LoLz - The spirit and context was that the trial would not go forward, no damning evidence would be presented at trial.
Why are you calling someone merely asking for referenceable facts a dummy? This is not mature and intelligent and there are some who may conclude you simply lack the intellectual capacity to counter with anything but an ad hominem. You wouldn't want that, would you?
Trolling and making internet duals is very mature though.
You sound cranky, go eat another pan of Lasagna.
Maybe something with more fiber.
Listen sir/ma'am, I know you are distressed at the events which have unfolded this weekend and how close we came to wrapping up this scourge of democracy befalling us all. Paradise lost. I can empathize. But being a child about the matter isn't going to help anyone or draw any intelligent thinkers to your cause now is it?
Put a cork in it, jackass. Thanks
Well, not that he/she/or it isn't doing a good job of blowing it out his/her/or its ass.
Can you sing that far far away?
Difficult questions? You're questions were answered, and insight and enlightenment given, ya moran.
Can you repeat that in another dozen different languages? without googles help.
Your answers suggested that a trial should move forward despite whether it had merit or not. Whether those bringing the case enjoyed standing or not. Morally this may seem agreeable to some but then puts us in a bit of an inconvenient position when those determined little trumpers call out our reasoning for not allowing many of the election fraud cases to move forward. Without tossing consistency to the wind how do you propose to reconcile such a variance in stances?
Tell us your interpretation of Trump being asked countless times to return Docs not belonging to him, and refusing, and the Subpoenas he ignored, forcing Uncle Sam to go and get them back.
The judge's ruling tossed consistency to the wind.
That was different though, that was about consensual sex. Not Top Secret SCI Documents!
Post Kennyboi you have yer Special Counsels.
You stated this already. Clearly. But failed to cite a page and paragraph where she did so. Isn't that what an informed person or an attorney wishing to impeach a counter argument does? Reference a fact to which they draw the attention of their reader? Or should I simply tell the detractors of your argument they are to believe Cannon is a trump stooge simply because MSNBC said so?
Well, then toddle off. If you didn't understand it the first time I won't waste time on a blockhead like you.
Are my clear and concise points applying too much pressure, thus invoking this unwarranted hostility you seem to have towards me? That is regrettable and I fear we are off to a bad start. Perhaps if I post the contents of the ruling we can dissect it paragraph by paragraph and exact the key crimes and variances from standing legal principle together so that we may conclude with certainty that this woman is indeed a MAGA stooge?
Are you saying you have more than one point on top of your head? That is so unusual.
It is becoming clearer and clearer you do not wish to engage in anything other than parroting media supplied hyperbole. I would have hoped we could dissect the publicly available document together and you could have outlined where Cannon went wrong in her ruling, but alas it is becoming painstakingly obvious you simply lack the aptitude to do so. How disappointing. I was really looking forward to crushing the spirits of some avowed trumblicans with clear and substantive evidence.
Stfu, do yuor oan reserch!
Correct. Even a broken clock is right once in a while.
Its just @Bastard Factory fucking with y'all
Is this how intelligent debate works in your perception of reality? You parrot media supplied narratives as if they were facts and then insult and disparage anyone asking you to substantiate them? I dont know my friend, this seems like one of those religious cults where you go to hell if you don't open your door and pretend to be interested on a saturday morning to me.
Are you saying you are a broken clock? This would explain quite a bit if you are.
