We Never Know
No Slack
I see you gloss over the fact that they are trying to influence how people are going to vote. That's election interference.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I see you gloss over the fact that they are trying to influence how people are going to vote. That's election interference.
The point being that "interference" can be defined by the other side as anything that helped them win. Hillary Clinton certainly claimed it, but of course her own side didn't refer to her as an "election denier" since that term was invented by the Left, and applied only to Trump and anyone who votes for him.
I am not "glossing over" any fact.I see you gloss over the fact that they are trying to influence how people are going to vote. That's election interference.
Not according to the verdict.It was a payment made to his attorney, and therefore a legal expense.
Doesn't address the point either.Juries often get it wrong. They aren't perfect.
I'm just saying..The point being that "interference" can be defined by the other side as anything that helped them win. Hillary Clinton certainly claimed it, but of course her own side didn't refer to her as an "election denier" since that term was invented by the Left, and applied only to Trump and anyone who votes for him.
I am not "glossing over" any fact.
I am giving no credence to you delusions.
Bad verdict due to bad instructions from corrupt judge.Not according to the verdict.
Your post contained no facts. Calling something a fact does not make it a fact,Replying to my post without addressing the facts is glossing over the facts.
Your unsupported opinion is noted.Bad verdict due to bad instructions from corrupt judge.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Calling something a verdict doesn't make it a verdict.Your post contained no facts. Calling something a fact does not make it a fact,
I am sure you actually think you are impressing us with your intelligence and deep understanding.Calling something a verdict doesn't make it a verdict.
If you weren't impressed, you wouldn't be going on the defensive by pretending to not be impressed.I am sure you actually think you are impressing us with your intelligence and deep understanding.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24706406/trump-verdict-sheet.pdfCalling something a verdict doesn't make it a verdict.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24706406/trump-verdict-sheet.pdf
Your opinion of what is at the link above would be appreciated.
Not since it was done so to funnel funds to Stormy. Why would his attorney have funded Stormy on his own and demand a NDA protecting Trump? By the way, the NDA was found to be flawed and which is why Stormy never got into trouble for violating it.It was a payment made to his attorney, and therefore a legal expense.
No, this appears to be rather rare occurrence. If you want to claim that the jury got it wrong the burden of proof is upon you. In this case the evidence can be seen by everyone else and it is clear from the evidence that Trump is guilty.Juries often get it wrong. They aren't perfect.
How so? Election interference as a crime has to be based upon an illegal act. What was the illegal act?I see you gloss over the fact that they are trying to influence how people are going to vote. That's election interference.
Desperate is as desperate does...
She never got into trouble because porn stars are above the law (and useful to democrats).Not since it was done so to funnel funds to Stormy. Why would his attorney have funded Stormy on his own and demand a NDA protecting Trump? By the way, the NDA was found to be flawed and which is why Stormy never got into trouble for violating it.