Trump Post Election News.

[Megadeath]

Not saying I doubt it, but trumps lawyer saying he was told that is literal hearsay. Possibly interesting that Vance's office "no commented" on it, but then I imagine that's generally their response. Also worth noting that even if it is exactly what he was told, it doesn't mean it's true, and that they talk about the "first round" not touching on trump without mentioning later ones.

 

[Zachowon]

Not saying I doubt it, but trumps lawyer saying he was told that is literal hearsay. Possibly interesting that Vance's office "no commented" on it, but then I imagine that's generally their response. Also worth noting that even if it is exactly what he was told, it doesn't mean it's true, and that they talk about the "first round" not touching on trump without mentioning later ones.

What do they have onTrump?

 

[Sailor.X]

What do they have onTrump?

Nothing. If they did it would have been come out during the Independent Council Witch Hunt.

 

[Zachowon]

Nothing. If they did it would have been come out during the Independent Council Witch Hunt.

But apperently Megadeath says they have something

 

[Sailor.X]

But apperently Megadeath says they have something

After the biggest most intensive investigation of this Century. Yeah right If the Feds with way more resources than the State of New York could not find anything. Then there is nothing to find.

 

[Sir 1000]

After the biggest most intensive investigation of this Century. Yeah right If the Feds with way more resources than the State of New York could not find anything. Then their is nothing to find.

Yeah, at this point it's clearly more about wasting Trump's time and money and keeping the words Trump and criminal investigation in the news and public consciousness. It would just be considered a bonus to these ''people'' if they actually found something.

 

[Terthna]

But apperently Megadeath says they have something

Megadeath says a lot of things; so do parrots, if you train them well enough.

 

[Megadeath]

But apperently Megadeath says they have something

Could you point to where I said anything of the sort?

Megadeath says a lot of things; so do parrots, if you train them well enough.

And monkeys gibber and fling shit. Your point?

 

[Abhishekm]

Could you point to where I said anything of the sort?

Bawk bawk.

Not saying I doubt it, but trumps lawyer saying he was told that is literal hearsay. Possibly interesting that Vance's office "no commented" on it, but then I imagine that's generally their response. Also worth noting that even if it is exactly what he was told, it doesn't mean it's true, and that they talk about the "first round" not touching on trump without mentioning later ones.

 

[Megadeath]

Bawk bawk.

Uh huh... Can you read? Which part of that says that they do have something on Trump? It's simply pointing out that the headline of the article shared rather over states the case made by the body of the article. Also, grow up a little.

 

[Zachowon]

Uh huh... Can you read? Which part of that says that they do have something on Trump? It's simply pointing out that the headline of the article shared rather over states the case made by the body of the article. Also, grow up a little.

You basically implied they had something in the way you stated it.
"Just because they say it doesn't mean they are telling the truth!"

 

[Battlegrinder]

That's enough. People have been getting way too heated in this thread. That you find another poster's opinions disagreeable is not an excuse to fail to express that disagreement in a civil manner. Cool it down and start treating each other better, or else.

 

[Megadeath]

You basically implied they had something in the way you stated it.
"Just because they say it doesn't mean they are telling the truth!"

Leaving open the possibility that they do have something is not the same as saying that they do. I haven't the slightest clue what they do or don't have, and my point is solely that the actual article doesn't support the bold headline.

 

[bintananth]

Leaving open the possibility that they do have something is not the same as saying that they do. I haven't the slightest clue what they do or don't have, and my point is solely that the actual article doesn't support the bold headline.

Headlines are meant to grab the attention of an audience so they go read the article and often aren't written by the person who wrote the article.

They're sorta like twitter in that regard when someone posts a "hey, go look at this" tweet.

A decent chunk of the time the headline writer/twitiot has no clue what they're pointing you towards is actually about.

 

[LordsFire]

Headlines are meant to grab the attention of an audience so they go read the article and often aren't written by the person who wrote the article.

They're sorta like twitter in that regard when someone posts a "hey, go look at this" tweet.

A decent chunk of the time the headline writer/twitiot has no clue what they're pointing you towards is actually about.

This is only partially true.

Another major factor is that most news companies know well that far more people will look at the headline than read the article, so the headline statement in and of itself is significant. On top of that, not many who do read the article actually go through to the end, meaning what the article leads off with matters a lot more than caveats included near the end.

 

[bintananth]

This is only partially true.

Another major factor is that most news companies know well that far more people will look at the headline than read the article, so the headline statement in and of itself is significant. On top of that, not many who do read the article actually go through to the end, meaning what the article leads off with matters a lot more than caveats included near the end.

They're also aware that their primary product isn't their reporting. It's the eyeballs said reporting draws. The real customers are the ones who pay for the ads those eyeballs are presented with.

 

[Duke Nukem]

 

[Airedale260]

Well, my phone is blowing up with news alerts that the DA's office is charging the Trump Organization and the CFO, but from what I remember reading on National Review, it's pretty low-level stuff and is basically the DA hoping that the CFO will flip on Trump (though that assumes a) the CFO is willing and b) that there's anything concrete to charge Trump with).

Funny how Trump mentions this "evidence" but never put anything that met the legal standard on display in court. Not to mention it overlooks his stunts with picking a fight with McConnell over the stimulus checks after the fact and then his subsequent rally in Georgia that wound up depressing Republican turnout for the runoff. Or how Barr, who is a long-serving constitutional lawyer and who served administrations for many years told him to put up or shut up, yet they never did. Trump simply said Barr must hate him...because making Trump follow the law and constitutional procedure somehow equals hating Trump.

 

[Chaos Marine]

Well, my phone is blowing up with news alerts that the DA's office is charging the Trump Organization and the CFO, but from what I remember reading on National Review, it's pretty low-level stuff and is basically the DA hoping that the CFO will flip on Trump (though that assumes a) the CFO is willing and b) that there's anything concrete to charge Trump with).



Funny how Trump mentions this "evidence" but never put anything that met the legal standard on display in court. Not to mention it overlooks his stunts with picking a fight with McConnell over the stimulus checks after the fact and then his subsequent rally in Georgia that wound up depressing Republican turnout for the runoff. Or how Barr, who is a long-serving constitutional lawyer and who served administrations for many years told him to put up or shut up, yet they never did. Trump simply said Barr must hate him...because making Trump follow the law and constitutional procedure somehow equals hating Trump.

Wait, do you mean the court cases that refused to properly assess the evidence he had because the judge decided it wouldn't have affected the election or the case that there was no judge assigned to? Or after the election they started saying it was too late? As the often repeated lie "Trump had his day in court and his case was thrown out," and just in case you're not aware, lying repeatedly about something doesn't make it the truth.

 

[Airedale260]

Wait, do you mean the court cases that refused to properly assess the evidence he had because the judge decided it wouldn't have affected the election or the case that there was no judge assigned to? Or after the election they started saying it was too late? As the often repeated lie "Trump had his day in court and his case was thrown out," and just in case you're not aware, lying repeatedly about something doesn't make it the truth.

No, I mean the ones where the case *was* reviewed by a judge and they said "Yeah there's nothing here but hearsay and speculation, coupled with plaintiffs' refusal to exercise basic care in the first place."

You can't just throw a pile of shit at a wall and say "Here's the proof!" You need to explain *why* it's proof.

The fact of the matter is, every time they were challenged in court, they didn't deliver. Even in cases (most notably Wisconsin) where the judge said "OK, let me hear it" and the response was "Yeah we don't argue with defendants' premises that things were aboveboard and the rules were followed."

I get I'm in the minority here, but when actual lawyers like Andy McCarthy are analyzing this and going "So, here's what was argued in court vs said on TV" and then explaining why the attempts failed in spectacular fashion, yeah, I call bullshit.