*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10860 on: October 29, 2023, 12:28:51 AM »
Prosecutors don't directly represent the victim. They represent society and must treat cases impartially in the interest of justice, as stated in the above quotes.
Exactly.  In this case, justice would be best served by putting Trump in jail for being a threat to society.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10861 on: October 31, 2023, 03:11:45 AM »
Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

In the example given it shows that everyone is wrong about who a prosecutor represents:

    "If you stop a person on the street and ask who brings charges against defendants in victim related cases, almost everyone will say the victim."

    "Prosecutors represent the State of Indiana, and only they can bring charges, not victims. In all reality, once a crime has been reported, the victim loses any control over whether or not charges get brought or not and if they get dismissed. People are often shocked by this fact."

If most people are so shocked and surprised at who prosecutors really represent and how they function, how is it a valid argument to tell me that you are right about prosecutors based on (your) common sense and that all references which oppose your narrative are wrong, including statements by lawyers, attorneys associations, and academic papers?
« Last Edit: October 31, 2023, 04:50:13 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7631
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10862 on: October 31, 2023, 05:10:54 AM »
Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

In the example given it shows that everyone is wrong about who a prosecutor represents:

    "If you stop a person on the street and ask who brings charges against defendants in victim related cases, almost everyone will say the victim."

    "Prosecutors represent the State of Indiana, and only they can bring charges, not victims. In all reality, once a crime has been reported, the victim loses any control over whether or not charges get brought or not and if they get dismissed. People are often shocked by this fact."

If most people are so shocked and surprised at who prosecutors really represent and how they function, how is it a valid argument to tell me that you are right about prosecutors based on (your) common sense and that all references which oppose your narrative are wrong, including statements by lawyers, attorneys associations, and academic papers?

Yes and?
Also notable distinction is this doesn't apply to civil matters.  Civil matters don't involve the state prosecutor's office.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4177
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10863 on: October 31, 2023, 06:28:45 AM »
Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

Ha! I really stuck in your craw, huh?

For the record, though, no I didn't, but it's so sweet that you went off on a wild, irrelevant (and long-winded, you really put thought into it) tangent based on a misunderstanding of something I wrote, and I've barely even contributed to this particular discussion!!
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7631
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10864 on: October 31, 2023, 10:40:28 AM »
Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

Ha! I really stuck in your craw, huh?

For the record, though, no I didn't, but it's so sweet that you went off on a wild, irrelevant (and long-winded, you really put thought into it) tangent based on a misunderstanding of something I wrote, and I've barely even contributed to this particular discussion!!

Well, what else is he gonna do?  Talk about how Trump is gonna release all that election data and get the results overturned in court?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3325
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10865 on: November 02, 2023, 05:39:49 PM »
If most people are so shocked and surprised at who prosecutors really represent and how they function, how is it a valid argument to tell me that you are right about prosecutors based on (your) common sense and that all references which oppose your narrative are wrong, including statements by lawyers, attorneys associations, and academic papers?

Okay, I'll admit that I shouldn't have dismissed your sources as simply being wrong. It would be more accurate to say that you're taking them out of context and applying what's meant in a broad, general sense to how they should behave in a specific trial. Prosecutors should be unbiased/impartial/neutral in the sense that their primary concern should always be the pursuit of justice. Elements like politics, career prospects, or personal relationships should not be their concern. You don't prosecute someone whom you believe to be innocent because it would look good on your résumé, you don't refuse to prosecute someone because he's a pal of the governor, and so on. All straightforward stuff. However, once the indictment is issued and the case is publicly announced, the prosecution have essentially declared their side. Their goal - not their overall career goal, but their practical goal in this specific case - is the conviction of the defendant. They are no longer looking to convince themselves; they are looking to convince a judge or jury. The evidence they present, the witnesses they call to the stand, and the questions they ask are all intended to build their specific case that the defendant is guilty. To bring it all back to this case, if the prosecution has struck a deal with Powell to have her testify, it's because her testimony will be damaging to Trump. If Powell's testimony would be beneficial to Trump, the prosecution would not be calling her to testify. And if they had thought that her testimony changed the entire case and indicated that Trump was in fact innocent, then they wouldn't have indicted Trump to begin with. That's really what this all comes down to - the fact-finding stage of things comes before the actual prosecution.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10866 on: November 02, 2023, 10:37:55 PM »
Sydney Powell signed an agreement to testify truthfully. That is all. Secret behind-the-scenes deals that she flipped on Trump is purely in your imagination based on what you are assuming happened between Powell and the prosecutor. A close associate of Sydney Powell insists that she has not "flipped":

https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/26/read-sidney-powell-didnt-flip-on-trump-or-maga/

« Last Edit: November 03, 2023, 04:22:01 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7631
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10867 on: November 02, 2023, 11:29:05 PM »
Sydney Powell signed a deal to testify truthfully. That is all. Secret behind-the-scenes deals that she flipped on Trump is purely in your imagination based on what you are assuming happened between Powell and the prosecutor. A close associate of Sydney Powell insists that she has not "flipped":

https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/10/26/read-sidney-powell-didnt-flip-on-trump-or-maga/



Yes.  She agreed TO TESTIFY.  So no sneakily taking the 5th and not testifying truthfully.  Not answering is not testifying truthfully, after all.  Now here's a question: Will you believe her testemony?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10868 on: November 03, 2023, 04:36:57 AM »
Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully. There could be a number of reasons that agreement was given. Maybe they initially overcharged her and gave her this standard truth agreement as a hail mary. Sidney Powell is certainly not acting like she flipped on Trump, judging by her continuous attacks on the prosecutors after this agreement -

https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10

"Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference"

...

"On her social-media accounts, Powell has continued to push claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that prosecutors in Georgia who brought the criminal case against her were politically motivated."

...

"Powell's newsletter promoted a claim that Willis 'extorted' her guilty plea"

...

"Since her guilty plea, the newsletters have urged her followers to "hold fast." They told supporters to read and share articles and YouTube videos that argue her guilty plea was 'extorted' and amounted to a blow to Willis, the Fulton County district attorney."

...

"Powell's followers were directed to the same Federalist article again in her Monday newsletter. It also cited an Epoch Times article quoting Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, who said Powell pleaded guilty only because of 'pressure' from Willis."

...

"Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told Insider that Powell's comments were unusual for a cooperating witness who was likely to be asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.

'Usually, after a guilty plea, the defendants do not want to rock the boat,' Carlson said."

« Last Edit: November 03, 2023, 04:42:08 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10869 on: November 03, 2023, 07:20:58 AM »
ITT: Tom doesn’t understand the difference between what one can say on social media and what one can say in court when under oath.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7631
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10870 on: November 03, 2023, 07:26:23 AM »
Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully. There could be a number of reasons that agreement was given. Maybe they initially overcharged her and gave her this standard truth agreement as a hail mary. Sidney Powell is certainly not acting like she flipped on Trump, judging by her continuous attacks on the prosecutors after this agreement -

https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10

"Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference"

...

"On her social-media accounts, Powell has continued to push claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that prosecutors in Georgia who brought the criminal case against her were politically motivated."

...

"Powell's newsletter promoted a claim that Willis 'extorted' her guilty plea"

...

"Since her guilty plea, the newsletters have urged her followers to "hold fast." They told supporters to read and share articles and YouTube videos that argue her guilty plea was 'extorted' and amounted to a blow to Willis, the Fulton County district attorney."

...

"Powell's followers were directed to the same Federalist article again in her Monday newsletter. It also cited an Epoch Times article quoting Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, who said Powell pleaded guilty only because of 'pressure' from Willis."

...

"Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told Insider that Powell's comments were unusual for a cooperating witness who was likely to be asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.

'Usually, after a guilty plea, the defendants do not want to rock the boat,' Carlson said."

So what you're saying is that you will only believe her testemony if it is positive for Trump.  Got it.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 1234
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10871 on: November 03, 2023, 01:00:20 PM »
Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully. There could be a number of reasons that agreement was given. Maybe they initially overcharged her and gave her this standard truth agreement as a hail mary. Sidney Powell is certainly not acting like she flipped on Trump, judging by her continuous attacks on the prosecutors after this agreement -

https://www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-doubt-election-results-attack-prosecutors-after-guilty-plea-2023-10

"Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference"

...

"On her social-media accounts, Powell has continued to push claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that prosecutors in Georgia who brought the criminal case against her were politically motivated."

...

"Powell's newsletter promoted a claim that Willis 'extorted' her guilty plea"

...

"Since her guilty plea, the newsletters have urged her followers to "hold fast." They told supporters to read and share articles and YouTube videos that argue her guilty plea was 'extorted' and amounted to a blow to Willis, the Fulton County district attorney."

...

"Powell's followers were directed to the same Federalist article again in her Monday newsletter. It also cited an Epoch Times article quoting Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, who said Powell pleaded guilty only because of 'pressure' from Willis."

...

"Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told Insider that Powell's comments were unusual for a cooperating witness who was likely to be asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.

'Usually, after a guilty plea, the defendants do not want to rock the boat,' Carlson said."


Dude, she's already turned on Trump. In the plea process she gives a 'proffer', in this case a video testimony of what she will say at trial. What she recorded is so devastating to Trump that the prosecutors reduced her felonies to misdemeanors. If her testimony in court is different than her videoed proffer, then she will be guilty of felonies and go to prison for years.

I can understand an idiot believing the earth is flat because it simply looks flat. But anyone who still believes anything Trump says after all of this is a special kind of transcendental stupid.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

If the world is flat, it means that I have been deceived by a global, multi-generational conspiracy spending trillions of dollars over hundreds of years.
If the world is round, it means that you’re just an idiot who believes stupid crap on the internet.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10872 on: November 04, 2023, 12:16:56 AM »
Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully.
There is no "intending" about it.  By agreeing to the plea agreement. she is obligated to testify truthfully and the prosecutors already have a pretty good idea of how damaging to Trump that testimony is going to be, otherwise they wouldn't have offered the deal in the first place.

Also, agreeing to testify in exchange for leniency is pretty much the definition of flipping, or, if you prefer, turning state's evidence.
In American parlance, a defendant who agrees to cooperate with prosecutors and give information against co-conspirators (often those with greater culpability) is also said to flip.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2023, 03:30:18 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3325
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10873 on: November 04, 2023, 03:51:24 AM »
Sydney Powell signed an agreement to testify truthfully. That is all.

That agreement is itself strong evidence that her testimony will be damaging to Trump, because otherwise the prosecution wouldn't be interested in calling her as a witness and giving her a plea bargain in exchange for her testimony. You've talked a lot about movies creating false impressions of what trials are really like, and one detail I'd like to stress that they often get wrong is the idea that when lawyers question witnesses on the stand, the answers they receive are entirely new information to them. In reality, trial lawyers only ask questions that they know the answers to. They do their homework, they find out what the witness knows, and then they ask them carefully selected questions that are designed to form a narrative with the judge or jury that's favorable to their side of the case. So no, the prosecution don't want Powell to testify because they genuinely want to know what she knows, or because they feel that it's their duty to "justice" to publicly hear everything she has to say. They already know what she knows, and hearing her testimony is part of their legal strategy - the ultimate goal of which is of course Trump's conviction.

Quote
A close associate of Sydney Powell insists that she has not "flipped"

The two Substack articles cited are basing their argument almost entirely on the fact that the charges which Powell pled guilty to are ones that Trump wasn't charged with. Okay, so what? I guess Powell won't be testifying against Trump with regard to those specific charges. But why is that such a big deal? Is there some rule that says that you can't testify against someone in exchange for a plea deal unless you've been charged with the same crime? Powell probably has information about Trump's intentions and actions related to the other charges that she's been asked to testify about, even if she wasn't herself charged with those crimes.

I won't claim to be as confident about what's going to happen as the other posters in this thread are. Pretty much every prediction I've made about Trump has turned out to be wrong. I expected him to lose in 2016, to win in 2020, to fade from political relevance once he left office, and certainly to never face a criminal investigation or trial for his misdeeds. So I'm not going to make any definitive predictions about how any of these trials will shake out in the end. Maybe the deal with Powell won't last in the face of her defiance on social media. Maybe she has a cunning scheme to upset the prosecution's entire game plan once she's up on the stand. All I can say is that simply taking events as they happen, there's no doubt that this number of co-defendants pleading guilty is a bad sign for the principal defendant, as is one of those co-defendants making a deal with the prosecution to testify. Whether or not this will all end up being enough to take Trump down for good is entirely beyond me.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10874 on: November 07, 2023, 01:23:56 AM »
If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify, which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.

According to the left the walls have been closing in on Trump for 9 years now, for a wide range of crimes which are totally provable in court but somehow falls apart. Surely, you have him now.  ::)

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 1234
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10875 on: November 07, 2023, 02:33:16 AM »
If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify, which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.

According to the left the walls have been closing in on Trump for 9 years now, for a wide range of crimes which are totally provable in court but somehow falls apart. Surely, you have him now.  ::)

Wake up. The 'truth' is already on a tape that Kraken bitch recorded.
Just like Nixon, it took a decade for the truth to fully come out.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

If the world is flat, it means that I have been deceived by a global, multi-generational conspiracy spending trillions of dollars over hundreds of years.
If the world is round, it means that you’re just an idiot who believes stupid crap on the internet.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10876 on: November 07, 2023, 04:03:02 AM »
If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify, which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.
Tom, are you familiar with subtext?  Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump.  However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.

According to the left the walls have been closing in on Trump for 9 years now, for a wide range of crimes which are totally provable in court but somehow falls apart. Surely, you have him now.  ::)
What exactly has fallen apart?  He already lost one E. Jean Carrol case and is looking at another one in a few months. He has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial in New York, so that's not a good sign.  Plus there are 91 well detailed felony charges that have been filed.  Oh, and a number of co-defendants are taking sweet plea deals that require them to provide "truthful testimony" in future trials against Trump.  So yes, I think that it's pretty safe to say that the walls are closing in.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2023, 04:04:54 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10877 on: November 07, 2023, 09:31:35 AM »
Tom, are you familiar with subtext?  Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump.  However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.

One can also reasonably infer from her continuous attacks on the prosecutor that she did not flip. If the prosecution calls someone to testify in a court hearing to testify negatively against a defendant, and they do so, their other statements that they were being extorted by the prosecutor could risk the case. Under your imaginings here Sydney Powell would be risking that her plea agreement is revoked.

There is no actual agreement for her to testify negatively against Trump. How are they supposed to enforce the agreement you think they made if there is no agreement to do something?

All of this exists in your imagination that there is super strong case against Trump, that immense evidence is being collected in secret (like you always tell me in every Trump controversy it is), and that in this case people are flipping like crazy in a mad rush of evidence against Trump. The reality is most likely that the claims against Trump are very weak, and they are lashing out and doing anything in their effort of political prosecution like a flopping fish gasping for air, which is why the leftist effort to imprison Trump has fallen apart apart every time over the years.

Again, all of this evidence is currently in your imagination only, for which you "reasonably assume".

What exactly has fallen apart?  He already lost one E. Jean Carrol case and is looking at another one in a few months. He has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial in New York, so that's not a good sign.  Plus there are 91 well detailed felony charges that have been filed.  Oh, and a number of co-defendants are taking sweet plea deals that require them to provide "truthful testimony" in future trials against Trump.  So yes, I think that it's pretty safe to say that the walls are closing in.

Your biggest win here is apparently something which has yet to finalize the appeal process, did not result in a rape conviction, and will not result in prison time for Trump.

This was a ridiculous claim of rape in a dressing room which the victim admits to not have screamed during the event, did not contact police afterwards, continued to shop at the store, and who then admits to becoming a 'massive' Apprentice fan in the proceeding years. A victim who says that she would have considered dropping the claim if Trump had admitted it was consensual. Honk believes that this is totally normal for a rape claim and that we should overlook obvious contradictions.

The arguments on this forum during that event was that it is possible that Trump raped her, even though there is a litany of evidence against it because "sometimes" people don't report rapes, and "sometimes" they become huge fans of their rapist, and "sometimes" consider dropping charges if the defendant agrees that the sex was consensual.

Incredibly weak evidence, like all the other claims against Trump.

Oddly, we saw from the jury conviction questionnaire that the conviction was heavily focused on defamation comments against the victim in recent years, and not focused on the actual rape allegation. There was one box which the jury checked which asks if the victim 'sexually abused', which could mean sexual comments about her looks in recent years like the other questions about recent events and not the rape, or maybe the jury believes that something else occurred. The jury specifically voted not to convict that the rape occurred, and voted no on that. They also left a box untouched which said "Did Mr. Trump forcibly touch Ms. Carroll". Somehow the position given is that the victim was sexually abused but there is not a position that the victim was forcibly touched, as if it was possible to be sexually abused without being forcibly touched, providing insight to their idea of 'sexual abuse'.

Do you guys gain an ounce of humility when all this hard evidence against Trump, which you always assume to exist in abundance before you have the facts, turns out to be garbage? This is all obviously just a fantasy wish of yours to 'get trump' more than anything. How could you possibly know that Trump has committed all of these criminal acts you have alleged over the years if you were not there? You do not know, which is why this is a fantasy.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2023, 02:16:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7631
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10878 on: November 07, 2023, 04:36:16 PM »
"Do you guys gain an ounce of humility when all this hard evidence against Trump, which you always assume to exist in abundance before you have the facts, turns out to be garbage? This is all obviously just a fantasy wish of yours to 'get trump' more than anything. How could you possibly know that Trump has committed all of these criminal acts you have alleged over the years if you were not there? You do not know, which is why this is a fantasy."
The most hypocritical paragraph Tom has ever written.

Have ya seen that data proving the election was stolen yet, Tom?



But yeah, your analysis is flawed.  If sydney Powell doesn't attack the prosecution, she risks being attacked by Trumpers (like you).  She's milking what she can before her testemony comes out.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10152
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10879 on: November 07, 2023, 07:55:20 PM »
two more weeks