Michael Cohen is doing Awesome thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

yes, that was included in the section i quoted, thanks

as for the CNN article (CNN good now)... you left out the very next stanza



and of course, further down...



those changes were made after they had already determined they wouldn't be pressing charges. its ludicrous to imply that strzok managed to sneak in some language without any approval and only as a result of those edits, they didnt press charges

---

“(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed”

“OR in a grossly negligent way”

does the above require intent to convict yes or no?

The answer is no. You stepped on your own dick and look foolish continuing this any further.

Once again

Hillary—no intent needed to convict
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Trump—intent needed to convict
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/3

:lol today’s lawyers

lol today's produce salesmen calling out today's lawyers


So what is stopping Trump from indicting Hillary, TSA?

Gotta wonder what’s stopping TSA from making threads about this stuff like he used to

Guess the Q thread, pizzagate thread and guccifer thread left a scar

Don’t you just love it when a non lawyer guy tries to act like he knows more than an actual lawyer through random articles posted from other experts?

I’m not a lawyer but I know more than you and I’ll show you how by posting non original thoughts from other people’s work.

use your own words TSA.

Well we've found the question TSA will dodge whenever he brings up....

https://afinde-production.s3.amazona...7c4d8b5425.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TSA

“(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed”

“OR in a grossly negligent way”

does the above require intent to convict yes or no?

The answer is no. You stepped on your own dick and look foolish continuing this any further.

Once again

Hillary—no intent needed to convict
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Trump—intent needed to convict
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/3

:lol today’s lawyers

---

i haven't disagreed with the code :lol... not sure why you keep re-posting them.

the fbi chose not to recommend charges against clinton because they said they lacked evidence of criminal intent. that's all i'm saying. and if the trump/sessions DOJ thinks they should go after her because they can instead prove gross negligence, they've been more than welcome to, and have opted against it.

:lol today's conspiracy theorists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reck

Don’t you just love it when a non lawyer guy tries to act like he knows more than an actual lawyer through random articles posted from other experts?

I’m not a lawyer but I know more than you and I’ll show you how by posting non original thoughts from other people’s work.

use your own words TSA.

---

it's honestly not that big a deal if you're a lawyer or not. the code is the code.

i will say though, you dont spend law school memorizing a bunch of statutes and codes. i mean, you learn a great deal of the evidence code and code of civil procedure, but thats really about it. other than that you mainly learn common law, broader doctrines, and key case law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

it's honestly not that big a deal if you're a lawyer or not. the code is the code.

i will say though, you dont spend law school memorizing a bunch of statutes and codes. i mean, you learn a great deal of the evidence code and code of civil procedure, but thats really about it. other than that you mainly learn common law, broader doctrines, and key case law

---

Yep. Anyone honest attorney would tell you that case is a fucking dog.

You can count on three former Secretaries of State to testify for the defense just for starters. No jury would ever unanimously agree to send Hillary to prison over some emails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Well we've found the question TSA will dodge whenever he brings up....

https://afinde-production.s3.amazona...7c4d8b5425.jpg

---

:rollin

ooooooooooweeeeeeeeee

Guess TSA can’t whine about the Clinton Foundation like he used to

what's to stop him now?

Trump Suggests Cooperating With Prosecutors Should Be A Crime

The president continued to lambaste longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen in an interview with his favorite cable news show, “Fox & Friends.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...gEmail__082418

What Trash really means is the "flipping" only against Trash should be illegal.

"NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Cohen is sticking his hand out and asking the public for help paying for his legal defense, and one anonymous donor already has ponied up $50,000..?."

Lol trump lawyer needing a gofundme account

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

"NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Cohen is sticking his hand out and asking the public for help paying for his legal defense, and one anonymous donor already has ponied up $50,000..?."

Lol trump lawyer needing a gofundme account

---

3...2..1 before a Soros DING*.

:rollin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reck

Don’t you just love it when a non lawyer guy tries to act like he knows more than an actual lawyer through random articles posted from other experts?

I’m not a lawyer but I know more than you and I’ll show you how by posting non original thoughts from other people’s work.

use your own words TSA.

---

Random articles... are not necessarily invalid ones. :D