Jack Smith’s Case Against Trump Appears to Be Falling Apart

[HisArpy]

And if this was his first time, or even his 10th, I might agree. Trump has been in court both at civil and criminal cases over 4000 time. He has lost or settled or ran out the clock over 3000 times.

One might infer from those actions that Trump's tactic is to delay delay delay. Regardless of the outcome to him, that has been a winning but expensive tactic.

Or one could understand that unless there's been a final verdict against him, he is not guilty of the offenses alleged against him.

 

[HisArpy]

I quoted the whole post chain HisArpy referred to. I'm not about to waste my time pulling up HisArpy's bab dabaling. ll74 and as I have both at times, agreed with Trump. I actually pulled up a quote of mine to prove that.

Not moving the goal posts here, I'm just asking you to show me one post of your's (just one) agreeing with Biden?

You quoted your own post and not one of 74's while trying to show it was 74 who supported Trump.

And again, supporting a lone policy decision isn't supporting the person.

 

[jomar]

It's innocent until proven guilty. And he's entitled to his full panoply of rights such as due process and a fair and neutral trial before a jury of his peers.

You not understanding that is why you're a ninny.

Oh please, his history makes it clear he’s a con artist crook who has an animal cunning and somehow slips through the cracks most of the time. And he takes full advantage of his full panoply of rights and due process. His whole legal strategy is to deny, deny, deny then delay, delay, delay. If he can’t run out the clock he confidentiality settles out of court, pays a huge fine and says he won nothing ever happened.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Or one could understand that unless there's been a final verdict against him, he is not guilty of the offenses alleged against him.

I never said he was. Find one post of mine pre-convicting Trump. I'm not invested him, he's just a news item for me that I comment on.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You quoted your own post and not one of 74's while trying to show it was 74 who supported Trump.

And again, supporting a lone policy decision isn't supporting the person.

https://forum.literotica.com/thread...be-falling-apart.1607570/page-4#post-98644935
No I did not.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh please, his history makes it clear he’s a con artist crook who has an animal cunning and somehow slips through the cracks most of the time. And he takes full advantage of his full panoply of rights and due process. His whole legal strategy is to deny, deny, deny then delay, delay, delay. If he can’t run out the clock he confidentiality settles out of court, pays a huge fine and says he won nothing ever happened.

And?

See here's the thing; if he was actually guilty of the things he's been charged with, he'd have been found guilty in fact instead of only in the minds of those who read biased media bullshit.

Or doesn't innocent until PROVEN guilty mean anything to you?

As for the settlements, the NY hush money case is going to test whether a settlement is a criminal act or not. My money is that the jury will find him guilty (because Trump and NYC biased jury) but the appeals court will reverse the verdict because settling a dispute with someone isn't a bribe. Nor does it legally equate to an admission of guilt.

The E Jean Carroll case will also be set aside because proclaiming your innocence isn't defamatory.

So, based on that (if it happens) how can you conclude Trump did anything wrong when he's not been found to actually be in the wrong?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

And?

See here's the thing; if he was actually guilty of the things he's been charged with, he'd have been found guilty in fact instead of only in the minds of those who read biased media bullshit.

Or doesn't innocent until PROVEN guilty mean anything to you?

As for the settlements, the NY hush money case is going to test whether a settlement is a criminal act or not. My money is that the jury will find him guilty (because Trump and NYC biased jury) but the appeals court will reverse the verdict because settling a dispute with someone isn't a bribe. Nor does it legally equate to an admission of guilt.

The E Jean Carroll case will also be set aside because proclaiming your innocence isn't defamatory.

So, based on that (if it happens) how can you conclude Trump did anything wrong when he's not been found to actually be in the wrong?

lol, because he was convicted, so he is considered guilty. He is appealing that and if he wins, then the verdict and the fine will be stayed.

However the Prosecution could then appeal, and we would have to wait for that appeal to end, where the outcome could be Trump is once again found guilty.

So to paraphrase you, you're innocent through out the whole process. It's not until all the appeals are finished and the final verdict reached that a person is "actually guilty".

 

[HisArpy]

lol, because he was convicted, so he is considered guilty. He is appealing that and if he wins, then the verdict and the fine will be vacated and reversed as if it never occurred.

However the Prosecution could then appeal, and we would have to wait for that appeal to end, where the outcome could be Trump is once again found guilty.

So to paraphrase you, you're innocent through out the whole process. It's not until all the appeals are finished and the final verdict reached that a person is "actually guilty".

1. Fixed your language to be correct.

2. Yup. It's called a final resolution.

You see, lawyers know those kinds of things. That YOU prefer to remain ignorant and/or believe other idjits who spread bullshit doesn't change truth or reality.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

1. Fixed your language to be correct.

2. Yup. It's called a final resolution.

You see, lawyers know those kinds of things. That YOU prefer to remain ignorant and/or believe other idjits who spread bullshit doesn't change truth or reality.

Damn that took you a while to get back to.

In the time waiting, I was out hunting through some of your posting history.

I was thinking it's more like an opaque orange.

What no one on the Left seems to want to acknowledge is that the docs were all classified and Biden had no authority to remove them from the SCIF. That he did so means;

1. Someone (maybe even more than 1 person) failed to adhere to classified document handling and security requirements; and,
2. Biden had to "steal" the documents in order to get them out of the SCIF.

I'm not saying Biden is guilty, I'm saying that there are credible allegations supported by documents and other items which appear to show that he's involved in illegal activities. Meanwhile we have Adam Schiff-for-brains still claiming that he has evidence that Trump is a Russian asset but he can't show it to us because it's classified. So, there's documents and tapes and a laptop and more in the public domain which shows Biden might be doing some bad shit - and there's schiff-for-brains hiding the ball so no one can see what he's got, if anything.

And you believe Schiffty Schiff.

That you want to go all forked tongue doesn't matter to me or my position. Jared hasn't been accused, hasn't been charged, and hasn't pleaded guilty to anything. Under the law he is innocent and can stand on his rights to not cooperate with the government.

Until that changes your hatred makes no difference.



The transgender discussion was over. I made my points, you ignored them and tried to move the goalposts. After that there wasn't anything left to say. Unless you've changed your mind and now want to explore the facet that the DSM doesn't preclude cross-diagnosis from one category to another.

In which case your reliance on Gender Identity Disorder not being a mental illness by specific preclusion, disappears.

If that's the case, start a new thread on it and we'll see if you can support a position that you can only have 1 diagnosis under the DSM.

^ this is a bald faced lie.

Trump held meetings with NARA representatives who were given documents to take back to the archives. Those representatives were told that they were welcome to return anytime they wanted or needed anything else. NARA requested that Trump move the documents he had into the storage room and lock them inside. A request which Trump complied with.

These are facts, not conjecture or opinion. Which means that you lied in your zeal to convict Trump of something you're giving a pass to Biden for while ignoring the very real FACT that Biden had classified docs from his time as a Senator and had ZERO legal grounds to possess outside a SCIF.

This is per se evidence that Biden committed a very serious crime. And you're ok with that because he's a Democrat. You're not ok with Trump having any documents, classified or not, because of your blatant and rampant TDS.

Or have I got that wrong?

Lol, keep on believing the lies.

Meanwhile:

McCarthy makes AP reporter admit that there actually is evidence of Biden's corruption

You take 1 statement out of context and somehow believe that it shows all of the documents don't exist or are just figments of someone's imagination.

That you don't know about the check from James Biden payable to Joe shows that you aren't up to speed on any of the facts. That you don't know about the letters from the IRS investigators shows that you're mired in ignorance. That you don't know of the HUNDREDS of pages of bank records which show the money transactions proves that you're blowing something out your ass and, as it usually does when someone like you blows that way, it stinks worse than the corruption you're trying to hide with it.

Unfortunately for you, approximately 80% of America understands what happened based on the information that's been released. The other 20% have their heads up their asses. That 20% includes you. I hope you enjoy the scent of the atmosphere in there. That smell is, after all, what you force upon others every time you speak.

So at the end of the day, Biden hasn't been convicted of anything, and must be considered innocent, according to your theory above. Even if he went to court and was convicted, you would still have to consider him innocent until all the appeals are exhausted, correct?

Which means all these posts above are....

 

[jomar]

And?

And his business history shows he milks an bilks people and the courts

See here's the thing; if he was actually guilty of the things he's been charged with, he'd have been found guilty in fact instead of only in the minds of those who read biased media bullshit.

Or doesn't innocent until PROVEN guilty mean anything to you?

Sure, but history and context, yeah? And for a for an attorney your posts reveal an incredible naïveté about how the legal system actually works, unless that is you’re trying to make a noble point or are white knighting for the orange don.

See here’s an example; back in the day the racist father and son illegally blocked blacks from renting their apartments. Word got to the DOJ who took action against them and with time ticking the trumps settled out of court with no admission of wrongdoing, paid a big fine and it was all swept under the trump rug, nothing to see move along.

So counselor, a person can be guilty as shit and everyone knows it, but that person can use the law and resources at their disposal to wear down and draw things out to a point where the prosecution does the math and decides the best solution is to settle and move on to other things.

And that’s trump’s legal strategy in a nutshell

As for the settlements, the NY hush money case is going to test whether a settlement is a criminal act or not. My money is that the jury will find him guilty (because Trump and NYC biased jury) but the appeals court will reverse the verdict because settling a dispute with someone isn't a bribe. Nor does it legally equate to an admission of guilt.

The E Jean Carroll case will also be set aside because proclaiming your innocence isn't defamatory.

We’ll see. I note he’s doing a lot of distraction and delay, smoke and mirrors.

So, based on that (if it happens) how can you conclude Trump did anything wrong when he's not been found to actually be in the wrong?

I’d say history and recently being found guilty in a civil fraud case and sexual assault points to a recurring pattern of behavior. And while that is not germane to the hush money case specifically, my money’s on trump doing illegal things.

 

[HisArpy]

Damn that took you a while to get back to.

In the time waiting, I was out hunting through some of your posting history.










So at the end of the day, Biden hasn't been convicted of anything, and must be considered innocent, according to your theory above. Even if he went to court and was convicted, you would still have to consider him innocent until all the appeals are exhausted, correct?

Which means all these posts above are....

And yet right here in one of the quoted posts you used I CLEARLY say...

HisArpy said: I'm not saying Biden is guilty,

So... ?

 

[HisArpy]

And his business history shows he milks an bilks people and the courts


Sure, but history and context, yeah? And for a for an attorney your posts reveal an incredible naïveté about how the legal system actually works, unless that is you’re trying to make a noble point or are white knighting for the orange don.

See here’s an example; back in the day the racist father and son illegally blocked blacks from renting their apartments. Word got to the DOJ who took action against them and with time ticking the trumps settled out of court with no admission of wrongdoing, paid a big fine and it was all swept under the trump rug, nothing to see move along.

So counselor, a person can be guilty as shit and everyone knows it, but that person can use the law and resources at their disposal to wear down and draw things out to a point where the prosecution does the math and decides the best solution is to settle and move on to other things.

And that’s trump’s legal strategy in a nutshell


We’ll see. I note he’s doing a lot of distraction and delay, smoke and mirrors.


I’d say history and recently being found guilty in a civil fraud case and sexual assault points to a recurring pattern of behavior. And while that is not germane to the hush money case specifically, my money’s on trump doing illegal things.

You're wrong. You refuse to admit it but somewhere in your head you know you're wrong because the way you have to justify your beliefs requires that you invoke your TDS and bias.

This comes out in the words you use and the way your sentences are constructed in your justification.

No one will ever be able to convince you otherwise because regardless of the truth or facts, you BELIEVE he's guilty.

Even if that hasn't been proven.

And that is enough because that's all that your biases and TDS require.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

And yet right here in one of the quoted posts you used I CLEARLY say...




So... ?

See, I was not hiding that, now was I?

So to my question, no one should call Biden guilty until after a conviction and all appeals are exhausted. Right?

 

[HisArpy]

See, I was not hiding that, now was I?

So to my question, you agree Biden is innocent.

Lol, insistent little fuck aren't you.

Yes, at this point in time Biden is innocent. That doesn't mean there isn't credible evidence of criminal conduct but he hasn't been (nor will he ever be) adjudged guilty of a crime based on that evidence.

Which illustrates that there is a huge difference between what I say about Biden and what you say about Trump. You say Trump is a crook (or whatever descriptor you want to use to mean something similar) while I say Biden is a crappy President who appears to have done shady shit. Notice the difference, crook vs crappy.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Lol, insistent little fuck aren't you.

Yes, at this point in time Biden is innocent.

Thank you. However you did use posts to show "in your opinion" that he is or may very well be guilty, correct?

If that is the case, then it would be very hypocritical if you try make others comply to a different standard with regard to expressing their opinions on Trumps guilt or innocence. Correct?

Also, Trump unlike Biden has actually lost a case, and in the technical sense is actually closer to being guilty then is Biden, correct?

 

[Bray123]

Trump's current case is that he is a crook, but he's allowed to be a crook.

Because he used to be a President he's entitled to continue be a crook and all his previous crimes even before he was President are expunged.

 

[jomar]

You're wrong. You refuse to admit it but somewhere in your head you know you're wrong because the way you have to justify your beliefs requires that you invoke your TDS and bias.

This comes out in the words you use and the way your sentences are constructed in your justification.

No one will ever be able to convince you otherwise because regardless of the truth or facts, you BELIEVE he's guilty.

Even if that hasn't been proven.

And that is enough because that's all that your biases and TDS require.

I do have an opinion and that is that trump is a criminal grifter that is supported by his long history of doing so. Now, I think some of his actions are kind of of inspired like having sheep and goats on a piece of a golf course so he could call it a farm and avoid taxes, and bury an ex wife near a tee box at a golf course to avoid taxes.

I have a further opinion that you cleaving to the letter of the law as fiercely as you do is kind of silly given trump’s actual and documented behavioral and legal history, and your own opinion about “crooked Biden.”

 

[KeithD]

I'll have to dig for this, but KeithD put me on ignore for it.

I don't have you on ignore. I have a lot of poster accounts on ignore, including Harpo, so it's often hard to see what the discussion is, but I've seen a slice of this one only because I don't, in fact, have you on ignore.

 

[HisArpy]

Thank you. However you did use posts to show "in your opinion" that he is or may very well be guilty, correct?

If that is the case, then it would be very hypocritical if you try make others comply to a different standard with regard to expressing their opinions on Trumps guilt or innocence. Correct?

Also, Trump unlike Biden has actually lost a case, and in the technical sense is actually closer to being guilty then is Biden, correct?

My "opinion" based on what I know of the evidence we've been allowed to see is still just my opinion.

That is a far far far cry from you proclaiming that Trump is a "con man," a "crook," a "criminal," and whatever else you've said about him.

There is no such thing as "closer to being guilty." All you're trying to do is justify your hatred and bias.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I don't have you on ignore. I have a lot of poster accounts on ignore, including Harpo, so it's often hard to see what the discussion is, but I've seen a slice of this one only because I don't, in fact, have you on ignore.

Not now but you did put me on it for a while. I really forget what I posted, and I think you took it personally, but it wasn't meant that way. I tried to find the thread, but I can't. I suspect it was a BB thread that got deleted.

 

[Lazaran]

There’s enough information publicly available to conclude that tRump is a racist, a criminal, a sexual predator, a misogynist, a fraud, and a traitor.

Decent, intelligent people don’t need a verdict in a court of law to confirm the obvious truth.

That ^ is why Derpy is still on the fence.



Derpy

 

[Fuzzy1975]

My "opinion" based on what I know of the evidence we've been allowed to see is still just my opinion.

Yes, and others can express their opinions on the evidence they have seen. Like Trump being found guilty.

That is a far far far cry from you proclaiming that Trump is a "con man," a "crook," a "criminal," and whatever else you've said about him.

You can be a con man and not be guilty of any crimes, right? You can be a crook, but if you're not convicted your not guilty right? Yes please post all the other shit I've said about Trump...

There is no such thing as "closer to being guilty."

Well looking at the case, Trump has been convicted, Biden hasn't, so yes Trump is closer. But hey I know why you're arguing so hard against that..

All you're trying to do is justify your hatred and bias.

No I am laughing my ass off at you, making pretzels trying to defend Trump. I personally don't care if he is, or isn't convicted.

 

[HisArpy]

I do have an opinion and that is that trump is a criminal grifter that is supported by his long history of doing so. Now, I think some of his actions are kind of of inspired like having sheep and goats on a piece of a golf course so he could call it a farm and avoid taxes, and bury an ex wife near a tee box at a golf course to avoid taxes.

I have a further opinion that you cleaving to the letter of the law as fiercely as you do is kind of silly given trump’s actual and documented behavioral and legal history, and your own opinion about “crooked Biden.”

^ this is an example of sentence construction and word choice proving bias.

You use the words "criminal grifter" as if they're factual rather than just your belief and then justify your use of those words by the statement "supported by his long history of doing so" as if that too is factual.

Both of those are unsupported except as a personal belief. Yet those beliefs shape and frame your overall opinion as if they were actual facts. Basically, your beliefs form your opinion based on those beliefs. Which is called circular logic.

Worse, when called on it you attack the person pointing this out to you. I have made no bones about how I stand for the law. Nothing I can recall having said regarding Biden runs afoul of that. Why? Because I form my opinions based on FACTS rather than my beliefs.

Trump has never been adjudged guilty of any criminal act. That you don't like him doesn't alter that FACT so you have no basis to claim he's any sort of grifter or criminal or crook or anything of the sort. That you do that is because you need to do so in order to justify yourself to yourself. The really horrible part is that you don't actually know anything, you're going on what a biased media has told you and you're using that to slander Trump with.

Which makes you a tool both personally and for the political operatives who shaped that message and told you to spread it for them.

It's obvious that you're actually smarter than that. Yet, because you've been told to ignore your own intelligence to get a reward you debase yourself for "them."

 

[HisArpy]

"Them" of course being the political operatives who created and spread the narrative against Trump as a means of defeating him as an opponent.

 

[ll74]

If you don't support policy, then argue policy. The only thing I see is, "Trump bad."

I typically argue policy. What you see is not my issue. People on this forum rarely argue policy.

I hate Trump, as a person. I hated GW Bush as well, but voted for him.

Neither is relevant to support for Smith's case.