____no5
Free Man
Agree with your point, and let's just say I spoke to both sides here.
Perun, I just said that Trump might get stronger and then didn't apply direct opinion on weaponisation exactly to avoid this bs. When I say "many people consider weaponisation" this is a true argument no grey areas or need for proof. The reaction I got from Jer twice is heated with strong words and exactly if I was expressing the opinion that is weaponisation.
Why not replying to what a person actually says instead of what we think he means or said in the past?
A brand name isn’t an argument. Show me a credible argument made by him or anyone else that explains how Biden magically made the New York State legal system bend to his will, or accept the fact that you’re spreading false propaganda.
He knows better the law than you, he is respected law professor and he is a democrat.
It’s not “smearing” when it’s true. You don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about here, you’ve been corrected on it multiple times, and yet in typical @____no5 fashion you keep repeating your misinformation anyway. Either do better, or stop pretending other people are in the wrong when they call you out on your obvious bullshit.
"True", "corrected", "misinformation", "obvious bullshit", too much of authority here.
There is no absolute truth in law, see Dershowitz argument; it always ends up to interpretations. Let's stop it here. I tried to avoid clashing with you but again you couldn't help it and attacked anyway.
It's not surprising in the least. The amount of mental gymnastics to defend Trump has been a thing since 2016. Just looking at statements like these:
I am not defending Trump.