Letitia James fraud case victory in question?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the facts and arguments are solid, then why is msnbc saying her victory is in question?

Don't know, don't care. I'm not your assistant.

 

[ThisIsMe]

False. They would ask questions brought up by the appealing party.

Noticing a pattern?

Not really:

The hearing got off to a rough start for the state’s lawyer, Judith Vale (starting at about 34:00 in the video posted by the court). Before she could say much at all, one of the judges jumped in to ask whether there had ever been a case where the attorney general sued under the state executive law

Looks like the judge interrupted her with some questions of his own…so it wasn’t answering a question from an appealing party

 

[ThisIsMe]

*except for when you did, and when I quoted you, and when I argued and presented factual information to show you did.

Yep, and you failed to answer my question, typical of you. Back to your old ways of omitting parts of a post that are not convenient for you.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Don't know, don't care. I'm not your assistant.

And that’s a side step to the argument. “I don’t want to look at your sources of information so I’ll just say “I don’t care””

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not really:



Looks like the judge interrupted her with some questions of his own…so it wasn’t answering a question from an appealing party

I never said those were the only questions they would ask. You confused yourself again.

I said it in response to them asking questions asked by the appealing party.

Now, tell us what the answer to that question was.

Or does that undermine your half truth?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And that’s a side step to the argument.

False.

Saying someone repeated your opinion is not an argument.

You keep.making silly, elementary errors.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It will be epic if they overturn it

 

[ThisIsMe]

I never said those were the only questions they would ask. You confused yourself again.

I said it in response to them asking questions asked by the appealing party.

Now, tell us what the answer to that question was.

Or does that undermine your half truth?

I don’t know the answer to their question nor do I need to. All it shows is the justices may not be convinced by how this case was decided

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don’t know the answer to their question nor do I need to.

You might not need to, because your argument rests on half truths. And your real.need is to keep that argument on life support. Not to understand this or know the full truth.

That's why you list the question, but not the answer.

Very simple.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You might not need to, because your argument rests on half truths. And your real.need is to keep that argument on life support. Not to understand this or know the full truth.

That's why you list the question, but not the answer.

Very simple.

I don’t need to because my point had nothing to do with what the answers to those questions are, my point is just that those questions are being asked.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don’t need to because my point had nothing to do with what the answers to those questions are,

Yes, I just said that. And I explained why.

No need for you to repeat myself, haha

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, I just said that. And I explained why.

No need for you to repeat myself, haha

Then you had no point. And you just agreed with me lol.

And in FFI fashion, you are cutting off relevant parts of my posts to try and support your points.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then you had no point. And you just agreed with me lol.

False and false.

Vapid babbling.

Now that we have established quite clearly that you were wrong, we can move on.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, I wouldn't interpret anything here as indicating that the conviction will be overturned.

No dispute of the evidence exists.

Trump's.large fine may be reduced.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, I wouldn't interpret anything here as indicating that the conviction will be overturned.

No dispute of the evidence exists.

Trump's.large fine may be reduced.

actually, the entire charge is bogus as it was made up from whole cloth of deceit and lies. And the questions noted that.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

You try what trump did and see if they wonder about harm.

I've done exactly what Trump did and no one felt harmed...lol

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

So, I wouldn't interpret anything here as indicating that the conviction will be overturned.

No dispute of the evidence exists.

Trump's.large fine may be reduced.

The NYSC had nothing favorable to say about the ruling. I wouldn't interpret that as a guarantee that the ruling will stand.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

actually, the entire charge is bogus as it was made up from whole cloth of deceit and lies. And the questions noted that.

These vapid, unargued claims don't carry any weight, in a courttoom. Sorry.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The NYSC had nothing favorable to say about the ruling.

Not yet. That's not how an appeal works. Their job is to deconstruct it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've done exactly what Trump did and no one felt harmed...lol

How would you know, since the banks Trump defrauded were defrauded without their knowledge?

A very odd thing to say, on your part.