Which ones specifically? Don't generalize. Pinpoint. So far, feels.
in One He was named alongside Epstein.
The Katie Johnson/Jane Doe case. lol Perhaps you should have read more about the actual case(s) instead of just sitting on the headlines. Anyone that spent more than 5 minutes reading the details knows it was a farce to begin with.
We know that He was friends with Epstein , the Clintons, and many other vile creatures before becoming president..
So, guilt by association? That's it? Nothing but feels so far. Imagine thinking being rich, pictured with other rich people, was evidence of guilt of anything.
He has walked the Line in areas where He should not have while in office. He knows the Virus is a Joke, but He still pushes Vax
The "general public" wanted a vaccine. His administration gave them a vaccine. He's always been on the side of liberty as far as vaccines go, enforcing that it comes down to personal choice whether or not one wants to take it.
I did read the Entire Case, regarding Trump Epstein, and it is quite disturbing.
Now go see why it was laughed out of court in both CA and NY. The "facts" of the case are just a fabricated as your attempt at fitting in around here. There's a reason it was laughed out of court. TWICE.
Using your logic, here's a picture of Fred Rogers (also known as Mister Rogers) the war criminal with his war criminal friend George W Bush. lol It's such a stupid argument. I can't believe you would even think your guilt by association "logic" makes any sense.
At least 26 women have accused Trump, do you think that they ALL Made it up?
What does my opinion have to do with the lack of convictions? lol The burden of proof is on you to prove they didn't make it up since you brought it up. Lawyers and courts couldn't seem to find any proof though. Good luck. You can do it if you believe hard enough! haha
Would you do that, if you know what Dershowitz was involved in?
Your premise assumes 1.) Dershowitz is guilty of anything and 2.) Trump knows it, neither of which you can provide evidence towards. He's also the best Constitutional lawyer in America. So given the need for defense of Constitutionality, of course Trump hired him. He was the absolute best man for the job needed. What smooth brain wouldn't hire the best? - Here's another angle for you to chew on. Maybe that's WHY Trump hired him; to do his bidding in front of the Senate in exchange for a lesser punishment when the punishments are dealt. It's just as speculative as your take. What makes yours any more plausible than mine?
we have to see the evidence
Imagine typing that but having zero evidence to substantiate your opinions from the beginning.
Let's recap :
You're making claims that no one has been able to prove and are trying to sell your opinions as fact. I ask for you to provide evidence to your opinions. Since you can't provide any evidence to your opinions, you do more virtue signaling with strawman arguments and non sequiturs. You fail to provide a single piece of evidence to support your opinions. THEN go on to say "we have to see the evidence". LMAO
Try harder. This smells like a stinky shill sandwich.
Holy disingenuous opinions, Batman.
Which ones specifically? Don't generalize. Pinpoint. So far, feels.
The Katie Johnson/Jane Doe case. lol Perhaps you should have read more about the actual case(s) instead of just sitting on the headlines. Anyone that spent more than 5 minutes reading the details knows it was a farce to begin with.
So, guilt by association? That's it? Nothing but feels so far. Imagine thinking being rich, pictured with other rich people, was evidence of guilt of anything.
The "general public" wanted a vaccine. His administration gave them a vaccine. He's always been on the side of liberty as far as vaccines go, enforcing that it comes down to personal choice whether or not one wants to take it.
You're going to have to do much better than that.
Now go see why it was laughed out of court in both CA and NY. The "facts" of the case are just a fabricated as your attempt at fitting in around here. There's a reason it was laughed out of court. TWICE.
Using your logic, here's a picture of Fred Rogers (also known as Mister Rogers) the war criminal with his war criminal friend George W Bush. lol It's such a stupid argument. I can't believe you would even think your guilt by association "logic" makes any sense.
What does my opinion have to do with the lack of convictions? lol The burden of proof is on you to prove they didn't make it up since you brought it up. Lawyers and courts couldn't seem to find any proof though. Good luck. You can do it if you believe hard enough! haha
Your premise assumes 1.) Dershowitz is guilty of anything and 2.) Trump knows it, neither of which you can provide evidence towards. He's also the best Constitutional lawyer in America. So given the need for defense of Constitutionality, of course Trump hired him. He was the absolute best man for the job needed. What smooth brain wouldn't hire the best? - Here's another angle for you to chew on. Maybe that's WHY Trump hired him; to do his bidding in front of the Senate in exchange for a lesser punishment when the punishments are dealt. It's just as speculative as your take. What makes yours any more plausible than mine?
Imagine typing that but having zero evidence to substantiate your opinions from the beginning.
Let's recap :
You're making claims that no one has been able to prove and are trying to sell your opinions as fact. I ask for you to provide evidence to your opinions. Since you can't provide any evidence to your opinions, you do more virtue signaling with strawman arguments and non sequiturs. You fail to provide a single piece of evidence to support your opinions. THEN go on to say "we have to see the evidence". LMAO
Try harder. This smells like a stinky shill sandwich.