4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh, so frank asks for examples, Candide provides a link to a credible source for examples and you go straight to name calling.

 

 

Goggling up some links is not the same as providing an example. 

 

If you had an example, you would post it, but you don't, so you can't.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Goggling up some links is not the same as providing an example. 

 

If you had an example, you would post it, but you don't, so you can't.

Links to a credible source with examples is not acceptable to you?

 

However, there’s this, you’ll find it at the top of the World News Sub forum’:

 

Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Links to a credible source with examples is not acceptable to you?

 

However, there’s this, you’ll find it at the top of the World News Sub forum’:

 

Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source.

He (like you, and like most all leftists) only ever provides links without providing the examples. If you want to make an honest argument, pull the example out, post the example, and provide a link to the source.

 

No one is arguing that gag orders are not used occasionally. 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Bet you're spanking one out just thinking of it...

Wow, that is a deeply disturbing comment. Especially coming from the member (no pun intended) who obviously has the biggest Trump boner of everyone on this forum. And that’s saying something, you have some stiff competition there. Again, no pun intended.

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He does have to, he names them, expresses his anger and violent lunatics amongst his supports get the message.

This is what Trumps is aiming at:

 

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-trump-threats-letitia-james-judge-engoron-cb11fd3471c5f1e7c7694a8e21ca5046

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Goggling up some links is not the same as providing an example. 

 

If you had an example, you would post it, but you don't, so you can't.

1. Providing only one example would be anedoctical, so it's better to provide several examples which can be compared and analysed. In particular as Frank83628 has not precisely specified which type of example.

2. If some posters are so keen about examples, they can do the search by themselves instead of trolling.

4 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

This is what Trumps is aiming at:

 

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-trump-threats-letitia-james-judge-engoron-cb11fd3471c5f1e7c7694a8e21ca5046

Not only that.

Trump is trying the get emotional reactions from judges, which would result in unfair or unbalanced decisions he could then appeal.

However, they are too smart to fall into this pathetic kind of traps. 😀

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He (like you, and like most all leftists) only ever provides links without providing the examples. If you want to make an honest argument, pull the example out, post the example, and provide a link to the source.

 

No one is arguing that gag orders are not used occasionally. 

Oh you don’t like evidence that meets the forum’s requirements.

 

OK

10 minutes ago, candide said:

1. Providing only one example would be anedoctical, so it's better to provide several examples which can be compared and analysed. In particular as Frank83628 has not precisely specified which type of example.

2. If some posters are so keen about examples, they can do the search by themselves instead of trolling.

Even better. Pull several examples out, post the examples, and provide a link to the source.

 

But you can never do that, because you don't even seem to read the stuff you link to, if you did, and if it contained an actual example that supported your position, you would pull it out (don't get excited rudi) and post it, but you don't, because you can't.

 

You just want to post links to stuff you haven't read, and then pretend like you've supported your claim. Same as it ever was. 

 

In just a week the real trial starts and Trump IMHO has now lost all avenues to stall. I think he is desperate enough to go right ahead and make the move to squarely cross the line. Something will happen soon.

Just now, Yellowtail said:

Even better. Pull several examples out, post the examples, and provide a link to the source.

 

But you can never do that, because you don't even seem to read the stuff you link to, if you did, and if it contained an actual example that supported your position, you would pull it out (don't get excited rudi) and post it, but you don't, because you can't.

 

You just want to post links to stuff you haven't read, and then pretend like you've supported your claim. Same as it ever was. 

 

Which claim did I make?

6 minutes ago, candide said:

Not only that.

Trump is trying the get emotional reactions from judges, which would result in unfair or unbalanced decisions he could then appeal.

However, they are too smart to fall into this pathetic kind of traps. 😀

Still no examples then?

 

Can I play to? Here is proof the judge is biased and should be removed:

Stefanik files ethics complaint against Judge Engoron in Trump fraud trial (nbcnews.com)

Trump Demands Mistrial In N.Y. Fraud Case Over Judge, Clerk’s ‘Bias’ (forbes.com)

Trump files for mistrial in New York fraud case, attacking ‘biased’ judge | Donald Trump | The Guardian

 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Still no examples then?

 

Can I play to? Here is proof the judge is biased and should be removed:

Stefanik files ethics complaint against Judge Engoron in Trump fraud trial (nbcnews.com)

Trump Demands Mistrial In N.Y. Fraud Case Over Judge, Clerk’s ‘Bias’ (forbes.com)

Trump files for mistrial in New York fraud case, attacking ‘biased’ judge | Donald Trump | The Guardian

 

Those are reports of claims of bias.

 

They are not proof of bias.

 

How did Trump’s court filing claiming bias go? 

4 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

In just a week the real trial starts and Trump IMHO has now lost all avenues to stall. I think he is desperate enough to go right ahead and make the move to squarely cross the line. Something will happen soon.

Yep, he’s in a corner.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Those are reports of claims of bias.

 

They are not proof of bias.

 

How did Trump’s court filing claiming bias go? 

There are proof. You did not even read them. 

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There are proof. You did not even read them. 

No they are claims.

 

Get back to me when any of them come to anything other than a rejection of the claims. 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

No they are claims.

 

Get back to me when any of them come to anything other than a rejection of the claims. 

Nope, you just did not read them, it was laid out clearly. 

So, it is "alleged" that Trump banged a porn actress ten years ago and paid her to keep quiet five years ago, correct? 

 

So what's the crime again? 

 

And why are we in a hurry all of the sudden? 

 

 

 

 

The world would be relieved to see this grifter behind bars where he can't do much damage.

37 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Still no examples then?

 

Can I play to? Here is proof the judge is biased and should be removed:

Stefanik files ethics complaint against Judge Engoron in Trump fraud trial (nbcnews.com)

Trump Demands Mistrial In N.Y. Fraud Case Over Judge, Clerk’s ‘Bias’ (forbes.com)

Trump files for mistrial in New York fraud case, attacking ‘biased’ judge | Donald Trump | The Guardian

 

It was a personal interpretation, not an assertion.

About your links. Not proof, just Trump's defense claim! 

1 minute ago, candide said:

It was a personal interpretation, not am assertion.

About your links. Not proof, just Trump's defense claim! 

It was proof, you just didn't read it. 

 

Still no examples then? 

34 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

In just a week the real trial starts and Trump IMHO has now lost all avenues to stall. I think he is desperate enough to go right ahead and make the move to squarely cross the line. Something will happen soon.

Unfortunately the 'hush money' trial seems to be the weakest of them all.

The insurrection trial is to me the most important of all, because it goes to the heart of American democracy. Garland messed that up by twiddling his thumbs for a year and a half, and now, as could be expected, the Supreme Court is slowing things down so there'll be no trial before the elections in November.

It's a complete demasque for the American legal and political system, that are so much intertwined. 

And I blame Biden for choosing Garland deliberately I have to assume.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It was proof, you just didn't read it. 

 

Still no examples then? 

Why should I lose my time reading the numerous attempts by Trump to delay his trials?

No proof until an appeal court decides so. Don't be impatient! 😀

I have provided plenty of examples in the links. If you don't like them, go search by yourself.

1 minute ago, Presto said:

Unfortunately the 'hush money' trial seems to be the weakest of them all.

The insurrection trial is to me the most important of all, because it goes to the heart of American democracy. Garland messed that up by twiddling his thumbs for a year and a half, and now, as could be expected, the Supreme Court is slowing things down so there'll be no trial before the elections in November.

It's a complete demasque for the American legal and political system, that are so much intertwined. 

And I blame Biden for choosing Garland deliberately I have to assume.

Garland knows it's a nothing burger, that's why he twiddled his thumbs until Biden told him to get on it. 

 

It's not the Supreme Court slowing things down, it called due process. 

 

Meanwhile in the Bronx, eight illegal alien squatters with criminal records that have been arrested with illegal guns and drugs have been released back to the streets "no cash bond". I wonder if the city held the "home" they were squatting in for them. If not, they'll probably sue and end up owning it. 

9 minutes ago, candide said:

Why should I lose my time reading the numerous attempts by Trump to delay his trials?

No proof until an appeal court decides so. Don't be impatient! 😀

I have provided plenty of examples in the links. If you don't like them, go search by yourself.

And I provided plenty of proof in my links as well, that you're too lazy to read them is typical. 

50 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, it is "alleged" that Trump banged a porn actress ten years ago and paid her to keep quiet five years ago, correct? 

 

So what's the crime again? 

 

And why are we in a hurry all of the sudden? 

 

 

 

 

Stay tuned ( I will)

 

The trial starts next week.

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And I provided plenty of proof in my links as well, that you're too lazy to read them is typical. 

Don't be impatient! Let's wait for an appeal court to decide if Trump's "proof" is valid or not.

39 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Garland knows it's a nothing burger, that's why he twiddled his thumbs until Biden told him to get on it. 

 

It's not the Supreme Court slowing things down, it called due process. 

 

Meanwhile in the Bronx, eight illegal alien squatters with criminal records that have been arrested with illegal guns and drugs have been released back to the streets "no cash bond". I wonder if the city held the "home" they were squatting in for them. If not, they'll probably sue and end up owning it. 

Man, you're a joke.

4 minutes ago, Presto said:

Man, you're a joke.

Another fact-filled, well thought out response from the left. 

9 minutes ago, candide said:

Don't be impatient! Let's wait for an appeal court to decide if Trump's "proof" is valid or not.

Man, you're a joke.