im not sure if english is not your first language but i have no idea what you're saying other than DODGE

I'm saying you probably did a semester or two at law school and you have no experience in the subject outside google.

Shorter version easier?

Actually makes since because you couldn't answer what 2 branches at state level... The things you learn..

Not a denial on my suggested timeline. Interesting

This post was edited by Jere on Nov 19 2020 01:30pm

i learned enough to answer my own question in undergrad. not law school.

but answer it if u get a chance.



sense*

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 19 2020 01:31pm

You don't care to, because you know it would show your aRgUmEnT to be total BS.

damn u could write a book just on the faux-legal platitudes in this presser lol.

convinced now its a face save for media company, no kraken.

Probably a concept beyond you, but I see others reading that comprehend. You are presented with evidence. You review and investigate evidence. You provide results and conculsions and then reach a determination within the legal system.

What you are proposing is that all of the above needs to be skipped in lieu of it being impossible and instead investigate how these things are NOT true.

There is bias in your investigation as well as a misappropriation of how it is conducted.

I'm sorry, I wish you could understand.

This post was edited by Jere on Nov 19 2020 01:35pm

wewlad

You are an interesting character I'll give you that

can u explain why if there is all of this evidence u have suggested how could trump possibly be 1-29 in court

even shorthand will do lad