Trump fires Lisa Cook

[Necrosis]

Who / what is "try"  ??

It' a new pronoun. Thats what I am going by now

[Necrosis]

Why would you draw that conclusion?  He's a politician.

So degree's do not matter? I mean the guy literally lies about almost everything. I will say he is one of the best marketers or salesmen in history though.

[Primemuscle]

Yes -Chaos is my surrogate dad - and I struggle to speak for myself
as I'm the very shy & retiring type.

Thank you Chaos.

Finally, you have revealed that you actually do have a sense of humor. I am seriously gobsmacked!

I should have recognized your shy and retiring demeanor because this is also best described my personality.

There is almost nobody left in this world who is old enough to be my daddy, which is actually a good thing.

[Primemuscle]

From the guy that consistently replies to posts not directed at him. Typical deflection accusing others of doing what you're guilty of.

Naw, not consistently -- sometimes, maybe.

[chaos]

Looks like more bullshit by the trump admin

Makes sense, dude is trying to become a dictator and wants teh fed doing his bidding

https://www.newsweek.com/new-documents-appear-refute-lisa-cook-mortgage-fraud-claims-report-2129248

Weird you guys are fine with this.

I'd be fine with him firing every single person in government and starting from scratch. Weird that you are obsessed with American politics and not the politics of your own country.

[Grape Ape]

So degree's do not matter? I mean the guy literally lies about almost everything. I will say he is one of the best marketers or salesmen in history though.

Degrees matter.

But I don't think he lies about everything - it's complete hyperbole and kind of TDS-ish.  You should know better.

[Primemuscle]

Nobody turns a blind eye to true bad behavior.  Most defenders of Trump defend the constant barrage of misinformation.

And where there are truths - "criminal" cases that happened and penalties given, smart folks pivot and explain context.

For me, personally, anyone who uses "fascist", "34 felonies", or cites the James case and Caroll civil cases as counter points is not someone intelligent, or someone who is weak and prone to manipulation.

Because when they try to defend any of those on the basis of their own merit, they always fail.  I've yet to see a convincing argument that they were not lawfare or the corruption of our judicial system.

Putting intelligence aside, do you find it unusual for someone in Trump's political position to have his legal history, including being tried and found liable in two major civil lawsuits somewhat unusual? Do you know of any other folks holding the position that Trump currently does, having a comparable legal history? Major corporate executives are frequently fired for much less, usually because the optics are so injurious to the corporations’ profits? Trump fires government employees for having far less shady legal histories than he does. It appears he is not opposed to the use of lawfare and collusion when it does not negatively and personally affect him against others. Have you not seen this?

[Grape Ape]

Putting intelligence aside, do you find it unusual for someone in Trump's political position to have his legal history, including being tried and found liable in two major civil lawsuits somewhat unusual? Do you know of any other folks holding the position that Trump currently does, having a comparable legal history? Major corporate executives are frequently fired for much less, usually because the optics are so injurious to the corporations’ profits? Trump fires government employees for having far less shady legal histories than he does. It appears he is not opposed to the use of lawfare and collusion when it does not negatively and personally affect him against others. Have you not seen this?

Has there ever been a President with his background?

I don't think so.

I don't know which civil trial is the second one you're referring to, but the E Jean Carrol one is horseshit.  They even changed the law so she could accuse him.

And any thinking person knows the Bragg  and James ones were even less credible.

So. given 3 of the 4 are crap, that only the sheepest of the sheep give credibility to, the other civil case would have to be a whopper for me to think he's unfit to be President.  I legit have no idea what it is though.

[Primemuscle]

Has there ever been a President with his background?

I don't think so.

I don't know which civil trial is the second one you're referring to, but the E Jean Carrol one is horseshit.  They even changed the law so she could accuse him.

And any thinking person knows the Bragg  and James ones were even less credible.

So. given 3 of the 4 are crap, that only the sheepest of the sheep give credibility to, the other civil case would have to be a whopper for me to think he's unfit to be President.  I legit have no idea what it is though.

The second one is for fraud. While the appeals court recently struck down the massive financial penalty, it upheld the core finding that Trump was liable for fraud and the other penalties and restrictions remain. The New York Attorney General's office recently filed an appeal about the Appellate Division's decision regarding the penalty to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.

[Grape Ape]

The second one is for fraud. While the appeals court recently struck down the massive financial penalty, it upheld the core finding that Trump was liable for fraud and the other penalties and restrictions remain. The New York Attorney General's office recently filed an appeal about the Appellate Division's decision regarding the penalty to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.

That is the James case.

Which only retards put stock and ignore the lawfare.  And it’s also the one that you googled an answer to, and ignored my response in another thread.  At least last ime I checked.