Donald Trump Says He Pleaded The Fifth In Deposition With New York Attorney General

Oh, Manafort said so. The convicted liar. So was he lying then or lying now?
What articles? You didn't link any articles.

 

Ahhh throwing spaghettis on the wall now hoping something will stick I see.

Nope, he asked to look into election fraud because he believed, right or wrong, that there were more fraudulent votes that it would take to change the outcome. Go read the transcript.

 

Manafort was not convicted of ANYTHING associated with Trump why are you bringing him into it?

 

Oh, I don't know, maybe because he was Trump's campaign manager. You remember, that campaign in 2016 where Manafort sold information to Russia and you remember that......what do you call it.......the Russia hoax.

 

There is something called google, its a search engine that finds things on the web. Use it.

 

Yes he was picked as campaign manager just before the convention because he had a good record of heading campaigns AT the conventions.

"In March 2016, he joined Trump's presidential campaign to take the lead in getting commitments from convention delegates.[53] On June 20, 2016, Trump fired campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and promoted Manafort to the position."

The convention was held 4 weeks later.

And get your facts straight he did not SELL anything to the Russians. He showed some campaign polling data to his former business partner OH MY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was NEVER convicted of ANYTHING to do with the Trump campaign.

 

No, he did ask Raffensperger to find the votes he needed to win Georgia.

Trump is also investigated there, like everything else.

 

You made the claim, it's up to you to back it up....not me. Given your refusal it's odd that you would say that I don't have any credibility.

 

Right, the liar said he GAVE the information. Sure, go ahead and believe that and dismiss the fact of what he did. OH MY!!

 

Yes he instructed an underling staff worker to email them to him stop making things up. There is nothing nefarious about polling data you know campaigns share it with LOTS of people and news organizations and prospective donors et al. Why do you take it as some national security breech?

 

No he asked him to look at the results for the fraud he believed occurred because he believed there were enough to change the outcome, why are you hung up on the word "find" they would have to look to "find" fraudulent votes, so what? He didn't ask him to CREATE votes.

 

If you got .25 cents for every time you defended the indefensible about Trump, you would be driving a Ferrari today.

 

New York judge rules criminal case against the Trump Organization and former CFO Allen Weisselberg..
Source: CBS News

New York judge rules criminal case against the Trump Organization and former CFO Allen Weisselberg can proceed

BY GRAHAM KATES

A New York State judge ruled Friday that a criminal fraud and tax evasion prosecution against the Trump Organization and its former CFO, Allen Weisselberg, can proceed.

Weisselberg and the company asked a judge in February to dismiss all 15 counts charged against them. Judge Juan Merchan dismissed one of several tax fraud counts against the Trump Organization, but allowed all others to remain.

Attorneys for Weisselberg and the company did not immediately comment on Friday's decisions.

The Trump Organization and Weisselberg accused prosecutors of targeting them "based on political animus" toward former President Donald Trump. Weisselberg also argued he had received immunity against certain federal charges when he testified to a federal grand jury investigating former Trump attorney Michael Cohen."



Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-yo...proceed/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=176963340

 

That’s the excuse of lazy people who don’t have the spine to challenge their own bias.

 

Yes, in the audit he wanted all it would take would have been to "find" 11,780 FRAUDULENT votes to change the outcome. You have point here or something?

 

Don't like Ferrari's I prefer this



If you had .25 cents for every time you proclaimed you go him now...............

 

I have to say, the fact that they disallowed any of Trumps staffers or lawyers to observe, and demanded the surveillance system be turned off, seems to suggest that they had something to hide. At the very least, that lack of transparency will call into immediate question anything they "found".

It used to be we could assume our law enforcement community was, for the most part, above reproach. No longer is that the case, unfortunately.

 

If you can than do it.

that doesn't prove that there wasn't any fraud you have to try harder than that.

No you made a positive statement that it was a fair election prove that it was fair.

You can't do that and you say everyone else is living in an alternate reality

 

Oh, he gave an underling staff worker the job.....well, that changes everything.(eyeroll). Are you serious? And why was the information passed on? Oh yeah, to get money from Russian oligarchs. https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-manafort-gave-trump-data-to-russians-for-business-deals-2022-8
To claim "there is/was nothing nefarious" about polling data and the excuse (that's what it is, an excuse) that an underling did the dirty work is a prime example of the complete disconnect from reality that Trumpers have.

 

I did in the sentence you answered. Biden resides in the White House, confirmed by the Senate as called for in the Constitution. That's as real as it gets.

Wait......you're saying that because there is no proof of fraud (what I said) doesn't prove that there was no proof of fraud (what you said). You obviously have a complete disconnect with the world as it is.

Sure, I can.....because there is no proof that it wasn't. If you think there was, that burden is on you.

 

that's not proof that he didn't get there fraudulently that's just proof that he's there.

I'm thinking that everyone that disagrees with you isn't really diluted in alternate reality it's probably because you have no evidence for any of your claims let alone facts.

no I said what I typed. When you say so you're saying or you're saying and you follow it with garbage I didn't say that's a straw man fallacy.

You claimed it was on the level that is a positive claim the burden of proof is on you. I simply doubt that claim.

So now the basics of logic don't even apply to you and I'm in another reality?

Okay so I won't even ask for proof anymore I would like to see the slightest shred of evidence.

I don't think you can even do that it's not me that lives in an alternate reality is it?

 

I have no need to prove what is the reality of the election. If you belive that the election was won by fraud the need of proof or your reality is with you. You have made no effort to do that yet insist that my reality is false.

Yes, and what you typed was "that doesn't prove that there wasn't any fraud" yet there have been many claims of fraud with no proof. Your claim of a strawman fallacy is totally wrong (on purpose?). I simply reapeated what you said, that's not a strawman. The comparison I made between what I said and what you said isn't a strawman fallacy and in fact it was a lesson is logical thinking which showed your flaws. It exposed the flaws in logic that you continue with in your statements.

No, because I made a valid argument while you simply say "I doubt that claim". Now it is you that have made the postitive claim so the burden of proof goes to you.
It is you that is ignoring the basics of logic.

Again, a logical fallacy. "I won't ask for proof........I would like to see the slightest shred of evidence". Evidence is proof. You say you won't ask for what you're asking for.

We are done.

 

I'm not asking you to prove reality I'm asking you to prove claims just because you claim something doesn't mean it's real.

I never once made the claim that the election was fraudulent so you're not tricking me into that one.

I doubt your claim that it's on the level and you have nothing not to the slightest shred of evidence let alone proof.

it's the possibility of fraud that gives doubt legitimacy. I don't have to prove that there was fraud or even have evidence of it to doubt your claim.

was simply a doubt of yours all the trash you typed after this is not even deserving of reposting.

you've made no argument you've made a claim you can't support.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I know you can't do this it's not anyone else's fault it's yours.

You want reality to be something and when people say otherwise you accuse them of being deluded because you can't argue for your position.

Yeah you're done I finished you.

 

Glad to see you incapable of understanding the 5th amendment and openly promoting the ignorance here.