I wonder if the distinction is that the crimes in question were committed in order to become president. I would suggest that in doing so, one loses the cover of established norms.

AunBear89 said:

---

I wonder if the distinction is that the crimes in question were committed in order to become president. I would suggest that in doing so, one loses the cover of established norms.

---

That is the allegation based on circumstantial evidence of timing.

It could also be that Daniels came out with the threat because Trump was running for president even if the act happened way before, and that drove the timing of payment.

But the reality is that Trump used his own money to pay off someone who threatened to use their questionable behavior because he had more to lose. And he falsified the records (even if he used his own money) so that it looked like payment for legal services as opposed to otherwise legal settlement.

One could argue he did so to avoid disclosure to his wife even if the timing was when he was running for president.

Not like using campaign money for personal purposes, but falsifying record on reason for using his own money around the time he was running for president.

Again, not the strongest case to break norms.

The election interference case, and the classified document cases would seem a lot more unifying and absurd enough to justify breaking norms because I hope other presidents don't do that.

Do I care that much if a presidential candidate used his own money to settle with the other party in an adulterous affair that he argues he identified as legal expenses when he settled to avoid, according to him, disclosure to his wife? Not when violent criminals in the same city are allowed to go unpunished after arrest.

Trial by jury is a great thing about America

okaydo said:

---

This thread has revealed which people are true Americans.

---

Indeed, great damage was done today to the public’s faith in the American legal system.

If a former President can be criminally convicted over such a trivial matter – motivated by politics, rather than justice – then anyone is at risk of a similar fate. https://t.co/zrHCyIZazh

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 31, 2024

African-American

What people should be upset about are when the government brings a case in a politically charged atmosphere and 12 members of a jury side against the government. This happened in both John Durham trials.

It's not just facts that have a liberal bias. Juries too.

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting how quiet our propaganda friends have been. Must be waiting for delivery of the new strategy from up top.

---

pic.twitter.com/2a08K25IoX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 31, 2024

MAGA is a grassroots, bottom-up, decentralized populist movement.

bear2034 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting how quiet our propaganda friends have been. Must be waiting for delivery of the new strategy from up top.

---

pic.twitter.com/2a08K25IoX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 31, 2024

MAGA is a grassroots, bottom-up, decentralized populist movement.

---

Which makes Trump really a dumb criminal because his supporters would not have cared that this leader of a "conservative," "family-oriented" movement paid off a porn star for having an affair while his wife was recovering from having given birth and makes this case a pyrrhic victory for the left because it will make it easier for him to win while not spending a single day in prison (who here believes he will actually go to prison for this). Sometimes what feels good in the immediate timeframe is costly in the long run. I used to always tell my more frustrated direct report who wanted to send out a nasty email to a colleague to think how that would help them achieve their long-term career goals within the organization.

calbear93 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

I wonder if the distinction is that the crimes in question were committed in order to become president. I would suggest that in doing so, one loses the cover of established norms.

---

That is the allegation based on circumstantial evidence of timing.

It could also be that Daniels came out with the threat because Trump was running for president even if the act happened way before, and that drove the timing of payment.

But the reality is that Trump used his own money to pay off someone who threatened to use their questionable behavior because he had more to lose. And he falsified the records (even if he used his own money) so that it looked like payment for legal services as opposed to otherwise legal settlement.

One could argue he did so to avoid disclosure to his wife even if the timing was when he was running for president.

Not like using campaign money for personal purposes, but falsifying record on reason for using his own money around the time he was running for president.

Again, not the strongest case to break norms.

The election interference case, and the classified document cases would seem a lot more unifying and absurd enough to justify breaking norms because I hope other presidents don't do that.

Do I care that much if a presidential candidate used his own money to settle with the other party in an adulterous affair that he argues he identified as legal expenses when he settled to avoid, according to him, disclosure to his wife? Not when violent criminals in the same city are allowed to go unpunished after arrest.

---

As if Melania doesn't know he's a sexaholic.
She posed nude in Europe in order to escape her Eastern European poverty. She landed her sugar daddy.
She came up with the "locker room talk" excuse.

This is not your normal marriage. He grabs women by the P and rapes them and sleeps with them, and she doesn't care.

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting how quiet our propaganda friends have been. Must be waiting for delivery of the new strategy from up top.

---

pic.twitter.com/2a08K25IoX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 31, 2024

MAGA is a grassroots, bottom-up, decentralized populist movement.

---

Which makes Trump really a dumb criminal because his supporters would not have cared that this leader of a "conservative," "family-oriented" movement paid off a porn star for having an affair while his wife was recovering from having given birth and makes this case a pyrrhic victory for the left because it will make it easier for him to win while not spending a single day in prison (who here believes he will actually go to prison for this). Sometimes what feels good in the immediate timeframe is costly in the long run. I used to always tell my more frustrated direct report who wanted to send out a nasty email to a colleague to think how that would help them achieve their long-term career goals within the organization.

---

Trump raised $1M for each sham charge against him

And all small-dollar donations

In one night https://t.co/4JNC53IaW2

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 31, 2024

Awesome. Why isn't your man, Chris Christie stepping up to the plate?

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting how quiet our propaganda friends have been. Must be waiting for delivery of the new strategy from up top.

---

pic.twitter.com/2a08K25IoX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 31, 2024

MAGA is a grassroots, bottom-up, decentralized populist movement.

---

Which makes Trump really a dumb criminal because his supporters would not have cared that this leader of a "conservative," "family-oriented" movement paid off a porn star for having an affair while his wife was recovering from having given birth and makes this case a pyrrhic victory for the left because it will make it easier for him to win while not spending a single day in prison (who here believes he will actually go to prison for this). Sometimes what feels good in the immediate timeframe is costly in the long run. I used to always tell my more frustrated direct report who wanted to send out a nasty email to a colleague to think how that would help them achieve their long-term career goals within the organization.

---

Trump raised $1M for each sham charge against him

And all small-dollar donations

In one night https://t.co/4JNC53IaW2

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 31, 2024

Awesome. Why isn't your man, Chris Christie stepping up to the plate?

---

What? You are saying he was playing 5-D chess and that he paid Daniels off knowing it was illegal that would be prosecuted by the state that would lead to his conviction that would lead to more contribution for a subsequent election 8 years down the line? Wow. Genius.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

I wonder if the distinction is that the crimes in question were committed in order to become president. I would suggest that in doing so, one loses the cover of established norms.

---

That is the allegation based on circumstantial evidence of timing.

It could also be that Daniels came out with the threat because Trump was running for president even if the act happened way before, and that drove the timing of payment.

But the reality is that Trump used his own money to pay off someone who threatened to use their questionable behavior because he had more to lose. And he falsified the records (even if he used his own money) so that it looked like payment for legal services as opposed to otherwise legal settlement.

One could argue he did so to avoid disclosure to his wife even if the timing was when he was running for president.

Not like using campaign money for personal purposes, but falsifying record on reason for using his own money around the time he was running for president.

Again, not the strongest case to break norms.

The election interference case, and the classified document cases would seem a lot more unifying and absurd enough to justify breaking norms because I hope other presidents don't do that.

Do I care that much if a presidential candidate used his own money to settle with the other party in an adulterous affair that he argues he identified as legal expenses when he settled to avoid, according to him, disclosure to his wife? Not when violent criminals in the same city are allowed to go unpunished after arrest.

---

As if Melania doesn't know he's a sexaholic.
She posed nude in Europe in order to escape her Eastern European poverty. She landed her sugar daddy.
She came up with the "locker room talk" excuse.

This is not your normal marriage. He grabs women by the P and rapes them and sleeps with them, and she doesn't care.

---

How false "facts" and divergence of reality happens. People assume their speculation is proven fact and spread it as truth. You know personally she knew? And that the jacket refers to that? Wow, didn't realize you were so in with the Trumps.

Trump is really playing with fire by talking about his innocence. That may play well politically but I can already hear the Prosecutor during sentencing - this defendant has no appreciation for the severity of his crimes or remorse and deserves ...

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting how quiet our propaganda friends have been. Must be waiting for delivery of the new strategy from up top.

---

pic.twitter.com/2a08K25IoX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 31, 2024

MAGA is a grassroots, bottom-up, decentralized populist movement.

---

Which makes Trump really a dumb criminal because his supporters would not have cared that this leader of a "conservative," "family-oriented" movement paid off a porn star for having an affair while his wife was recovering from having given birth and makes this case a pyrrhic victory for the left because it will make it easier for him to win while not spending a single day in prison (who here believes he will actually go to prison for this). Sometimes what feels good in the immediate timeframe is costly in the long run. I used to always tell my more frustrated direct report who wanted to send out a nasty email to a colleague to think how that would help them achieve their long-term career goals within the organization.

---

Trump raised $1M for each sham charge against him

And all small-dollar donations

In one night https://t.co/4JNC53IaW2

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 31, 2024

Awesome. Why isn't your man, Chris Christie stepping up to the plate?

---

What? You are saying he was playing 5-D chess and that he paid Daniels off knowing it was illegal that would be prosecuted by the state that would lead to his conviction that would lead to more contribution for a subsequent election 8 years down the line? Wow. Genius.

---

Maybe he was playing 6-D chess knowing that he's gaining more support as the Democrats continue their evil lawfare. Using political power to imprison political opponents is classic Putin don't you think?

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

Sometimes discussions with you gets so confused for the strangest reason.

Truly, I feel dumber at times coming here and posting.

Who says UC Berkeley is overrated?

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting how quiet our propaganda friends have been. Must be waiting for delivery of the new strategy from up top.

---

pic.twitter.com/2a08K25IoX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 31, 2024

MAGA is a grassroots, bottom-up, decentralized populist movement.

---

Which makes Trump really a dumb criminal because his supporters would not have cared that this leader of a "conservative," "family-oriented" movement paid off a porn star for having an affair while his wife was recovering from having given birth and makes this case a pyrrhic victory for the left because it will make it easier for him to win while not spending a single day in prison (who here believes he will actually go to prison for this). Sometimes what feels good in the immediate timeframe is costly in the long run. I used to always tell my more frustrated direct report who wanted to send out a nasty email to a colleague to think how that would help them achieve their long-term career goals within the organization.

---

Trump raised $1M for each sham charge against him

And all small-dollar donations

In one night https://t.co/4JNC53IaW2

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 31, 2024

Awesome. Why isn't your man, Chris Christie stepping up to the plate?

---

What? You are saying he was playing 5-D chess and that he paid Daniels off knowing it was illegal that would be prosecuted by the state that would lead to his conviction that would lead to more contribution for a subsequent election 8 years down the line? Wow. Genius.

---

Maybe he was playing 6-D chess knowing that he's gaining more support as the Democrats continue their evil lawfare. Using political power to imprison political opponents is classic Putin don't you think?

---

Was that after or before, in your mind, he immigrated illegally from Krypton and discovered that he was also the new ruler of Atlantis and would fight crime in a bat mask.

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Describes How The Trump Conviction Was A Political Hit Job

1. "The judge donated money... in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donationsto a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation."

2. Alvin Bragg boasted on the campaign trail in an overwhelmingly Democrat county, "It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times."

3. "Most importantly, the DA's charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process."

4. "The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever."

5. The DA inflated misdemeanors past the statute of limitations and "electroshocked them back to life" by alleging the falsification of business records was committed 'with intent to commit another crime.'

6. "Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were and the judge declined to force them to pony up until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial."

7. "In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren't just unusual. They're bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else."

8. "The Manhattan DA's employees reportedly have called this the "Zombie Case" because of various legal infirmities, including its bizarre charging mechanism. But it's better characterized as the Frankenstein Case, cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator."

tequila4kapp said:

---

Trump is really playing with fire by talking about his innocence. That may play well politically but I can already hear the Prosecutor during sentencing - this defendant has no appreciation for the severity of his crimes or remorse and deserves ...

---

BREAKING: Biden declares it’s "dangerous" for anyone to say Trump trial was "rigged"https://t.co/DKdN4f7ocs

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 31, 2024

Even Biden is saying that's dangerous.

calbear93 said:

---

Quote:

---

One could argue he did so to avoid disclosure to his wife even if the timing was when he was running for president.

Not like using campaign money for personal purposes, but falsifying record on reason for using his own money around the time he was running for president.

---

Trump's campaign did make that argument to the jury. And the prosecution brought evidence otherwise. The jury sat through it all and rendered a verdict.

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

---

Oh. I think I'm seeing your light.
You want him to be above certain laws, is that right?

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting how quiet our propaganda friends have been. Must be waiting for delivery of the new strategy from up top.

---

pic.twitter.com/2a08K25IoX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 31, 2024

MAGA is a grassroots, bottom-up, decentralized populist movement.

---

Which makes Trump really a dumb criminal because his supporters would not have cared that this leader of a "conservative," "family-oriented" movement paid off a porn star for having an affair while his wife was recovering from having given birth and makes this case a pyrrhic victory for the left because it will make it easier for him to win while not spending a single day in prison (who here believes he will actually go to prison for this). Sometimes what feels good in the immediate timeframe is costly in the long run. I used to always tell my more frustrated direct report who wanted to send out a nasty email to a colleague to think how that would help them achieve their long-term career goals within the organization.

---

Trump raised $1M for each sham charge against him

And all small-dollar donations

In one night https://t.co/4JNC53IaW2

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 31, 2024

Awesome. Why isn't your man, Chris Christie stepping up to the plate?

---

What? You are saying he was playing 5-D chess and that he paid Daniels off knowing it was illegal that would be prosecuted by the state that would lead to his conviction that would lead to more contribution for a subsequent election 8 years down the line? Wow. Genius.

---

Maybe he was playing 6-D chess knowing that he's gaining more support as the Democrats continue their evil lawfare. Using political power to imprison political opponents is classic Putin don't you think?

---

Was that after or before, in your mind, he immigrated illegally from Krypton and discovered that he was also the new ruler of Atlantis and would fight crime in a bat mask.

---

Does aforementioned 6-D chess include Dark Matter, anti-matter, and/or alternative universes?

If so, I'm going to have to bone up on physics because I'm only up to speed on 3 dimensions!

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

---

Oh. I think I'm seeing your light.
You want him to be above certain laws, is that right?

---

I think short of drawing you a picture, you may not have this not be over your head.

I will however try again.

Would you be for breaching the historical norm of not prosecuting former presidents over jaywalking? How about speeding? How about perjury for misleading under oath (yes, I know he was impeached but not prosecuted for a crime)? Why not? Not serious and unifying enough that people would not understand the rationale for violating norms of not prosecuting what could be viewed as politically motivated. Maybe not serious enough that people may not think it is worth creating the jeopardy of creating a venue for future former presidents to be easily charged with crime like they are in some third world countries?

So the question is not whether there was actually a crime and whether there was actually a justifiable verdict. It was a question of whether this was a pyrrhic victory in the sense that the cost of enforcing this law based on circumstantial evidence for something that most people don't think is that important is worth throwing away one of the most important aspect of peaceful transition of power in this country.

I suspect you still don't get it.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

I wonder if the distinction is that the crimes in question were committed in order to become president. I would suggest that in doing so, one loses the cover of established norms.

---

That is the allegation based on circumstantial evidence of timing.

It could also be that Daniels came out with the threat because Trump was running for president even if the act happened way before, and that drove the timing of payment.

But the reality is that Trump used his own money to pay off someone who threatened to use their questionable behavior because he had more to lose. And he falsified the records (even if he used his own money) so that it looked like payment for legal services as opposed to otherwise legal settlement.

One could argue he did so to avoid disclosure to his wife even if the timing was when he was running for president.

Not like using campaign money for personal purposes, but falsifying record on reason for using his own money around the time he was running for president.

Again, not the strongest case to break norms.

The election interference case, and the classified document cases would seem a lot more unifying and absurd enough to justify breaking norms because I hope other presidents don't do that.

Do I care that much if a presidential candidate used his own money to settle with the other party in an adulterous affair that he argues he identified as legal expenses when he settled to avoid, according to him, disclosure to his wife? Not when violent criminals in the same city are allowed to go unpunished after arrest.

---

As if Melania doesn't know he's a sexaholic.
She posed nude in Europe in order to escape her Eastern European poverty. She landed her sugar daddy.
She came up with the "locker room talk" excuse.

This is not your normal marriage. He grabs women by the P and rapes them and sleeps with them, and she doesn't care.

---

How false "facts" and divergence of reality happens. People assume their speculation is proven fact and spread it as truth. You know personally she knew? And that the jacket refers to that? Wow, didn't realize you were so in with the Trumps.

---

I confess I'm making leaps here.
But come on man.
You think they "fell in love"?

She can't stand him.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting how quiet our propaganda friends have been. Must be waiting for delivery of the new strategy from up top.

---

pic.twitter.com/2a08K25IoX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 31, 2024

MAGA is a grassroots, bottom-up, decentralized populist movement.

---

Which makes Trump really a dumb criminal because his supporters would not have cared that this leader of a "conservative," "family-oriented" movement paid off a porn star for having an affair while his wife was recovering from having given birth and makes this case a pyrrhic victory for the left because it will make it easier for him to win while not spending a single day in prison (who here believes he will actually go to prison for this). Sometimes what feels good in the immediate timeframe is costly in the long run. I used to always tell my more frustrated direct report who wanted to send out a nasty email to a colleague to think how that would help them achieve their long-term career goals within the organization.

---

Trump raised $1M for each sham charge against him

And all small-dollar donations

In one night https://t.co/4JNC53IaW2

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 31, 2024

Awesome. Why isn't your man, Chris Christie stepping up to the plate?

---

What? You are saying he was playing 5-D chess and that he paid Daniels off knowing it was illegal that would be prosecuted by the state that would lead to his conviction that would lead to more contribution for a subsequent election 8 years down the line? Wow. Genius.

---

Maybe he was playing 6-D chess knowing that he's gaining more support as the Democrats continue their evil lawfare. Using political power to imprison political opponents is classic Putin don't you think?

---

Was that after or before, in your mind, he immigrated illegally from Krypton and discovered that he was also the new ruler of Atlantis and would fight crime in a bat mask.

---

Does aforementioned 6-D chess include Dark Matter, anti-matter, and/or alternative universes?

If so, I'm going to have to bone up on physics because I'm only up to speed on 3 dimensions!

---

Only three dimensions? I guess you are stuck in time and are not familiar with the fourth dimension of time? Just busting your balls because, for someone who writes and posts a lot here, you most often derail discussions with stream of broken consciousness that makes me wonder what you learned at UC Berkeley.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

I wonder if the distinction is that the crimes in question were committed in order to become president. I would suggest that in doing so, one loses the cover of established norms.

---

That is the allegation based on circumstantial evidence of timing.

It could also be that Daniels came out with the threat because Trump was running for president even if the act happened way before, and that drove the timing of payment.

But the reality is that Trump used his own money to pay off someone who threatened to use their questionable behavior because he had more to lose. And he falsified the records (even if he used his own money) so that it looked like payment for legal services as opposed to otherwise legal settlement.

One could argue he did so to avoid disclosure to his wife even if the timing was when he was running for president.

Not like using campaign money for personal purposes, but falsifying record on reason for using his own money around the time he was running for president.

Again, not the strongest case to break norms.

The election interference case, and the classified document cases would seem a lot more unifying and absurd enough to justify breaking norms because I hope other presidents don't do that.

Do I care that much if a presidential candidate used his own money to settle with the other party in an adulterous affair that he argues he identified as legal expenses when he settled to avoid, according to him, disclosure to his wife? Not when violent criminals in the same city are allowed to go unpunished after arrest.

---

As if Melania doesn't know he's a sexaholic.
She posed nude in Europe in order to escape her Eastern European poverty. She landed her sugar daddy.
She came up with the "locker room talk" excuse.

This is not your normal marriage. He grabs women by the P and rapes them and sleeps with them, and she doesn't care.

---

How false "facts" and divergence of reality happens. People assume their speculation is proven fact and spread it as truth. You know personally she knew? And that the jacket refers to that? Wow, didn't realize you were so in with the Trumps.

---

I confess I'm making leaps here.
But come on man.
You think they "fell in love"?

She can't stand him.

---

You seem strangely familiar with strangers. I don't know their relationship.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

---

Oh. I think I'm seeing your light.
You want him to be above certain laws, is that right?

---

I think short of drawing you a picture, you may not have this not be over your head.

I will however try again.

Would you be for breaching the historical norm of not prosecuting former presidents over jaywalking? How about speeding? How about perjury for misleading under oath (yes, I know he was impeached but not prosecuted for a crime)? Why not? Not serious and unifying enough that people would not understand the rationale for violating norms of not prosecuting what could be viewed as politically motivated. Maybe not serious enough that people may not think it is worth creating the jeopardy of creating a venue for future former presidents to be easily charged with crime like they are in some third world countries?

So the question is not whether there was actually a crime and whether there was actually a justifiable verdict. It was a question of whether this was a pyrrhic victory in the sense that the cost of enforcing this law based on circumstantial evidence for something that most people don't think is that important is worth throwing away one of the most important aspect of peaceful transition of power in this country.

I suspect you still don't get it.

---

1. Jaywalking?
How about drunk driving? Would you want your ex-president getting plowed and driving himself home?

2. Here's what I get. You're tying yourself up in knots trying to find reason why this shouldn't have happened. But maybe you should look to Trump instead. He's an ass hole and people hate the living shut out of him! Maybe if he didn't go around calling people names? Maybe if he didn't try to govern from his inexperienced hip. Maybe if he didn't commit adultery and grab women by the P and… and… and you know ALL the reasons, maybe then this case would not have come forth. You're probably right.

3. But he DID commit the crimes, and if you don't know what they are then you didn't follow the case.

4. When you mention above a longing for a peaceful transition of power, is this what you had in mind?





How rich that you served that one up for all the readers here to see and laugh at you about!

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

---

Oh. I think I'm seeing your light.
You want him to be above certain laws, is that right?

---

I think short of drawing you a picture, you may not have this not be over your head.

I will however try again.

Would you be for breaching the historical norm of not prosecuting former presidents over jaywalking? How about speeding? How about perjury for misleading under oath (yes, I know he was impeached but not prosecuted for a crime)? Why not? Not serious and unifying enough that people would not understand the rationale for violating norms of not prosecuting what could be viewed as politically motivated. Maybe not serious enough that people may not think it is worth creating the jeopardy of creating a venue for future former presidents to be easily charged with crime like they are in some third world countries?

So the question is not whether there was actually a crime and whether there was actually a justifiable verdict. It was a question of whether this was a pyrrhic victory in the sense that the cost of enforcing this law based on circumstantial evidence for something that most people don't think is that important is worth throwing away one of the most important aspect of peaceful transition of power in this country.

I suspect you still don't get it.

---

How do you have historical norms for crimes no former President has committed until now?

How can you claim we are throwing away the "peaceful transition of power" in a post January 6th world? It's OK for Trump to do so but not Biden (if he's doing that at all)?

This whole notion some people have that Presidents and Ex-Presidents can't be held accountable for their crimes is just bizarre.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

I wonder if the distinction is that the crimes in question were committed in order to become president. I would suggest that in doing so, one loses the cover of established norms.

---

That is the allegation based on circumstantial evidence of timing.

It could also be that Daniels came out with the threat because Trump was running for president even if the act happened way before, and that drove the timing of payment.

But the reality is that Trump used his own money to pay off someone who threatened to use their questionable behavior because he had more to lose. And he falsified the records (even if he used his own money) so that it looked like payment for legal services as opposed to otherwise legal settlement.

One could argue he did so to avoid disclosure to his wife even if the timing was when he was running for president.

Not like using campaign money for personal purposes, but falsifying record on reason for using his own money around the time he was running for president.

Again, not the strongest case to break norms.

The election interference case, and the classified document cases would seem a lot more unifying and absurd enough to justify breaking norms because I hope other presidents don't do that.

Do I care that much if a presidential candidate used his own money to settle with the other party in an adulterous affair that he argues he identified as legal expenses when he settled to avoid, according to him, disclosure to his wife? Not when violent criminals in the same city are allowed to go unpunished after arrest.

---

As if Melania doesn't know he's a sexaholic.
She posed nude in Europe in order to escape her Eastern European poverty. She landed her sugar daddy.
She came up with the "locker room talk" excuse.

This is not your normal marriage. He grabs women by the P and rapes them and sleeps with them, and she doesn't care.

---

How false "facts" and divergence of reality happens. People assume their speculation is proven fact and spread it as truth. You know personally she knew? And that the jacket refers to that? Wow, didn't realize you were so in with the Trumps.

---

I confess I'm making leaps here.
But come on man.
You think they "fell in love"?

She can't stand him.

---

You seem strangely familiar with strangers. I don't know their relationship.

---

Ah, but you presumed that he paid her off because he didn't want his wife to know. And used that as your rationale for bringing the case forward hinged on that. Or was it that the crime was too minor?

Mind you, had the Stormy story come out, right after Access Hollywood and right before the vote, he probably wouldn't have won the Electoral College and become President.

So, this crime he committed resulted in Trump being president instead of Hillary.

No small crime, eh?

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

---

Oh. I think I'm seeing your light.
You want him to be above certain laws, is that right?

---

I think short of drawing you a picture, you may not have this not be over your head.

I will however try again.

Would you be for breaching the historical norm of not prosecuting former presidents over jaywalking? How about speeding? How about perjury for misleading under oath (yes, I know he was impeached but not prosecuted for a crime)? Why not? Not serious and unifying enough that people would not understand the rationale for violating norms of not prosecuting what could be viewed as politically motivated. Maybe not serious enough that people may not think it is worth creating the jeopardy of creating a venue for future former presidents to be easily charged with crime like they are in some third world countries?

So the question is not whether there was actually a crime and whether there was actually a justifiable verdict. It was a question of whether this was a pyrrhic victory in the sense that the cost of enforcing this law based on circumstantial evidence for something that most people don't think is that important is worth throwing away one of the most important aspect of peaceful transition of power in this country.

I suspect you still don't get it.

---

1. Jaywalking?
How about drunk driving? Would you want your ex-president getting plowed and driving himself home?

2. Here's what I get. You're tying yourself up in knots trying to find reason why this shouldn't have happened. But maybe you should look to Trump instead. He's an ass hole and people hate the living shut out of him! Maybe if he didn't go around calling people names? Maybe if he didn't try to govern from his inexperienced hip. Maybe if he didn't commit adultery and grab women by the P and… and… and you know ALL the reasons, maybe then this case would not have come forth. You're probably right.

3. But he DID commit the crimes, and if you don't know what they are then you didn't follow the case.

4. When you mention above a longing for a peaceful transition of power, is this what you had in mind?





How rich that you served that one up for all the readers here to see and laugh at you about!

---

You make a lot of stupid assumptions that make me think those assumptions are reflection of your cognitive capabilities.

1. It seems like there is deliberation to be had. The fact that you mention drunk driving vs. jay walking, there is a spectrum for prosecutorial discretion as to whether to break norms. It's not black and white. And that is the question.

2. I will treat the second point as just more broken stream of consciousness.

3. Again, this is a strawman argument since I said he is guilty. It is again for the 100th time hoping it can drill through a thick surface a question of whether prosecuting a crime is worth the cost. Do we prosecute a 90 year old widow who is starving for stealing bread? What would be the cost to society for putting her in prison even if actual law was broken?

4. When did I say I support that? Is your brain not working? Show me a single post where I supported that behavior? I can point to number of post where I said Trump is unelectable as a result of January 6th.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

I wonder if the distinction is that the crimes in question were committed in order to become president. I would suggest that in doing so, one loses the cover of established norms.

---

That is the allegation based on circumstantial evidence of timing.

It could also be that Daniels came out with the threat because Trump was running for president even if the act happened way before, and that drove the timing of payment.

But the reality is that Trump used his own money to pay off someone who threatened to use their questionable behavior because he had more to lose. And he falsified the records (even if he used his own money) so that it looked like payment for legal services as opposed to otherwise legal settlement.

One could argue he did so to avoid disclosure to his wife even if the timing was when he was running for president.

Not like using campaign money for personal purposes, but falsifying record on reason for using his own money around the time he was running for president.

Again, not the strongest case to break norms.

The election interference case, and the classified document cases would seem a lot more unifying and absurd enough to justify breaking norms because I hope other presidents don't do that.

Do I care that much if a presidential candidate used his own money to settle with the other party in an adulterous affair that he argues he identified as legal expenses when he settled to avoid, according to him, disclosure to his wife? Not when violent criminals in the same city are allowed to go unpunished after arrest.

---

As if Melania doesn't know he's a sexaholic.
She posed nude in Europe in order to escape her Eastern European poverty. She landed her sugar daddy.
She came up with the "locker room talk" excuse.

This is not your normal marriage. He grabs women by the P and rapes them and sleeps with them, and she doesn't care.

---

How false "facts" and divergence of reality happens. People assume their speculation is proven fact and spread it as truth. You know personally she knew? And that the jacket refers to that? Wow, didn't realize you were so in with the Trumps.

---

I confess I'm making leaps here.
But come on man.
You think they "fell in love"?

She can't stand him.

---

You seem strangely familiar with strangers. I don't know their relationship.

---

Ah, but you presumed that he paid her off because he didn't want his wife to know. And used that as your rationale for bringing the case forward hinged on that. Or was it that the crime was too minor?

Mind you, had the Stormy story come out, right after Access Hollywood and right before the vote, he probably wouldn't have won the Electoral College and become President.

So, this crime he committed resulted in Trump being president instead of Hillary.

No small crime, eh?

---

You seem very dishonest. Passing off lies if it helps your argument. You seem entirely the wrong person to talk about Trump's very real dishonesty.

Where did I say he did it to hide from his wife? quote me. I said that was their argument, but he was convicted based on circumstantial evidence of time of election and time of payment.

And you really think in your brilliant mind that him hiding this resulted in Trump's election even if the much worse audio of him saying he commits sexual assault didn't derail him? You don't think it was the FBI coming out at the last second saying they will look further into whether Hillary committed a crime for using an external server as a result of the Wiener expose?

You truly bring down the integrity (which is already low) and intelligence here.

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting how quiet our propaganda friends have been. Must be waiting for delivery of the new strategy from up top.

---

pic.twitter.com/2a08K25IoX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 31, 2024

MAGA is a grassroots, bottom-up, decentralized populist movement.

---

Which makes Trump really a dumb criminal because his supporters would not have cared that this leader of a "conservative," "family-oriented" movement paid off a porn star for having an affair while his wife was recovering from having given birth and makes this case a pyrrhic victory for the left because it will make it easier for him to win while not spending a single day in prison (who here believes he will actually go to prison for this). Sometimes what feels good in the immediate timeframe is costly in the long run. I used to always tell my more frustrated direct report who wanted to send out a nasty email to a colleague to think how that would help them achieve their long-term career goals within the organization.

---

Trump raised $1M for each sham charge against him

And all small-dollar donations

In one night https://t.co/4JNC53IaW2

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 31, 2024

Awesome. Why isn't your man, Chris Christie stepping up to the plate?

---

What? You are saying he was playing 5-D chess and that he paid Daniels off knowing it was illegal that would be prosecuted by the state that would lead to his conviction that would lead to more contribution for a subsequent election 8 years down the line? Wow. Genius.

---

Maybe he was playing 6-D chess knowing that he's gaining more support as the Democrats continue their evil lawfare. Using political power to imprison political opponents is classic Putin don't you think?

---

Was that after or before, in your mind, he immigrated illegally from Krypton and discovered that he was also the new ruler of Atlantis and would fight crime in a bat mask.

---

Does aforementioned 6-D chess include Dark Matter, anti-matter, and/or alternative universes?

If so, I'm going to have to bone up on physics because I'm only up to speed on 3 dimensions!

---

Only three dimensions? I guess you are stuck in time and are not familiar with the fourth dimension of time? Just busting your balls because, for someone who writes and posts a lot here, you most often derail discussions with stream of broken consciousness that makes me wonder what you learned at UC Berkeley.

---

Ha. I can laugh with you here because before I sent the above I went to ChatGPT and asked what was the 4th dimension. Time, theory of relativity stuff.
Then I asked about a 5th, 6th, 7th dimension, and ultimately "how many flocking dimensions are there?!?!"

I was going to digress but decided to just stick with the initial obvious 3.
Funny you pointed it out.

And funny, ChatGPT DID get into discussion of "multiple universes", so I missed on Time but was heading in the right direction. String theory.

But let's not go there.
This thread is, like all that I start, about Donald Trump being a scumbag piece of Doo Doo who will soon return to unrelated molecules status. Hahahaha!!!! There's your vengeance, Donny boy!!

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Plus, I think you're missing the entire point.
You call it circumstantial that he paid when he did, or try to ay he was only responding to when Stormy showed up when she did, because he was running.

Of course she showed up then, because of the election!
Of course he paid her because of the election!
That was the point of the prosecution!

So, I really don't understand your issue.

---

I think your lack understanding may arise from your lack of understanding of what circumstantial evidence means.

Everything you wrote indicates circumstantial evidence. That is what I wrote. What is it that you don't understand?

---

I heard a lawyer explain that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction.

You heard a bang in the other room.
You ran over to see. There was a dead baby on the ground with a gunshot in its head. There was a man standing over it holding a gun. The only door in/out of the room passes through room you were in, and there's no window.

Is it merely a circumstance that these facts place the man in the room with a dead body?

You may legally conclude based on circumstances.

I don't understand why you don't evidently think Trump is guilty.

---

Are you actually reading my post?

When did I write he is not guilty? Please quote me.

Maybe it is you who misunderstand. The question was, even if there is no question on his guilt, is this the right case to break the norm.

---

Oh. I think I'm seeing your light.
You want him to be above certain laws, is that right?

---

I think short of drawing you a picture, you may not have this not be over your head.

I will however try again.

Would you be for breaching the historical norm of not prosecuting former presidents over jaywalking? How about speeding? How about perjury for misleading under oath (yes, I know he was impeached but not prosecuted for a crime)? Why not? Not serious and unifying enough that people would not understand the rationale for violating norms of not prosecuting what could be viewed as politically motivated. Maybe not serious enough that people may not think it is worth creating the jeopardy of creating a venue for future former presidents to be easily charged with crime like they are in some third world countries?

So the question is not whether there was actually a crime and whether there was actually a justifiable verdict. It was a question of whether this was a pyrrhic victory in the sense that the cost of enforcing this law based on circumstantial evidence for something that most people don't think is that important is worth throwing away one of the most important aspect of peaceful transition of power in this country.

I suspect you still don't get it.

---

How do you have historical norms for crimes no former President has committed until now?

How can you claim we are throwing away the "peaceful transition of power" in a post January 6th world? It's OK for Trump to do so but not Biden (if he's doing that at all)?

This whole notion some people have that Presidents and Ex-Presidents can't be held accountable for their crimes is just bizarre.

---

Excellent post.
For the record, he's not doing it.

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Interesting how quiet our propaganda friends have been. Must be waiting for delivery of the new strategy from up top.

---

pic.twitter.com/2a08K25IoX

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) May 31, 2024

MAGA is a grassroots, bottom-up, decentralized populist movement.

---

Which makes Trump really a dumb criminal because his supporters would not have cared that this leader of a "conservative," "family-oriented" movement paid off a porn star for having an affair while his wife was recovering from having given birth and makes this case a pyrrhic victory for the left because it will make it easier for him to win while not spending a single day in prison (who here believes he will actually go to prison for this). Sometimes what feels good in the immediate timeframe is costly in the long run. I used to always tell my more frustrated direct report who wanted to send out a nasty email to a colleague to think how that would help them achieve their long-term career goals within the organization.

---

Trump raised $1M for each sham charge against him

And all small-dollar donations

In one night https://t.co/4JNC53IaW2

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 31, 2024

Awesome. Why isn't your man, Chris Christie stepping up to the plate?

---

What? You are saying he was playing 5-D chess and that he paid Daniels off knowing it was illegal that would be prosecuted by the state that would lead to his conviction that would lead to more contribution for a subsequent election 8 years down the line? Wow. Genius.

---

Maybe he was playing 6-D chess knowing that he's gaining more support as the Democrats continue their evil lawfare. Using political power to imprison political opponents is classic Putin don't you think?

---

Was that after or before, in your mind, he immigrated illegally from Krypton and discovered that he was also the new ruler of Atlantis and would fight crime in a bat mask.

---

Does aforementioned 6-D chess include Dark Matter, anti-matter, and/or alternative universes?

If so, I'm going to have to bone up on physics because I'm only up to speed on 3 dimensions!

---

Only three dimensions? I guess you are stuck in time and are not familiar with the fourth dimension of time? Just busting your balls because, for someone who writes and posts a lot here, you most often derail discussions with stream of broken consciousness that makes me wonder what you learned at UC Berkeley.

---

Ha. I can laugh with you here because before I sent the above I went to ChatGPT and asked what was the 4th dimension. Time, theory of relativity stuff.
Then I asked about a 5th, 6th, 7th dimension, and ultimately "how many flocking dimensions are there?!?!"

I was going to digress but decided to just stick with the initial obvious 3.
Funny you pointed it out.

And funny, ChatGPT DID get into discussion of "multiple universes", so I missed on Time but was heading in the right direction. String theory.

But let's not go there.
This thread is, like all that I start, about Donald Trump being a scumbag piece of Doo Doo who will soon return to unrelated molecules status. Hahahaha!!!! There's your vengeance, Donny boy!!

---

You had to go to ChatGPT to know that timespace and theory of relativity exists? That gravity bends the time space to change the speed of time? And if a 5th dimension exists that it is an infinite continuum of alternate timespace? That's some basic physics there.