Ashley Biden confirms showers with ShitShow are true

[dot]

Already have, you're, again, just to fucking stupid.

The verdicts prove you wrong. If only you were as smart, brave, neutral as you would like everyone here to believe.

So in the trial for rape, in which the jurors had the opportunity to convict Trump of rape, they decided to go a different route that wasnt rape. Gotcha. If the jurors wanted to convict Trump of rape they would have and could have done so.

What we see here is a perfect example of why the judge issued the statement that he did. Hack out here defending his boy cornering a woman against her will and assaulting her and spinning that to call it not rape. The common everyday man or woman or general civilian sees that action has rape as did the judge. So please, keep trying to make a stand on that hill, intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

[Animal]

What we see here is a perfect example of why the judge issued the statement that he did. Hack out here defending his boy cornering a woman against her will and assaulting her and spinning that to call it not rape. The common everyday man or woman or general civilian sees that action has rape as did the judge. So please, keep trying to make a stand on that hill, intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

Let me explain something to you, stupid. no one is convicted of anything in a civil trial. all they can do in a civil trial is award damages based on speculation. You would have to hold a criminal trial to actually determine if a person committed a crime or not. In a civil trial you only have to prove that some of the allegations might be true and then a jury decides what they think that would be worth to a person. They can't have a criminal trial because it happened nearly 30 years ago and the statue of limitations (at that time) was 5 years.

A civil trial is basically the equivalent of letting a group of 8th grade girls meet at lunch and decide if they think Becky is a bitch or not.

[dot]

Let me explain something to you, stupid. no one is convicted of anything in a civil trial. all they can do in a civil trial is award damages based on speculation. You would have to hold a criminal trial to actually determine if a person committed a crime or not. In a civil trial you only have to prove that some of the allegations might be true and then a jury decides what they think that would be worth to a person. They can't have a criminal trial because it happened nearly 30 years ago and the statue of limitations (at that time) was 5 years.

A civil trial is basically the equivalent of letting a group of 8th grade girls meet at lunch and decide if they think Becky is a bitch or not.

Please tell me you believe in the orange criminal conman fraudster when he says it never happened. Go ahead, announce to the world you're that much of an idiot. He thought he could get away with saying the woman wasn't his type, and yet the woman he raped and assaulted is the same woman he mistook for his ex wife.

Fact remains, he's liable for rape and defamation of his victim. So again, keep defending him, be willing to die on that hill. All because you couldn't do your homework.

[CHEEZY17]

I believe he was never convicted of rape. Do you have some court records that we dont know about?

[Animal]

Let me explain something to you, stupid. no one is convicted of anything in a civil trial. all they can do in a civil trial is award damages based on speculation. You would have to hold a criminal trial to actually determine if a person committed a crime or not. In a civil trial you only have to prove that some of the allegations might be true and then a jury decides what they think that would be worth to a person. They can't have a criminal trial because it happened nearly 30 years ago and the statue of limitations (at that time) was 5 years.

A civil trial is basically the equivalent of letting a group of 8th grade girls meet at lunch and decide if they think Becky is a bitch or not.

Please tell me you believe in the orange criminal conman fraudster when he says it never happened. Go ahead, announce to the world you're that much of an idiot. He thought he could get away with saying the woman wasn't his type, and yet the woman he raped and assaulted is the same woman he mistook for his ex wife.

Fact remains, he's liable for rape and defamation of his victim. So again, keep defending him, be willing to die on that hill. All because you couldn't do your homework.

i have no idea if it ever happened or not. How could I possibly know that? You seem to be the only one with the crystal ball that allows you to know exactly what Trump has done his entire life.

[dot]

I believe he was never convicted of rape. Do you have some court records that we dont know about?

What we see here is a perfect example of why the judge issued the statement that he did. Hack out here defending his boy cornering a woman against her will and assaulting her and spinning that to call it not rape. The common everyday man or woman or general civilian sees that action has rape as did the judge. So please, keep trying to make a stand on that hill, intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

.

[dot]

i have no idea if it ever happened or not. How could I possibly know that? You seem to be the only one with the crystal ball that allows you to know exactly what Trump has done his entire life.

Verdict, testimony, his own words, but no, you couldn't possibly have any idea about it. Cause you don't do your homework, far easier to go with your gut that has failed you countless times now. Fraud, hush money, rape, scheming to steal the election, all facts at the touch of your fingertips if you wanted to find out but you choose to be intentionally stupid.

[necronomous]

Already have, you're, again, just to fucking stupid.

The verdicts prove you wrong. If only you were as smart, brave, neutral as you would like everyone here to believe.

So in the trial for rape, in which the jurors had the opportunity to convict Trump of rape, they decided to go a different route that wasnt rape. Gotcha. If the jurors wanted to convict Trump of rape they would have and could have done so.

What we see here is a perfect example of why the judge issued the statement that he did. Hack out here defending his boy cornering a woman against her will and assaulting her and spinning that to call it not rape. The common everyday man or woman or general civilian sees that action has rape as did the judge. So please, keep trying to make a stand on that hill, intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

Except they didn't

[dot]

Except they didn't

They definitely weren't in favor of your client. Try again, Red.

[necronomous]

Except they didn't

They definitely weren't in favor of your client. Try again, Red.

Again with my client. We'll, liberals are biased like that. Racist as well. So this seems normal.

[dot]

Again with my client. We'll, liberals are biased like that. Racist as well. So this seems normal.

Again, you're the one claiming what he did was not fraud or incitement of insurrection. You can either prove your claims for him in court or sit down and shut up because you don't have the balls to do what you claim. In the meantime, go ahead and detail for the class what Trump did to Carroll as was adjudicated and then tell us why you're okay with that.

[CHEEZY17]

Except they didn't

They definitely weren't in favor of your client. Try again, Red.

So they convicted him of rape?

[dot]

So they convicted him of rape?

What we see here is a perfect example of why the judge issued the statement that he did. Hack out here defending his boy cornering a woman against her will and assaulting her and spinning that to call it not rape. The common everyday man or woman or general civilian sees that action has rape as did the judge. So please, keep trying to make a stand on that hill, intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

.

[necronomous]

Again with my client. We'll, liberals are biased like that. Racist as well. So this seems normal.

Again, you're the one claiming what he did was not fraud or incitement of insurrection. You can either prove your claims for him in court or sit down and shut up because you don't have the balls to do what you claim. In the meantime, go ahead and detail for the class what Trump did to Carroll as was adjudicated and then tell us why you're okay with that.

So you got nothing. Ok

[Animal]

Again with my client. We'll, liberals are biased like that. Racist as well. So this seems normal.

Again, you're the one claiming what he did was not fraud or incitement of insurrection. You can either prove your claims for him in court or sit down and shut up because you don't have the balls to do what you claim. In the meantime, go ahead and detail for the class what Trump did to Carroll as was adjudicated and then tell us why you're okay with that.

see, necro, the fact that no one was charged is not proof enough that no one committed the crime. He wants you to conduct a trial and provide proof of no crime but there won't be anyone sitting at the table as a defendant. This is just a hypothetical crime that everyone on Jan 6th committed. And, although they charged all of these people with other crimes, they did not charge a single one of them with this crime that you are supposed to prove did not happen.

[necronomous]

Again with my client. We'll, liberals are biased like that. Racist as well. So this seems normal.

Again, you're the one claiming what he did was not fraud or incitement of insurrection. You can either prove your claims for him in court or sit down and shut up because you don't have the balls to do what you claim. In the meantime, go ahead and detail for the class what Trump did to Carroll as was adjudicated and then tell us why you're okay with that.

see, necro, the fact that no one was charged is not proof enough that no one committed the crime. He wants you to conduct a trial and provide proof of no crime but there won't be anyone sitting at the table as a defendant. This is just a hypothetical crime that everyone on Jan 6th committed. And, although they charged all of these people with other crimes, they did not charge a single one of them with this crime that you are supposed to prove did not happen.

Well, I guess I will miracle that shit up then.

[dot]

So you got nothing. Ok

Projection? Really? That's all you can come up with? Too much of a coward to prove your claims.

see, necro, the fact that no one was charged is not proof enough that no one committed the crime. He wants you to conduct a trial and provide proof of no crime but there won't be anyone sitting at the table as a defendant.

Well, I guess I will miracle that shit up then.

This is what goalpost moving looks like. Change the argument to suit your strawman because you can't argue against the actual facts. As stated so many times before, prove fraud wasn't committed, prove insurrection didn't take place. You have your criteria but strangely none of you will tackle either of those cases. You only want to pretend fraud isn't fraud or insurrection isn't insurrection and you have zero facts to back up either of your claims. What's great about this is the groupthink y'all have sank into is basically like one of you is the other now. Both of you are intentionally stupid and refuse to acknowledge facts. Makes this so much easier.

Prove January 6 wasn't an insurrection. Or prove the word itself is incorrectly defined. Then prove fraud isn't fraud. Then prove rape isn't rape. Y'all have a lot of homework to get through, and those verdicts aren't getting any less guilty for your boy.

[CHEEZY17]

So they convicted him of rape?

What we see here is a perfect example of why the judge issued the statement that he did. Hack out here defending his boy cornering a woman against her will and assaulting her and spinning that to call it not rape. The common everyday man or woman or general civilian sees that action has rape as did the judge. So please, keep trying to make a stand on that hill, intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

.

So no rape conviction despite the fact that the jury COULD have rendered that charge. You can spin it all you want, retard, but the only dishonesty here is yours. It is factually honest that Trump has never been convicted of rape. Own it. You and the partisan judge can seethe harder. Sorry that inflames your TDS.

[necronomous]

So you got nothing. Ok

Projection? Really? That's all you can come up with? Too much of a coward to prove your claims.

see, necro, the fact that no one was charged is not proof enough that no one committed the crime. He wants you to conduct a trial and provide proof of no crime but there won't be anyone sitting at the table as a defendant.

Well, I guess I will miracle that shit up then.

This is what goalpost moving looks like. Change the argument to suit your strawman because you can't argue against the actual facts. As stated so many times before, prove fraud wasn't committed, prove insurrection didn't take place. You have your criteria but strangely none of you will tackle either of those cases. You only want to pretend fraud isn't fraud or insurrection isn't insurrection and you have zero facts to back up either of your claims. What's great about this is the groupthink y'all have sank into is basically like one of you is the other now. Both of you are intentionally stupid and refuse to acknowledge facts. Makes this so much easier.

Prove January 6 wasn't an insurrection. Or prove the word itself is incorrectly defined. Then prove fraud isn't fraud. Then prove rape isn't rape. Y'all have a lot of homework to get through, and those verdicts aren't getting any less guilty for your boy.

Lol. I can hear you from here. "I'm meltinnnnnnnngg."
1. You have proved nothing.
2. You want us to prove a negative.
3. You deny reality.

All the signs of a troll. A stupid one to boot.

[Animal]

So you got nothing. Ok

Projection? Really? That's all you can come up with? Too much of a coward to prove your claims.

see, necro, the fact that no one was charged is not proof enough that no one committed the crime. He wants you to conduct a trial and provide proof of no crime but there won't be anyone sitting at the table as a defendant.

Well, I guess I will miracle that shit up then.

This is what goalpost moving looks like. Change the argument to suit your strawman because you can't argue against the actual facts. As stated so many times before, prove fraud wasn't committed, prove insurrection didn't take place. You have your criteria but strangely none of you will tackle either of those cases. You only want to pretend fraud isn't fraud or insurrection isn't insurrection and you have zero facts to back up either of your claims. What's great about this is the groupthink y'all have sank into is basically like one of you is the other now. Both of you are intentionally stupid and refuse to acknowledge facts. Makes this so much easier.

Prove January 6 wasn't an insurrection. Or prove the word itself is incorrectly defined. Then prove fraud isn't fraud. Then prove rape isn't rape. Y'all have a lot of homework to get through, and those verdicts aren't getting any less guilty for your boy.

actually, goal post moving looks more like when criminals are charged and then someone else comes along and tries to say what they should have been charged with but weren't. What I am doing is keeping it on topic as these people were charged. The prosecutors and judges planted the goal posts. You are the one moving them.

[dot]

So no rape conviction despite the fact that the jury COULD have rendered that charge. You can spin it all you want, retard, but the only dishonesty here is yours. It is factually honest that Trump has never been convicted of rape. Own it. You and the partisan judge can seethe harder. Sorry that inflames your TDS.

What we see here is a perfect example of why the judge issued the statement that he did. Hack out here defending his boy cornering a woman against her will and assaulting her and spinning that to call it not rape. The common everyday man or woman or general civilian sees that action has rape as did the judge. So please, keep trying to make a stand on that hill, intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

Keep spinning, hack. Defend your idol rapist.

Lol. I can hear you from here. "I'm meltinnnnnnnngg."

Projection.

1. You have proved nothing.

Except that you can't prove your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s claims or that fraud isn't fraud.

2. You want us to prove a negative.

You have verdicts that dispute your assertion.

3. You deny reality.

Projection.

All the signs of a troll. A stupid one to boot.

Projection.

Next?

actually, goal post moving looks more like when criminals are charged and then someone else comes along and tries to say what they should have been charged with but weren't.

The Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s claim was that January 6 was not an insurrection. That's the topic. When you and the rest of the usual suspects couldn't prove the claim, you shifted the goalposts to charges filed. But charges filed will never change whether a crime was committed. As always, try again, do your homework.

What I am doing is keeping it on topic as these people were charged. The prosecutors and judges planted the goal posts. You are the one moving them.

You'd like to believe that, but that was never the premise to start with. It's what all of you had to shift to in order to avoid admitting January 6 was an insurrection. The argument was never about the charges filed, it was about what was committed. Your strawman also falls apart when you remember that lack of charges filed does not erase a crime from having been committed. As always, try again, do your homework.

[Animal]

You'd like to believe that, but that was never the premise to start with. It's what all of you had to shift to in order to avoid admitting January 6 was an insurrection. The argument was never about the charges filed, it was about what was committed. Your strawman also falls apart when you remember that lack of charges filed does not erase a crime from having been committed. As always, try again, do your homework.

here's the premise, stupid. Hundreds (literally hundreds) of people were charged with crimes on Jan 6th. For each one of those people, prosecutors sat down and studied what they did and what laws they broke and then charged them accordingly. Not a single one of them was charged with insurrection, even though there is a specific law on the books just for that crime. The prosecutors were aware of that law and not a single one of them saw that it fit the actions of a single person they charged that day.

But, you, however, have determined that every one of them were guilty of that crime. Which leads to the undeniable conclusion that you are a fucking moron.

[necronomous]

So no rape conviction despite the fact that the jury COULD have rendered that charge. You can spin it all you want, retard, but the only dishonesty here is yours. It is factually honest that Trump has never been convicted of rape. Own it. You and the partisan judge can seethe harder. Sorry that inflames your TDS.

What we see here is a perfect example of why the judge issued the statement that he did. Hack out here defending his boy cornering a woman against her will and assaulting her and spinning that to call it not rape. The common everyday man or woman or general civilian sees that action has rape as did the judge. So please, keep trying to make a stand on that hill, intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

Keep spinning, hack. Defend your idol rapist.

Lol. I can hear you from here. "I'm meltinnnnnnnngg."

Projection.

1. You have proved nothing.

Except that you can't prove your Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s claims or that fraud isn't fraud.

2. You want us to prove a negative.

You have verdicts that dispute your assertion.

3. You deny reality.

Projection.

All the signs of a troll. A stupid one to boot.

Projection.

Next?

actually, goal post moving looks more like when criminals are charged and then someone else comes along and tries to say what they should have been charged with but weren't.

The Do you know that I'm a fag? True Story!'s claim was that January 6 was not an insurrection. That's the topic. When you and the rest of the usual suspects couldn't prove the claim, you shifted the goalposts to charges filed. But charges filed will never change whether a crime was committed. As always, try again, do your homework.

What I am doing is keeping it on topic as these people were charged. The prosecutors and judges planted the goal posts. You are the one moving them.

You'd like to believe that, but that was never the premise to start with. It's what all of you had to shift to in order to avoid admitting January 6 was an insurrection. The argument was never about the charges filed, it was about what was committed. Your strawman also falls apart when you remember that lack of charges filed does not erase a crime from having been committed. As always, try again, do your homework.

Irony

[dot]

here's the premise, stupid.

Cutting out the shifting of the goalposts for yet another attempt to dodge the premise. Either January 6 was or was not an insurrection. You're welcome to prove it was not either based on the actions committed or that the word itself is not correctly defined. But what you can't do is argue whether charges filed changes or erases the crime committed. See the subpoenas defied. They were still defied, but your logic would say that because those reps were not charged for the crime, it never happened. That's why your goalpost shifting is a failure, the lack of charges will not change what took place. Therefore, you're left only with proving whether or not January 6 was or was not an insurrection, or that the definition is wrong. Do your homework, it's been months.

Irony

Still nothing, huh? Maybe your problem is you thought we were talking about inserrectionists this whole time and you genuinely don't know what insurrection means.

[necronomous]

here's the premise, stupid.

Cutting out the shifting of the goalposts for yet another attempt to dodge the premise. Either January 6 was or was not an insurrection. You're welcome to prove it was not either based on the actions committed or that the word itself is not correctly defined. But what you can't do is argue whether charges filed changes or erases the crime committed. See the subpoenas defied. They were still defied, but your logic would say that because those reps were not charged for the crime, it never happened. That's why your goalpost shifting is a failure, the lack of charges will not change what took place. Therefore, you're left only with proving whether or not January 6 was or was not an insurrection, or that the definition is wrong. Do your homework, it's been months.

Irony

Still nothing, huh? Maybe your problem is you thought we were talking about inserrectionists this whole time and you genuinely don't know what insurrection means.

Now who's projecting. Still you. More irony