On 11/12/2024 at 8:15 PM, pattayasan said:

 

Care to comment on why he won't sign the pledge?

Who said he wouldn’t?

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Please continue screaming your cultish beliefs so the sane amongst us can have a good head shake and laugh.  Or you could "do your own research" and find out that once a judge issues an adjudication the defendant's status is exonerated or convicted.  Appeals do not change the defendants status until resolved.

He's not convicted until he is sentenced. But keep lying, you don't care about the truth. 

 

And he can't appeal until after he's sentenced. 

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

He's not convicted until he is sentenced. But keep lying, you don't care about the truth. 

 

And he can't appeal until after he's sentenced. 

Wrong....  but thanks for playing.

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/COURTS/nyc/criminal/glossary.shtml#Conviction

 

The horse I listen to speaks the truth... your horse is actually just a farcical con man disguised as a horse.

 

5 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Wrong....  but thanks for playing.

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/COURTS/nyc/criminal/glossary.shtml#Conviction

 

He's not convicted until he is sentenced. But keep lying, you don't care about the truth. 

 

And he can't appeal until after he's sentenced. 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He's not convicted until he is sentenced. But keep lying, you don't care about the truth. 

 

And he can't appeal until after he's sentenced. 

Have you never heard the phrase "his conviction was overturned on appeal"?  you're so deluded you can't read the definition of convicted... you're a very sad case.

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

Have you never heard the phrase "his conviction was overturned on appeal"?  you're so deluded you can't read the definition of convicted... you're a very sad case.

Yes, and he can't appeal until after he is convicted. 

 

And because he has not yet been convicted, he is unable to appeal. 

A post with misquoted content has been removed.

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

He's not convicted until he is sentenced. But keep lying, you don't care about the truth. 

 

And he can't appeal until after he's sentenced. 

I've shown proof of the definition of conviction in the state of New York.

 

Do you have a shred of evidence for your opinion?

tick

tick

tick

tick

.... we're all waiting patiently

34 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I've shown proof of the definition of conviction in the state of New York.

 

Do you have a shred of evidence for your opinion?

tick

tick

tick

tick

.... we're all waiting patiently

Oh look, a "convicted felon" voting. 

 

You should report him! 

 

 

38 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, and he can't appeal until after he is convicted. 

 

And because he has not yet been convicted, he is unable to appeal. 

Nice try ... but it also means conviction always precedes appeal.

please present your evidence or non-knuckle draggers everywhere will suspect you of lying

On 11/12/2024 at 10:25 PM, Lacessit said:

" Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". ( Dr. Samuel Johnson )

 

Sure is.

Nothing more than that old writer's opinion, just because a writer said it, does not make it factual.

On 11/12/2024 at 8:09 PM, pattayasan said:

Trump is immune from prosecution

All sitting Presidents are, Trump's not the only one, as your comment seems to suggest.

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh look, a "convicted felon" voting. 

 

You should report him! 

Bzzzzzt!.... nice try but deflection is not evidential.... thanks for playing

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

All sitting Presidents are, Trump's not the only one, as your comment seems to suggest.

As are judges and congressmen 

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

18 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

All sitting Presidents are, Trump's not the only one, as your comment seems to suggest.

As are judges and congressmen 

They do not have criminal immunity.

20 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

All sitting Presidents are, Trump's not the only one, as your comment seems to suggest.

 

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As are judges and congressmen 

 

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

They do not have criminal immunity.

But... the yellow guy does have a very distorted understanding of US laws and the legal system .... maybe that spurred him to move to LOS.

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Nothing more than that old writer's opinion, just because a writer said it, does not make it factual.

I daresay he  achieved more fame than you with his observations.

 

Still working on an answer to my arrears question?

wait, what? I thought Trump had immunity? How can he break a law? 

 

And besides, he’s a fascist and a dictator, so what difference would signing a document mean? 

 

So Trump signs it, and then he’s like dang! I could have been a fascist and a dictator if only I had not signed that paper! 

On 11/12/2024 at 7:29 AM, simple1 said:

“Donald Trump and his transition team are already breaking the law,” Senator Warren wrote. “I would know because I wrote the law. Incoming presidents are required to prevent conflicts of interest and sign an ethics agreement. This is what illegal corruption looks like.”

 

'What illegal corruption looks like': Why experts are blasting Trump for 'already breaking the law'

 

There's not too many less credible voices than Liz Warren. As far as experts, Covid and the Climate Change zealots taught us there are a couple of different kids of experts, those that can be bought or intimidated into shilling someone elses narrative and those that can be cancelled, censored or otherwise ostracized by those advancing a narrative

On 11/12/2024 at 12:29 PM, simple1 said:

“Donald Trump and his transition team are already breaking the law,” Senator Warren wrote. “I would know because I wrote the law. Incoming presidents are required to prevent conflicts of interest and sign an ethics agreement. This is what illegal corruption looks like.”

 

'What illegal corruption looks like': Why experts are blasting Trump for 'already breaking the law'

 

People who respect the law don't make history.

Trump will make history.

He ain't gonna respect the law.

He will rewrite it.

And you...

Well...

You gonna

 

2 minutes ago, ModdaPunk said:

 

People who respect the law don't make history.

Trump will make history.

He ain't gonna respect the law.

He will rewrite it.

And you...

Well...

You gonna

 

What a bull but ok, Hitler made history as did Pol Pot.

Just now, FritsSikkink said:

What a bull but ok, Hitler made history as did Pol Pot.

 

What an incredible guilt by association attempt.

I bet no one's gonna see that one coming...

 

 

12 hours ago, Lacessit said:

15 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Nothing more than that old writer's opinion, just because a writer said it, does not make it factual.

I daresay he  achieved more fame than you with his observations.

I dare say that he did, that still makes them nothing more than one man's opinion.

12 hours ago, Lacessit said:

15 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Nothing more than that old writer's opinion, just because a writer said it, does not make it factual.

I daresay he  achieved more fame than you with his observations.

 

Still working on an answer to my arrears question?

Which "arrears" question did you address to me?

11 hours ago, ModdaPunk said:

 

People who respect the law don't make history.

Trump will make history.

He ain't gonna respect the law.

He will rewrite it.

And you...

Well...

 

snipped for brevity. As I understand trump cannot enact legislation without the support of Congress, but can use Exec Orders, not the same. Highly likely will only have two years to do so,. Then reversed when Dems get back in power. So far trump is establishing a Cabinet comprised of many sycophant's - best of luck with that...especially with Health Care & Justice systems with nut cases running them, if approved.

56 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Highly likely will only have two years to do so

 

"highly unlikely" is what defines Trump as a politician.

And yet...

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Which "arrears" question did you address to me?

I asked whether you would work for Trump in arrears, when you questioned my claim every lawyer working for him demands payment up front.

4 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Which "arrears" question did you address to me?

I asked whether you would work for Trump in arrears, when you questioned my claim every lawyer working for him demands payment up front.

No, you did not, there is nothing from you on this thread to that effect.  However, I would and you cannot claim it to be factual that every lawyer requires payment up front, suggesting he needs to pay everything up front.  Having to pay a retainer is different, if that is what you refer to, and is normal in cases that will require a lot of lawyer hours, all lawyers require that, it not something that is peculiar to Trump and his lawyers. 

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, you did not, there is nothing from you on this thread to that effect.  However, I would and you cannot claim it to be factual that every lawyer requires payment up front, suggesting he needs to pay everything up front.  Having to pay a retainer is different, if that is what you refer to, and is normal in cases that will require a lot of lawyer hours, all lawyers require that, it not something that is peculiar to Trump and his lawyers. 

 

All the high IQ leftists claim that Trump had cheated every contractor, lawyer, venue, and individual that has worked for him since the '70s. 

 

But he still has plenty of contractors, lawyers, and individuals that work for him, and still seems be able to book most any venue he likes. 

 

How funny is that? 

experts! hahahaha