Reply With Quote
Nah, they’re selective when it comes to enforcing that crime. Might wanna research.
No it doesn't. Might wanna research.
Nah, they’re selective when it comes to enforcing that crime. Might wanna research.
You just said it depends on who you are. Not the crime. Which is it Darrin?
It’s always a crime. It’s selectively enforced. What don’t you understand?
You originally said it depends on who you are. Not the crime itself. As if being a certain person automatically gets you out of trouble. Now, which is it.
Who is it selectively enforced on?
You may be a person they decide to enforce the law on. You may not be. Depends on who you are.
“The second reason to hope the dossier was not used is more alarming. If the FBI and Justice Department relied on it, this would very likely mean that they fell victim to an influence operation, based on false information, by Russian intelligence services. Steele’s sources are unidentified Russians, at least some of whom knew Steele to be a spy for hire. It is possible, if not likely, that these Russians fed Steele false information in order to see if Western intelligence services would bite and, if the Kremlin got lucky, to sow discord and chaos into the American political system.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...trump-campaign
Who do they selectively enforce it on? You said it as a matter of fact that it depends on who you are. Don't be a chicken and back up what you just said. Who do they not enforce it on?
I don’t know their rationale for selective enforcement.
So you have no reason for saying it depends on who you are if you don't have any rationale, or criteria for those you think the law isn't applied to .
Quit being a dumb . If you are someone they really want to indict, it is something they can use.
For example, Flynn indicted, not Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin. Depends on who you are.
You really are a stupid simple chimp. It's about evidence. Quit acting like that's how the legal system works. On who they really "want to indict". ing moron.
Box scores.
Those wiretaps worked real well right?
So, if there’s evidence that three people gave false statements, but only one of them was indicted, what does that indicate?
As well as you reading a box score.
Oh lordy. You just wait...he'll find a tweet to express an opinion like the good robot he is.
Probably not enough evidence in the other two cases.
Nothing is stopping Sessions from prosecuting now if you say there is enough evidence.
What did Obama hear on those wiretaps?
It means there isn't enough evidence on the other two to file charges.
By whose standard, counselor?
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
djohn