Three Gorges Dam Destroyer

@numbertalker @Eric_In_Osaka @sappholives83 So they just reposted an objective fact?

@Eric_In_Osaka @sappholives83 i browsed your feed and it seems you're here to waste our time. you even just reposted something describing Donald Trump as a felon

Nothing to see here; just the “good guys”fantasizing about putting Republicans in concentration camps. This is the ultimate destination for any movement that sees violence as a rational response to disagreement.

@minposting @Eric_In_Osaka @numbertalker @sappholives83 Wait do you really think systemic critiques mean no individual outcomes can be valid?

@Eric_In_Osaka @numbertalker @sappholives83 don't leftists usually say the us justice system is broken tho? if it's broken then none of the charges are valid anyway

@SteadyHabs @Eric_In_Osaka @numbertalker @sappholives83 Sorry man, he was convicted by a jury, he was guilty. It was 34 counts, at least get the basic facts right

@Eric_In_Osaka @numbertalker @sappholives83 felon in name only, the judges were LITERALLY just democrat activists trying to obtain a fake ruling so people like you could parrot ''convicted felon'' all day long. At no time in the past would a president have been convicted of 36 counts of this bullshit ''felony''

@AFawn13 @DennyGo8 @libsoftiktok Damn, that’s crazy, again, he’s claimed multiple times that he’s directly involved in everything about the business. He personally signed multiple checks. You realize if he made someone else do it, he’s still liable, right?

@Aim4Dam @DennyGo8 @libsoftiktok No, I'm saying he pays people to handle the accounting books for him, dope. Apparently, you've never ran a successful multimillion dollar business

BREAKING: One of the Capitol Police Officers who was honored in the new January 6th plaque in the Capitol was just INDICTED on NINE felony charges including r*pe & sodomy. Timothy Valentin would allegedly meet women on dating apps, schedule dates, drug them, and s*xually assault them.

@R1dack1415 @PamelaP052107 @D_R_Berger @ProdigalThe3rd You are so fucking stupid lmao.

@PamelaP052107 @Aim4Dam @D_R_Berger @ProdigalThe3rd It’s about to start coming out at unprecedented levels. Trump started talking about it tonight. It was his 1st mention to the public x.com/warDaniel47/st…

I always found it “odd” that Robert Mueller’s partisan team of hacks wiped their phones after the sham Russigate hoax failed Same thing happened with the sham Jan. 6th committee Same thing happened to Hillary Clinton’s emails, servers and her team’s blackberries (before& during investigations)

@R1dack1415 @D_R_Berger @PamelaP052107 @ProdigalThe3rd Jesus Christ this AI slip is so fucking lazy. Genuinely shut the fuck up and delete your account

No other president — or even high-profile defendant — has ever been prosecuted this way. Here’s the raw breakdown of what made it so corrupt and novel: 1. The Novel Legal Theory (Never Used Before) • The base charge — falsifying business records — is a misdemeanor with a 5-year statute of limitations. The payments happened in 2017. By 2023 the misdemeanor was already time-barred. • DA Alvin Bragg elevated it to 34 felony counts by claiming the records were falsified to conceal another crime: a violation of New York Election Law 17-152 (conspiracy to promote or prevent an election by unlawful means). • The “unlawful means” was allegedly a federal campaign-finance violation. But the FEC (federal election agency) never investigated, charged, or even referred Trump for it. • The jury didn’t have to agree unanimously on what the underlying unlawful act was — just that at least one existed. ⭐️⭐️⭐️That’s a brand-new, never-before-used theory to revive expired misdemeanors into felonies. Legal scholars across the spectrum called it unprecedented. 2. The Venue and Judge Were Hand-Picked for Maximum Bias • Manhattan jury pool: 90 %+ Democrat. Trump had zero chance of a fair cross-section of peers. • Judge Juan Merchan: Donated to Biden’s campaign. His daughter worked directly for Kamala Harris’s campaign and consulted on anti-Trump ads. He refused to recuse himself despite clear conflicts. He also issued gag orders that silenced Trump’s defense while letting the prosecution run wild. 3. No Victim, No Loss, No Real Crime • No proof Trump personally directed the exact bookkeeping label (Cohen testified he did it on his own). • The entire case hinged on re-labeling a legal NDA reimbursement as an illegal campaign expense — a stretch no other prosecutor had ever attempted. 4. The Double Standard (Selective Corruption) The same New York system ignored: • Hillary Clinton’s private server and deleted emails (actual classified documents). • Bill Clinton’s perjury under oath. • Hunter Biden’s gun and tax felonies. • Joe Biden’s classified documents case (special counsel said he was too old to prosecute). This wasn’t justice — it was lawfare timed to interfere with the 2024 election. The appeals are ongoing for good reason. Multiple legal experts (including some Democrats) called it one of the most abusive prosecutions in modern American history.

@R1dack1415 @PamelaP052107 @D_R_Berger @ProdigalThe3rd Stop using AI, this makes you look dumb as fuck. Unanimous specificity of means is not required. One can look at larceny or burglary cases in NY for examples of this. There were victims, the government of NY and the voters of NY. Financial loss is not required.

Trump was charged under NY Penal Law 175.10 (falsifying business records in the first degree — a felony). The underlying crime that elevated the misdemeanor to a felony was an alleged violation of NY Election Law 17-152 (conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a candidate by unlawful means). The jury was told they only needed to find that some unlawful means occurred — and the prosecution offered three options: 1. Falsifying other business records 2. Violating federal campaign finance laws 3. Violating tax laws The jury didn’t have to agree unanimously on which unlawful means — only that at least one existed. That’s a novel and highly controversial legal theory that no other prosecutor had ever used to turn expired misdemeanors into felonies. No victim. No financial loss. No clear intent proven beyond bookkeeping labels. The judge donated to Biden, his daughter worked for Kamala, and the Manhattan jury pool was 90 %+ Democrat.

@RickLangel My bad lmao was talking and typing, meant NY. Bud, the “had to be” is in response to you saying what it had to be. Your claim is opinion, not objective fact. I am saying what the intent claim was for. It was to protect his candidacy.

@Aim4Dam In DC? DC doesn't have any electoral votes, stupid. "it had to be". <-- this is your opinion and not objective fact.

NEWS: The FBI *did* interview a victim who credibly accused Trump of sexual assault, according to Epstein file documents, undermining claims that Trump has not been accused of wrongdoing. It's unclear what became of the investigation. My report here: substack.com/home/post/p-18…

@RickLangel Because she wasn’t a populist candidate who emphasized crowd size, and typically intended them for media coverage in controlled locations? Probably plenty more factors too?

@Aim4Dam Yup. Why were Hillary's rallies so much smaller?

@R1dack1415 @PamelaP052107 @D_R_Berger @ProdigalThe3rd Sorry man, it was in the location it was committed. None of what you said is an actual argument about the case

@Aim4Dam @PamelaP052107 @D_R_Berger @ProdigalThe3rd It was a corrupt state justice system going after a political opponent with unprecedented creativity with the judges in the loop in a specific location - to get the results they wanted

@RickLangel What? The argument is that he tried to protect his candidacy, which included his candidacy in NY

@Aim4Dam Your argument is that he was trying to protect his candidacy in other states.

@RickLangel Bud, no, I was asking if that was what you thought, because I wondered if you thought Trump was a liar or not

@Aim4Dam No, stupid, that's you claiming I said something I didn't. You're not even honest enough to admit to your own words.

@RickLangel Brother, in your mind, him being expected to get 1% of the vote or 40% of the vote is functionally the same thing. What are you even trying to argue here

@Aim4Dam They are not. "someone expected to get 1% of the vote" Was Trump expected to get 1% of the vote?

@RickLangel So the facts that he campaigned there and said he wanted to win there?

@Aim4Dam I don't care about his words, I care about the facts. You've not been honest or rational at all, dopey.

@RickLangel You think people didn’t come to his rallies because of him, who was a candidate?

@Aim4Dam Ya, he was. But that's not why people came to rallies. Why were Trump's rallies several times bigger than Hillary's? They were both presidential candidates.

@RickLangel I did not state that he wanted to help down ballot candidates in order to help his candidacy. Brother, when I asked why he held the rallies, you said it was to help down ballots. The argument is that he was deceiving voters to help and protect his candidacy.

Yes, that is what you stated was your belief. Not objective fact, but your opinion. And that's not what I said, as you claimed, it's what you claimed you believed. "Yes, I would say he held rallies because he wanted to win the state." That's your belief. So your argument isn't that he was deceiving voters to get more voters?

@RickLangel Because he still wants to win? If you can’t win against an NBA player, why does it make sense to claim you were trying to make jump shots to win?

@Aim4Dam "Can win" absolutely matters for intent. If you can't win, why does it make sense to claim he was trying to deceive voters to win?

@RickLangel When did you answer? No. The argument is genuinely braindead. You’re essentially arguing in March Madness, when a 16 seed playing a 1 seed shoots threes, they don’t intend to score.

@Aim4Dam I have answered, dopey. You just ignored it, as usual. The argument isn't stupid, you're just too ignorant to understand reality.

@RickLangel What? The hypothetical is that they did, that’s literally what “if they did” means Again, wanting to win is what matters. Before the election, not really, much more indicative of wanting to win the election

@Aim4Dam And I asked if they did. It's an assumption for your argument to make sense. Wanting to win <> can win You keep ignoring that. It's also measurable about being able to win a state.

@RickLangel Bud, Jesus fucking Christ there’s no way you’re this dishonest. Those rallies were during his campaign for president. That is obviously what his status was at the time. You can’t seriously argue that the GOP presidential candidate was at rallies as “an entertainer” alone

@Aim4Dam Entertaining people. Like Beyonce. You're taking similar actions to achieve the same outcome and claiming they are different actions.