Enough evidence for SaltyDot?

[necronomous]

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.

Except if they did, he would be in jail and everyone else, for insurrection. None are.

[dot]

Except if they did, he would be in jail and everyone else, for insurrection. None are.

This is still not a refutation of the factual finding of what he did. Try again.

[necronomous]

Except if they did, he would be in jail and everyone else, for insurrection. None are.

This is still not a refutation of the factual finding of what he did. Try again.

So what you're saying is, people get charged for things, but they aren't put in jail if they are guilty. Interesting take.

[Antknot]

Be good to my boy’: Impeachment inquiry exposes Joe Biden’s involvement in family business



https://justthenews.com/accountability/ ... nvolvement

[dot]

So what you're saying is, people get charged for things, but they aren't put in jail if they are guilty. Interesting take.

This is still not a refutation of the factual finding of what he did. Try again.

[necronomous]

So what you're saying is, people get charged for things, but they aren't put in jail if they are guilty. Interesting take.

This is still not a refutation of the factual finding of what he did. Try again.

And what you're saying isn't proving he did. Try again.

[necronomous]

https://www.reddit.com/r/walkaway/s/2Y1H7u5b90

[dot]

And what you're saying isn't proving he did. Try again.

I don't have to, the factual finding has already been determined. In the court setting you said you wanted. Therefore, it falls to you to refute it with facts if you disagree. Try. Again.

[Animal]

by the court that was over ruled by the Supreme Court. Dot likes to leave that part out. He doesn't understand was "we reverse" means.

[dot]

by the court that was over ruled by the Supreme Court. Dot likes to leave that part out. He doesn't understand was "we reverse" means.

Mental midget left out the part that they did not refute the factual finding, even though asked to by Trump. Mental midget still doesn't understand what the ruling said despite pasting it here himself. Mental midget doesn't understand many things, like fraud or insurrection or hush money or bribe or apparently court rulings. Mental midget should take the advice given many times before now and educate himself on what he wants to post about before he posts about it.

[necronomous]

And what you're saying isn't proving he did. Try again.

I don't have to, the factual finding has already been determined. In the court setting you said you wanted. Therefore, it falls to you to refute it with facts if you disagree. Try. Again.

Then he would be charged for it

[dot]

Then he would be charged for it

Like how subpoenas defied were charged? If you aren't comfortable defending the event for what it was, just admit it rather than subscribing to your fellow red's favored distraction tactic. Until then, try again.

[necronomous]

Then he would be charged for it

Like how subpoenas defied were charged? If you aren't comfortable defending the event for what it was, just admit it rather than subscribing to your fellow red's favored distraction tactic. Until then, try again.

Lol, you think a subpoena is a charge?

[dot]

Lol, you think a subpoena is a charge?

Following along isn't your strong suit, huh? If a subpoena is defied, and the defiance of the subpoena is not charged, was the subpoena still defied? It's fine, I get it, you can't admit the indefensible. Guess that's why you can't or won't prove it wasn't an insurrection. Typical red.

[necronomous]

Lol, you think a subpoena is a charge?

Following along isn't your strong suit, huh? If a subpoena is defied, and the defiance of the subpoena is not charged, was the subpoena still defied? It's fine, I get it, you can't admit the indefensible. Guess that's why you can't or won't prove it wasn't an insurrection. Typical red.

Just say you don't understand anything you're talking about. Because that's not how anything works.

[dot]

Just say you don't understand anything you're talking about. Because that's not how anything works.

I'm not the one who doesn't understand fraud, or findings of fact by a court, or even able to follow a simple conversation without making a ridiculous assumption. That being said, still not a single refutation of fact to be seen by the would be apologists which includes yourself. So, try again red.

[Animal]

poor stupid dot. there has only been one court that even mentioned insurrection in the past 3 years. And the supreme court reversed that courts decision.

of course, along with making excuses of why it must have been an insurrection, the dummy doesn't understand what it means to reverse a decision.

[dot]

poor stupid dot. there has only been one court that even mentioned insurrection in the past 3 years. And the supreme court reversed that courts decision.

And yet, they did not reverse the finding of fact. Why is it you cannot grasp that key fact? Do you fundamentally not understand it? It wouldn't be farfetched, you have a reputation for just not understanding what you talk about here. Or is it that you refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys the narrative you want to prop up? Because you have a reputation for that too. So just which exactly is it? Do you not get it, are you stupid? Or is it you know exactly what it means and thus have to pretend it didn't happen?

of course, along with making excuses of why it must have been an insurrection, the dummy doesn't understand what it means to reverse a decision.

Thank you so much for admitting this about yourself, the irony is thick. Between not knowing what fraud is, or bribes, or hush money, or insurrection, or court rulings, you do cover a lot of ground for just how much you choose to remain ignorant about, midget.

[Animal]

poor stupid dot. there has only been one court that even mentioned insurrection in the past 3 years. And the supreme court reversed that courts decision.

And yet, they did not reverse the finding of fact. Why is it you cannot grasp that key fact? Do you fundamentally not understand it? It wouldn't be farfetched, you have a reputation for just not understanding what you talk about here. Or is it that you refuse to acknowledge it because it destroys the narrative you want to prop up? Because you have a reputation for that too. So just which exactly is it? Do you not get it, are you stupid? Or is it you know exactly what it means and thus have to pretend it didn't happen?

of course, along with making excuses of why it must have been an insurrection, the dummy doesn't understand what it means to reverse a decision.

Thank you so much for admitting this about yourself, the irony is thick. Between not knowing what fraud is, or bribes, or hush money, or insurrection, or court rulings, you do cover a lot of ground for just how much you choose to remain ignorant about, midget.

no i'm not, but what are you?

[dot]

no i'm not, but what are you?

Still not refuting the finding of fact, not my fault you confessed in trying to accuse.

[necronomous]

Just say you don't understand anything you're talking about. Because that's not how anything works.

I'm not the one who doesn't understand fraud, or findings of fact by a court, or even able to follow a simple conversation without making a ridiculous assumption. That being said, still not a single refutation of fact to be seen by the would be apologists which includes yourself. So, try again red.

So your claim here is, courts don't make bad calls or mistakes. Because there was absolutely no fraud committed. None. If you can pount out where it was, please do so.

Because

1. You can sell or evaluate your property for whatever price you'd like. People will buy it, or they want, and the banks will accept that valuation or they won't. The bank in this case decided it was fine.

2. It doesn't matter what valuation they made toward taxes, they pay the taxes the state/county/city dictates and he can't change that. Currently my house is listed at 347k. The county is charging me a valuation of 220k in taxes. Am I breaking the law? If you say no, then neither did Trump. And if you say yes, then most Americans need to be charged with fraud. You're full of shit.

[dot]

So your claim here is, courts don't make bad calls or mistakes. Because there was absolutely no fraud committed. None. If you can pount out where it was, please do so.

Demonstrably wrong based on the evidence, testimony, rulings. Just because your loyalty to all things red makes you mad about those facts, you can't dismiss that without facts proving your claim.

Because

1. You can sell or evaluate your property for whatever price you'd like. People will buy it, or they want, and the banks will accept that valuation or they won't. The bank in this case decided it was fine.

2. It doesn't matter what valuation they made toward taxes, they pay the taxes the state/county/city dictates and he can't change that. Currently my house is listed at 347k. The county is charging me a valuation of 220k in taxes. Am I breaking the law? If you say no, then neither did Trump. And if you say yes, then most Americans need to be charged with fraud. You're full of shit.

Thank you for further demonstrating you do not understand fraud. Or rather, you will choose not to acknowledge said proven fraud. It's real simple, if you think what they did was not fraud, then go to New York and argue your case for him. Put your money, mind, and your loyalty to the test in his defense. But I warn you, arguing before the court is not going to be as easygoing as the forum for a formerly internet titty site. Good luck, because once you're done failing with that, maybe you'll tackle January 6 being an insurrection next.

[necronomous]

So your claim here is, courts don't make bad calls or mistakes. Because there was absolutely no fraud committed. None. If you can pount out where it was, please do so.

Demonstrably wrong based on the evidence, testimony, rulings. Just because your loyalty to all things red makes you mad about those facts, you can't dismiss that without facts proving your claim.

Because

1. You can sell or evaluate your property for whatever price you'd like. People will buy it, or they want, and the banks will accept that valuation or they won't. The bank in this case decided it was fine.

2. It doesn't matter what valuation they made toward taxes, they pay the taxes the state/county/city dictates and he can't change that. Currently my house is listed at 347k. The county is charging me a valuation of 220k in taxes. Am I breaking the law? If you say no, then neither did Trump. And if you say yes, then most Americans need to be charged with fraud. You're full of shit.

Thank you for further demonstrating you do not understand fraud. Or rather, you will choose not to acknowledge said proven fraud. It's real simple, if you think what they did was not fraud, then go to New York and argue your case for him. Put your money, mind, and your loyalty to the test in his defense. But I warn you, arguing before the court is not going to be as easygoing as the forum for a formerly internet titty site. Good luck, because once you're done failing with that, maybe you'll tackle January 6 being an insurrection next.

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

[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."

[Animal]

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.