18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

So If Trump knew or should have known he lost the election. (Check)

And he told someone to take action to keep him in office. (Check)

And that person took steps toward trying to keep Trump in office (check)

He broke the law right?

You don't know much about the law do you?

I love that moronic claim; "he should have KNOWN he lost!"

Meanwhile, the idiots on the left, in the media and the Democratic Party of the Jackass never accepted Hillary's loss and even tried to take a wrecking ball to Trumps Presidency. No one takes you loons on the left or the media seriously anymore.
:palm:
 
So all you need is a confession, from Trump, that he "knew" he lost? And who do you think he "Conspired" with to stay in office?

The irony for the loons on the left is that he didn't stay in office and they confirmed the vote count later that evening. Quite the insurrection/Coup.

These are not very smart people.
 
Don’t need a confession.
He conspired with a number of lawyers, Congressmen, advisors and state officials.

Most clearly drunk Rudy.

There was no conspiracy. It was very transparent. There was no insurrection. There was no coup. After 500 days of a House investigation, and no criminal referral, it is OBVIOUS that this is nothing more than a NOTHING BURGER and a desperate party grasping at straws hoping to dupe as many as they can in the eye of the public. Yay you, right? :palm:
 
Team crazy: the Fake media, the left and the Democratic Party of the Lying Jackass.

Team Normal: everyone else.
:palm:
TD, if you weren't such a demented old geezer, I'd suggest you be charged with terrorism instead of just putting Nanny software on your computer.

6jr5tk.jpg
 
TD, if you weren't such a demented old geezer, I'd suggest you be charged with terrorism instead of just putting Nanny software on your computer.

half-wit
noun
\ ˈhaf-ˌwit , ˈhäf- \
: a foolish or stupid person


in·fan·tile
(ĭn′fən-tīl′, -tĭl)
adj.
Displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity; childish: infantile behavior; an infantile remark.


douchebag
noun
douche·bag | \ ˈdüsh-ˌbag \
an obnoxious, offensive, or disgusting person
 
There was no conspiracy. It was very transparent. There was no insurrection. There was no coup. After 500 days of a House investigation, and no criminal referral, it is OBVIOUS that this is nothing more than a NOTHING BURGER and a desperate party grasping at straws hoping to dupe as many as they can in the eye of the public. Yay you, right? :palm:

So for there to be a crime there must be a House Referral? I better tell that to my criminal clients, none of them were referred by the House.
 
So for there to be a crime there must be a House Referral?

STRAWMAN! Who said that? No one. For there to be a referral, there must be evidence of a crime. I would think a self-proclaimed attorney would know the basics. :palm:

I better tell that to my criminal clients, none of them were referred by the House.

Absurdity; the last desperate refuge for the ignorant, the dishonest and the stupid. :rolleyes:
 
Hang all traitors, take away the computers of all demented geezers.

triggered
adjective
trig·gered | \ ˈtri-gər \
occurring in response to a stimulus typically perceived as negative or harmful
caused to feel an intense and usually negative emotional reaction : affected by an emotional trigger


mental case
noun
: a crazy person
That guy is a complete mental case.
 
STRAWMAN! Who said that? No one. For there to be a referral, there must be evidence of a crime. I would think a self-proclaimed attorney would know the basics. :palm:



Absurdity; the last desperate refuge for the ignorant, the dishonest and the stupid. :rolleyes:

You said that
 
You said that

More lies. I clearly indicated that for there to be a referral, there must be evidence of a crime. I would think a self-proclaimed attorney would know the basics.

But I get it. You can't win the argument with facts so you engage in your typical lying and strawmen. I get it.
;)
 
More lies. I clearly indicated that for there to be a referral, there must be evidence of a crime. I would think a self-proclaimed attorney would know the basics.

But I get it. You can't win the argument with facts so you engage in your typical lying and strawmen. I get it.
;)

Its not even true that there must be evidence of a crime for a referral.
 
Its not even true that there must be evidence of a crime for a referral.

So you believe that you can just claim someone has committed a crime to the DOJ without any evidence? You didn't learn much in law school did you? I am starting to believe that your claim to be one is a lie given the nonsense you post here. :palm:
 
Back
Top