Darth Omar
Russian asset
Okay buddy, lol.
Justice Ginsburg's mistake.........................benefits Trump so thanks babe
- Thread starter Canceled 2016.4
- Start date
Okay buddy, lol.
I do answer many; but some are inane and repetitive. I save those types of responses for your posts.
I have a hard time deciphering a lot of his writing, I thought it was just me, then I spoke with several other posters about it, it isn't just me!
Already did. Look for it.
I have a hard time deciphering a lot of his writing, I thought it was just me, then I spoke with several other posters about it, it isn't just me!
Possibly not functionally retarded like Irish or Text Driver but at least as stupid as Bravo or USFREAKDUMB.
incorrect. that implies you understand "terminology" (legalese).
You were arguing over and over 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f)(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793 requires intent.
It clearly does not while you were concurrently missing the idea Comey was saying it's not prosecuted without such.
Generally one has to hold a couple of independent ideas in mind while making a judgment -
you fail at the very most simplest of concepts.
you need to do more then blurt out a 1/2 conceived brain tingle for a coherent response.
Incorrect, try again.
Only section f obliviates intent. There are 5 other sections before that.
Thanks this is a perfect example.
I NEVER argued section f required intent.
This is how stupid you actually are.
Last edited:
Darth Omar
Russian asset
I have a hard time deciphering a lot of his writing, I thought it was just me, then I spoke with several other posters about it, it isn't just me!
I don't have any problem with it.
You have ignored several simple direct comments in which he pointed out your blatent hypocrisy
Good for you.
OMFG...the sections are INDEPENDENT VIOLATIONS !!!! of the Act. for ex. it's (f)(1) not "f" / (f)(2) does require intent
There isn't a need to violate any more then 1 section/subsection to be charged!!!
violating more then 1 leads to more charges -but one is enough to be charged...
++
Oh man......you violate the maxim of gross stupidity while breathing while being able to walk around *ugh*
dude... it's in the job description. Conservatives are about the status quo, and often a code is going to be part of that. Liberals or progressives are a bit more 'open minded' on getting things done.
yes,, the criticism is about Ginsberg being a woman and Scalia a guy
Fantastic Rune...you have now devolved below the lowest rung of PC stupidity.
you've become a basement dwelling afterthought.
I don't think so.
Let's look at the facts;
1000 anti female president threads.
0 anti male president threads (except black presidents)
Female justice talks out of turn; the justice system will never recover.
Racist conservatard POS Alito does same, you defend him.
Case closed, mysogynist.
Last edited:
Dipshit; I never argued that section f requires intent as you claimed.
That makes you:
A. A liar or
B. Simply incorrect in which case you are too sinple to follow a case nevermind render a judgement.
get the fuck out of here. You were all over it like a dog on a bone the night of Comeys statement.. clinging to intent on (f)(1)
No, what I saw was you arguing that a.) was conveniently left off the description of the law, a.) does address intention.
Exactly.