Ask the orange one. Reputation? Pride? Arrogance? Ignorance? Prevent other investigations?
The shifting narrative
- Thread starter ThunderCat98
- Start date
Ask the orange one. Reputation? Pride? Arrogance? Ignorance? Prevent other investigations?
I made the offer. Don't try to change the terms because (1) you know I'm right, or (2) you're a pvssy, and then try and call me out. Bet was extended. Man up or don't.
Your own inability to answer that question is exactly why he won't ever be charged with, much less convicted of, obstruction.
Again, you're the one trying to change the terms. I offered, you refused. You're a pvssy.
You and I both know the DOJ policy. The only reason trump wasn't charged.
You're the one making ridiculous statements and then too big of a pussy to back up your words.
With the GOP controlling the Senate? Pass.
How about mine? 12 months after he leaves office? Since you're convinced he didn't obstruct justice?
First, point out where I said that you said there was no evidence of obstruction. You can't, because I didn't. And this is yet more proof of why you're accurately called "Tier Three." It's yet another example of you either attempting a straw man or you simply not having even an average ability to comprehend what you read.
What I did say was that there was not ample evidence to charge him with obstruction. I purposely used "ample" instead of "sufficient," because some legal scholars believe there was sufficient evidence for an aggressive prosecutor to charge, but clearly, not ample.
If you can't see a huge difference between claiming "no evidence" compared with claiming not "ample evidence," then you're worse at law than even I thought this entire time.
This part was incorrect:
"Think about that. The idea is that the President committed a crime (crimes?) In order to cover up something that he and his people knew didn't occur."
cheeto had no idea what did or didn't occur. He had no way of knowing if "his people" committed such a crime. This is a guy who went around repeatedly boasting that he'd hire only the best and brightest, yet just 18 months later, plenty of them have been convicted and/or fired. Therefore, cheeto has no idea what "his people" do or don't do or else he wouldn't have repeatedly boasted that they were the "best and brightest" only to see them arrested and/or later claim that they were morons and losers. Hell, cheeto doesn't even know what he does half the time and can't keep his lies straight. It's clear that cheeto was extremely concerned about the investigation, because 1) he didn't know what they would uncover on his own ass 2) he has no idea what he did or didn't do/say 3) he's too dumb to realize what is/isn't illegal 4) he has no idea what "his people" do or don't do.
Regardless if a crime(s) did or didn't occur, not only is cheeto not competent enough to know that, but he also has no possible way of knowing what "his people" did or didn't do illegally, and that is entirely proven by "his people" already doing illegal things.
Stick with small business loans. This is embarrassing.
Tier Three, learn how to read. Learn what "not ample evidence" means. Many prosecutors would shy away from prosecuting such a high profile case without seal-proof evidence.
I could easily commit a crime and get away without being prosecuted/convicted. Does that mean the crime didn't occur?
"nut tick".....OK....now, that right there was worth keeping up with this thread.
This is your go to response when you get exposed as a fool. And it's becoming more and more frequent because of how much you are shown to be a fool.
You'll read 50 messages from people that have nothing to do with you, but you claim to refuse to read 18 sentences that are directly about you. Riiiight. Your lies are almost as obvious as liarherdfan's. To further show how much of a fool you are, you just asked if I would take your bet, but if you really didn't read my last post like you claimed, you wouldn't have asked that question. Why? Because you wouldn't have known if I had accepted the bet or not in my previous post. The fact that you had to ask again if I would accept it proves you read my post and saw that I didn't acknowledge your bet.
Now, to continue showing how much of a fool you are . . . your bet is for me to take a position which I have already argued against in this thread. You want me to bet that cheeto will be charged with obstruction at some point in the future, yet I am the one saying there wasn't ample evidence for a lot of prosecutors to pursue such a charge. So you're wanting me to bet for a position I have already acknowledged won't happen most likely?
You truly are not a bright person.
So, my initial post was correct. Thanks.
As for not being bright, I've got 3 things you don't:
1. A law degree;
2. A family; and
3. A full head of hair.
That being said, I'm pretty happy with my life.
Enjoy your imaginary celebrity friendships and washing jock straps.
No, I clearly articulated why you were wrong in that post. And it isn't even something debatable. It's simple facts.
This is why I really question what type of law you practice. Your inability to understand basic legal concepts, not even specific to just one type of law, leads me to believe you only do something extremely specific.
A tier three law degree, while on the other hand, I was accepted to a law school(s) you wouldn't even bother applying to knowing you wouldn't get in.
I have a family. I just don't have a wife and children. But rest assured, when I do, they will excel over yours just as I do over you.
As much as you want to keep believing that, I can easily post pictures continuing to prove you wrong.
You have to better explain that. Are you claiming that those friends are "imaginary celebrities," meaning they aren't really celebrities, or are you claiming that I am imagining a friendship with those actual celebrities?
I admire your persistence in wanting this to be a "thing."
I don't have to explain anything, but I sure know I'm in your head.
I think he wants you to match diatribe for diatribe. Try harder. You, too, can post a bunch of bullshit nobody will read!
That's just it. No one reads his 1,000 word monologues except his fanboys - nut-tick (aka cuntry), greed, and tard.
Yet he feels the need to respond to nearly every, single, fvcking post I make. It's kinda sad. Like I said, I'm living in his head rent-free. The view through his plugs is nice, though.
Yet he feels the need to respond to nearly every, single, fvcking post I make. It's kinda sad. Like I said, I'm living in his head rent-free. The view through his plugs is nice, though.
Funny stuff, moron.
In the meantime, you and metalfab are french kissing each other.
Pitiful that you need to ask someone about truth, seeing that you're certainly not familiar with it.
Why are you putting a 24-month time limit on it? You said he would never be charged, let alone convicted.
So let’s wager that he will or will not be charged with obstruction after he leaves office.
Convicted. You keep trying to change the terms.
Some U.S. Attorney trying to make a name for himself might try to charge him knowing full well he doesn't have enough to convict. As the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. You have to put a timeframe on it, or it just goes on indefinitely.
What type of delusional world do you live in? You're the guy trying to make bets with me on something I didn't even disagree with you on, moron. You, just like the other deplorables who constantly mention me in threads I am not even a part of, can't stop thinking about me.
The "I'm living in his head rent free" line is almost as old and dorky as the ones you made a week or two ago when I was in Mexico. At least pretend like you are a competent professional.
I'm not changing anything. You are the one who said
So you either believe what you said or you admit you were just spouting off a bunch of bullshit, like always.
