3 ms·

> Trump will appeal this and probably win :)

by docmars 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
CyberDildonics 3y ago
What evidence are you basing that on?
- docmars 3y ago
  1. The outcomes are very clearly politically motivated. 2. The bank CEOs who testified agreed that there was no wrongdoing on Trump's part. The loans are paid. 3. There is no victim in the case. ("bUt thE StaTe..." [eyeroll]) 4. Kevin O'Leary condemns the ruling as baseless and corrupt. That's kind of a big deal. [https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1759639865174729101 https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/17596398651747291...] --- On a related note, look at the kinds of people who are going after Trump: 1. We have Fani Willis and her little boyfriend in Georgia using cash she pulled out of her campaign to evade accountability (that's a felony). 2. We have this little pr*ck filing lawsuits in every state to have Trump removed from their ballots, being arrested and charged with filing 17 sets of false tax documents to the IRS. [https://twitter.com/rickydoggin/status/1759623388509929853 https://twitter.com/rickydoggin/status/1759623388509929853] 3. We have Letitia James whose sole campaign promise was to "get Trump at any cost" -- seems like they're willing to make up anything for a political win, even if it's a complete lie. Can't trust someone whose mission is clearly a witch hunt. Integrity doesn't matter to them. ...and they want to insinuate that Trump is corrupt? Talk about hypocrisy. These are the people who are entrusted with "getting Trump", seriously? This should ruin your trust in anyone going after Trump and increase your scrutiny towards those who (apparently) have no integrity or basis for going after this guy. This is why conservatives rightly have a strong argument against this witch hunt, any why they feel justified in continuing to support Trump. Find us someone whose record is clean, and then we can talk.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    You said he will appeal his $450 million civil fraud trial and win, but most of what you said here does even have to do with that case. 1. We have Fani Willis 2. We have this little prck filing lawsuits* 4. Kevin O'Leary condemns the ruling You realize these people have nothing to do with this case right? What do you think of the actual evidence of inflating values by 10x to 20x and that there were multiple findings - "Trump and his co-defendants committed fraud with his financial statements, found Trump liable on five of the six remaining claims in James’ lawsuit: falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and conspiracy to falsify business records." https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/inside-donald-trumps-355-million-civil-fraud-verdict-107322198 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/inside-donald-trumps-355... You seem to write with talking points that just repeat the same claims over and over, but there was a real trial with real evidence that you are ignoring.
    - docmars 3y ago
      I provided plenty of points -- you just ignored most of them, the most important one being: the bank CEOs found nothing wrong or no indication of fraud. The loans are paid off. That testimony should have been enough to nullify the case, full stop. That's enough :) I listed the other semi-related facts as supporting details that ultimately ruin the credibility surrounding each simultaneous case involving Trump, which as I said before, should put into question all of these "indictments" and "charges" against Trump until someone with an actual problem comes forward, instead of playing games abusing the court systems. This is a conspiracy against him, period. The point is: Trump is being attacked recklessly, and those who are attacking him are making huge mistakes that are going to bite them in the ass later. Thus, I do not view any of these cases as credible or plausible, regardless of what "evidence" has been presented. Call it willfully blind, I don't care. The willfully blind are those who refuse to see this abuse of the justice system for what it is, and don't use common sense to see these are attacks, rather than real cases. Why were these not brought up many, many years ago? Why during an election year? Seems rather convenient, don't you think?
      - 3y ago

> Trump will appeal this and probably win :)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

CyberDildonics 3y ago

What evidence are you basing that on?

docmars 3y ago
1. The outcomes are very clearly politically motivated. 2. The bank CEOs who testified agreed that there was no wrongdoing on Trump's part. The loans are paid. 3. There is no victim in the case. ("bUt thE StaTe..." [eyeroll]) 4. Kevin O'Leary condemns the ruling as baseless and corrupt. That's kind of a big deal. [https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1759639865174729101 https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/17596398651747291...] --- On a related note, look at the kinds of people who are going after Trump: 1. We have Fani Willis and her little boyfriend in Georgia using cash she pulled out of her campaign to evade accountability (that's a felony). 2. We have this little pr*ck filing lawsuits in every state to have Trump removed from their ballots, being arrested and charged with filing 17 sets of false tax documents to the IRS. [https://twitter.com/rickydoggin/status/1759623388509929853 https://twitter.com/rickydoggin/status/1759623388509929853] 3. We have Letitia James whose sole campaign promise was to "get Trump at any cost" -- seems like they're willing to make up anything for a political win, even if it's a complete lie. Can't trust someone whose mission is clearly a witch hunt. Integrity doesn't matter to them. ...and they want to insinuate that Trump is corrupt? Talk about hypocrisy. These are the people who are entrusted with "getting Trump", seriously? This should ruin your trust in anyone going after Trump and increase your scrutiny towards those who (apparently) have no integrity or basis for going after this guy. This is why conservatives rightly have a strong argument against this witch hunt, any why they feel justified in continuing to support Trump. Find us someone whose record is clean, and then we can talk.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  You said he will appeal his $450 million civil fraud trial and win, but most of what you said here does even have to do with that case. 1. We have Fani Willis 2. We have this little prck filing lawsuits* 4. Kevin O'Leary condemns the ruling You realize these people have nothing to do with this case right? What do you think of the actual evidence of inflating values by 10x to 20x and that there were multiple findings - "Trump and his co-defendants committed fraud with his financial statements, found Trump liable on five of the six remaining claims in James’ lawsuit: falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and conspiracy to falsify business records." https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/inside-donald-trumps-355-million-civil-fraud-verdict-107322198 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/inside-donald-trumps-355... You seem to write with talking points that just repeat the same claims over and over, but there was a real trial with real evidence that you are ignoring.
  - docmars 3y ago
    I provided plenty of points -- you just ignored most of them, the most important one being: the bank CEOs found nothing wrong or no indication of fraud. The loans are paid off. That testimony should have been enough to nullify the case, full stop. That's enough :) I listed the other semi-related facts as supporting details that ultimately ruin the credibility surrounding each simultaneous case involving Trump, which as I said before, should put into question all of these "indictments" and "charges" against Trump until someone with an actual problem comes forward, instead of playing games abusing the court systems. This is a conspiracy against him, period. The point is: Trump is being attacked recklessly, and those who are attacking him are making huge mistakes that are going to bite them in the ass later. Thus, I do not view any of these cases as credible or plausible, regardless of what "evidence" has been presented. Call it willfully blind, I don't care. The willfully blind are those who refuse to see this abuse of the justice system for what it is, and don't use common sense to see these are attacks, rather than real cases. Why were these not brought up many, many years ago? Why during an election year? Seems rather convenient, don't you think?
    - 3y ago