Numark3 Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I suspect you could benefit from some help at an adult literacy program. You clearly are unable to read text messages and government reports. After that, a few self-help books in learning how to think for yourself might be beneficial, too. im doing quite well, thank you. To actually be able to be qualified to form legal opinions, which all of you like to pretend to do, I suspect you could benefit from a legal education. you may not know this, but you are playing make-pretend at something that takes years of education, training, and practice to do. It’s why we ask juries to find facts. It’s why we forbid juries from making legal conclusions. You are unqualified. Just now, 3rdnlng said: I'm smart enough to proofread what I post. In addition, I know the difference between to, too and two. Obviously, you don't. Lol
Deranged Rhino Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Nineforty said: 1. McCabe wasn't even indicted. This is true. Should have said referred. 2 minutes ago, Nineforty said: 3. Stone's sentencing recommendation was for 7-9 years. This was recommended by a different entity, not the prosecutors. The prosecutors agreed. Judge Jackson has final say and can go above or below those guidelines. In my opinion (I've actually read the Mueller Report and know what Stone stands charged with and is likely hiding, and thus why Trump at all costs needs Stone to not see Jail time), Roger Stone is a traitor to America for his role with Wikileaks and the Trump 2016 campaign. This is not true. Stone had no connection to Wikileaks. This was proven in his trial. He claimed to have access he did not actually have. Russia/Trump was never real, @Nineforty.
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Just now, Crayola64 said: im doing quite well, thank you. To actually be able to be qualified to form legal opinions, which all of you like to pretend to do, I suspect you could benefit from a legal education. you may not know this, but you are playing make-pretend at something that takes years of education, training, and practice to do. It’s why we ask juries to find facts. It’s why we forbid juries from making legal conclusions. You are unqualified. I'd love to know the name of your "law firm" so I could avoid hiring them if necessary. I use quotes because I am highly skeptical that someone who does not know how to read could be a practicing attorney. On the other hand, with the attorneys I do know, I guess it is possible... 1
Numark3 Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Just now, Buffalo_Gal said: I'd love to know the name of your "law firm" so I could avoid hiring them if necessary. I use quotes because I am highly skeptical that someone who does not know how to read could be a practicing attorney. On the other hand, with the attorneys I do know, I guess it is possible... it’s one of the biggest in the country, but don’t worry, we only represent sophisticated clients. So I won’t be seeing you.
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Just now, Crayola64 said: it’s one of the biggest in the country, but don’t worry, we only represent sophisticated clients. So I won’t be seeing you. Ohhhhh that was a good one! {insert eyeroll} 1
Nineforty Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: This is true. Should have said referred. This is not true. Stone had no connection to Wikileaks. This was proven in his trial. He claimed to have access he did not actually have. "Bannon says Stone was Trump campaign link to WikiLeaks" BANNON TESTIFIED TO THIS! Reluctantly, but nonetheless, he did. From the trial transcript: Q. Now, I want you to turn to page 14, line 4. I’m going to read line 4 through 8 on page 14. And you’re asked, “And just within the campaign, who was the access point to WikiLeaks?” And you responded, “I think it was generally believed that the access point or potential access point to WikiLeaks and to Julian Assange would be Roger Stone.” Did I read that correctly? A. That’s correct. Q. And did you, at that time, did you personally believe or you personally view Roger Stone as the access point between Trump campaign and WikiLeaks? A. Yes. https://apnews.com/f0356496978045e1891f6543e7218c45 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/roger-stone-trial-donald-trump-wikileaks-070368
Deranged Rhino Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Just now, Nineforty said: "Bannon says Stone was Trump campaign link to WikiLeaks" BANNON TESTIFIED TO THIS! Reluctantly, but nonetheless, he did. From the trial transcript: Q. Now, I want you to turn to page 14, line 4. I’m going to read line 4 through 8 on page 14. And you’re asked, “And just within the campaign, who was the access point to WikiLeaks?” And you responded, “I think it was generally believed that the access point or potential access point to WikiLeaks and to Julian Assange would be Roger Stone.” Did I read that correctly? A. That’s correct. Q. And did you, at that time, did you personally believe or you personally view Roger Stone as the access point between Trump campaign and WikiLeaks? A. Yes. https://apnews.com/f0356496978045e1891f6543e7218c45 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/roger-stone-trial-donald-trump-wikileaks-070368 Yes - that's what Bannon said. And, during Stone's trial, we learned for a fact this was not true. Stone was representing himself to have contacts which he didn't. He was cribbing news reports and citing them as original. Trump/Russia was never real, Nineforty. It was fiction. There was no wikileaks connection to the campaign, certainly not to Stone. They lied to you for 3 years. 1
3rdnlng Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Ohhhhh that was a good one! {insert eyeroll} What's with all the sarcasm? You do know that he he teaches writing at a community college? It should be evident what with his use of grammar and spelling that he's head and shoulders above us deplorables. 3
Deranged Rhino Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 GarBoTibs of the world called out for what they are: 5
3rdnlng Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, Nineforty said: "Bannon says Stone was Trump campaign link to WikiLeaks" BANNON TESTIFIED TO THIS! Reluctantly, but nonetheless, he did. From the trial transcript: Q. Now, I want you to turn to page 14, line 4. I’m going to read line 4 through 8 on page 14. And you’re asked, “And just within the campaign, who was the access point to WikiLeaks?” And you responded, “I think it was generally believed that the access point or potential access point to WikiLeaks and to Julian Assange would be Roger Stone.” Did I read that correctly? A. That’s correct. Q. And did you, at that time, did you personally believe or you personally view Roger Stone as the access point between Trump campaign and WikiLeaks? A. Yes. https://apnews.com/f0356496978045e1891f6543e7218c45 https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/roger-stone-trial-donald-trump-wikileaks-070368 "Generally believed" and "at that time" tend to not be reflective of any kind of fact. 3
Numark3 Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: What's with all the sarcasm? You do know that he he teaches writing at a community college? It should be evident what with his use of grammar and spelling that he's head and shoulders above us deplorables. I don’t teach at a community college but I would love to! What do you have against community colleges? what do you do that lets you be able to put people down who study or work at a community college? My legal career is accomplished, not sure why you think making up stuff about me on a forum would bother me. 11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Ohhhhh that was a good one! {insert eyeroll} thank you! It was pretty witty. It being true makes it easier to come up with, but whatever
Deranged Rhino Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 (It clearly does bother you -- as you respond every time ) 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Crayola64 said: I don’t teach at a community college but I would love to! What do you have against community colleges? what do you do that lets you be able to put people down who study or work at a community college? My legal career is accomplished, not sure why you think making up stuff about me on a forum would bother me. It bothered you enough to contradict him... 3
Numark3 Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Just now, Buffalo_Gal said: It bothered you enough to contradict him... correcting someone doesn’t mean it bothered me, but you can think it bothered me if it makes you feel better! You can totally have that. great job that pays way too much (lawyers seriously get paid too much imo), teaches writing at a great school for fun, works on big cases you have alllllll heard of.
3rdnlng Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: I don’t teach at a community college but I would love to! What do you have against community colleges? what do you do that lets you be able to put people down who study or work at a community college? My legal career is accomplished, not sure why you think making up stuff about me on a forum would bother me. thank you! It was pretty witty. It being true makes it easier to come up with, but whatever Didn't you claim that you taught a writing class or am I mistaking you with Tiberius? 1
Deranged Rhino Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Didn't you claim that you taught a writing class or am I mistaking you with Tiberius? He did.
Numark3 Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 Just now, 3rdnlng said: Didn't you claim that you taught a writing class or am I mistaking you with Tiberius? yup! Well, legal writing. Any questions?
Nineforty Posted February 14, 2020 Posted February 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: "Generally believed" and "at that time" tend to not be reflective of any kind of fact. Of course, if you want to get bogged down in semantics. Which is why there is a trial where you can weigh certain statements or evidence and seek to determine one's guilt or innocence. Excuse me for thinking it was an important part of his conviction when you have someone on your own team reluctantly admitting you're a god damned traitor. I guess I didn't realize that counts for nothing because he couched his RELUCTANT statement in words like "generally believed" and "at that time". Guess the jury was supposed to ignore this. Gotcha. 1
Recommended Posts