Enough evidence for SaltyDot?

[CHEEZY17]

Hypocrisy on The Left: SHOCKER!

Jon Stewart benefited by 829% ‘overvalue’ of his NYC home even as he labels Trump’s civil case ‘not victimless’
https://nypost.com/2024/03/27/real-esta ... me-by-829/

"In 2014, Stewart sold his 6,280-square-foot Tribeca duplex to financier Parag Pande for $17.5 million. The property’s asking price at that time is not available in listing records.

But according to 2013-2014 assessor records obtained by The Post, the property had the estimated market-value at only $1.882 million. The actual assessor valuation was even lower, at $847,174.

Records also show that Stewart paid significantly lower property taxes, which were calculated based on that assessor valuation price — precisely what he called Trump out for doing in his Monday monologue."

you could post literally millions and millions of these exact same type posts. the government is actually committing fraud by now acknowledging that it happens.

Thats kind of what Ive heard and read from other sources. By the government actually doing this in this one particular case it basically proves that they are simply out to get Trump because it literally happens all over the country all of the time in all walks of life and nothing has ever been said or done previously.

[dot]

So you're calling me wrong but can't tell me how I'm wrong. Got it.

Wrong. I'm telling you that if you think or claim that the verdict is wrong, go put your money where your mouth is and prove it to them. Take your defense to New York and argue the case. After all, the evidence and testimony and exhibits you want? It's up there, I'm not the prosecutor or the judge. Have fun.

[necronomous]

So you're calling me wrong but can't tell me how I'm wrong. Got it.

Wrong. I'm telling you that if you think or claim that the verdict is wrong, go put your money where your mouth is and prove it to them. Take your defense to New York and argue the case. After all, the evidence and testimony and exhibits you want? It's up there, I'm not the prosecutor or the judge. Have fun.

So like I said. You're calling me wrong, but you can't prove it. Got it.

[dot]

So like I said. You're calling me wrong, but you can't prove it. Got it.

You dispute the verdict? That's you calling the verdict, ruling, finding wrong. Uno reversing isn't going to work in court for you unfortunately, and it won't work here either. Either use the facts, or admit you don't got jack. See the hack for advice on how to deal with not having jack, red.

[necronomous]

So like I said. You're calling me wrong, but you can't prove it. Got it.

You dispute the verdict? That's you calling the verdict, ruling, finding wrong. Uno reversing isn't going to work in court for you unfortunately, and it won't work here either. Either use the facts, or admit you don't got jack. See the hack for advice on how to deal with not having jack, red.

Then say how it's different than what any American has done that owns a house. And why is this verdict what makes it true, but for the insurrection a verdict is not needed.

[dot]

Then say how it's different than what any American has done that owns a house. And why is this verdict what makes it true, but for the insurrection a verdict is not needed.

Different variables, I work with the landscape of reality. Trump was found to have committed fraud, multiple times mind you as a serial fraudster, with a guilty verdict but I get that you can't acknowledge such facts as it weakens your credibility to defend him. So let's set that aside for a moment. Let's take the recent Stewart example, as he sold a property for upwards of what it was valued at about 10 years ago. Hacks tried to compare that to Trump's fraudulent records to one entity (banks) for loan rates and a different set of fraudulent records to another (government) for tax rates. One participated in capitalism, the other engaged in fraud. Now if you still believe so strongly that what Trump did isn't fraud, despite everything being against you, then take your case to New York and argue it for him. He clearly needs the help. You gonna step up or just bleat?

[Animal]

clearly dot is either a renter or he lives with his parents. he is never, ever, going to grasp how property values are determined.

[dot]

clearly dot is either a renter or he lives with his parents. he is never, ever, going to grasp how property values are determined.

From the guy that couldn't figure out fraud, bribery, hush money, court rulings, and insurrection. Tell us more.

[necronomous]

Then say how it's different than what any American has done that owns a house. And why is this verdict what makes it true, but for the insurrection a verdict is not needed.

Different variables, I work with the landscape of reality. Trump was found to have committed fraud, multiple times mind you as a serial fraudster, with a guilty verdict but I get that you can't acknowledge such facts as it weakens your credibility to defend him. So let's set that aside for a moment. Let's take the recent Stewart example, as he sold a property for upwards of what it was valued at about 10 years ago. Hacks tried to compare that to Trump's fraudulent records to one entity (banks) for loan rates and a different set of fraudulent records to another (government) for tax rates. One participated in capitalism, the other engaged in fraud. Now if you still believe so strongly that what Trump did isn't fraud, despite everything being against you, then take your case to New York and argue it for him. He clearly needs the help. You gonna step up or just bleat?

He can not set tax rates. He can not force a bank to loan him an amount. Do you not understand how it works. It doesn't matter what he presented to the government. The government will evaluate the property as they see fit. I do not get to tell the government what to value my property. And they don't calculate based off of what zillow says. Nothing is against me. What I'm saying is literally how it works and the judge is an idiot and a potzi of the dems. I want to know where you live that you can tell the government how much taxes you owe. I also want to know what banks you go to that you can tell them how much to loan you.

[necronomous]

clearly dot is either a renter or he lives with his parents. he is never, ever, going to grasp how property values are determined.

From the guy that couldn't figure out fraud, bribery, hush money, court rulings, and insurrection. Tell us more.

The irony of your stupidity. No facts to back you up, but you are so positive. I've never seen someone revel so much in their own stupidity as you. And that includes ctc.

[Animal]

Dot called the police last october to report 4 kids committing fraud. one was presenting himself as spiderman, another tinkerbell, one scooby doo, and the other claimed to be a pirate. they were demanding candy. this news is breaking.

[dot]

He can not set tax rates. He can not force a bank to loan him an amount. Do you not understand how it works. It doesn't matter what he presented to the government. The government will evaluate the property as they see fit. I do not get to tell the government what to value my property. And they don't calculate based off of what zillow says. Nothing is against me. What I'm saying is literally how it works and the judge is an idiot and a potzi of the dems. I want to know where you live that you can tell the government how much taxes you owe. I also want to know what banks you go to that you can tell them how much to loan you.

If that's what you truly believe, then you need to go to New York and tell them you have the magic bullet to defend him, demonstrate it. But you don't, because you know you can't argue against his fraudulent documents and practices and the testimony against him. So once again, either put up or shut up because you clearly won't accept fraud is fraud here. The only recourse you have is to prove fraud isn't fraud on the public stage. Take Animal with you, he's desperate for a win and was championing this long before you because like you he also doesn't understand fraud.

The irony of your stupidity. No facts to back you up, but you are so positive. I've never seen someone revel so much in their own stupidity as you. And that includes ctc.

Except for evidence, testimony, the ruling, past documented history of fraud by the defendant. Yeah, no facts at all. But this is also coming from the guy who thinks January 6 was just a leisurely walk through the doors along velvet ropes. We already know you won't acknowledge reality because it shatters your narrative.

Sad thing for you is, I don't make you look any dumber than you do to yourself. Your presentation is all you, bud. But you have my kudos for admitting it was an insurrection.

[necronomous]

He can not set tax rates. He can not force a bank to loan him an amount. Do you not understand how it works. It doesn't matter what he presented to the government. The government will evaluate the property as they see fit. I do not get to tell the government what to value my property. And they don't calculate based off of what zillow says. Nothing is against me. What I'm saying is literally how it works and the judge is an idiot and a potzi of the dems. I want to know where you live that you can tell the government how much taxes you owe. I also want to know what banks you go to that you can tell them how much to loan you.

If that's what you truly believe, then you need to go to New York and tell them you have the magic bullet to defend him, demonstrate it. But you don't, because you know you can't argue against his fraudulent documents and practices and the testimony against him. So once again, either put up or shut up because you clearly won't accept fraud is fraud here. The only recourse you have is to prove fraud isn't fraud on the public stage. Take Animal with you, he's desperate for a win and was championing this long before you because like you he also doesn't understand fraud.

The irony of your stupidity. No facts to back you up, but you are so positive. I've never seen someone revel so much in their own stupidity as you. And that includes ctc.

Except for evidence, testimony, the ruling, past documented history of fraud by the defendant. Yeah, no facts at all. But this is also coming from the guy who thinks January 6 was just a leisurely walk through the doors along velvet ropes. We already know you won't acknowledge reality because it shatters your narrative.

Sad thing for you is, I don't make you look any dumber than you do to yourself. Your presentation is all you, bud. But you have my kudos for admitting it was an insurrection.

Except for how every loan in America works. Good talk. Glad we agree you're wrong.

[dot]

Except for how every loan in America works. Good talk. Glad we agree you're wrong.

Tell New York then. Go ahead, if you're that confident. Strange how you won't do it. It's almost like you know but won't admit you can't refute the evidence, testimony, verdict, prior bad acts. Enjoy being wrong.

[necronomous]

Except for how every loan in America works. Good talk. Glad we agree you're wrong.

Tell New York then. Go ahead, if you're that confident. Strange how you won't do it. It's almost like you know but won't admit you can't refute the evidence, testimony, verdict, prior bad acts. Enjoy being wrong.

They don't listen to lawyers, why would they listen to me. Your argument here is courts never get verdicts wrong. Do everyone in jail is guilty. That's your argument. Great talk. And that's not bad faith. That's your argument.

[dot]

They don't listen to lawyers, why would they listen to me. Your argument here is courts never get verdicts wrong. Do everyone in jail is guilty. That's your argument. Great talk. And that's not bad faith. That's your argument.

Except they do listen to lawyers when the facts are on their side, when the law is on their side. Your problem is you're taking the side with no facts, no evidence, now law, only excuses and fraud and excuses for fraud. So if you think your argument is so strong on the facts, then you should be just fine up there. Why aren't you up there yet? Bad. Faith. Red.

[necronomous]

They don't listen to lawyers, why would they listen to me. Your argument here is courts never get verdicts wrong. Do everyone in jail is guilty. That's your argument. Great talk. And that's not bad faith. That's your argument.

Except they do listen to lawyers when the facts are on their side, when the law is on their side. Your problem is you're taking the side with no facts, no evidence, now law, only excuses and fraud and excuses for fraud. So if you think your argument is so strong on the facts, then you should be just fine up there. Why aren't you up there yet? Bad. Faith. Red.

Same question to you. If their evidence is so strong, why are there no convictions for insurrection. Bad. Faith. Blue.

[Animal]

They don't listen to lawyers, why would they listen to me. Your argument here is courts never get verdicts wrong. Do everyone in jail is guilty. That's your argument. Great talk. And that's not bad faith. That's your argument.

Except they do listen to lawyers when the facts are on their side, when the law is on their side. Your problem is you're taking the side with no facts, no evidence, now law, only excuses and fraud and excuses for fraud. So if you think your argument is so strong on the facts, then you should be just fine up there. Why aren't you up there yet? Bad. Faith. Red.

Same question to you. If their evidence is so strong, why are there no convictions for insurrection. Bad. Faith. Blue.

it is hard to understand why Dot hasn't moved to Washington to sit in on all of these wrongly charged Jan 6th people. He could have easily shown them his definition and forced them to change the charges for everyone to Insurrection. But, bad faith hack didn't want to trouble himself, so he let them off with trespassing.

[dot]

Same question to you. If their evidence is so strong, why are there no convictions for insurrection. Bad. Faith. Blue.

I'm not the one arguing against the unrefuted ruling, just like New York. I have the facts, evidence, testimony, and apparently the English language on my side. What do you have? Tell us why it's not an insurrection, start there, because you damn sure won't prove fraud isn't fraud. Or you can bitch out like you have been from the start, red.

it is hard to understand why Dot hasn't moved to Washington to sit in on all of these wrongly charged Jan 6th people. He could have easily shown them his definition and forced them to change the charges for everyone to Insurrection. But, bad faith hack didn't want to trouble himself, so he let them off with trespassing.

Someone doesn't like that he had to concede his allies committed insurrection. That someone isn't me. I didn't choose for you to back the wrong horse, midget.

[Animal]

Someone doesn't like that he had to concede his allies committed insurrection. That someone isn't me. I didn't choose for you to back the wrong horse, midget.

Poor dumb dumb dot. He can't understand that Kyle Rittenhouse admitted to killing two people. Lots of people saw it. There are pictures and videos. And he admitted to it. So they charged him with homicide. But, he wasn't guilty of homicide. Even though it probably fit the definition of the word homicide. His killing those two people and injuring a third person, didn't meet the law against intentional homicide or reckless homicide or even reckless endangerment. Even though authorities actually charged him with those crimes they simply couldn't convince the court that he was guilty of the laws against those things. The definition of the word homicide doesn't mean jack shit.

its the same thing with insurrection. Dumb dummy dot.

[CHEEZY17]

I've been trying to help him out. I've provided all of the contact information for him numerous times. Surely the Justice Department would be interested in his air tight, rock solid conclusion. I suppose there could be some facts they overlooked in their 3 year long investigation that only Dot has access to. In such important matters I'm certain they would take all pains to make sure they get it right.
Once again for Dot:
DOJ phone #: 1-202-514-2000
https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-justice

[dot]

Poor dumb dumb dot. He can't understand that Kyle Rittenhouse admitted to killing two people. Lots of people saw it. There are pictures and videos. And he admitted to it. So they charged him with homicide. But, he wasn't guilty of homicide. Even though it probably fit the definition of the word homicide. His killing those two people and injuring a third person, didn't meet the law against intentional homicide or reckless homicide or even reckless endangerment. Even though authorities actually charged him with those crimes they simply couldn't convince the court that he was guilty of the laws against those things. The definition of the word homicide doesn't mean jack shit.

its the same thing with insurrection. Dumb dummy dot.

Is this like when you tried to excuse January 6 by citing Portland? Because your intentional lack of knowledge and research didn't help you then and it doesn't help you now. Changing the argument to what you want is never going to change the facts of what happened that day, which is why you had to concede that what happened was insurrection.

I've been trying to help him out.

Still refusing to prove insurrection did not take place as per the apologist's claim, thus still a coward and disingenuous partisan hack.

[CHEEZY17]

Poor dumb dumb dot. He can't understand that Kyle Rittenhouse admitted to killing two people. Lots of people saw it. There are pictures and videos. And he admitted to it. So they charged him with homicide. But, he wasn't guilty of homicide. Even though it probably fit the definition of the word homicide. His killing those two people and injuring a third person, didn't meet the law against intentional homicide or reckless homicide or even reckless endangerment. Even though authorities actually charged him with those crimes they simply couldn't convince the court that he was guilty of the laws against those things. The definition of the word homicide doesn't mean jack shit.

its the same thing with insurrection. Dumb dummy dot.

Is this like when you tried to excuse January 6 by citing Portland? Because your intentional lack of knowledge and research didn't help you then and it doesn't help you now. Changing the argument to what you want is never going to change the facts of what happened that day, which is why you had to concede that what happened was insurrection.

I've been trying to help him out.

Still refusing to prove insurrection did not take place as per the apologist's claim, thus still a coward and disingenuous partisan hack.

Nope. Your whole argument is "the facts of that day" and "the definition". Both of those things are known and have been evaluated by people smarter than you over hundreds of cases and each and every time they decided insurrection didnt fit. Once again it is YOU that needs to explain why the experts are wrong and you are right. Failing that bud, youre just pissing in the wind. Hey, if thats your thing then so be it but always remember that WE are on the same side as the United States Justice Department and you are not.

[Animal]

Poor dumb dumb dot. He can't understand that Kyle Rittenhouse admitted to killing two people. Lots of people saw it. There are pictures and videos. And he admitted to it. So they charged him with homicide. But, he wasn't guilty of homicide. Even though it probably fit the definition of the word homicide. His killing those two people and injuring a third person, didn't meet the law against intentional homicide or reckless homicide or even reckless endangerment. Even though authorities actually charged him with those crimes they simply couldn't convince the court that he was guilty of the laws against those things. The definition of the word homicide doesn't mean jack shit.

its the same thing with insurrection. Dumb dummy dot.

Is this like when you tried to excuse January 6 by citing Portland? Because your intentional lack of knowledge and research didn't help you then and it doesn't help you now. Changing the argument to what you want is never going to change the facts of what happened that day, which is why you had to concede that what happened was insurrection.

I've been trying to help him out.

Still refusing to prove insurrection did not take place as per the apologist's claim, thus still a coward and disingenuous partisan hack.

I don't excuse Jan 6th, because I have said 1000 times that it was stupid. However it did not break the law of insurrection. Which is why there were no charges brought or filed regarding insurrection. The fact that you can't understand that speaks to your stupidity.