PenguinBoss

Didn't he brag that all he'd been doing for years was emptying trash cans?

I don't mean all smokers, just the ones that have grown accustomed or killed their olfactory. Though, I admit that most other people would say "I don't smell it" and not "It doesn't smell."

Pretty much every place makes noise. Plates clattering, pans sizzling, chairs sliding on the floor, etc. But yeah, cigarette smoke stinks. The only people who don't recognize that are smokers. You're 100% wrong.

That place must smell awful.

Uh huh, as expected. It doesn't matter if it's civil or criminal, you always find a way that what he did isn't against the law. The entire point of this is you claiming you would accept human trafficking charges if there was proof, but you've shown it doesn't really matter if the evidence is there or not. It's time to stop lying and admit it.

Falsifying business records. And before you ask another question, because this is apparently the first time you've heard of it, educate yourself. I'm not bending over backwards to explain it to you just so you can say he was railroaded again.

I'm saying YOU'RE the one that claimed civil suits are illegitimate. And I don't know why you're even bringing it up when I was talking about the criminal case. You can just admit you have no idea what I'm talking about instead of talking out of your ass and hoping for the best.

Cool, now do it for the crime he was actually tried for and look even dumber.

It sounds like you're saying his argument isn't "I didn't do these things" but "The courts are being mean to me, so you should find me not guilty."

Yeah, and it seems to depend solely on who you support.

Interesting that Packard had info at the ready for the civil suit, but he's acting like this is the first time he's heard of the criminal trial. Glenn Beck must have skipped over it or something.

How do you feel about the 34 convictions in his hush money trial?

Packard pretending he'd accept indictments/convictions in good faith is hilarious.

Uh huh, something about Trump unfriending him. I'm sure he stated that a long time ago, long before Epstein's arrest. Just like I'm sure Trump had no idea of the kid diddling while they were close. Not that I really need to read anything else besides what I'm replying to, considering most of your posts are just non-sequiturs, anyway. Kudos being able to actually tell two people apart, though.

Mmm, nah, not buying what you're selling. No one else is here, either. It's not like they were seen together just one time and didn't even speak. You're comparing apples and oranges to try and excuse the obvious relationship the two of them had.

I never sent the guy in front of me at the supermarket a birthday card.

Lie to yourself all you want, but keep it to yourself. The only people who believe this are people with a "Trump has a 10-inch cock" bumper sticker on their Ford they need a ladder to climb in.

Yeah, I already answered that last night in a post you must have conveniently skipped. It would be very dumb of both sides to not have a third party collect it and be anonymously tested, so no objections could be brought up regarding it. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if Trump's lawyer had planned to have an issue with the DNA offered in an attempt to delay the trial until Trump potentially won the 2024 election. The evidence is a believable story and Trump's history of this type of thing. But you probably think that Access Hollywood tape was just locker room talk, too.

You're too dense to be coy. Just say what you want so I can slap it down in your face again.

Who was he offering it to? The same people asking for it. Don't ask dumb questions like you caught me on something. Yeah, and it took him over three years and after discovery was over to do it. I'm sure there was no ulterior motive to it. Relax, guy.

Outside of blood, it's the only thing that'd leave a stain, though. And that still doesn't explain why he never gave DNA for three years.

There was no semen found, which is why he was found liable of sexual assault and not rape. You can at least inform yourself a little bit on what you're trying to argue and not look like a disingenuous dope. Also, an innocent man wouldn't refuse a sample for three years.

lol "Yeah, you're right, but do you know the specifics of the handling of DNA evidence?" No, no, I don't. I imagine it would be done by a third party, quite possibly the person that would do the DNA testing. I don't know why you're asking, since I don't know why it would be anyone different from when her attorneys requested it to his attorneys offering it. It's not like both sides would meet in a Walgreen's parking lot and go "Here's Trump's spit in a cup."

You're thicker than pig shit. If it would have cleared him, he wouldn't have waited three years to all of a sudden change his mind right before the trial started. It's far more likely that he did it but thought he had the power to make it go away before it actually got to trial.