Truckers for Trump will boycott driving to New York City after $355M fraud ruling

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Rampant fraud shouldn't be necessary to do business.

What fraud. these are maybe things done to do business in NY?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Yeah, it does. Found guilty in a court of law means you're guilty.

Yup. And if they can prove it, they may get a new trial, or have the verdict overturned.

But you need EVIDENCE for that. You can't just say "I didn't do it!" and expect that to work.

And it has to be new evidence that wasn't available during the trial. You can't just try the same arguments as before.

-- A2SG, they didn't work before, why expect them to work a second time....

The verdict was politically driven. We have already been through this. Then there would be no reason for appeal. Different judge for the appeal.

 

[A2SG]

LOL I thought you claimed to be fair minded.

I do try to be. It's why I don't accuse people of acting in bad faith without evidence of it.

It proves, before Trump was even indited, she was "gonna get him".

Yeah. So? The trial didn't start with her saying "Trump's a bad dude," and the judge saying "Welp, your word's good enough for me! Guilty as charged!!"

She compiled evidence of his wrongdoing. She documented it and presented her case in court. The judge reviewed the evidence, heard testimony from multiple sources, both for prosecution and defense, and ruled based on that evidence. If there is any actual, real evidence of incorrect application of the law, or any form of procedural error, that's what the appeals court will rule on.

The AG's personal opinions are not relevant to the case she provided.

It was a set up...a sham. politically driven (James proved that by what she said. No way is she not biased. I am not going to debate you for days on this. I provided you her own words.

But you did not provide any evidence that she forged evidence, misapplied the law, or was inaccurate in any way with the case she provided. She didn't try the case based on her opinions, she tried the case based on THE EVIDENCE.

You want to show otherwise? Provide evidence of your own. Because, just as Judge Engoron didn't accept her opinions as evidence, I can't accept yours.

-- A2SG, do what the prosecution did here...prove your case with evidence, don't just assert your opinion and expect us to say "Welp, your word's good enough for us!"...

 

[A2SG]

The verdict was politically driven.

So you assume. You still haven't provided any evidence to prove this. Just your assumptions, and nothing more.

We have already been through this.

Sigh...yeah. And you keep using assumptions instead of facts. I'm not going to buy it, no matter how many times you keep doing it. Just so you know.

Then there would be no reason for appeal. Different judge for the appeal.

Trump has the right to appeal, no matter what. Doesn't mean he'll win, but he has that right.

-- A2SG, anything to delay paying what he owes, and hopefully find a way to avoid it.....

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I do try to be. It's why I don't accuse people of acting in bad faith without evidence of it.

Yeah. So? The trial didn't start with her saying "Trump's a bad dude," and the judge saying "Welp, your word's good enough for me! Guilty as charged!!"

She compiled evidence of his wrongdoing. She documented it and presented her case in court. The judge reviewed the evidence, heard testimony from multiple sources, both for prosecution and defense, and ruled based on that evidence. If there is any actual, real evidence of incorrect application of the law, or any form of procedural error, that's what the appeals court will rule on.

The AG's personal opinions are not relevant to the case she provided.

Um it DOES matter what she said and what her personal opinions were! Would you want to go to trial and know that all the jurors were already against you? You would NOT have a fair trial. It IS proof that both she and the judge had a vendetta against Trump and they both should have been reclused.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

So you assume. You still haven't provided any evidence to prove this. Just your assumptions, and nothing more.

Trump has the right to appeal, no matter what. Doesn't mean he'll win, but he has that right.

-- A2SG, anything to delay paying what he owes, and hopefully find a way to avoid it.....

Sure I have, their own words. Whatever...

 

[A2SG]

Um it DOES matter what she said and what her personal opinions were!

Not unless they directly affected the case she presented. Did they? Show me evidence for that if you want me to accept it.

Would you want to go to trial and know that all the jurors were already against you? You would NOT have a fair trial.

That's why voie dire exists.

Not like those who use the legal system haven't thought of these things.

It IS proof that both she and the judge had a vendetta against Trump and they both should have been reclused.

No, it isn't. Opinions are not proof of malfeasance.

You want to prove the AG faked evidence? Do that. You want to prove the AG framed Trump in some way? Do that. But do it WITH EVIDENCE. Don't just assert it and expect everyone to believe you just because you say so.

That's not how courts work.

-- A2SG, if simply saying "I didn't do it! I was framed!" was a valid defense, there'd be no criminal trials, ever!

 

[A2SG]

Sure I have, their own words. Whatever...

Their own words don't prove malfeasance.

You want to prove malfeasance? Do that.

With evidence.

-- A2SG, just like the AG proved Trump's fraud...with evidence.....

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Not unless they directly affected the case she presented. Did they? Show me evidence for that if you want me to accept it.

You want to prove the AG faked evidence? Do that. You want to prove the AG framed Trump in some way? Do that. But do it WITH EVIDENCE. Don't just assert it and expect everyone to believe you just because you say

I say they did because of her statements. It was a biased personal vendetta. She was completely biased. I never said she faked evidence. Show me it didn't! Show me evidence that her statements did not affect the trial!

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Their own words don't prove malfeasance.

You want to prove malfeasance? Do that.

With evidence.

Prove that it didn't! Don't just say it didn't!

 

[A2SG]

I say they did because of her statements. It was a biased personal vendetta. She was completely biased.

Again...so what? What do her personal opinions have to do with the case she presented in court? When did she try to use them as evidence?

I never said she faked evidence.

You continue to claim the trial was a "sham," and yet you have yet to show why you think that. All you've provided so far has been your assumption that it must be a "sham" because they dared to find Trump accountable for his fraudulent actions.

Show me it didn't! Show me evidence that her statements did not affect the trial!

Really? You want me to prove a negative?

Tell you what, as soon as you explain how I can do that, I'll attempt it.

-- A2SG, in the meantime, why don't you try to back up the claims you've been making all along here....

 

[A2SG]

Prove that it didn't! Don't just say it didn't!

I didn't say it didn't. I asked you to prove it did, since you keep claiming that.

You made the claim, it's up to you to support it.

-- A2SG, that's how it works, dude....

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Again...so what?

Really? You want me to prove a negative?

Tell you what, as soon as you explain how I can do that, I'll attempt it.

-- A2SG, in the meantime, why don't you try to back up the claims you've been making all along here....

You back up your claims that it didn't affect the trial...you are the one that made that statement

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I didn't say it didn't. I asked you to prove it did, since you keep claiming that.

You made the claim, it's up to you to support it.

-- A2SG, that's how it works, dude....

You disagree so that means you think it didn't. You prove that it didn't affect the trial...you are the one that supports that it didn't. Prove it! You don't get to dictate "how it works" dude...

 

[A2SG]

You back up your claims that it didn't affect the trial...you are the one that made that statement

Fine. She never, not once, provided her opinion about Trump as evidence in court.

Now you.

-- A2SG, balls in your court, dude....

 

[7thKeeper]

LOL it didn't have to. She was biased long before the trial by the statements she made. The judge too. She branded him guilty long before the trial. So you agree that it was a biased trial. No? Then prove it! Balls in your court, dude

You still aren't proving anything. If she didn't use her personal feelings/opinions as evidence, but material facts, it's up to you to prove there was something untoward done. And I'd like you to show me a prosecutor that takes someone to court if they don't think the party in question is guilty.
And show evidence that the judge was biased. I've noticed a trend that you're heavy on opinion but thin on evidence though.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I think it didn't because I have no evidence to suggest it did. Provide the evidence, and I'll change my mind.

That isn't how an honest person discusses things.

Now, you've got two choices here: you can either start discussing this honestly, or we can just go around and around over and over, me asking you to prove your claim, you asking me to disprove it....until the thread gets closed.

Trust me, I'm more stubborn than you are.

-- A2SG, your call, dude....

I gave you evidence. You say no, so prove it did not affect the trial! back what you think with evidence! So I am dishonest now huh? No, believe me, you are not more stubborn than I am, I can assure of that...dude. Let the thread close then! You have 2 choices, either prove it had no effect on the trial or we can just go around and around over and over, me asking you to prove your claim, you asking me to disprove it....until the thread gets closed.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

You still aren't proving anything. If she didn't use her personal feelings/opinions as evidence, but material facts, it's up to you to prove there was something untoward done. And I'd like you to show me a prosecutor that takes someone to court if they don't think the party in question is guilty. And show evidence that the judge was biased. I've noticed a trend that you're heavy on opinion but thin on evidence though.

She nor the judge needed to. They are both biased by their own words. They should have both been recused. The both had a conflict of interest and prejudicial towards Trump. Show me evidence that their bias did not affect the trial...you guys are heavy on opinion but thin on evidence.

 

[7thKeeper]

She nor the judge needed to. They are both biased by their own words. They should have both been recused. The both had a conflict of interest and prejudicial towards Trump. Show me evidence that their bias did not affect the trial...you guys are heavy on opinion but thin on evidence.

You need to show the bias. You haven't shown any one thing that shows, for example, that opinion was used as a judging factor or the prosecution for example was using evidence in a falsified and biased manner. You gotta show that any of this had an effect that could be deemed biased, especially in a manner that would invalidate anything.
So far you haven't done any of that, just cried bias and told everyone else to prove you wrong. Quite childish behaviour to he honest. You need to back up your own words more strongly. Especially the telling others they haven't shown any evidence is quite cute and claiming others are heavy on opinion when that's all you have.

 

[A2SG]

LOL it didn't have to.

For those personal opinions to affect her case against Trump, they would have to.

Otherwise, they're as relevant as her opinion about the color the walls were painted, or her opinion about how comfortable her chair was.

She was biased long before the trial by the statements she made.

Again...so what? If she didn't use those opinions in court, they are irrelevant.

The judge too.

Prove it. I'll help: here's Judge Engoron's decision:

452564 2022 People of the State of v People of the State of Decision After Trial 1688 | PDF | Fraud | Finance & Money Management

452564 2022 People of the State of v People of the State of Decision After Trial 1688

www.scribd.com

Show me what he said that showed his bias, and how that bias affected his ruling.

She branded him guilty long before the trial.

The vast majority of prosecutors in any trial, regardless of who is being prosecuted, believe the defendant to be guilty. What matters is whether or not they can prove it.

AG James proved her case. And her opinions were not part of her case in any way whatsoever.

So you agree that it was a biased trial. No? Then prove it! Balls in your court, dude

Nope, dude. You are claiming that. It's up to you to prove it.

-- A2SG, can't do your job for ya....