Biden Just Introduced The Uke President Zelensky As Putin!

[Papageorgio]

Or that his son died in Iraq.
Or that he was arrested trying to visit Mandela.
Or that he beat Medicare.

It’s because Joe is worried about women getting raped by their in laws, and brothers and sisters.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It’s because Joe is worried about women getting raped by their in laws, and brothers and sisters.

But not about women getting attacked by dudes in the bathroom or locker room.

 

[Captain Caveman]

 

[MagicMike]

Influencing an election is perfectly legal.

You must have missed the word "illegally."
Try to read ALL the words ok.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[Papageorgio]

But not about women getting attacked by dudes in the bathroom or locker room.

Sisters raping sisters? That was odd, he thinks that is a bigger problem than illegal immigrants raping women? Seriously?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You must have missed the word "illegally."
Try to read ALL the words ok.

Influencing the election was the second crime that made the first crime a felony.

But influencing an election is not a crime.

You must have missed the word "illegally."

I was mocking the "illegally" claim.

It's illegal to illegally influence an election. LOL!

What about the statute’s reference to “unlawful means”? Merchan and Bragg interpret that merely to state, literally, the means by which the conspirators seek their objective. The criminal law distinguishes a conspiracy’s end from the means by which conspirators seek to achieve it. It is the end — the objective — on which jurors must unanimously agree; they need not be unanimous as to means (the latter are often not even alleged in a conspiracy indictment). That was Merchan’s rationalization for instructing the jurors that they needn’t be unanimous regarding the “unlawful means.”

Alas, while literalism is usually desirable in interpreting statutory text, here it invites error. To repeat, “to promote the election of any person” cannot be the objective of a criminal conspiracy because it’s not a crime. The reason the jury must be unanimous about the objective of a conspiracy is that the objective is the intended crime. In §17-152, however, there is no intended crime unless what the statute confusingly calls “unlawful means” are factored in. Ergo, the so-called unlawful means are not really means; they are ends. Simply stated, what the statute labels “unlawful means” are the most essential part of the objective — the activities that make the agreement illegal, that make it a criminal conspiracy.
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sisters raping sisters? That was odd, he thinks that is a bigger problem than illegal immigrants raping women? Seriously?

His brain is broken.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Trump giving Erdogan reach arounds at MAL. All good?

Nope. First Black Woman *Joe is retarded. He’s your guy and he ain’t going anywhere.

 

[skye]

 

[MagicMike]

Influencing the election was the second crime that made the first crime a felony.

But influencing an election is not a crime.

You must have missed the word "illegally."

I was mocking the "illegally" claim.

It's illegal to illegally influence an election. LOL!

What about the statute’s reference to “unlawful means”? Merchan and Bragg interpret that merely to state, literally, the means by which the conspirators seek their objective. The criminal law distinguishes a conspiracy’s end from the means by which conspirators seek to achieve it. It is the end — the objective — on which jurors must unanimously agree; they need not be unanimous as to means (the latter are often not even alleged in a conspiracy indictment). That was Merchan’s rationalization for instructing the jurors that they needn’t be unanimous regarding the “unlawful means.”

Alas, while literalism is usually desirable in interpreting statutory text, here it invites error. To repeat, “to promote the election of any person” cannot be the objective of a criminal conspiracy because it’s not a crime. The reason the jury must be unanimous about the objective of a conspiracy is that the objective is the intended crime. In §17-152, however, there is no intended crime unless what the statute confusingly calls “unlawful means” are factored in. Ergo, the so-called unlawful means are not really means; they are ends. Simply stated, what the statute labels “unlawful means” are the most essential part of the objective — the activities that make the agreement illegal, that make it a criminal conspiracy.
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

Guilty on all 34 counts.
Period.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Guilty on all 34 counts.
Period.

I know, bookkeeping misdemeanors are very serious!

 

[Deadstick]

The room gasped at his words. Several people in the room called out Zelensky's name to Biden to point out his error. Hearing them, Biden clarified: 'No, we're going to beat Putin.'

What sickens me is all the Euro trash politicians who support the lunatic and take orders from him, well i say him but it's clear he isn't in charge of anything the dark people in the shadows who really control things are.

 

[MagicMike]

I know, bookkeeping misdemeanors are very serious!

In this case yes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In this case yes.

Serious like a Facebook meme.

 

[Faun]

If the "unlawful means" are a crime, charge them.

Just don't bring in a legal action, influencing an election.

Why? They went for a felony conviction instead of a misdemeanor charge.

 

[Faun]

Influencing the election was the second crime that made the first crime a felony.

But influencing an election is not a crime.

You must have missed the word "illegally."

I was mocking the "illegally" claim.

It's illegal to illegally influence an election. LOL!

What about the statute’s reference to “unlawful means”? Merchan and Bragg interpret that merely to state, literally, the means by which the conspirators seek their objective. The criminal law distinguishes a conspiracy’s end from the means by which conspirators seek to achieve it. It is the end — the objective — on which jurors must unanimously agree; they need not be unanimous as to means (the latter are often not even alleged in a conspiracy indictment). That was Merchan’s rationalization for instructing the jurors that they needn’t be unanimous regarding the “unlawful means.”

Alas, while literalism is usually desirable in interpreting statutory text, here it invites error. To repeat, “to promote the election of any person” cannot be the objective of a criminal conspiracy because it’s not a crime. The reason the jury must be unanimous about the objective of a conspiracy is that the objective is the intended crime. In §17-152, however, there is no intended crime unless what the statute confusingly calls “unlawful means” are factored in. Ergo, the so-called unlawful means are not really means; they are ends. Simply stated, what the statute labels “unlawful means” are the most essential part of the objective — the activities that make the agreement illegal, that make it a criminal conspiracy.
ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

The "means" were conspiring to commit a crime to influence the election.

 

[Faun]

I know, bookkeeping misdemeanors are very serious!

They certainly are when it's to cover up another crime.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why? They went for a felony conviction instead of a misdemeanor charge.

Because it's a fake charge.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The "means" were conspiring to commit a crime to influence the election.

That's a misdemeanor. Influencing an election isn't a crime, let alone a felony.