BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Re read what you wrote.Which part was false?
Do you think Levin has access to all the evidence and testimony and if not how could reach the conclusions in the post?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Re read what you wrote.Which part was false?
Do you think Levin has access to all the evidence and testimony and if not how could reach the conclusions in the post?
Just asking a simple question, if there is evidence that Trump broke the law should he be tried for it or is he above the law?Projecting again
You’re a poseur.Just asking a simple question, if there is evidence that Trump broke the law should he be tried for it or is he above the law?
My logic is that Hunter should have been treated no better and no worse than anyone else. So far as I know he got a standard sentence for his crime.You’re a poseur.
There was crystal clear evidence that Hunter broke the law relative to the gun.
According to your logic, he shouldn’t have gotten a diversion. He should have been prosecuted. Gee. I wonder if he is somehow above the law?
You obviously have not read the indictment.By contrast, the current set of indictments against Trump don’t involve any crystal clear evidence and they require legal contortionism to even pretend that there were crimes to charge in the first place.
Can you check back to see if they've given you any new talking points?Just asking a simple question, if there is evidence that Trump broke the law should he be tried for it or is he above the law?
Most folks wouldn’t have been permitted to plead to mere misdemeanors and damn few would get a diversion on a felony gun charge. So, you’re mistaken.My logic is that Hunter should have been treated no better and no worse than anyone else. So far as I know he got a standard sentence for his crime.
You have no clue what you’re talking about. It is precisely because I read those ridiculous indictments and because, unlike you, I understand the law, that I can state (correctly) that the indictments are bogus.You obviously have not read the indictment.
How exactly do you know that?Most folks wouldn’t have been permitted to plead to mere misdemeanors and damn few would get a diversion on a felony gun charge. So, you’re mistaken.
The prosecutors wrote them, a grand jury agreed with them and a judge OKed them. But your legal opinion is different based on your legal training which is...You have no clue what you’re talking about. It is precisely because I read those ridiculous indictments and because, unlike you, I understand the law, that I can state (correctly) that the indictments are bogus.
it was a rhetorical question since I never seem to get an answer. You are a case in point. Thanks.Can you check back to see if they've given you any new talking points?
Biden illegally had classified docs in his garage, in his study .... Is he above the law?it was a rhetorical question since I never seem to get an answer. You are a case in point. Thanks.
Try paying attention. You’d be amazed what you could learn if you’d ever open your eyes.How exactly do you know that?
Drafting the wording of an indictment is generally a prosecutorial job. Yes.The prosecutors wrote them, a grand jury agreed with them and a judge OKed them. But your legal opinion is different based on your legal training which is...
Absolutely not. Of course he didn't try to hide them or lie to the FBI so his crime is minor compared to Trump's. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath so it must be a serious matter.Biden illegally had classified docs in his garage, in this study .... Is he above the law?
Of course he hid them. They were hidden in boxes in his garage, in his study ...Absolutely not. Of course he didn't try to hide them or lie to the FBI so his crime is minor compared to Trump's. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath so it must be a serious matter.
If you can't answer a simple question it is OK to admit it.Try paying attention. You’d be amazed what you could learn if you’d ever open your eyes.
I look forward to reading the rest of your amicus curiae brief.Drafting the wording of an indictment is generally a prosecutorial job. Yes.
A grand jury got resented with largely one-sided evidence in each case. And yes. The majority of each Grand Jury had to have said, “good enough for me.”
And generally speaking, a judge doesn’t rule on the legal or evidentiary sufficiency of any grand jury presentment until some period of time after the arraignment. But many do get sort of rubber stamped.
If you think you have a point in any of that, you’re mistaken.
If you can't answer a simple question it is OK to admit it.
ZzzzI look forward to reading the rest of your amicus curiae brief.
In his bathroom...Of course he hid them. They were hidden in boxes in his garage, in his study ...
That is just what the indictment alleges. Hopefully Trump will get his day in court and get a fair trial.Trump didn't lie to the FBI. You're just making shit up now
Never mind the brief, I didn't realize English was not your first language.If did answer it. You’re a dope. But it was more is a simplistic question. Your mistake.
Zzzz
I care what a twit like you looks forward to.
You don't hope that.In his bathroom...
That is just what the indictment alleges. Hopefully Trump will get his day in court and get a fair trial.
Zzz.Never mind the brief, I didn't realize English was not your first language.