General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Mike W
Forbes Breaking News
comments

Comments by "Mike W" (@MikeW-dz7ij) on "JD Vance Asked Point Blank About Jack Smith Allegation That Trump Aide Urged Supporters To 'Riot'" video.

@berrywine-l9c Why would people vote repub just because justice takes a long time? Makes no sense hahahaha
5
@berrywine-l9c All these cases will finish trial before summer of next year so you're out of luck lol
4
@berrywine-l9c I have read it. Thats how I know they decided that they didn't need to address Smiths appointment. lol
3
@volksfolks62 "The people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime.” Merchan
2
@volksfolks62 "The jury must be unanimous if they find Trump guilty on each count – on whether he committed the crime personally, acted in concert with others or both" Merchan
2
@volksfolks62 “You must find beyond a reasonable doubt first that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct, and second, that he did so with the state of mind required with the commission of the offense.” THATS what he said. Educate yourself
2
@woodsman12345 Correct. Nobody has said otherwise
2
For what? Hurting your feelings?
2
@JohnB-nq4js “Unfortunately, right now we have to focus on making sure this rhetoric is dispelled, that these rumors are just—they’re just not true" Springfield mayor Rue
2
@JohnB-nq4js Funny how I can provide an actual quote and you couldn't provide anything. yYou should be used to being wrong by now hahaha
2
Nobody was thrown out
1
Hes someone who was convicted over j6th
1
Nothing illegal about his appointment
1
What constitutional violations?
1
Funny how SCOTUS didnt think his appointment was illegal or that he had violated the constitution in anyway lol
1
@charlesharris9965 judge cannon is about to be removed and the case be reintroduced. Swing and miss
1
@charlesharris9965 The special counsel doesn't require POTUS nomination or senate approval. This has already been looked at by SCOTUS and they saw no issues with his appointment or his prosecutions.
1
@charlesharris9965 One judge doesn't get to overturn decades of law and precedent like she tried to. Is this a joke?
1
@charlesharris9965 The law hasn't expired. Why do you think you know better then the supreme court itself?
1
@charlesharris9965 actually regulations do have the force of law, but we aren't talking about a regulation.
1
@charlesharris9965 Thomas made that OPINION, outside of the official courts ruling. Has literally no legal standing. Educate yourself
1
@charlesharris9965 Cannon is in the middle of getting removed form the case, and possibly the bench, BECUASE she blindly followed Thomas unofficial legal opinion. Thats literally my point hahaha
1
@charlesharris9965 Scotus has literally already approved smiths actions. You're literally just making up a little fantasy for yourself. Her removal isn't even an appealable act since its not Jack thats going to do it. You clearly have no idea how any of this works hahahaha
1
@charlesharris9965 All of these cases HAVE ALREADY BEEN REVIEWD BY SCOTUS. What dont you get about that?
1
one of the many witnesses to his criminal acts
1
@bobbyyocham851 Why are you so triggered?
1
They didnt change the statute of limitations lol
1
The jury was not instructed the jury that they did not have to have a unanimous decision in order To convict. Why are you lying ?
1
@volksfolks62 He had no valid points because everything OP said is entirely untrue.
1
@volksfolks62 The statue of limitations is 6 years in NY 😂
1
@volksfolks62 "In New York, the statute of limitations for fraud is the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from when the plaintiff discovered the fraud" Bloomberg law
1
@volksfolks62 That is not even close to that the jury instructions said. You clearly haven't read them
1
@volksfolks62 The case is about the 36 payments. How do you not understand that?
1
@volksfolks62 This is a felony case and the statute is 6 years. And the payments from from 2017, not 2016. Educate yourself
1
@volksfolks62 CPLR213(8) Fraud [Legal} "Actions to be commenced within six years"
1
@volksfolks62 The statute of limitations for fraud in NY has been 6 years since before 2014 (which is as far back as the revision list went) Educate yourself
1
@volksfolks62 CPLR213(8) you dont have to take my word for it, read it for yourself
1
@volksfolks62 CPLR213(8)
1
@volksfolks62 SECTION 213.8 of NY state law. Read it for yourself
1
@volksfolks62 Still convicted on all counts by a unanimous jury. Cope
1
@volksfolks62 The law wasn't changed and you have no evidence showing otherwise. hahaha
1
@volksfolks62 They payments were made after the election, starting January 2017. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about
1
@volksfolks62 I looked up every revision to the NY statute of limitations going back a full 10 years. It has always been 6 years. Where is you're proof?
1
@volksfolks62 They payments were made post election, starting January 2017. Look it up for yourself
1
@volksfolks62 They payments were made starting January 2017, post election
1
@volksfolks62 Why are you lying and who do you think you're fooling? 🤣
1
@volksfolks62 I literally posted the exact quotes. Proving you wrong is just too easy
1
@volksfolks62 Nowhere did he say that they had to find him guilty. You're all talk and no substance. Just embarrassing yourself hahaha
1
@volksfolks62 You dont even know what the crime is? 😂🤣🤣😂
1
@volksfolks62 I literally cited the NY statue that says its 6 years. You might want to go read it
1
@volksfolks62 SECTION 213 8. an action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud
1
@volksfolks62 While I bring direct quotes and citations of the law and the trial, all you have is "trust me bro" is this joke? Embarrassing yourself
1
@volksfolks62 Funny how the law says the statute of limitations has been 6 years for over a decade and you have no evidence showing otherwise
1
@volksfolks62 Where is you're proof? You have no citations, no quotes. You cant even say what the actual name of the statute is that we are talking about hahahah
1
@volksfolks62 SECTION 213 8) an action based upon fraud, the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud
1
@volksfolks62 SECTION 213 8. an action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued...
1
@volksfolks62 No its not. That doesn't even make sense . You clearly didn't read it. Embarrassing yourself
1
@volksfolks62 I went to the NY court website were they list all the NY state statues. You should try it lol
1
@volksfolks62 "an action based upon fraud; the time within which the action must be commenced shall be the greater of six years from the date the cause of action accrued or two years from the time the plaintiff discovered the fraud" Cope
1
@volksfolks62 I went to the NY state court webpage, where all their statues are listed. You should try it
1
@volksfolks62 I went to the NY state court webpage, where all their statues are listed. Educate yourself lol
1
@volksfolks62 The 6 year part wasn't changed. You can look at every revision since 2014, they all say 6 years. hahahaha
1
@volksfolks62 You have been 100 % wrong, and you know it. hahahaha
1
@volksfolks62 You provided no citations, no quotes, nothing. You dont even know that the charges are! Who do you think you're fooling with these lies?
1
@volksfolks62 Enjoy your L! Better luck next time!
1
@volksfolks62 No I cited the correct code. You just just cant handle being proven wrong. You're not fooling anyone with these lies. Cope 🤣
1
@volksfolks62 you can repeat these lies all you want. They’re still lies and they will remain until you provide actual supporting evidence. What don’t you understand about that?
1
@volksfolks62 if this statue changed in 03 and the case systems from 2017. Kind of proves that they didn’t change the statute to go after him 😂
1
@volksfolks62 there’s a revision tab at the top of the page😂
1
@volksfolks62 “ i’ve gone all the way back to 2014 and it’s still only shows the current law” That’s because the law hasn’t changed 😂🤣😂🤣
1
@volksfolks62 since you clearly can’t figure this out on your own, I will continue to educate you. Every state in the country PAUSED the statute of limitations during the shutdown. The law themselves weren’t. They just stopped running the clock. IN EVERY STATE. But seeing as all the elements of this case are within the normal the statute of limitations without a pause it doesn’t make a difference either way. Has nothing to do with getting Donald🤣😂
1
@volksfolks62 enjoy that L! You earned it😂🤣
1
@volksfolks62 what more do I need other than the facts. Keep demonstrating that you deserve that L Cope
1
@volksfolks62 ps the fact that you think the trial judge can the statue of limitations just proves that you’re a liar😂🤣
1
@volksfolks62 please continue to embarrass yourself for my entertain. Display that L of yours for all to see 🤣😂
1
@volksfolks62 yet you you can’t prove that he said it. Where is the quote? You have nothing 😂
1
@volksfolks62 just because you say it doesn’t make it true. Provide actual supporting evidence or take that big L and sit down
1
@markcosenza3274 Projection confirmed lol
1
@markcosenza3274 Please continue embarrassing yourself for my entertainment, and enjoy your L hahaha
1
@markcosenza3274 Nobody is stalking you hahaha. You came to an open forum and just cant handle the fact that you're lies got called out
1
@markcosenza3274 Yet you cant show any evidence that he lied. How come? Oh thats right! Because he didn't lie about anything. Cope
1
we haven't been to trial yet sooo
1
You understand that evidence gets proven in the trial phase right? When a jury is seated
1
@woodsman12345 How so? This has been going on for years at this point lol
1
@woodsman12345 in the past the DOJ wouldn't bring NEW cases or legal actions 60 days before an election. This is smith responding to that the supreme court TOLD HIM TO DO, when they made their ruling a few months back. I think you're confused
1
@woodsman12345 you clearly have no idea what the Supreme Court ruled😂
1
@woodsman12345 they directly made him address all the immunity concerns in his cases. That’s what he was responding to. Educate yourself.
1
@woodsman12345 asking election officials to find you votes is in fact a crime. How do you not understand that?
1
@woodsman12345 you’re literally just making stuff up as you go along. Embarrassing.
1
@woodsman12345 you’re just doubling down on the fact that you have no clue what the court actually ruled lol
1
@woodsman12345 why are you lying, Saying you read the ruling when you clearly haven’t? You haven’t cited anything! Who do you think you’re fooling?
1
@colleenc9286 Held to account for what? Hurting your feelings?
1
@Opticaldelusion89 so you admit he hurt your feelings😂
1
The proud boys and the oath keepers put the provocateurs in the crowd. We already know this
1
@JohnB-nq4js So where is you're evidence then? Why are you deflecting?
1
@JohnB-nq4js So you admit you have no evidence that this cat and dog story has any validity. Thats what I thought
1
@JohnB-nq4js you didn't cite anyone. The mayor of Springfield has repeatedly said this story was untrue.
1
@JohnB-nq4js "Vance’s team was told Haitian immigrant rumors were false before debate, Springfield mayor confirms"
1
@JohnB-nq4js You sure got quiet after I dropped that quote hahahah
1
@JohnB-nq4js You're projecting lol
1
@JohnB-nq4js Dont start crying now hahaha
1
We have never had a stolen election
1
You just cant admit you lost
1
@bobbyyocham851 Triggered eh?
1
@rhodaberger7262 The fund was for protesters. Check yourself lol
1