All Things Trump: the story continues...

[rainbow]

'Her' who? Are you just trying to be complimentary?

I was talking about you, not to you.

[Cunt]

'Her' who? Are you just trying to be complimentary?

I was talking about you, not to you.

It's ok, anyone with at least one 'x' chromosome, was your 'definition' effort, right?

lol

[rainbow]

'Her' who? Are you just trying to be complimentary?

I was talking about you, not to you.

It's ok, ...

I wasn't apologising.

Now speak when you're spoken to, young lady.

[Cunt]

'Her' who? Are you just trying to be complimentary?

I was talking about you, not to you.

It's ok, ...

I wasn't apologising.

Now speak when you're spoken to, young lady.

If only your words could be defined by you, they might mean something. As it is, it's just like a song, but without music, cadence, rhyme, or appeal.

tl:dr you are innefectual

[rainbow]

'Her' who? Are you just trying to be complimentary?

I was talking about you, not to you.

It's ok, ...

I wasn't apologising.

Now speak when you're spoken to, young lady.

If only your words could be defined by you, they might mean something.

...says cnut, who doesn't even know what woman is.

[Cunt]

[Brian Peacock]

How very dare you!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Ivanka Trump having some rather handy difficulty with her memory.

'Ivanka Trump Testifies She Conveniently Can’t Remember a Thing—With One Big Exception'

Ivanka Trump spent all day Wednesday in a New York courtroom going over all the ways she doesn’t remember a single detail about any of her father’s financial shenanigans, despite playing a key role in three family real estate deals mired in accusations of bank fraud.

The former president’s daughter proved to be the most resilient—perhaps even boring—witness yet at Donald Trump’s gargantuan civil trial, where the New York Attorney General is trying to obliterate the billionaire’s corporate empire and pummel it with fines.

“I don’t recall,” became a sort of mantra, with Ivanka answering dozens of questions by claiming she simply didn’t remember. Lawyers for the AG’s office were trying to get into her involvement in acquiring massive bank loans that were based on her dad’s personal financial statements—which were bloated with fanciful totals that double-counted revenue and, at times, imagined non-existent physical space.

But Ivanka’s apparently abysmal memory prevented them from getting anywhere.

[Cunt]

Ya, but nothing beats the judges sweetheart jumping in to say the things 'his honor' hasn't the courage to say for himself.

I think Ivanka is believably dumb. If you believe Trumps are dumb, of course. I mean, just look at the NAME lol

[Cunt]

The judge isn't hiding anything, he's preventing Trump from reintroducing dead issues.

Right, so the document that points out that 'users of this financial statement should recognize that...' doesn't get to be part of the discussion of some new users of this financial statement.

Great job! Probably just fine to you that the public official he is forbidden to talk about is in tight with his political allies in the Democratic Party.

They've got him THIS time!

Gee Cunt, the link rasetsu provided lays out the judge's reasoning. It would be more convincing to point out where that was wrong instead of spewing ad-homs.

Unless you're just trolling, in which case carry on.

Not trolling, just pointing out that unless you simply and blindly believe every judge, you have to wonder why he is gagged from pointing out the political bias of the clerk and other public officials handling the case.

If you ARE believing every judge, do tell me about the Rittenhouse case, and if you agree with me that it was one of the most clear cases of self defense on record, or if you think the judge was somehow slightly beneath 'above reproach'?

I don't see the ad-homs either, unless you are one who DID think it was fine to hide political bias in the public servants involved in this particular case. I don't really think anyone believes that though. It makes a convenient excuse for those who want to believe this judge. I understand it, I mean, he has a GREAT physique, and is a democrat supporter.

Geez Cunt, don't you know anything about the courts? It doesn't matter whether you believe the judge or not. He ruled and that's that, unless a higher court overturns the ruling. Plus, he wrote down why so the public and higher courts can evaluate his reasoning.

Just to be clear, you aren't talking about the Rittenhouse case, are you?

Which brings me to the ad-homs. Did you read the judge's opinion and address why you think he's wrong? Of course not, you accused him of bias and being a democratic supporter, which is an ad-hom argument.

His opinion seems to be that a public servant, involved in a public trial, shouldn't have to be subject to public comments by the person on trial.

That's a lot of words when I could just say 'democrat supporter', but call it what you like.

[Joe]

Right, so the document that points out that 'users of this financial statement should recognize that...' doesn't get to be part of the discussion of some new users of this financial statement.

Great job! Probably just fine to you that the public official he is forbidden to talk about is in tight with his political allies in the Democratic Party.

They've got him THIS time!

Gee Cunt, the link rasetsu provided lays out the judge's reasoning. It would be more convincing to point out where that was wrong instead of spewing ad-homs.

Unless you're just trolling, in which case carry on.

Not trolling, just pointing out that unless you simply and blindly believe every judge, you have to wonder why he is gagged from pointing out the political bias of the clerk and other public officials handling the case.

If you ARE believing every judge, do tell me about the Rittenhouse case, and if you agree with me that it was one of the most clear cases of self defense on record, or if you think the judge was somehow slightly beneath 'above reproach'?

I don't see the ad-homs either, unless you are one who DID think it was fine to hide political bias in the public servants involved in this particular case. I don't really think anyone believes that though. It makes a convenient excuse for those who want to believe this judge. I understand it, I mean, he has a GREAT physique, and is a democrat supporter.

Geez Cunt, don't you know anything about the courts? It doesn't matter whether you believe the judge or not. He ruled and that's that, unless a higher court overturns the ruling. Plus, he wrote down why so the public and higher courts can evaluate his reasoning.

Just to be clear, you aren't talking about the Rittenhouse case, are you?

Which brings me to the ad-homs. Did you read the judge's opinion and address why you think he's wrong? Of course not, you accused him of bias and being a democratic supporter, which is an ad-hom argument.

His opinion seems to be that a public servant, involved in a public trial, shouldn't have to be subject to public comments by the person on trial.

That's a lot of words when I could just say 'democrat supporter', but call it what you like.

Rittenhouse? That was that kid that was acquited of murder in Milwaukee, right?

The judge in that trial ruled the prosecution couldn't use evidence of other things he did to show his state of mind. I didn't see you whining about hiding evidence then.

I suppose I could call that hypocrisy, but trolling fits better.

[Cunt]

Of course. And even with 'flufferboi' pointing the rifle at the jury, they saw through the shabby and false case against Rittenhouse. I hear there is even a Rittenhouse whiskey (or is it whisky?)

Not just one judge in that case. A dozen agreed he was not guilty along with the officiating judge.

This Engoron sure seems like a Democratic Party judge. I'm not talking about the physique shots, or hamming it up for the camera, either. No, his attention to detail and grasp of financials make it clear.

Very jurisprudence. Many officious.

https://t.me/real_DonaldJTrump/16291

Judge Engoron just did whatever the Corrupt Attorney General told him to do, a puppet, including using Valuations so LOW that they are Fraudulent. HE & LETITIA JAMES COMMITTED THE FRAUD, I DIDN’T. He Valued Mar-a-Lago at $18,000,000 in order to make me look guilty of Fraud, when it is worth 50 to 100 times that amount. Now he’s trying to say that he didn’t really say that, but he put it down in writing in his Opinion. Judicial and Prosecutorial Misconduct!

[Joe]

You criticise the judge because he's a Democrat, but quote Trump uncritically.

[Cunt]

You criticise the judge because he's a Democrat, but quote Trump uncritically.

I didn't quote him 'uncritically'. I quoted him.

Maybe I should have said the shibboleths?

You know, now that you mention it, you let his quote sit there uncritically...

[Joe]

You criticise the judge because he's a Democrat, but quote Trump uncritically.

I didn't quote him 'uncritically'. I quoted him.

Maybe I should have said the shibboleths?

You know, now that you mention it, you let his quote sit there uncritically...

"Feeding them shit" is uncritical, eh?