with this wickedness? Did James claim Trump used the wrong bank account to pay the hooker hush money when any reasonable person could see she could just have easily agreed that the money came from the account he said it did and therefore was not a crime?

 

[AntonToo]

Did James not unjustly charge Trump with mortgage fraud while committing mortgage fraud herself? How is she getting away with this wickedness? Did James claim Trump used the wrong bank account to pay the hooker hush money when any reasonable person could see she could just have easily agreed that the money came from the account he said it did and therefore was not a crime?

How do you have this conversation with someone who doesn’t even know a difference between a criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit, and can’t keep track which case is being discussed?

Latisha James proved her case in the court of law.

Trump’s petty, retaliatory case against James was thrown out.

What don’t you get?

 

[Hollie]

Um, I think you have it mixed up.

If Obama had gone public with what the FBI knew about Cheeto Hitler's ties to Putin before the election, Hillary would have won easily in 2016.

Instead, they kept a lid on it to keep from embarrassing Trump.

Really, Chatbot. Even by your standards of goofy conspiracy theories, the above is laughably inept.

 

[Hollie]

Everyday.
The man is a lying corruption machine.
Everyday, non-stop.

Your ignorant babbling is laughable.

 

[markef]

How do you have conversation with someone who doesn’t even know a difference between a criminal prosecution and a civil lawsuit?

Are you suggesting that Tish was OK to unjustly prosecute Trump because it was only a civil suit that violated multiple court precedencies? Higher courts did not agree that she did right.

 

[AntonToo]

Are you suggesting that Tish was OK to unjustly prosecute Trump because it was only a civil suit that violated multiple court precedencies? Higher courts did not agree that she did right.

Wrong again, higher court upheld the case.

What they disagreed with was the judgement amount against Trump Co.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He concealed damaging information by the means of criminal conduct: falsification of bussiness records in the first degree. Criminal conduct was book keeping fraud.

This is not rocket science, but I guess when you badly don't want to understand something you start coming up with upside down nonsense like that to cope.

He hid information with bookkeeping misdemeanors. Wow!

Where was the other crime? The one that made it "first degree"?

 

[markef]

Wrong again, higher court upheld the case.

What they disagreed with was the judgement amount against Trump Co.

The Trump-hating judge had no right to hear the case because of his Trump-hating bias but that is what democrats do. They try their high-profile enemies in leftist courts with leftist judges and prosecutors and devoutly leftist jurors. In other words, in kangaroo courts, much like white southern democrat lynch mobs of a hundred years ago. The judge essentially told the biased jurors they did not have to understand the law or the crime to find their enemy Donald Trump guilty.

Legal experts explain confusing jury instructions in Trump hush-money case

The prospect of a non-unanimous outcome has predictably resulted in substantial fanfare, attention, controversy, and complaints about what, exactly, the jury is being asked to do.

lawandcrime.com

'You need not be unanimous': Legal experts explain confusing jury instructions in Trump hush-money case as jurors themselves ask judge to re-read them​

"Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were," the instructions delivered Wednesday by New York County Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan read.

 

[Winco]

Your ignorant babbling is laughable.

Oh sweeetie

Me being more successful than You really stings. LOLOLLOL

 

[scruffy]

Are we still talking about Obama being an insurrectionist?

 

[markef]

Are we still talking about Obama being an insurrectionist?

If Nixon was guilty then so was Obama.