Liberal Forum

RebelGator » 13 Jun 2023, 6:35 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:35 pm

The odds are in your favor, Wilford.

so you admit to being functionally illiterate?  Wow.  That must be like it felt for you to get up at your first AA meeting and say, "Hi.  My name is Cletis, and I'm an alcoholic".  Thanks for sharing.

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 8:22 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 8:22 am

5.  At that 9/28/22 Judicial Conference, a least five of the nine SCOTUS justices decided to deny the Defense Attorney's petition.


 

Link?
As usual, you're completely backward from the truth. 
It takes FOUR judges to decide if they want to hear a case, regardless how many vote.

You don't know anything about how our government works, do you?

 

maineman » 12 Jun 2023, 10:06 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2023, 10:06 pm

a racist WHORE?

shame on you.  SHAME on you.

You raised a racist whore.  The shame is on you, room temp. 
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 6:38 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:38 pm

so you admit to being functionally illiterate?  Wow.  That must be like it felt for you to get up at your first AA meeting and say, "Hi.  My name is Cletis, and I'm an alcoholic".  Thanks for sharing.

Your inane ability to hold both ends of a conversation is only surpassed by the massive ego that allows it. 

roadkill » 13 Jun 2023, 6:29 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:29 pm

Are you still incapable of understanding the definition of "Hoax".

Now tell the forum about the crimes of Joe and Hillary you groomer POS.

the crimes of the clown are unambiguously laid out in Smith's indictment.  If you can read section 1(d) of the Espionage Act and read the first 31 counts of the indictment, it should all come into focus for you.  Let me know your thoughts.

hahahaha

That makes the HUGE assumption that you actually are capable of independent thought.  My bad.

RebelGator » 13 Jun 2023, 6:42 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:42 pm

Your inane ability to hold both ends of a conversation is only surpassed by the massive ego that allows it.

Let's try it again:

Do you understand how paragraph 6(b) on page 3 of Jack Smith's Indictment of Donald Trump is a clear and unambiguous violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, section 1(d)?

Take your time.

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm

Let's try it again:

Do you understand how paragraph 6(b) on page 3 of Jack Smith's Indictment of Donald Trump is a clear and unambiguous violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, section 1(d)?

Take your time.

How is Jack Smith going to prove Trump INTENDED to harm America?
That's a requirement laid down in Title 1, Section 1 of the Espionage Act. 
 
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm

Let's try it again:

Do you understand how paragraph 6(b) on page 3 of Jack Smith's Indictment of Donald Trump is a clear and unambiguous violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, section 1(d)?

Take your time.

So, you're thinking they might actually hang Joe Biden....if the law was equally applied?

RebelGator » 13 Jun 2023, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:51 pm

So, you're thinking they might actually hang Joe Biden....if the law was equally applied?

why are you incapable of answering simple questions?  If Biden is guilty of violating the Espionage Act, he will face indictment when he is no longer POTUS... Like Trump is.

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:48 pm

Let's try it again:

Do you understand how paragraph 6(b) on page 3 of Jack Smith's Indictment of Donald Trump is a clear and unambiguous violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, section 1(d)?

Take your time.

Who said this?  Clearly you didn't think of this by yourself because your room temperature IQ would not allow it. 
Fact is that you're regurgitating **** you can't prove. 

Jack Smith can allege anything he wants.  Your problem is that he has to now PROVE it in court, and he's been bitch slapped in that arena repeatedly.
In fact, he holds the distinction of being overturned by SCOTUS in a 9-0 decision.
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 6:54 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:54 pm

why are you incapable of answering simple questions?  If Biden is guilty of violating the Espionage Act, he will face indictment when he is no longer POTUS... Like Trump is.

We already have evidence that Biden accepted a $5 Million bribe from Ukraine. 
Proving once again, that Trump was right.   Which of course is why the left impeached him for merely saying Biden should be investigated for this corruption. 
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:51 pm

How is Jack Smith going to prove Trump INTENDED to harm America?
That's a requirement laid down in Title 1, Section 1 of the Espionage Act.

A couple of points for the legally illiterate:

The Espionage Act does not have a Title 1.  So...you're a dyslexic moronic idiot...but moving along....  
It does have a section 1, and, in subsections 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c), INTENT is required. In section 1(d), however, it is not.

My guess is... you never were able to read that far without drowning in the word soup, eh?

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 6:59 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:59 pm

We already have evidence that Biden accepted a $5 Million bribe from Ukraine. 
Proving once again, that Trump was right.   Which of course is why the left impeached him for merely saying Biden should be investigated for this corruption.

link to that "evidence"?

I mean, something other than Gateway Pundit!  lol

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:01 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:01 pm

link to that "evidence"?

I mean, something other than Gateway Pundit!  lol

You haven't been keeping up with the news mainbitch?  
What a stunning admission.   

The willfully ignorant. 
 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 6:58 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:58 pm

Who said this?  Clearly you didn't think of this by yourself because your room temperature IQ would not allow it. 
Fact is that you're regurgitating **** you can't prove. 

Jack Smith can allege anything he wants.  Your problem is that he has to now PROVE it in court, and he's been bitch slapped in that arena repeatedly.
In fact, he holds the distinction of being overturned by SCOTUS in a 9-0 decision.

His indictment gives the recollections of a Trump PAC official.  One would imagine that he wouldn't put that in the indictment if he weren't ready to bring that witness before a jury to describe that recollection. 

golfboy » 13 Jun 2023, 7:02 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:02 pm

You haven't been keeping up with the news mainbitch?  
What a stunning admission.   

The willfully ignorant.

so...you got nothing?  why not just say so???

I mean, seriously, you make a claim and run away from showing this supposed evidence when asked?

Page 3, paragraph 6(b) of Smith's indictment... Espionage Act of 1917, Section 1(d).  

Go read both, if you can... and then YOU can be willfully ignorant

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:00 pm

A couple of points for the legally illiterate:

The Espionage Act does not have a Title 1.  So...you're a dyslexic moronic idiot...but moving along....  
It does have a section 1, and, in subsections 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c), INTENT is required. In section 1(d), however, it is not.

My guess is... you never were able to read that far without drowning in the word soup, eh?

My God man, are you EVER right about ANYTHING?


 
 

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:08 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:08 pm

so...you got nothing?  why not just say so???

I mean, seriously, you make a claim and run away from showing this supposed evidence when asked?

Page 3, paragraph 6(b) of Smith's indictment... Espionage Act of 1917, Section 1(d).  

Go read both, if you can... and then YOU can be willfully ignorant

I have read both.  They clearly don't say what you seem to think... but we don't actually know what you think, becuase you've never said what either of those sources say. 

You read or heard someone say something on msLSD, and you fell for it. 
 

RebelGator » 13 Jun 2023, 6:51 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 6:51 pm

So, you're thinking they might actually hang Joe Biden....if the law was equally applied?

If they have evidence and bring it forward after he leaves office, let the chips fall where they may. I will have no dog in that fight.

I think that the law is pretty clear that showing a classified battle plan map to a political action committee official without a security clearance is a violation of the Espionage Act section 1(d).

maineman » 13 Jun 2023, 7:04 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2023, 7:04 pm

His indictment gives the recollections of a Trump PAC official.  One would imagine that he wouldn't put that in the indictment if he weren't ready to bring that witness before a jury to describe that recollection.

Wait... wait...   a "recollection"?     
No actual EVIDENCE?