Enough evidence for SaltyDot?

[dot]

I have already accepted yours.

I'm not the one that couldn't produce evidence for his claims and couldn't refute the evidence in order to defend your client. Bad faith arguments seem to be all you guys got now.

[necronomous]

I have already accepted yours.

I'm not the one that couldn't produce evidence for his claims and couldn't refute the evidence in order to defend your client. Bad faith arguments seem to be all you guys got now.

You couldn't provide the case where Trump was convicted of insurrection and he was placed in jail for treason for leading said insurrection as you claim. You also haven't shown how he frauded a bank and the state, without also proving everyone who's ever taken a loan has not done the same. Nice try though.

[dot]

You couldn't provide the case where Trump was convicted of insurrection

I provided the case for the factual finding still not refuted despite begging for there to be so, but you know that, bad faith Both Sides™. I am not the prosecutor for the civil fraud trial of which there is a guilty verdict. If you want the evidence for that, go to New York, and while you're there, argue your case for the defendant since you seem to think you have the magic bullet defense for him. While you're at it, provide your evidence for unfounded claims of corruption against the judge.

What's that? You don't have it? Whoops, what a pity.

[necronomous]

You couldn't provide the case where Trump was convicted of insurrection

I provided the case for the factual finding still not refuted despite begging for there to be so, but you know that, bad faith Both Sides™. I am not the prosecutor for the civil fraud trial of which there is a guilty verdict. If you want the evidence for that, go to New York, and while you're there, argue your case for the defendant since you seem to think you have the magic bullet defense for him. While you're at it, provide your evidence for unfounded claims of corruption against the judge.

What's that? You don't have it? Whoops, what a pity.

So they didn't charge him with insurrection. Which is what I said. Glad we agree.

[dot]

So they didn't charge him with insurrection. Which is what I said. Glad we agree.

That he incited insurrection, which is the factual finding and it still unrefuted by even the highest court in the land, which is what I said. Ready to accept that reality, are ye? As for your corruption posturing and defense of fraud, I can see you don't have as strong of a case as you made yourself out to have, consensus reached reluctantly I can see.

[Animal]

Can someone read dot the definition of "reversed" he's big on definitions.

[dot]

Can someone read dot the definition of "reversed" he's big on definitions.

You posted the ruling and yet you still don't understand what it said. Keep highlighting it for everyone to see.

[Animal]

Can someone read dot the definition of "reversed" he's big on definitions.

You posted the ruling and yet you still don't understand what it said. Keep highlighting it for everyone to see.

for those that didn't see it said. "We Reverse".

[dot]

for those that didn't see it said. "We Reverse".

And what that reversal did was put him back on the ballot, because they only ruled that states cannot enforce the disqualification clause of the Constitution. What it did not do was reverse the factual finding of inciting insurrection, although they were asked to. In fact, I'll do you a little bit extra since you're so entrenched in pretending the ruling says something it doesn't say. If they did as you say and reversed the finding that he incited insurrection, why would the bought and paid for justices then go and decree that only Congress can enact the provision for disqualification on a finding that they reversed?

This is what happens when you don't educate yourself, midget. As with most things, I warned you.

[Animal]

We reverse. that's pretty cut and dried. but dot can read much much more into it because he's a definition guy.

[dot]

We reverse. that's pretty cut and dried. but dot can read much much more into it because he's a definition guy.

Not my fault you can't read a ruling and understand what it said. But it is yours when you intentionally keep yourself uneducated.

If they did as you say and reversed the finding that he incited insurrection, why would the bought and paid for justices then go and decree that only Congress can enact the provision for disqualification on a finding that they reversed?

[Animal]

And the ruling on the field is that the runner stepped out of bounds at the 23 yard line, so the touch down does not count. The ruling is now under review.

The umpire reversed the ruling. The touchdown now counts and they will attempt an extra point.

Dot: But they didn't say that he didn't step out of bounds, so he still stepped out of bounds. They only reversed the no touchdown and gave him a touchdown. The other coach wanted them to say he didn't step out of bounds and they didn't. So, he stepped out of bounds and that still stands.......

Everyone else: :eye rolls:

[dot]

And the ruling on the field is that the runner stepped out of bounds at the 23 yard line, so the touch down does not count. The ruling is now under review.

The umpire reversed the ruling. The touchdown now counts and they will attempt an extra point.

Dot: But they didn't say that he didn't step out of bounds, so he still stepped out of bounds. They only reversed the no touchdown and gave him a touchdown. The other coach wanted them to say he didn't step out of bounds and they didn't. So, he stepped out of bounds and that still stands.......

Everyone else: :eye rolls:

I don't do sports, but good luck selling that analogy to anyone who knows more than you do about the subject. That's a wide field to play in.

[Animal]

Dot is the kind of dupe that would probably vote for a Biden, even if that hot piece of ass Kristi Noem was on the other ballot. Even knowing that if Kristi got into office as the VP at least 50% of every reporter in this country would be following her around 24/7 just waiting for any chance of an upskirt.

[dot]

Dot is the kind of dupe that would probably vote for a Biden, even if that hot piece of ass Kristi Noem was on the other ballot. Even knowing that if Kristi got into office as the VP at least 50% of every reporter in this country would be following her around 24/7 just waiting for any chance of an upskirt.

Sorry, but I think being president is a bit more complicated than wanting to bang the person in office. And for you to have a shot at Noem, you'd have to bend over for Trump first assuming he picks her and then is able to trick enough of you marks again. Tell us more though about your idea of qualifications for running the country.

[necronomous]

So they didn't charge him with insurrection. Which is what I said. Glad we agree.

That he incited insurrection, which is the factual finding and it still unrefuted by even the highest court in the land, which is what I said. Ready to accept that reality, are ye? As for your corruption posturing and defense of fraud, I can see you don't have as strong of a case as you made yourself out to have, consensus reached reluctantly I can see.

Yet if it's factual, then why not charge him and put him jail for treason? Exactly. You're full of shit. Just say that next time.

[dot]

Yet if it's factual

There is no if, unless you can refute it. Because the court wouldn't. Since you refuse to follow through on your fraud posturing, you have the time to refute insurrection if the facts are on your side.

[necronomous]

Yet if it's factual

There is no if, unless you can refute it. Because the court wouldn't. Since you refuse to follow through on your fraud posturing, you have the time to refute insurrection if the facts are on your side.

Then put him in jail. You're skipping out why they aren't. That's the question. Not whether it's factual. Let's say it's factual, put him in jail. Do it. If he committed treason, put him in jail for treason. But he has not been found guilty of insurrection or treason. No one has. None. Zero. Nada. Its just someone saying yeah, I think it was an insurrection. That's it. Otherwise, put him in jail.

[CHEEZY17]

Yet if it's factual

There is no if, unless you can refute it. Because the court wouldn't. Since you refuse to follow through on your fraud posturing, you have the time to refute insurrection if the facts are on your side.

Then put him in jail. You're skipping out why they aren't. That's the question. Not whether it's factual. Let's say it's factual, put him in jail. Do it. If he committed treason, put him in jail for treason. But he has not been found guilty of insurrection or treason. No one has. None. Zero. Nada. Its just someone saying yeah, I think it was an insurrection. That's it. Otherwise, put him in jail.

Or the literally hundreds of other January 6th cases that were for "not insurrection".

[dot]

Then put him in jail.

I'm not the prosecutor.

You're skipping out why they aren't.

Because I'm not the prosecutor.

That's the question. Not whether it's factual.

It is.

Let's say it's factual, put him in jail.

It is, but I'm not the prosecutor.

Do it. If he committed treason, put him in jail for treason.

I'm not the prosecutor.

But he has not been found guilty of insurrection or treason.

That was never the question asked. The question is whether insurrection was incited, or if you prefer, whether January 6 was or was not an insurrection. Charges filed is not the same thing as committing the crime, see subpoenas defied.

No one has. None. Zero. Nada. Its just someone saying yeah, I think it was an insurrection.

Not think. Factual. If you don't like it, refute it with facts.

That's it. Otherwise, put him in jail.

I'm not the prosecutor.

Or the literally hundreds of other January 6th cases that were for "not insurrection".

And yet you still can't argue the facts of said insurrection. Hack can only point to whether charges were filed, and then conveniently ignore how that doesn't absolve or erase the commission of a crime in any other instance but your arbitrary choice here. Your task still sits in front of you, it'll be 3 months old in a couple of weeks. You ready to grow some balls? Tackle the facts, tackle the definition of the word, or admit your apologist's excuse is wrong. Tick tock.

[CHEEZY17]

And yet you still can't argue the facts of said insurrection. Hack can only point to whether charges were filed, and then conveniently ignore how that doesn't absolve or erase the commission of a crime in any other instance but your arbitrary choice here. Your task still sits in front of you, it'll be 3 months old in a couple of weeks. You ready to grow some balls? Tackle the facts, tackle the definition of the word, or admit your apologist's excuse is wrong. Tick tock.

LOLZ tick tock indeed.
I'll try again for the 4th or 5th time now to "tackle the facts of that day" but for some reason you always claim I'm not trying.
I'd like to discuss the hundreds of texts that were factually sent and received on and around that day. I'd like to tackle that subject with you right now. Many people sent and received texts before during and after the protest. All of those texts have been reviewed by law enforcement and are known. I'd like to address these texts from on and around the day of the protest with you. Do you have any other information to add because now would be the time since I am, after all, trying to discuss these texts for the 4th or 5th time with you. I am [again] starting this discussion about the "facts of that day" right now. Right here, right now, this is me attempting to discuss these texts with you, you fucking retard.

[dot]

LOLZ tick tock indeed.
I'll try again for the 4th or 5th time now to "tackle the facts of that day" but for some reason you always claim I'm not trying.

Because you're going on 3 months late. No one else needed so much prep and guidelines and parameters in order to dive in to the discussion. Only you. We know why, because you're a bad faith disingenuous partisan hack, so why not just own your behavior?

I'd like to discuss the hundreds of texts that were factually sent and received on and around that day. I'd like to tackle that subject with you right now. Many people sent and received texts before during and after the protest. All of those texts have been reviewed by law enforcement and are known. I'd like to address these texts from on and around the day of the protest with you. Do you have any other information to add because now would be the time since I am, after all, trying to discuss these texts for the 4th or 5th time with you. I am [again] starting this discussion about the "facts of that day" right now. Right here, right now, this is me attempting to discuss these texts with you, you fucking retard.

As predicted, you don't want to talk about what actually happened, you're still beating around the bush setting parameters. Like I said previously, if you want to show the class that you're serious, catch up. You have the definition(s) of insurrection, what took place that day that was visible and the plots behind the scenes have been exposed to the public. Prove that what took place was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. Failing that, your apologist's excuse is wrong. In other words, you have homework to do. Catch up, hack.

[CHEEZY17]

LOLZ tick tock indeed.
I'll try again for the 4th or 5th time now to "tackle the facts of that day" but for some reason you always claim I'm not trying.

Because you're going on 3 months late. No one else needed so much prep and guidelines and parameters in order to dive in to the discussion. Only you. We know why, because you're a bad faith disingenuous partisan hack, so why not just own your behavior?

I'd like to discuss the hundreds of texts that were factually sent and received on and around that day. I'd like to tackle that subject with you right now. Many people sent and received texts before during and after the protest. All of those texts have been reviewed by law enforcement and are known. I'd like to address these texts from on and around the day of the protest with you. Do you have any other information to add because now would be the time since I am, after all, trying to discuss these texts for the 4th or 5th time with you. I am [again] starting this discussion about the "facts of that day" right now. Right here, right now, this is me attempting to discuss these texts with you, you fucking retard.

As predicted, you don't want to talk about what actually happened, you're still beating around the bush setting parameters. Like I said previously, if you want to show the class that you're serious, catch up. You have the definition(s) of insurrection, what took place that day that was visible and the plots behind the scenes have been exposed to the public. Prove that what took place was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. Failing that, your apologist's excuse is wrong. In other words, you have homework to do. Catch up, hack.

Just calling your bluff, retard, and in the process proving you dont actually want to discuss the "facts of the day".
Just admit that when given multiple opportunities to "discuss the facts of that day" you continually deflect and fail.
OK, you dont like the texts? How about phone calls? Lets discuss them. E-mails maybe? We could discuss those if you'd like. So the texts "didnt actually happen"? Are they not a part of "the facts of that day"?
Personally, I like the videos of that day. They really tell quite a story. What did you think about the videos? Some showed some real violence during the protest while others were comically peaceful. Lets discuss your thoughts on them. I dont know how you get more into the "facts of that day" then by actual videos of the protest. In case youre not aware, this is how a discussion starts. Thanks. Tick tock.

[necronomous]

Then put him in jail.

I'm not the prosecutor.

You're skipping out why they aren't.

Because I'm not the prosecutor.

That's the question. Not whether it's factual.

It is.

Let's say it's factual, put him in jail.

It is, but I'm not the prosecutor.

Do it. If he committed treason, put him in jail for treason.

I'm not the prosecutor.

But he has not been found guilty of insurrection or treason.

That was never the question asked. The question is whether insurrection was incited, or if you prefer, whether January 6 was or was not an insurrection. Charges filed is not the same thing as committing the crime, see subpoenas defied.

No one has. None. Zero. Nada. Its just someone saying yeah, I think it was an insurrection.

Not think. Factual. If you don't like it, refute it with facts.

That's it. Otherwise, put him in jail.

I'm not the prosecutor.

Or the literally hundreds of other January 6th cases that were for "not insurrection".

And yet you still can't argue the facts of said insurrection. Hack can only point to whether charges were filed, and then conveniently ignore how that doesn't absolve or erase the commission of a crime in any other instance but your arbitrary choice here. Your task still sits in front of you, it'll be 3 months old in a couple of weeks. You ready to grow some balls? Tackle the facts, tackle the definition of the word, or admit your apologist's excuse is wrong. Tick tock.

It's ok, they aren't going to put him in jail either, because they can't prove something that never happened. Great talk.

[dot]

Just calling your bluff, retard

You haven't begun to call anything yet, that's the point. You're still piddling about the discussion without getting into any details. Either do the work or admit you don't have the balls, you had 3 more days and you didn't do a single bit of the catching up required. Accusation is confession from disingenuous intellectually dishonest functionally retarded hypocritical partisan hack.

It's ok, they aren't going to put him in jail either, because they can't prove something that never happened. Great talk.

Except they did prove what he did and you clearly have a problem with the requirement of refuting the factual finding. Try again, this time with more feeling.