Difference between revisions of "Verdict:AffBjc3dc3af6bj3cd3c/3"
From cm2.liecourt.com
(Edited with WSForm) |
(Edited with WSForm) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Verdict | {{Verdict | ||
| + | |Role=Juror | ||
| + | |Workflow=Workflow/178 | ||
|Case ID=AffBjc3dc3af6bj3cd3c | |Case ID=AffBjc3dc3af6bj3cd3c | ||
| − | |||
|User=User:Bas | |User=User:Bas | ||
| − | |||
|Name=Juror 2 | |Name=Juror 2 | ||
| − | | | + | |Truth=no |
| + | |Truth percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Truth text=There is overwhelming evidence that no such order exists. | ||
| + | |Whole truth=no | ||
| + | |Whole truth percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Whole truth text=It's a fabrication. | ||
| + | |Nothing But the truth=no | ||
| + | |Nothing But the truth percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Nothing But the truth text=Trump is trying to deflect | ||
| + | |Deceit=Trump wants us to believe that since the documents were supposedly declassified by him. no crime was committed. | ||
| + | |Deceit percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Deceit text=The facts is. whether the documents were classified or not doesn't matter. Having them in the first place is the issue. He's trying to make us forget the obvious fact that he did indeed have them in his possession. | ||
| + | |Deceit intended=yes | ||
| + | |Deceit intended percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Deceit intended text=Trump is up to his usual tactics--obfuscate. delay. confuse the issue. | ||
| + | |Motivation=To avoid the legal issues and to curry favor with and incite his base | ||
| + | |Motivation percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Motivation text=Trump has been able to effectively use the issue to inflame. There have been many. many threats against FBI agents and offices. | ||
| + | |Social acceptability=Unacceptable | ||
| + | |Social acceptability percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Social acceptability text=The is no excuse for Trump having all these documents--classified or unclassified. blatant nonsense like this needs to be called out. | ||
| + | |Label=This is a factual lie. | ||
| + | |Label percentage=100 | ||
| + | |Label text=There is substantial evidence that no such "standing order" ever existed. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 16:14, 21 September 2022
Not permitted
