Mike Pence Subpoenaed By Special Counsel Jack Smith

[BackAgain]

Every actual legal scholar says you're full of shit.

You wouldn’t have clue one about that. You don’t even understand the most basic legal argument,. Syndi.

 

[Delldude]

Every actual legal scholar says you're full of shit.

Except the ones representing Pence.

You must have missed that.

 

[Synthaholic]

Except the ones representing Pence.

You must have missed that.

They're not scholars, Short Bus. They're bottom of the barrel lawyers, like Sidney Powell and Rudy Rubles and Christina Bobb. And lawyers represent their clients, no matter how absurd their argument is.

 

[Synthaholic]

No. I cited the Article and clauses.

No, you just said 'Articles and clauses'. You weren't specific, because specifics reveal that you're full of shit.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hey BackAgain - when Pence loses in court on this subpoena will you come back here and admit that I'm right? Or are you not a man?

 

[Batcat]

And?

When does Biden get subpoenaed? He [Biden] has been found with classified documents from as far back as 1974, meaning he stole them.

Biden is a high ranking Democrat meaning he is totally above any and all rules of law. He can do anything he wants and walk away scot-free. That is one of the major problems in this country today. Corruption on a grand scale is another problem and Biden has engaged in that too.

In a well working constitutional republic, one rule of law applies equally to all.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[excalibur]

Every actual legal scholar says you're full of shit.

Hmmm? Funny thing that silly remark. First, you offer no link to "every actual legal scholar".

Second, the DoJ disagrees with you.

 

[Synthaholic]

You wouldn’t have clue one about that. You don’t even understand the most basic legal argument,. Syndi.

Does conservative icon Michael Luttig understand the most basic legal argument, Shitty Lawyer?

 

[MagicMike]

Zzzzz. Pence did right as he saw it. I think he was right.

I also think that anyone claiming that anyone literally sought to “hang” Pence is an ignorant retard.

Speaking of ignorant retards.

 

[Delldude]

Every actual legal scholar says you're full of shit.

You must have missed this legal scholar:

I believe that he is protected on his legislative functions and deliberations. However, that does not mean that he cannot be compelled to testify on matters outside of those functions. While he can try to raise other privileges, Smith can seek his testimony on the non-legislative matters.
_______________________________________
It is not clear why Smith would invite such litigation, which could take years to hash out in the courts. However, Pence has a good argument in my view for narrowing the scope of such testimony.

Pence Asserts Novel Constitutional Claim to Avoid Testifying Before Grand Jury

Former Vice President Mike Pence is making a novel constitutional argument in opposing the recent grand jury subpoena for testimony from Special Counsel Jack Smith. He is claiming that, as Presiden…

jonathanturley.org

 

[BackAgain]

No, you just said 'Articles and clauses'. You weren't specific, because specifics reveal that you're full of shit.

Not only are you lying, but my post both cited and quoted the specific article and clauses.

You are without any question the one who is full of shit. In fact, you are entirely just shit.

 

[BackAgain]

Hey BackAgain - when Pence loses in court on this subpoena will you come back here and admit that I'm right? Or are you not a man?

You’re an asshole, Syndi. It’s not a matter of being right or wrong. If the Pence argument fails, it only means that his argument will have been found insufficient. I never said it will work.

Do you practice to be an asshole — or is it fully natural for a scumbag like you?

 

[BackAgain]

Does conservative icon Michael Luttig understand the most basic legal argument, Shitty Lawyer?

Zzz. I don’t give a shit if some other lawyer disagrees with my view. In fact, that kind of thing usually happens many time in almost every case.

Also, in case you insist on missing the point. I have never said the Pence argument “will” work. It’s just that, unlike your ignorant opinion, I maintain that it could; and it has a basis IN the Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

Speaking of ignorant retards.

You certainly are an ignorant retard. But we weren’t actually speaking of you.

Trump didn’t defend anybody who said “hang” Pence. That bullshit was clearly just hyperbole. Even a moron like you should be able to realize that much.

 

[Blaster]

Maybe there’s evidence in the Steele dossier.

Urine stained bed sheets from Russia?

 

[Synthaholic]

You’re an asshole, Syndi. It’s not a matter of being right or wrong. If the Pence argument fails, it only means that his argument will have been found insufficient. I never said it will work.

Do you practice to be an asshole — or is it fully natural for a scumbag like you?

Why are you tap dancing? You're claiming he has a case. If he has a case he will win. If it's a far-fetched, desperate attempt to interpret the Constitution with a ridiculous argument, he will lose.

And if he is represented by legal scholars, like one of the dumbasses in this thread claimed, how can his argument be found insufficient?

 

[Synthaholic]

Zzz. I don’t give a shit if some other lawyer disagrees with my view. In fact, that kind of thing usually happens many time in almost every case.

Also, in case you insist on missing the point. I have never said the Pence argument “will” work. It’s just that, unlike your ignorant opinion, I maintain that it could; and it has a basis IN the Constitution.

You're wrong. And I AM saying that it will not work. Because it's already been shot down, with Graham, with Manafort, with Bobb, and with others.

 

[BackAgain]

You're wrong. And I AM saying that it will not work. Because it's already been shot down, with Graham, with Manafort, with Bobb, and with others.

I don’t care what YOU are saying.

You are not very bright.

When did Manafort claim to have been in the Senate, anyway?

 

[BackAgain]

Why are you tap dancing? You're claiming he has a case. If he has a case he will win. If it's a far-fetched, desperate attempt to interpret the Constitution with a ridiculous argument, he will lose.

And if he is represented by legal scholars, like one of the dumbasses in this thread claimed, how can his argument be found insufficient?

Syndi, you absolute retard:

Having a valid claim or having a case is not the same as a guaranteed win.

Damn, you’re a moron.