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

duncan smith
Forbes Breaking News
comments

Comments by "duncan smith" (@duncansmith7562) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

the fact that the tapes were denied to the public for so long tells its own story.
152
"that's a very good question" = "I'm not sure a truthful answer will work for me here, so give me a second to fabricate a decent lie"
64
so telling that she is reduced to parroting a mission statement in answer to basic questions
64
It's Trump's fighting talk that energizes his voters. He rings a bell that no other candidate can get anywhere near matching. Sincerity in EVERY syllable he spits out. Love it.
47
Wade is the epitome of how diversity hiring and affirmative action lead us to a bad place.
44
"maybe Mellow Mushroom for lunch" well, honey, if you recall the specific place, then there is no "maybe" about it.
35
makes no sense. Wade pays for the Belize trip on his card, Willis pays him back in cash as it's his birthday treat, so why didn't Willis pay for the whole thing on her card in the first place? oh, that's right, because she never paid him any cash at all. she showered GA taxpayers' money on Wade who paid her back with lavish vacations.
32
if green energy is such a great deal, how come it needs massive government subsidies to operate?
32
"I'm gonna keep supporting Ukraine" how is funding a futile war in which all Ukrainian fighting age men get killed, crippled or captured "supporting" Ukraine?
31
@lindalovatt5799 why? why would moving out of the state have any bearing on the time limit to present a case? wherever the accused happens to be has zero effect on the time limits to present a case. location of accused simply it isn't a factor.
24
NATO can't even remove the Houthi threat, yet they claim they know how to beat Russia?
22
meaningless debate. Russia has already lost this war, Biden told us.
19
@lindalovatt5799 makes no sense. the clock is ticking wherever a person is! someone who lives in FL can be charged just as easily as someone in NY. Trump could have been charged at any time, wherever he was, within the statute of limitations. I have a feeling you got this wrong and you are confusing two separate laws.
17
10% for the big guy
17
@lindalovatt5799 i can't find any mention of NY law "stopping the clock" on statute of limitations for crimes alleged against those out of the state. give me the words to google to pull up the exact wording of the law you cite.
14
given she has no idea when inflation is transitory or not, why would anyone think she knows anything about taxes?
13
so, he separates his cash precisely. the cash from Willis is kept as cash, the cash from his private business is deposited. why?
12
@LIV-FREE-VET Putin doesn't need to fight. Russia is winning! At what point does it sink in, numnuts, that the West underestimated Russia? what convinces you that another 61 billion dollars will achieve what 91 billion failed to achieve?
12
the "stick of gum" argument is infantile. GA law already has a red line drawn, as everyone in court knows. All gifts over $100 must be declared. so, if the stick of gum costs more than $100, then, yes, if that gift goes undeclared, the law has been violated.
11
exactly the same goals that were stated for Vietnam and Afghanistan
10
@qbik911 sorry to heat that. no, nothing much in NY law makes any sense, but there seem to be a few out there that think this is all fine even though it was 7 years ago. I don't know anywhere in the world that pursues this kind of thing after 7 years of refusing to prosecute. just so bizarre.
10
still waiting for someone to explain what crime was committed.
10
that summed up perfectly why Russia is winning. Incessant humming and hawing around basic questions that Biden and co haven't even considered, let alone answered.
8
It's because of Big Oil and OPEC that a gallon of gas, with all the high tech and high production costs involved, costs less than a gallon of milk, for which a farmer has to just pull the teats of a cow. And a massive chunk of gas costs are taxes. If only you knew the great deal you got from Big Oil and OPEC, you would kneel down and offer huge thanks to Big Oil and OPEC.
8
so, she took him to Belize, but she told Nathan to book everything and pay everything on his business credit card, and she would reimburse him for everything by putting bundles of thousands of dollars in his had, because...she doesn't have a credit card and has no clue how to book a vacation. got it.
6
do we assume he declared on his taxes he was "not married" after 2015?
6
"what do you think of that rhetoric? "I think, given what happened last Saturday, it is thoroughly understandable and deserved, next question?"
5
@chrisso871 conspicuous by its absence is any explanation from you of what the crime is! look in the mirror to see the cult member.
4
when the judge donated to Fani's campaign, he announced to the world his impartiality. there is no reason to believe such declared impartiality has evaporated over time. therefore, it is a travesty of justice that this impartial "judge" should be deciding this case. is this really the legal standard in GA?
4
"what I heard in there was alarming" = Russia is absolutely crushing Ukraine on the battlefield and there is nothing we can do about it. only a fool thinks it is a really good idea to take Russia on in a ground war. Ask Napoleon and Hitler.
3
weak answer. Neither JD nor Trump has the guts to say what needs to be done to end the Ukraine conflict. Trump needs to tell Zelensky to negotiate a peace deal with Putin and make it quick, because no more US funding will be on it's way. just a shame JD won't say that.
3
@PerryPerfectPerson try to understand the law as written, though it seems your command of English isn't up to it. no reason why any charges should have been brought, but go ahead, explain the crime that Trump committed.
3
@PerryPerfectPerson if you state what the crimes are I could comment! the entry in the accounts for business expenses were made before his election. so what crimes were committed while he was in office?
3
only a madman tries to keep throwing money at a corrupt partner while drowning in horrific debt himself.
3
so fascinating to see how such a snake in the grass actually looks just like a snake in the grass.
3
so, on his tax returns, did he state he was married, or not? if he claims his marriage was over, then he couldn't have filed taxes as a married person. and he had statements of all his personal transactions, but no receipts? how slippery is this snake?
2
there is certainly no evidence if you refuse to look at the evidence.
2
I can't tell, is this some Democrat, Biden supporter speaking? He sounds 100% behind everything Biden is aiming or.
2
no point wasting any time testifying when the judge and jury already decided on day one to assume Trump is guilty
2
@MikeW165 again, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I said when you pay a lawyer to arrange an NDA, that IS a legal expense. I am waiting for you to quote the law stating that NDAs can only be a legal expense when arranged by a lawyer on a retainer! Go ahead, quote the law.
2
@PerryPerfectPerson not saying I know the law better than anyone, but I am questioning the truth and logic. No one, including you, has quoted the NY statute that stops the clock on statute of limitations regarding an accused who is out of state. Neither have you explained the logic. "evidence and care" is meaningless. the evidence is the evidence, no matter whether the accused is in NY, NJ or Brazil. Learn basic logic.
2
@PerryPerfectPerson living in FL and visible to the public every single day, as Trump was, discounts the "living in hiding" bit. would be interesting to see the definition of "official misconduct". what makes conduct "official" or "unofficial"? could be argued that anything done while "out of office" is unofficial. not clear at all.
2
Mayorkas is just implementing what Americans voted for. Dem voters gave the thumbs up for mass immigration and the crimes that come with it. That's democracy.
2
funny how Russian "misinformation" seems much more believable to most of the globe compared to the lies coming out of the West.
2
@stevierubalcava5924 same level as your vocabulary, "bruh"?
2
@AdrianneJH only a few problems with your wayward thinking. 1. no evidence that the source of the hush money was campaign contributions. 2. no evidence any lies were told about the hush money. on the contrary, Trump paid a lawyer to take care of the situation, which Cohen did, so it was a legal expense. it's done every day. 3. there is no laundering going on. it's all in the ledger, "legal expense". laundering might be cited if there was nothing at all in the accounts. tell me, why do you think this case has not been taken up by the Electoral Commission nor any other prosecutor, given we are now 8 years down the road from when it happened? just a coincidence there are suddenly 4 Trump trials happening in the months before the presidential election? just pure coincidence, right?
2
@AdrianneJH who was the victim of this "fraud"?
2
maybe they're not.
2
The testimony and evidence is irrelevant. The judge and jury want to convict Trump, and so they will. This is the US legal system in 2024. Fingers crossed it can be overturned on appeal.
2
"We don't let tyrants win.....except in Afghanistan, oh, and Libya, oh, and Syria"
2
Blinken lives in a fantasy world. Russia has won and NATO is a whimpering wreck.
2
it's thanks to Tucker that we have evidence that a so-called insurrection features Capitol police escorting a the Q Anon shaman into various sacrosanct chambers. when was the last insurrection that had law and order acting as tour guides to "rioters"? ever?
1
John and Fani, such a close father and daughter relationship, so close that John has no idea who his daughter is dating and has no clue which country his daughter is in when she leaves town. they really care for each other.
1
there is no evidence that any extra CO2 man pumps into the atmosphere has any significant effect on climates. it's all supposition in an effort to control our behaviors.
1
only the numbers in the 7 swing states matter, so this is all blabber as it talks about things nationally. Trump is ahead in the swing states.
1
"illegal invasion" which laws were broken by Russia invading Ukraine as opposed to which laws were respected by USA invading Afghanistan?
1
@JerryNeusbaum no one said that Trump was the president, genius.
1
@JerryNeusbaum "genius" is spelt "g e n i u s", genius!
1
Lloyd Austin, the epitome of what goes wrong with diversity hires and affirmative action.
1
MTG hits the nail on the head. Ukraune being sacrificed for no reason
1
the plea deals are excellent news for Trump. his co-defendants get a slap on the wrist, they take the rap and testify Trump was no conspirator. Willis is getting further away from her objective, not closer.
1
@blackjesus804 not true. they agreed to "testify honestly" and that's it. what they say when they are on the stand will be entirely up to them. you'll see.
1
she is the best example of the horrible reality of where diversity, equity and inclusion leads us.
1
Lindsey Graham is clueless about the severe limitations of US arms production.
1
Only a coincidence that this version of events is announced the day after Scholz and Biden chat about things in DC. So, now we are supposed to believe that a rich Ukrainian dude hires a yacht and explosives in Poland and beats Joe Biden to do the deed that Joe Biden already promised he would do?
1
the problem is you started moving the ball forward towards your own line, you dope!
1
@godspharaoh987 no one who is white is ever hired as a diversity hire or due to affirmative action.
1
it's such wonderful news that the US now has no deficit, and has a budget surplus that allows to fund wars overseas.
1
what's the point in testifying when the democrat judge and democrat jury already decided Trump is guilty? waste of time.
1
@MikeW165 it's the judge that is biased. look at who his family donates to and who his daughter campaigns for. a conflicted, biased judge. FACTS! any jury in Manhattan is going to be pro Democrat. FACT. Looks like you need to learn the facts.
1
@MikeW165 If Judge Cannon has a son or daughter that is an activist and campaigner for the Republican party, and Judge Cannon has donated to or has a spouse that has donated to the Republican party then, yes, clearly, such a judge is conflicted and cannot possibly be impartial in handling a case involving Trump, nor indeed any political figure of high standing. Judges must be seen to be above party politics. Period. Same goes for Judge MacAfee in the Fani Willis hearing in Atlanta. At least in FL you will get a jury that is pretty evenly split in its political leanings.
1
@MikeW165 Also, keep in mind, there is, as yet, no trial in FL.
1
@MikeW165 yeah, the crime is naming a legal expense as a legal expense while your last name is Trump. It's a serious crime in NY, but nowhere else.
1
@MikeW165 yeah, no one else has ever been prosecuted for this, but suddenly in election year, the case is brought to court. nothing political at all. then again, maybe it took 10 years for Cohen to get his story straight.
1
@MikeW165 99% of the time there is no need to set any political bias aside, because the vast majority of cases do not involve politics or politicians. the job of a judge is to be referee. but in the very few cases where a judge has clearly a political bias that would impact his/her ability to be a fair referee, that judge needs to step aside. Merchan should have recused himself. anyone who doesn't see that is just happy with prejudice and corruption to permeate the court.
1
@MikeW165 a gag order on the defendant but on no one else involved in the trial is such a horrendous violation of impartiality and legal ethics that it should mean disbarment of this activist judge, and you know it.
1
@MikeW165 clearly you have a problem with reading comprehension. As I said, if a judge has donated to anyone involved in a trial, that judge should recuse herself/himself, and failing to do that, be removed. It is impossible to seem to be fair if you have donated to a party involved in the case. MacAfee in Atlanta is a case in point.
1
@MikeW165 The difference is that Cannon may yet be removed before any trial, we have not gotten to that point yet.
1
@MikeW165 just because something has never happened before doesn't mean it must be right or acceptable. it's about time the US legal system woke up and saw how disgustingly unfair trials and hearings can be when a conflicted judge is involved. For political figures in a trial, a judge who has refused to donate to anyone would be the only way to be seen to be impartial. period.
1
@MikeW165 when you pay a lawyer to arrange an NDA, it is 100% a legal expense. it's done all the time. all the other people who have arranged an NDA, how do they account for it? and why have none of them been taken to court?
1
@MikeW165 a gag order on the defendant but on no one else is political bias.
1
@MikeW165 the judge is conflicted by his family's close affiliations with the Democrat party, and gagging a defendant is such a horrendous violation of the First Amendment that Judge Merchan needs to be removed, and go back to law school.
1
@MikeW165 she hasn't recused herself because she doesn't have to, but she should, if she wants the world to perceive the proceedings as fair. I have made this point three times now, but you seem confused. Are you 12 years old?
1
@MikeW165 false. lawyers and their legal fees can be charged via a retainer fee, or per case on a one off basis. If you really believe that all NDAs are handled by lawyers on a retainer fee, and not one single NDA has ever happened as a one off case, handled by a lawyer NOT on a retainer, then you have no clue how the legal world works. whenever you pay a lawyer a fee, it is a legal expense, period.
1
@MikeW165 the problem is I do know how the law works. Go ahead. Quote the law that says an NDA is only a legal expense when paid to a lawyer held on a retainer. Then list all the other people who paid a lawyer to arrange an NDA who ended up in court because the lawyer they used wasn't on a retainer. cue crickets.
1
@MikeW165 and now the truth. when you pay a lawyer to arrange a Non Disclosure Agreement, that is a legal fee and can, and should, be recorded as a legal fee. But go ahead, quote the law word for word.
1
@MikeW165 You are not the brightest, are you. Neither Merchan nor Cannon have to recuse themselves because the law doesn't demand that of them. But both should, so that the appearance of impartiality is maintained. Got it?
1
@MikeW165 you just proved your stupidity! Cannon gets to donate without recusal and that is wrong. Merchan gets to donate without recusal and that is wrong. MacAfee gets to donate without recusal and that is wrong. How many more times do I have to spell it out?
1
@MikeW165 Totally agree, and in both cases justice is not served. The trial in motion right now is the one in NY, and it is clear the judge is conflicted. IF the FL case comes to trial, and Judge Cannon is in charge, all the Dems will be saying how conflicted and biased she is. And I dare say you will be one of them.
1
@MikeW165 agreed, and that is where the law must be changed.
1
@mikew764 and given that the Non Disclosure Agreement is handled in its entirety by a lawyer, paying that lawyer for all costs involved is indeed a legal fee. Tell me, when you pay a doctor to treat you, would that be a medical fee?
1
@mikew764 the gag order would be on someone else because a witness attacking the defendant is equally offensive as the defendant attacking a witness. to gag only one party when two or more are attacking each other is bias and unconstitutional.
1
@mikew764 any payment to your lawyer for arranging a legal contract is a legal expense. but just for fun, let's play your game. if Trump had written "payment of hush money" in his accounts, instead of "legal expense", why would that be a crime? Paying hush money is legal. So, you are saying that paying hush money is legal, and recording it as hush money is absolutely fine, but recording it as a legal expense is a crime and should be liable for jail time. yeah?
1
@mikew764 do you think every person that ever paid hush money recorded such a payment as hush money? yes or no?
1
@mikew764 the judge is not conflicted because i say he is. the judge is conflicted because he clearly has shown political bias against Trump.
1
@mikew764 when a person is being paid to create a legal contract, it is a legal fee. the word "reimbursement" is irrelevant. reimbursement just means that the legal contract was handled by a lawyer who was subsequently paid for doing so. If my wife goes to the pharmacy and buys my medicine, and then I reimburse my wife, that is a medical expense.
1
@mikew764 it's not about the hush money at all. if it were about the hush money. Bragg wouldn't insist that the crime was election interference. checkmate. remember, Bragg's argument is that the term "legal expense" is to mask another crime, and he claims that other crime is to interfere in an election! Unlike you, Bragg has no problem with hush money being paid, he knows it happens all the time. it's not about the hush money itself. Take your L and move on!
1
@mikew764 there is definitely an ethical reason for Merchan to recuse himself. I would imagine that there is a legal reason too, but I don't know the wording of NY law that covers circumstances for recusal.
1
@mikew764 The Constitution does not distinguish between a defendant and a witness when it comes to freedom of speech, and you know it. There is nothing in law that says ONLY a defendant should be gagged when witness and defendant are verbally attacking each other. Common decency would allow the defendant to verbally attack a witness in equal measure as the witness attacks the defendant. The fact that such fairness and common decency has been shoved aside by the judge shows how biased he is. Now, given you are unable to quote NY law that states how the recording of NDAs must be made, I'll assume you have no idea what the law says. checkmate.
1
@mikew764 who says the check was written for any hush money? does the check say "for hush money"? surely the check just states an amount to be paid.
1
@mikew764 when you are paying a lawyer, it's a legal expense, just as it's a medical expense when you pay a doctor. not that hard a concept to grasp.
1
@mikew764 then quote the law! quote word for word the statute! cue crickets.
1
@mikew764 so, who's the victim in this crime of writing the words "legal expense" instead of "hush money"?
1
@mikew764 the problem is I know exactly what the word reimbursement means. when my wife goes to the pharmacy and I reimburse her for buying my medication, that is a medical expense. the act of reimbursing does not alter the nature of the expense, and THAT is what you have no idea of.
1
@mikew764 i already said that the ethical reason for recusal is the affiliations he and his family have with the Democrat party. I already said that the ethical reasons for Cannon to recuse herself would be the same, close affiliation to the Republican party. you clearly have very low reading comprehension skills.
1
@mikew764 only if the next judge had the same affiliations demonstrated. this is the nature of having judges linked to political parties. it makes trials featuring political defendants a nonsense. the american system doesn't work when the defendant is a political leader.
1
@mikew764 the problem is that Trump is being held accountable for something that is not a crime, and that is what you can't handle.
1
@mikew764 on the contrary, courts have long determined equality before the law, and defendants can exercise free speech rights to the same extent as anyone else.
1
@mikew764 a witness is in a position to intimidate a defendant just as much as a defendant is in a position to intimidate a witness. failure to grasp that reality speaks volumes for your lack of understanding
1
@mikew764 go ahead. quote the words in the contract that prove any given individual check was specifically for hush money and quote the words of NY law that state only lawyers on retainers can be paid as a legal expense. why so shy to state the law?
1
@mikew764 every time I post I show you have no idea what this case is about. when put on the spot you can't quote the law concerned and you can't identify the crime apart from "he wrote "legal expense" instead of "hush money"...oooooh. such a crime!
1
@mikew764 in other words, there is no victim. thanks for confessing that. yep, if i drive 60 mph in a 50 mph zone and there is no victim, that is such a crime a trial and jail time should result. welcome to N Korea. no victim, so, off to jail. Biden's USA, but not for much longer.
1
@mikew764 who said that a crime requires a victim? i merely asked you who the victim was. again, poor reading comprehension skills, but still, good to see you confess this trial involves no victim at all. seems to be a feature of all the cases against Trump. no one is ever a victim...hmmm
1
@mikew764 in the real world, prosecutors pick and choose which cases to prosecute based on severity of the crime and chances of success. this case has zero on the severity of the crime index, and only ranks high on the likelihood of conviction because we have a Democrat judge and a Democrat jury.
1
@acdc123456781 yep, certainly sounds like a problem to me!
1
@mikew764 on the contrary, the problem for you is that I know exactly what "reimbursement" means, and I can see it is irrelevant in this case. If my wife goes to the pharmacy to buy my medicine, and I reimburse her for the costs, that cost is still medical expenses. what you don't get is the nature of the cost doesn't change when reimbursement is involved. keep learning, you will grow up one day, child
1
@acdc123456781 MikeW keeps drawing a blank when asked the other times a case like this has been prosecuted. For good reason
1
@mikew764 curious how the only "crimes" crooked Biden can pin on Trump are victimless crimes. curious how in NY criminals are released from custody all the time, but writing the words "legal expense" means long expensive trial and jail time. explains why NY has become such a sh**hole
1
@mikew764 so, here are just a few of the unanswered questions you have chosen not to tackle. 1. why does Merchan allow the witnesses to say whatever they wish about the defendant, but gags the defendant so that nothing can be said about the witnesses? 2. why did Bragg initially refuse to take up this case? what changed? 3. why would writing "legal expense" be a crime for Trump, but not for any other person who had an NDA arranged and listed it as "legal expense"? 4. Name one other person indicted and charged with the same "crime". How about you tackle those 4 first?
1
@mikew764 here's a simple question for you. If you pay your friend to pay his friend to fix your car, is it a crime to list that as an "automotive expense"? yes or no?
1
@MikeW165 you are the one that is clueless. it is past the statute of limitations. that is why Bragg had to claim, falsely, that the accounting misdemeanour was done to conceal a further crime, and thus he raised the charge to that of a felony. Of course, when asked what the concealed crime was, he said "I don't have to state that". Par for the course in the banana republic of New York. in NY, the current legal system (there is no justice system in NY) is such that Democrat prosecutors work with Democrat judges and Democrat juries to put whomever they want behind bars, and release whomever they want.
1
@MikeW165 all of the bias is on your side. read again what I said about Judge Cannon. And read what I said, not what you wanted me to say.
1
@mikew764 why shouldn't there be a gag order on the witnesses when only the witnesses are attacking the defendant?
1
@mikew764 STILL waiting for you to quote the statute that clearly says ONLY when a lawyer is on a retainer can his services be listed as a "legal expense". you do have the wording of the statute in front of you, right?
1
@mikew764 the supporting evidence would be the activities of Merchan's daughter, as repeatedly stated.
1
@mikew764 lawyers do FAR more than legal representation. among other things, lawyers draw up contracts, and paying a lawyer to draw up a contract is what happened in Trump's case, 100% legal expense.
1
@mikew764 what don't you understand about paying a lawyer to fix false claims made about you is 100% legal expense?
1
@mikew764 if I pay you not to talk about me, AND WE HAVE SIGNED A LEGAL DOCUMENT TO TESTIFY TO SUCH A LEGAL AGREEMENT, then guess what, Einstein? The paying of the hush money is all part of a LEGAL AGREEMENT, and therefore is a LEGAL EXPENSE!
1
@mikew764 at the precise moment my wife has drawn up a legal document stipulating the conditions under which payments will be made, then it becomes a legal expense. you are wilfully confusing a hush money payment with the LEGAL process of establishing a contract for both parties to respect an NDA. The moment both parties sign that LEGAL document, it all becomes a legal expense. Capisce? one is a payment outside of a legal framework, the other is all within a legal framework. Trump's case is the second one, all legal, a legal expense.
1
@mikew764 only when you pay hush money that is not part of a legal arrangement.
1
@mikew764 the word is "recused", not "refused". As we say in French, "tu n'as pas inventé l'eau chaude"!
1
@mikew764 the problem is how a prosecutor decides which cases to pursue and which cases not to pursue. Only a rabid, partisan, biased, vindictive prosecutor would have chosen to pursue Trump's case, not a good prosecutor.
1
@mikew764 anyone with political views is linked to a political party. and whatever bias and political leaning is in the judge's head is a BIG problem when a presidential candidate and former president is the defendant. It's a massive problem.
1
@mikew764 donating obviously links you to a political party. a donation is an overt statement of your support for one party over another.
1
@mikew764 because now the Democrats have hijacked the legal system
1
@mikew764 it's not a crime, the world knows it, and you will be the one coping when Joe and Hunter are on trial for real crimes, Hunter in June!
1
@mikew764 You need to join my class on reading comprehension. I never said that I have no idea what New York law says. Re read exactly what I said. On the other hand, the silence is deafening when I ask you to cite the statute, word for word, that covers Trump's supposed crime!
1
@mikew764 no one is disputing that hush money was paid to women. but payment of hush money is 100% legal, and Trump is not charged with making hush money payments. try again.
1
@mikew764 Cohen (at least spell his name correctly, Einstein) indeed arranged hush money payments, and for his legal services in drawing up the arrangement he was paid legal expenses
1
@mikew764 projection
1
@mikew764 and neither does it make you below the law
1
@mikew764 the problem is taxpayers in NY should never have to cough up for a politically motivated trial where there is no crime.
1
@mikew764 on the contrary, the severity of a crime is often what decides if it goes to trial or not.
1
@mikew764 and you are doing all you can to put Trump below the law, so that he is in court when no one else would ever be subjected to such biased nonsense.
1
@mikew764 Trump being prosecuted in NY state is like Malcolm X being prosecuted in Jackson, MS 60 years ago.
1
@mikew764 because the case against them is so weak.
1
@mikew764 he may well be the first to be on trial for falsifying business records when he so clearly never falsified any business records.
1
@mikew764 having great fun hammering you with logic and truth. are you ready to quote the NY statutes that confirm what Trump did is a crime? off you go, start writing, the world is waiting, Einstein.
1
@mikew764 hush money payments are legal expenses when drawn up as part of a legal agreement.
1
@mikew764 still waiting for you to cite the legal statute
1
@mikew764 still waiting for you to cite the statute Trump violated
1
@mikew764 still waiting for you to quote the legal statute Trump violated. If any prosecutor would take this case, why did Bragg refuse to take it first time around?
1
@mikew764 still waiting for you to cite the statute Trump so clearly violated
1
@mikew764 Improve your reading skills to see what I actually said about NY law. still waiting for you to cite the relevant statutes.
1
@mikew764 projection. the bias is all on your end, and it's vindictive and ugly. still waiting for you to quote the statute Trump violated
1
@mikew764 he can't be acquitted with a biased judge and jury, that's the problem, Einstein, has nothing to do with the case.
1
"if he gets the help he needs, he will win this war" but in July, Biden said that Russia had already lost this war. someone is lying.
1
methinks thou doth protest too much. the more you say what Tucker said was a lie, the more I think Tucker has hit upon certain truths.
1
@PerryPerfectPerson curious the statute specifically fails to say "out of state"
1
@PerryPerfectPerson what is really curious is that semi colon. what follows the semi colon is related to what precedes the semi colon, otherwise it would be a period. so everything you quoted is based on the condition of "going into hiding". really badly written, if that is exactly as it is written. doesn't cover Trump's circumstances.
1
Why would Russia be interested in peace talks when it is winning and idiots like this guy prefer a vanquished, destroyed Ukraine as a result rather than a deal with the Russians?
1
@jga6147 of course he is. but Trump is not in court here. he is talking to the Press. in the courtroom it is the Prosecution that must prove their case. outside the court it is Trump who must do what the media refuses to do......explain the case.
1
Most "3rd world" countries wouldn't tolerate this bias and shambles. This is 4th world or even underworld stuff.
1
Finally, USA catching up with Russia on how to hold legitimate elections.
1
he's there because if he refused to go there he would have actually committed a crime.
1
@poutine57 we all know that. the point that the objective and sane world is making is that given there is zero evidence Trump falsified any business records, why SHOULD he be there?
1
@poutine57 we all know why he is there. anyone sane is asking, given there is zero evidence a crime was committed, why he SHOULD be there.
1
Austin is way too young to fight for Ukraine. Take a look at the veterans the Ukrainians are shovelling on to the frontlines these days.
1
@chrisso871 oh, I know what Trump is accused of. but i have no idea what crime he is supposed to have committed. and for the second time, you have refused to even try to explain what crime he committed. your silence speaks volumes. what has been all over the news are the accusations. there has been no coverage of what crime he committed.....for very good reason! As Bragg confessed, "we don't have to name the crime that he concealed".
1
@AdrianneJH talking about influencing an election, would you say Joe Biden did exactly that when he said Hunter's laptop from hell might have been Russian disinformation and pressured the media to not report on the laptop, knowing full well the laptop was genuine and would have lost Biden the election had it been reported on? Criminal charges due against Biden, right?
1
"rendering the conclusions we can count on" that's the problem. you can't count on conclusions made by "scientists" who are activists first, and fake scientists second.
1
Anyone who plays guitar in a bar in Kiev doesn't take the debacle of American foreign policy seriously. His answers showed that.
1
so plenty of cash on hand to treat Wade to a luxury holiday in Belize, but no cash on hand to pay off any debts. i smell a rat.
1
the only threat the warmongers have, sanctions. and they can't figure out why they don't work.
1
these two clowns show why Russia and Iran are winning and laughing. Both Cruz and Blinken still think USA can do something to restrict Iranian/Russian cooperation.
1
@rationalguy2744 that's right, as opposed to the Liberal elites, who hate the uneducated with a passion.
1
@flipflopski2951 those who side with the corrupt elite would.
1
@dmcentYT only a real clown would write "in real like" as opposed to "in real life"!
1
@MyName-pl7zn but not as hilarious as Joe Bumbling Biden
1
@MyName-pl7zn what's hilarious is how Biden apologists can't explain what crime was committed in this case.
1
@MyName-pl7zn the tedium of listening to a bogus trial would send anyone to sleep. yet he manages to draw a crowd of 100,000 to a rally in a blue state like NJ. How many would show up to listen to Biden speak? 10 maybe? At least Trump doesn't lie about his uncle being eaten by cannibals. Speaks volumes for the Dems that Biden is the best candidate to contest the election. Just how awful are all other Dems?
1
@MyName-pl7zn Trump is also drawing crowds of 100,000 in blue states like NJ. That's 99,000 more than Biden could ever attract.
1
oh wow. we are supposed to believe America is a democracy when Mitch is upset that video tape footage is "at variance" with what an official described on a piece of paper!? And we are supposed to believe that Putin is the autocrat?
1
it's very simple. China knows it is next on the USA's hit list, so it will ensure Russia does not lose. Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan guaranteed China would work with Russia and not with USA
1
@Alan_One1 indeed he did, and look at the tyrants the West allowed to take his place!
1
@Wiseman__ If USA were in Ukraine's position I would say "for God's sake, call Putin and start negotiating". so, yes, I would say the same.
1
so sharing video footage was a mistake? why? surely the video footage would back up Schumer's claim that he had to run for his life? or, maybe the problem is that the video footage would suggest that Schumer and co lied about the danger they were in?
1
so Biden wanted an honest Ukrainian prosecutor to look into Burisma's dealings? Or Biden wanted a different prosecutor, corrupt enough to look into Burisma's dealings and announce everything is squeaky clean?
1
this is very simple. the aim of the sanctions was to so cripple the Russian economy so that either Putin would be removed by popular uprising or the Russian economy would not be able to fuel a war, or both. Neither have come anywhere near happening, so all the waffle about how Russia will suffer long term growth problems is irrelevant. Russia will have won by then. The sanctions failed miserably, and a predicted contraction of 15% compared to the reality of 2% shows how useless these experts are.
1
so now, a "deal" in Biden's dim and fading mind = support for an idea.
1
If Putin is responsible for American inflation, maybe Putin should be on the ballot, as Putin would know how to reverse the inflation.
1
@user-qn4zh2pw6m a subsidy is a governmental payment to enable a company to operate as, without the subsidy, the company would collapse. Now, you tell me which oil company gets a subsidy, and how much it is. don't confuse a subsidy with a tax break. the future will not be owned by anyone. but the societies that get the most reliable supply of cheap energy will prosper the most, and that ain't anyone throwing in their lot with green energies. Get real.
1
@user-qn4zh2pw6m name one such subsidy and one oil company that receives such a subsidy. keep in mind a subsidy is not a tax break.
1
@user-qn4zh2pw6m the ability to compare production costs of two items has nothing to do with how much a person buys of either, does it, Einstein?
1
it's not big oil's job to look out for the little guy. neither is it little oil's job to look out for the little guy. but without big oil and OPEC, the little guy would be faced with MUCH higher energy costs. Big is better when it comes to drilling for oil.
1