quote:
I bet you are pretty sure. And I’ll state again....you are really bad at playing lawyer. I’ll indulge, though. Is the quote you previously posted what you are relying upon to satisfy the elements above? Any other actions? I want to get it all out there before We look into the “rock solid” case.

Or you could just reference the indictment

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by antibarner

Member since Oct 2009

23802 posts

Posted on 6/18/19 at 12:49 pm to bmy

This was a phony investigation, a sham that was politically motivated. There WAS no hack and Roger Stone's lawyer's , and Stone himself, know it. You do too in that black little heart of yours.

The government is trying to cover it up, and when they are forced to admit it, THEY are the ones that are going to be in a LOT of trouble. Honest Bob and a lot more of them.

This post was edited on 6/18/19 at 12:51 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by BBONDS25

Member since Mar 2008

49050 posts

Posted on 6/18/19 at 2:00 pm to bmy

quote:
Or you could just reference the indictment

I’m more interested in your understanding of it. You stated that the beginnings of the investigation were not relevant to Obstruction. Yet the indictment specifically discusses the origins of the investigation. Why do you think that is? I’m proving that you have not actually read the indictment, that you are dishonest, and that you are just like the other useful idiots. Which is disappointing, because you did a magnificent job masking it for a while.

This post was edited on 6/18/19 at 2:04 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board