Trump now held in contempt of court

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by scook

I enjoy discourse and have repeatedly encouraged you to engage in it. What you write could hardly be called discourse by anyone who understands the meaning of the word.

Trump’s “involvement” in Nov 6, as described by you is very definitely opinion, and alleging undefined lesser offenses as traitorous is pretty weak. As a point of clarification, “lessor” offenses, as you wrote, would be offenses committed by someone “leasing” property.

It doesn’t look like you’ll be able to control yourself and quit posting your far left talking points, but there will probably be someone here to refute them as you do.

" alleged " claims scook..... record shows Trump was " begged " to speak up against his violent mob.
And of course your endless insults.......

[scook]

Well, there’s very little in common between your constant snarky, childish attempts at insults and replies that are honest, accurate descriptions of your behavior.

You repeat well worn left wing media and democrat talking points with no evidence that you’ve applied any critical thinking in the process.

[bgreene]

This threads about the FACT that Trumps held in contempt of court and his attempt at avoidance denied .

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

This threads about the FACT that Trumps held in contempt of court and his attempt at avoidance denied .

And once again, when a comment hit's home, the topic magically changes back to the original topic. In other words, once again an avoidance of the previous comment.

.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

And once again, when a comment hit's home, the topic magically changes back to the original topic. In other words, once again an avoidance of the previous comment.

.

Contempt of court - this IS the thread

[scook]

If it is about Trump being held in contempt, a part of normal legal process, then is is also about normal and customary legal process, where a ruling can be appealed.

Your confirmation bias doesn't allow you to withhold your opinion until the situation is adjudicated. You WANT to believe anything negative about Trump, so you can't control your gleeful reporting of the "fact" that he's guilty of all manner of things and is therefor "avoiding" his punishment.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by scook

If it is about Trump being held in contempt, a part of normal legal process, then is is also about normal and customary legal process, where a ruling can be appealed.

Your confirmation bias doesn't allow you to withhold your opinion until the situation is adjudicated. You WANT to believe anything negative about Trump, so you can't control your gleeful reporting of the "fact" that he's guilty of all manner of things and is therefor "avoiding" his punishment.

Wrong - just the facts scookie , just the facts