Another All Caps Rant By Trump

[postman]

Like all of you libturds, Hurd also doesn’t know what President Trump held in his hand. Neither does he know if Trump actually “showed” whatever he held to anybody else.

That's true. But if Trump wasn't holding what he claimed to be holding, it only shows Trump to be a ranting liar. Telling the biographers a tall tale about General Milley.

 

[postman]

I count TEN major criminal investigations since 2016! And so far, all they got him on is his settling an extortion case out of court over a woman claiming he talked dirty to her 40 years ago just to shut her up and get her off his back,

You forgot the federal case of E. Jean Carroll, where the jury found Trump guilty of sexual assault.

 

[toobfreak]

You forgot the federal case of E. Jean Carroll, where the jury found Trump guilty of sexual assault.

No, that is the one I specifically mentioned. They found Trump guilty despite no actual evidence but her word and the skank wouldn't drop it now Trump is countersuing her.

And didn't the judge fine her something like $180,000 already?

 

[Lastamender]

Maybe you can Splain what friends and family can do about the Presidential Records Act?

If it clearly absolves Trump of the charges, shouldn’t his lawyers be filing for dismisal?

Friends and Family can’t dismiss the case

That has littke to do with the FBI's Gestaapo tactics dealing with private citizens telling the truth about the obvious fraud in the 2020 election. Stop deflecting you lying POS.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Also the criminal verdict against the Trump Org (civil one currently ongoing).

 

[BackAgain]

is that the best you got Skippy?

You can’t actually speak to the topic, can you?

Listen up, pinhead. I’m the one who has addressed the topic. You’re the one mindlessly trying to change the topic.

You are far too plodding and unimaginative to do your trolling job effectively.

Let’s turn your head into the skid. Try to focus, you maggot. The topic is: Trump’s all caps protest on his own message board. The idiotic claim is that the reference to the wife and friends of the special counsel, in his complaint about Hack Smith, somehow constitutes a “threat.”

It plainly and obviously does not. Your insistence — that it does — has no nexus to reality. You rarely do.

 

[BackAgain]

Also the criminal verdict against the Trump Org (civil one currently ongoing).

Not one word of that made sense. A criminal verdict in a civil case? How absurd.

For the benefit of all you libs; no verdict in any civil case includes the word “guilty.”

 

[postman]

You forgot the federal case of E. Jean Carroll, where the jury found Trump guilty of sexual assault.

No, that is the one I specifically mentioned. They found Trump guilty despite no actual evidence but her word and the skank wouldn't drop it now Trump is countersuing her.

That's not the case you were talking about, because in your case Trump settled, not Trump was found guilty.

And so far, all they got him on is his settling an extortion case out of court over a woman claiming he talked dirty to her 40 years ago just to shut her up and get her off his back, and now Trump is appealing that because the skank still wouldn't drop it and wanted more!

You wanna rephrase your question?

 

[postman]

Let’s turn your head into the skid. Try to focus, you maggot. The topic is: Trump’s all caps protest on his own message board. The idiotic claim is that the reference to the wife and friends of the special counsel, in his complaint about Hack Smith, somehow constitutes a “threat.”

Trump told his followers to march "peacefully" to the Capitol, and that resulted in an all out insurrection.

Imagine what his followers will do to Jack Smith's wife and kids?

 

[BackAgain]

How so?

Has he been denied any Constitutional rights?

Actually yes. But you wouldn’t understand how.

Has he been denied representation?

Yes. When some dingus judge made a determination that Trump and one of his lawyers had engaged in a lawyer-client conversation which constituted a “conspiracy” to break the law, that lawyer was compelled to reveal otherwise confidential attorney/client privileged material. That lawyer could no longer be Trump’s lawyer and one of Trump’s basic rights got squished.

Just because you are prosecuted doesn’t equate to persecuted

But, when you are persecuted under the banner of a “prosecution” by a corrupted DOJ, you are persecuted just the same.

 

[BackAgain]

Must I remind you that the only arrows in a special prosecutor's quiver, are indictments, pleas and convictions.

It's in the title, as they say.

I am perfectly aware of the tools available to prosecutors. Far more so than you.

I am also aware that they are supposed to be bound by law and professional rules of ethics and conduct.

That you don’t understand how the legal system is supposed to work is a you problem. But it could be remedied in theory. You could (theoretically) get educated.

 

[BackAgain]

That's true. But if Trump wasn't holding what he claimed to be holding, it only shows Trump to be a ranting liar. Telling the biographers a tall tale about General Milley.

Wrong. Since you don’t know what he was holding, you don’t know if it was related (in one way or another) to the point he was making.

Your guesswork doesn’t suffice.

 

[postman]

Yes. When some dingus judge made a determination that Trump and one of his lawyers had engaged in a lawyer-client conversation which constituted a “conspiracy” to break the law, that lawyer was compelled to reveal otherwise confidential attorney/client privileged material. That lawyer could no longer be Trump’s lawyer and one of Trump’s basic rights got squished.

The constitution doesn't include a right to commit crimes.

 

[postman]

I am also aware that they are supposed to be bound by law and professional rules of ethics and conduct.

If Trump thinks that Jack Smith violated any rules of ethics or conduct, he is free to file a complaint with the DOJ and the Bar that Jack Smith practices law under.

It does not entitle him to threaten a prosecutors family.

 

[BackAgain]

Trump told his followers to march "peacefully" to the Capitol, and that resulted in an all out insurrection.

So? Is there anything wrong with asking people to peaceably assemble? I kinda thought that maybe that was explicitly a Constitutionally guaranteed right?

It is not what resulted in the non-insurrection.

Imagine what his followers will do to Jack Smith's wife and kids?

Jacks kids weren’t mentioned. Nice try though.

And I have no need to imagine any of Trump’s followers attacking Mrs. Smith. That’s the behavior of you leftist and your goon squads.

 

[postman]

Wrong. Since you don’t know what he was holding, you don’t know if it was related (in one way or another) to the point he was making.

Your guesswork doesn’t suffice.

Trump claimed to be holding a military document. A secret document.
If it was just newspaper clippings, like Trump claims. It shows he deliberately lied about the evidence he had against General Milley to the biographers he granted the interview to.

 

[Lastamender]

Trump claimed to be holding a military document. A secret document.
If it was just newspaper clippings, like Trump claims. It shows he deliberately lied about the evidence he had against General Milley to the biographers he granted the interview to.

Trump is not the liar here.

 

[BackAgain]

If Trump things that Jack Smith violated any rules of ethics or conduct, he is free to file a complaint with the DOJ and the Bar that Jack Smith practices law under.

I’m sure you meant “thinks.” Better check your Russian to English translation app.

It does not entitle him to threaten a prosecutors family.

There was no threat. Your hollow insistence on invoking that blatantly false claim reflects poorly on you. Very poorly.

 

[postman]

Trump is not the liar here.

Trump said he was holding secret military documents.

if he wasn't, then he's a liar.

Plain and simple

 

[BackAgain]

The constitution doesn't include a right to commit crimes.

Nor did I ever say, suggest or imply that it did.