BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
When fact don’t fit. Yeah. Lecture anyone on grammar, bitch.personal insults when fact don't fit.
Anyway, your highly biased and selective criticism is rejected.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When fact don’t fit. Yeah. Lecture anyone on grammar, bitch.personal insults when fact don't fit.
There’s nothing to cover up.Not in the way the people involved tried to, when covering things up. That's for sure.
There’s nothing to cover up.
Throughout the testimony, Trump has mostly listened with his eyes shut
quotes --There’s nothing to cover up.
I have no problem in distinguishing the relevance of statements.No. But it shows your complete lack of any ability to distinguish between truth and falsehoods and your indifference to it as long as you biased itch gets scratched.
But back to reality. In the real world, outside of politics and the legal system, even a completely retarded braying jackass like you wouldn’t trust a damn word out of Cohen’s mouth.
^ An admission of incompetence.Your post was a marvel of incomprehensibility.
May 13, 2024, 10:36 a.m. ET2 hours ago
2 hours ago
Alan Feuer
Reporting on Trump’s criminal trial
Just a reminder about the structure of the charges in this case: Trump has been indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to reimbursing Cohen for the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. Those misdemeanor charges can be bumped up to felonies...
if the jury believes the records were doctored to further or conceal another crime —
in this instance, an effort to illegally influence the 2016 election.
Fakey remains too pitifully ignorant to understand that the judge is going to be giving the jury some very specific legal instructions concerning the witnesses and their “credibility.”I have no problem in distinguishing the relevance of statements.
Your post is a personal attack with a reaffirmation of your total denouncement of Cohen attached.
So nothing really.
It’s you who disregard Cohen’s statements entirely, dupe. As evidenced by your last sentence.
Accept in Whole or in Part (Falsus in Uno)
If you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact, you may disregard that witness's entire testimony. Or you may disregard so much of it as you find was untruthful, and accept so much of it as you find to have been truthful and accurate.
Wrong again. A comment on poor verbal skills.^ An admission of incompetence.