What a great question

I'll keep being right everyday, you guys keep shouting from the corner as every single prediction you continue to make is shot down over and over.
 
lying rules said:
you know your lost, it's palpable. It'll be ok. Well, maybe not for you.
Click to expand...

10 counts, bitch. Read it.

Provable beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not. Why? Because the lying cocksucker won’t testify under oath.

Why do you enjoy surrounding yourself with pathologically lying, incompetent pieces of human shit?
 
domer76 said:
10 counts, bitch. Read it.

Provable beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not. Why? Because the lying cocksucker won’t testify under oath.

Why do you enjoy surrounding yourself with pathologically lying, incompetent pieces of human shit?
Click to expand...

do you know what a count is?

please stop babbling to me with your impotent rage. you keep being wrong, I keep being right. You are all talk, whereas what I say gets results.

I will continue to get results.

You will continue to cry and manifest absolutely nothing of value.

:thing1: <--- you
 
lying rules said:
no one is afraid of the obstruction thing that millions of dollars and hundreds of witnesses and 13 foreign governments and a giant investigation that found nothing. In order to have obstruction, you need to prove corrupt intent, and a president is constitutionally allowed to stop an investigation that he knows for example, he is innocent of, because that wouldn't show corrupt intent. Trump never asserted executive privileged, was incredibly transparent, and russia was completely fake news, for 2 years, it's all you and your side talked about but now you are desperate to pivot from it. There was no obstruction because there was no underlying crime. There is nothing there, you lost totally and completely and that is why trump will never be impeached, that is why nancy is staying far far away from it, and that's why a majority of americans don't support it either. Completely owned and decimated. You aren't fooling anyone, we all know you lost, and you know it too, deep down.
Click to expand...

^Trump cum dripping down your chin.
 
lying rules said:
correct, but obstruction of justice is predicated upon corrupt intent, which is based on if there is an underlying crime, which there isn't. A president can fully shut down an erroneous investigation. And trump didn't even do that. You are stupid.
Click to expand...

Newp. Categorically false. There doesn't need to be any underlying crime.

A POTUS cannot shut down an investigation in order to unlawfully obstruct. Full stop.

Nice owning you. Thanks for the easy win and running from your lies.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
Newp. Categorically false. There doesn't need to be any underlying crime.

A POTUS cannot shut down an investigation in order to unlawfully obstruct. Full stop.

Nice owning you. Thanks for the easy win and running from your lies.
Click to expand...

you are saying the president can't do something illegal to break the law. No one disagrees with that. you are being retarded, because no one has argued that. you are dumb.
 
lying rules said:
you are saying the president can't do something illegal to break the law. No one disagrees with that. you are being retarded, because no one has argued that. you are dumb.
Click to expand...

LOL! No, you're stating that he can, Cindy.

I'm done kicking my boot so far up your ass and exposing your rather laughable pig-ignorance.

No, no need to thank me. Educating simpletons like you is a public service I'm happy to provide.

Again, thanks for admitting you lied.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
LOL! No, you're stating that he can, Cindy.

I'm done kicking my boot so far up your ass and exposing your rather laughable pig-ignorance.

No, no need to thank me. Educating simpletons like you is a public service I'm happy to provide.

Again, thanks for admitting you lied.
Click to expand...

again, in order to have obstruction, you have to prove corrupt intent, a president can 100% end an investigation that he perceives as frivolous that he knows he is innocent of. He is head of the justice department, he's allowed to fire people that are under him. That's how our constitution works. If he fired someone because he knew he was guilty, that would be against the law. If there is no underlying crime, a president cannot obstruct, because there is no corrupt intent. Corrupt intent is the key element of obstruction of justice. that is a fact. It is also why trump will never, ever, ever be charged with obstruction, and why he will never, ever, ever be impeached, and why I will continue to be correct, and you will continue to be wrong. Forever.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
No, I don't need to. Mueller cannot indict a sitting POTUS, full stop.

No underlying crime is necessary for Obstruction, as Barr admitted to, under oath, this past Tuesday.
There is no exclupatory evidence for the six instances where all three elements for Obstruction were met, nor can you cite any.

Seriously, why lie like a whore? What's the point? What do you get out of it?
Click to expand...

Right, no underlying crime is required for an obstruction charge.

Did anyone think to ask Barr if he would take that indictment to court as a prosecutor lol? Again, it’s one thing to hand out an indictment and quite another to have it stand up in front of a jury.

This one would stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of surviving a jury trial—again, because of the weight of the exculpatory evidence. Defense lawyers would tear it apart.

I don’t know how better to explain it.
 
lying rules said:
again, in order to have obstruction, you have to prove corrupt intent, a president can 100% end an investigation that he perceives as frivolous that he knows he is innocent of. He is head of the justice department, he's allowed to fire people that are under him. That's how our constitution works. If he fired someone because he knew he was guilty, that would be against the law. If there is no underlying crime, a president cannot obstruct, because there is no corrupt intent. Why is the key element of obstruction of justice. that is a fact. It is also why trump will never, ever, ever be charged with obstruction, and why he will never, ever, ever be impeached, and why I will continue to be correct, and you will continue to be wrong. Forever.
Click to expand...

No, a president cannot determine an investigation about him to be frivolous an end it. That's called obstruction of justice, silly whore. All you're doing by repeating that nonsense is publicly chocking down Bill Barr's frothy splooge. And intent can easily be proven.

He's simply not allowed to fire someone for corrupt purposes. Ending an investigation into his campaign because he 'feels' like he's innocent is corrupt intent. That is a fact.

Thanks for another easy win.

What's it like? Losing every single time you post to me? You seem to enjoy it.

Oh, and could possibly try and learn better English? I think the board would appreciate it.
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
Right, no underlying crime is required for an obstruction charge.

Did anyone think to ask Barr if he would take that indictment to court as a prosecutor lol? Again, it’s one thing to hand out an indictment and quite another to have it stand up in front of a jury.

This one would stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of surviving a jury trial—again, because of the weight of the exculpatory evidence. Defense lawyers would tear it apart.

I don’t know how better to explain it.
Click to expand...

There is no exculpatory evidence, nor can you cite any.

Thanks for admitting you're lying. It's what you do.
 
CharacterAssassin said:
Yep. And you have none that you can cite.

Please stop being such a pathetic troll.
Click to expand...

Defense lawyers are not allowed to talk about Trump complying with VIRTUALLY EVERY request for documents; or the fact there was no underlying crime; or the fact Trump waved executive privilege?

What would prevent them from talking about it? Cite the regulation. Please and thanks.

And do you think that might ‘poison the jury’ in terms of a successful prosecution?
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
Defense lawyers are not allowed to talk about Trump complying with VIRTUALLY EVERY request for documents; or the fact there was no underlying crime; or the fact Trump waved executive privilege?
Click to expand...

Of course they are, and that's utterly irrelevant to the specific instances cited in the report to Trump ordering his underlings to fire Mueller, to lie for him, to write a letter denying news accounts, to get Sessions to 'unrecuse' himself to end the investigation, etc...
What would prevent them from talking about it? Cite the regulation. Please and thanks.
Click to expand...

Nothing would. But that's not exculpatory evidence, ya dumb whore.
And do you think that might ‘poison the jury’ in terms of a successful prosecution?
Click to expand...

You literally have no idea what exculpatory evidence is or what Mueller cited as likely obstruction in the report.

What a fucking retard.

Obstruction1.jpg
Obstruction.jpg
 
CharacterAssassin said:
Of course they are, and that's utterly irrelevant to the specific instances cited in the report to Trump ordering his underlings to fire Mueller, to lie for him, to write a letter denying news accounts, to get Sessions to 'unrecuse' himself to end the investigation, etc...

Nothing would. But that's not exculpatory evidence, ya dumb whore.

You literally have no idea what exculpatory evidence is or what Mueller cited as likely obstruction in the report.

What a fucking retard.

View attachment 9806
View attachment 9807
Click to expand...

You didn’t like the last question, did you lol.

So, what would exculpatory evidence look like—in your ‘scholarly’ opinion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top