placeholder

4 recent polls all said the same thing. Not including the one previously referred to. But since for you, the standard for evidence is whether you care or not, to you that's totally insignificant.

Please. People who had every motivation to find evidence found nothing as the results of the work by 2 forensic teams hired by Trump's campaign show. Even judges appointed by Trump repeatedly ask his intercessors to produce actual evidence. How many victories did they manage to get in court?

And the thing is, as far as I can find, he's never actually committed to writing any kind of fact based challenge to ACC.

You've still got nothing. Come up with a link to a credible source the epidemiologists are lying about varying rates of mortality among different cohorts. In other words put up...

When someone says 2+2=5, I'm going to say that's false, I could dress up my reply in any number of ways, but the answer would amount to the same thing. The fact is anyone who makes a claim like yours, is just inventing stuff to avoid facing the fact that they've got nothing. But if you do have proof that epidemiologists are lying, you should post a link to that. "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

You've truly got to be purposely ignorant or living in a cave not to know of the huge amount of evidence there is against Trump in this case above all. But thanks for the Pavlovian response.

And here's the conclusion which you failed to note: "In conclusion, our study showed the possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and herpesvirus reactivation."

And extreme right wing ideologues love to make over-the-top generalizations.

I guess when you've got nothing, resorting to accusations of lying is one way to go.

So why should anyone believe anything you claim in regards to numbers if you're going to invoke the excuse of hyperbole? What in your comment showed that it wasn't meant to be taken literally? The fact that it echoes what a certain failed candidate claims?

Well, what do you think epidemiologists get up to during and after a pandemic? You don't think that they parse how people in all sorts of cohorts fared whether or not they were vaccinated? You think that it wouldn't be of particular interest to examine how those most at risk fared? You really want to run with that?

Well, my exclusion from the group photo still hurts. Thanks for not caring. As for the consciousness of guilt thing, you've got nothing.

I guess in Medical School they never go to the part about epidemiology and how mortality rates are determined before you left.

And you certainly had nothing relevant to reply with on the subject of unnecessary deaths due to the refusal to be vaccinated with covid vaccines.

My fellow tag team members? I split from that crew after they didn't include me in the group photo. And the point I raised is such a basic one that not even a sudden onset of fatigue, can readily explain your bemusement.

I see you have no evidence to offer against the fact that not even 2 independent teams of forensic investigators hired by the Trump campaign could come up with any evidence of significant voter fraud. But what matter the conclusions of those 2 teams compared to the probative value of your "common sense"? It is to laugh.

Thank for not offering any evidence of why lessening the production of greenhouse gasses will have no effect on climate change.

In other words, on the issue of people dying unnecessarily because they refused to get vaccinated, you've got nothing.

You've gone curiously ignorant on this subject yet you seem to possess so much detailed information about other aspects of the law. Curious, isn't it? CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT Consciousness of Guilt is both a concept and a type of circumstantial evidence used in criminal trials by prosecutors. It refers to a powerful and highly incriminating inference that a judge or jury may draw from the statements or conduct of a defendant (accused) after a crime has been committed suggesting that the defendant knows he or she is guilty of the charged crime. In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime. https://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/legal-dictionary/c/consciousness-of-guilt/ The article goes on to list telling lies as one proof of consciousness of guilt. That you think this needs explaining is odd in itself.

This is your idea of evidence. One Nobel-Prize winning scientist? Not actually a climatologist. You think this is how science gets corroborated or not?

Not even Donald Trump's campaign could come up with evidence that there was significant election fraud. They actually hired 2 separate teams of forensic evidence to try and come up with evidence that this was the case. Even they found nothing. Please provide a link to a credible source that backs up your claim: Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source. https://aseannow.com/forum/428-the-war-in-ukraine/

Isn't there is thing in law called consciousness of guilt? And wouldn't Trump's lies about the document being just newspapers and magazines go a long way towards proving that Trump believed what he did violated the law?

Doesn't the transcript also show that Trump claims it was a classified document, one that he said he couldn't declassify it then because he was no longer President?

Well, given that Jack Smith has entered it as potential evidence in a very high profile case, I'd say yes.

Actually, it's an audio, but the gist is the same.