"BREAKING" NEWS: Sexual predator Donald Trump RAPED Katie Johnson and E Jean Carroll - $83M verdict

[BillStime]

11 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

You truly believe that if Trump were to turn over his DNA over to any court in NYC it would not be quickly in the hands of the DA? You and I are certainly different 

What was the DA going to do with his DNA? 

 

The law that NYS passed allowed sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations.

 

Keep spinning 

 

 

[aristocrat]

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

48 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

I'll bet you just about nothing comes out of that.   R's have as much admitted sketchy things but not illegal.

I dont think that can happen.   Completely different courts.

 

Hopefully a resident lawyer can chime in.  

Rachel Maddow ended up with some his tax returns that only the courts had access to but you think the DNA record would not get over to the DA real quick? You believe the NYC govt and courts are on the up and up?

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Orlando Tim said:

Rachel Maddow ended up with some his tax returns that only the courts had access to but you think the DNA record would not get over to the DA real quick? You believe the NYC govt and courts are on the up and up?

Just a reminder: people outside the courts had access to those records as well. Specifically, the large company that prepared Trump’s taxes. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

I'll bet you just about nothing comes out of that.   R's have as much admitted sketchy things but not illegal.

Why are you libs ok with it. Biden is dirty and corrupt AF. Trump distain aside you can’t like this dirty corrupt bag of skin can you? 

[Orlando Buffalo]

32 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Just a reminder: people outside the courts had access to those records as well. Specifically, the large company that prepared Trump’s taxes. 

So the courts fined them for that illegal leak then right? This trial had no evidence except the testimony and basically the jury had said while I don't believe the words you actually said the lack of evidence still helps you. 

[ChiGoose]

12 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

So the courts fined them for that illegal leak then right? This trial had no evidence except the testimony and basically the jury had said while I don't believe the words you actually said the lack of evidence still helps you. 

I was just pointing out that the claim that only the court had Trump’s tax records was false. I don’t know how Maddow got them. I don’t know if it was in conjunction with the lawsuit or just someone who had access passing them along. 

[Orlando Buffalo]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I was just pointing out that the claim that only the court had Trump’s tax records was false. I don’t know how Maddow got them. I don’t know if it was in conjunction with the lawsuit or just someone who had access passing them along. 

Your point that liberals will break laws with impunity in NYC is noted. 

[ChiGoose]

10 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Your point that liberals will break laws with impunity in NYC is noted. 

Not something I said or implied. I’m sorry if you struggle to read. 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:

Rachel Maddow ended up with some his tax returns that only the courts had access to but you think the DNA record would not get over to the DA real quick? You believe the NYC govt and courts are on the up and up?

Buffalo Timmy - Not that facts matter to you - but man, you will turn yourself inside out trying to back up a false premise and then dig yourself deeper with more BS because you clearly don’t know wtf you’re tasking about.

The big reveal, which Maddow did not get to until after a lengthy monologue and commercial break, showed that in 2005 Trump paid $38 million in federal income taxes on a reported income of $150 million. 

That information was based on two pages of an IRS 1040 form supplied to journalist David Cay Johnston, who was a guest on Maddow's show.

By the time Maddow got around to sharing that information, it had already been supplied by the White House and published on The Daily Beast, where Johnston is a columnist. Even so, the documents left the public with more questions than answers.

 

https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/14/media/rachel-maddow-donald-trump-2005-taxes/

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by BillStime

[Orlando Buffalo]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Not something I said or implied. I’m sorry if you struggle to read. 

Who was prosecuted for that clearly illegal dissemination of information? I also know that you did not intentionally imply it, but it is a valid conclusion from your point since no one cared that a law was broken against Trump

 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Who was prosecuted for that clearly illegal dissemination of information? I also know that you did not intentionally imply it, but it is a valid conclusion from your point since no one cared that a law was broken against Trump

 

So here’s a fun thing about the first amendment: if you innocently obtain information, such as some anonymous source mailing you old tax documents, you can publish them as part of a journalistic endeavor.

 

Now maybe the person who sent them broke some law, maybe not, but if it was anonymous, it’s unlikely to result in a successful prosecution of the leaker. 

[Orlando Buffalo]

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Buffalo Timmy - Not that facts matter to you - but man, you will turn yourself inside trying to back up a false premise and then dig yourself deeper with more BS because you clearly don’t know wtf you’re tasking about.

The big reveal, which Maddow did not get to until after a lengthy monologue and commercial break, showed that in 2005 Trump paid $38 million in federal income taxes on a reported income of $150 million. 

That information was based on two pages of an IRS 1040 form supplied to journalist David Cay Johnston, who was a guest on Maddow's show.

By the time Maddow got around to sharing that information, it had already been supplied by the White House and published on The Daily Beast, where Johnston is a columnist. Even so, the documents left the public with more questions than answers.

 

https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/14/media/rachel-maddow-donald-trump-2005-taxes/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2017/mar/15/rachel-maddow-and-the-trump-tax-bombshell-that-wasnt

 

The journalist claims that someone dropped the papers in his mailbox and the white house release was only due to the White House knowing what was being leaked. CNN pretending that the journalist had any right to the info is disingenuous but you are so used to be mislead it seems normal.

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Orlando Tim said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2017/mar/15/rachel-maddow-and-the-trump-tax-bombshell-that-wasnt

 

The journalist claims that someone dropped the papers in his mailbox and the white house release was only due to the White House knowing what was being leaked. CNN pretending that the journalist had any right to the info is disingenuous but you are so used to be mislead it seems normal.

Ok - I’m going to pull a “Buffalo Timmy” -  lol - are you upset that someone hacked the DNC servers?

 

 

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/shortcuts/2017/mar/15/rachel-maddow-and-the-trump-tax-bombshell-that-wasnt

 

The journalist claims that someone dropped the papers in his mailbox and the white house release was only due to the White House knowing what was being leaked. CNN pretending that the journalist had any right to the info is disingenuous but you are so used to be mislead it seems normal.

I’m sorry, but is your argument that if someone dumps the president’s secret tax returns on the doorstep of a journalist that it’s the journalist’s duty NOT to report on it?

Edited May 10, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

Ok - I’m going to pull a “Buffalo Timmy” -  lol - are you upset that someone hacked the DNC servers?

 

 

No I don't care- when have I ever mentioned it? But I do know there was an investigation, thanks for proving my point.

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Orlando Tim said:

No I don't care- when have I ever mentioned it? But I do know there was an investigation, thanks for proving my point.

What point was proved?

 

You just keep digging and making yourself look pathetic as usual.

 

As Chef Jim would say - carry on.

 

lolz

[T master]

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

I didn’t need a court case to tell me Conald is a POS.

 

Remember when the cult defended this as locker room talk?

 

 

 

 

 

Well no because of your bias/hatered but it's just more fuel for you which you didn't need any more .

[Orlando Buffalo]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

So here’s a fun thing about the first amendment: if you innocently obtain information, such as some anonymous source mailing you old tax documents, you can publish them as part of a journalistic endeavor.

 

Now maybe the person who sent them broke some law, maybe not, but if it was anonymous, it’s unlikely to result in a successful prosecution of the leaker. 

So he just believes the tax return is real without any proof of authentication, and Maddow designs a whole show without any verification? The defamation lawsuit would be a slam dunk if it was not true.

[BillStime]

 

2 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Well no because of your bias/hatered but it's just more fuel for you which you didn't need any more .

 

Yeah - Trump is a saint.