Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mens rea is dismissed by oktexas as irrelevant, is that ignorance, or mendacity?
See: Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Definition
"The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent."
"It is a principle of natural justice, and of our law, that actus facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The intent and the Act must both concur to constitute the crime."
Oooh, that's great, cause I didn't intend to kill that bank guard who mistook me for my cousin!Mens rea is dismissed by oktexas as irrelevant, is that ignorance, or mendacity?
See: Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Definition
"The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent."
"It is a principle of natural justice, and of our law, that actus facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The intent and the Act must both concur to constitute the crime."
You can repeat Mens rea. Mens rea, Mens rea till the freaking cows come home while ignoring the fact that she fully knew what she was doing was wrong, I don't really give a fuck. So why don't you continue this conversation with the voices in your head, I'm done.
That's exactly the point of mens rea is to prove she fully knew what she was doing was wrong. Without that you have no case.
Her continual lies proves conscientiousness of guilt. Like claiming she had permission form State for the server, the IG report said that NO ONE gave her permission to use a private server instead of the state.gov system. She also was aware of records keeping policies within the dept and conscientiously chose to ignore them. In his testimony before the house, Comey answered 5 consecutive questions from Trey Gowdy indicating she lied to congress about the facts found by the FBI. I could go on proving mens rea but you've already made up your mind and chose not to be confused by the facts. Carry on.
The FBI director didn't agree. He was very clear in his testimony. Now, you can jump up and down and cry that he sold out or was otherwise influenced but don't forget that your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.
No it doesn't require a conspiracy, it's a difference in legal opinions and strategies, many career prosecutors disagreed with Comey's assessment that no prosecutor would proceed on those facts. But no one can be proven right without the facts objectively being presented to a grand jury, can they? Take a look at a brief history of the DOJ under this regime. When Holder was found in contempt of congress, law required the DOJ to present the case to a grand jury, the DOJ refused to follow the law. Holder was small potatoes compared to the hildabitch. DOJ lawyers flat lied to the judge in TX, nothing happened to them. This regime has a pattern of not allowing it's members to be prosecuted in any way. Is that a conspiracy, nope, it's political policy.
Your rhetoric ("this regime") is biased and partisan, so much so that you have no credibility; "many prosecutors" is an opinion, a biased one since many career prosecutors would not have taken the matter to a Grand Jury and even less to a preliminary hearing, knowing the facts might not (IMO Will not) sustain a ruling to holding HRC to answer.
Political theater is the sum and substance (so to speak) of The H. of Rep. under both Boehner and Ryan; they appeal to you simply because they reinforce your biases and prejudice.
Mens rea is dismissed by oktexas as irrelevant, is that ignorance, or mendacity?
See: Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Definition
"The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent."
"It is a principle of natural justice, and of our law, that actus facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The intent and the Act must both concur to constitute the crime."
"Regime"?Me deflect? LOL:
"Mens rea is an important element in an indictment. This may be too abstract for you to understand, but I'll try to edify you:
"You are driving an car on a road you've never traveled before. A police officer pulls you over for not stopping at a stop sign. You claim you never saw one and get a ticket. You go back and see there is a stop sign, and the stop sign is hidden by the limbs of a shade tree. You photograph the scene and protest the ticket. You plead NG and provide the photo as evidence, Are you guilty or innocent?"
There is no crime. Let the first person who has never made a mistake toss the first stone. And that ain't you bub.
You can repeat Mens rea. Mens rea, Mens rea till the freaking cows come home while ignoring the fact that she fully knew what she was doing was wrong, I don't really give a fuck. So why don't you continue this conversation with the voices in your head, I'm done.
That's exactly the point of mens rea is to prove she fully knew what she was doing was wrong. Without that you have no case.
Her continual lies proves conscientiousness of guilt. Like claiming she had permission form State for the server, the IG report said that NO ONE gave her permission to use a private server instead of the state.gov system. She also was aware of records keeping policies within the dept and conscientiously chose to ignore them. In his testimony before the house, Comey answered 5 consecutive questions from Trey Gowdy indicating she lied to congress about the facts found by the FBI. I could go on proving mens rea but you've already made up your mind and chose not to be confused by the facts. Carry on.
The FBI director didn't agree. He was very clear in his testimony. Now, you can jump up and down and cry that he sold out or was otherwise influenced but don't forget that your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.
No it doesn't require a conspiracy, it's a difference in legal opinions and strategies, many career prosecutors disagreed with Comey's assessment that no prosecutor would proceed on those facts. But no one can be proven right without the facts objectively being presented to a grand jury, can they? Take a look at a brief history of the DOJ under this regime. When Holder was found in contempt of congress, law required the DOJ to present the case to a grand jury, the DOJ refused to follow the law. Holder was small potatoes compared to the hildabitch. DOJ lawyers flat lied to the judge in TX, nothing happened to them. This regime has a pattern of not allowing it's members to be prosecuted in any way. Is that a conspiracy, nope, it's political policy.
"Regime"?You can repeat Mens rea. Mens rea, Mens rea till the freaking cows come home while ignoring the fact that she fully knew what she was doing was wrong, I don't really give a fuck. So why don't you continue this conversation with the voices in your head, I'm done.
That's exactly the point of mens rea is to prove she fully knew what she was doing was wrong. Without that you have no case.
Her continual lies proves conscientiousness of guilt. Like claiming she had permission form State for the server, the IG report said that NO ONE gave her permission to use a private server instead of the state.gov system. She also was aware of records keeping policies within the dept and conscientiously chose to ignore them. In his testimony before the house, Comey answered 5 consecutive questions from Trey Gowdy indicating she lied to congress about the facts found by the FBI. I could go on proving mens rea but you've already made up your mind and chose not to be confused by the facts. Carry on.
The FBI director didn't agree. He was very clear in his testimony. Now, you can jump up and down and cry that he sold out or was otherwise influenced but don't forget that your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.
No it doesn't require a conspiracy, it's a difference in legal opinions and strategies, many career prosecutors disagreed with Comey's assessment that no prosecutor would proceed on those facts. But no one can be proven right without the facts objectively being presented to a grand jury, can they? Take a look at a brief history of the DOJ under this regime. When Holder was found in contempt of congress, law required the DOJ to present the case to a grand jury, the DOJ refused to follow the law. Holder was small potatoes compared to the hildabitch. DOJ lawyers flat lied to the judge in TX, nothing happened to them. This regime has a pattern of not allowing it's members to be prosecuted in any way. Is that a conspiracy, nope, it's political policy.
You're deluded. It's over. The most you can hope for is hearings over supposed perjury.
"Regime"?That's exactly the point of mens rea is to prove she fully knew what she was doing was wrong. Without that you have no case.
Her continual lies proves conscientiousness of guilt. Like claiming she had permission form State for the server, the IG report said that NO ONE gave her permission to use a private server instead of the state.gov system. She also was aware of records keeping policies within the dept and conscientiously chose to ignore them. In his testimony before the house, Comey answered 5 consecutive questions from Trey Gowdy indicating she lied to congress about the facts found by the FBI. I could go on proving mens rea but you've already made up your mind and chose not to be confused by the facts. Carry on.
The FBI director didn't agree. He was very clear in his testimony. Now, you can jump up and down and cry that he sold out or was otherwise influenced but don't forget that your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.
No it doesn't require a conspiracy, it's a difference in legal opinions and strategies, many career prosecutors disagreed with Comey's assessment that no prosecutor would proceed on those facts. But no one can be proven right without the facts objectively being presented to a grand jury, can they? Take a look at a brief history of the DOJ under this regime. When Holder was found in contempt of congress, law required the DOJ to present the case to a grand jury, the DOJ refused to follow the law. Holder was small potatoes compared to the hildabitch. DOJ lawyers flat lied to the judge in TX, nothing happened to them. This regime has a pattern of not allowing it's members to be prosecuted in any way. Is that a conspiracy, nope, it's political policy.
You're deluded. It's over. The most you can hope for is hearings over supposed perjury.
A congressional referral has already been made to DOJ, of course they will refuse to act on it, just like they refused to present the contempt of congress referral on Holder to a grand jury as required by law.
"Regime"?Her continual lies proves conscientiousness of guilt. Like claiming she had permission form State for the server, the IG report said that NO ONE gave her permission to use a private server instead of the state.gov system. She also was aware of records keeping policies within the dept and conscientiously chose to ignore them. In his testimony before the house, Comey answered 5 consecutive questions from Trey Gowdy indicating she lied to congress about the facts found by the FBI. I could go on proving mens rea but you've already made up your mind and chose not to be confused by the facts. Carry on.
The FBI director didn't agree. He was very clear in his testimony. Now, you can jump up and down and cry that he sold out or was otherwise influenced but don't forget that your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.
No it doesn't require a conspiracy, it's a difference in legal opinions and strategies, many career prosecutors disagreed with Comey's assessment that no prosecutor would proceed on those facts. But no one can be proven right without the facts objectively being presented to a grand jury, can they? Take a look at a brief history of the DOJ under this regime. When Holder was found in contempt of congress, law required the DOJ to present the case to a grand jury, the DOJ refused to follow the law. Holder was small potatoes compared to the hildabitch. DOJ lawyers flat lied to the judge in TX, nothing happened to them. This regime has a pattern of not allowing it's members to be prosecuted in any way. Is that a conspiracy, nope, it's political policy.
You're deluded. It's over. The most you can hope for is hearings over supposed perjury.
A congressional referral has already been made to DOJ, of course they will refuse to act on it, just like they refused to present the contempt of congress referral on Holder to a grand jury as required by law.
More conspiracy?
Mens rea is dismissed by oktexas as irrelevant, is that ignorance, or mendacity?
See: Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Definition
"The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent."
"It is a principle of natural justice, and of our law, that actus facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The intent and the Act must both concur to constitute the crime."
I dismissed nothing, I proved you wrong, you just refuse to accept the facts.
"Regime"?That's exactly the point of mens rea is to prove she fully knew what she was doing was wrong. Without that you have no case.
Her continual lies proves conscientiousness of guilt. Like claiming she had permission form State for the server, the IG report said that NO ONE gave her permission to use a private server instead of the state.gov system. She also was aware of records keeping policies within the dept and conscientiously chose to ignore them. In his testimony before the house, Comey answered 5 consecutive questions from Trey Gowdy indicating she lied to congress about the facts found by the FBI. I could go on proving mens rea but you've already made up your mind and chose not to be confused by the facts. Carry on.
The FBI director didn't agree. He was very clear in his testimony. Now, you can jump up and down and cry that he sold out or was otherwise influenced but don't forget that your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.
No it doesn't require a conspiracy, it's a difference in legal opinions and strategies, many career prosecutors disagreed with Comey's assessment that no prosecutor would proceed on those facts. But no one can be proven right without the facts objectively being presented to a grand jury, can they? Take a look at a brief history of the DOJ under this regime. When Holder was found in contempt of congress, law required the DOJ to present the case to a grand jury, the DOJ refused to follow the law. Holder was small potatoes compared to the hildabitch. DOJ lawyers flat lied to the judge in TX, nothing happened to them. This regime has a pattern of not allowing it's members to be prosecuted in any way. Is that a conspiracy, nope, it's political policy.
You're deluded. It's over. The most you can hope for is hearings over supposed perjury.
A congressional referral has already been made to DOJ, of course they will refuse to act on it, just like they refused to present the contempt of congress referral on Holder to a grand jury as required by law.
"Regime"?Her continual lies proves conscientiousness of guilt. Like claiming she had permission form State for the server, the IG report said that NO ONE gave her permission to use a private server instead of the state.gov system. She also was aware of records keeping policies within the dept and conscientiously chose to ignore them. In his testimony before the house, Comey answered 5 consecutive questions from Trey Gowdy indicating she lied to congress about the facts found by the FBI. I could go on proving mens rea but you've already made up your mind and chose not to be confused by the facts. Carry on.
The FBI director didn't agree. He was very clear in his testimony. Now, you can jump up and down and cry that he sold out or was otherwise influenced but don't forget that your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.
No it doesn't require a conspiracy, it's a difference in legal opinions and strategies, many career prosecutors disagreed with Comey's assessment that no prosecutor would proceed on those facts. But no one can be proven right without the facts objectively being presented to a grand jury, can they? Take a look at a brief history of the DOJ under this regime. When Holder was found in contempt of congress, law required the DOJ to present the case to a grand jury, the DOJ refused to follow the law. Holder was small potatoes compared to the hildabitch. DOJ lawyers flat lied to the judge in TX, nothing happened to them. This regime has a pattern of not allowing it's members to be prosecuted in any way. Is that a conspiracy, nope, it's political policy.
You're deluded. It's over. The most you can hope for is hearings over supposed perjury.
A congressional referral has already been made to DOJ, of course they will refuse to act on it, just like they refused to present the contempt of congress referral on Holder to a grand jury as required by law.
Let's review a little history, shall we:
What was the Saturday Night Massacre? - Ask History
Later the Democrats held a hearing on Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court, and voted against him.
A little more dirty laundry on the Republican side of the aisle:
List of Reagan administration convictions.
And let's not forget the appearance of GWB's cabinet who engage in fear mongering to gin up the invasion of Iraq:
Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq
And yet the crazy right wing continue to call HRC a crook and President Obama a liar.
"Regime"?The FBI director didn't agree. He was very clear in his testimony. Now, you can jump up and down and cry that he sold out or was otherwise influenced but don't forget that your narrative requires a conspiracy to be valid. Mine does not.
No it doesn't require a conspiracy, it's a difference in legal opinions and strategies, many career prosecutors disagreed with Comey's assessment that no prosecutor would proceed on those facts. But no one can be proven right without the facts objectively being presented to a grand jury, can they? Take a look at a brief history of the DOJ under this regime. When Holder was found in contempt of congress, law required the DOJ to present the case to a grand jury, the DOJ refused to follow the law. Holder was small potatoes compared to the hildabitch. DOJ lawyers flat lied to the judge in TX, nothing happened to them. This regime has a pattern of not allowing it's members to be prosecuted in any way. Is that a conspiracy, nope, it's political policy.
You're deluded. It's over. The most you can hope for is hearings over supposed perjury.
A congressional referral has already been made to DOJ, of course they will refuse to act on it, just like they refused to present the contempt of congress referral on Holder to a grand jury as required by law.
Let's review a little history, shall we:
What was the Saturday Night Massacre? - Ask History
Later the Democrats held a hearing on Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court, and voted against him.
A little more dirty laundry on the Republican side of the aisle:
List of Reagan administration convictions.
And let's not forget the appearance of GWB's cabinet who engage in fear mongering to gin up the invasion of Iraq:
Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq
And yet the crazy right wing continue to call HRC a crook and President Obama a liar.
All the deflection noted, and remind us again which of the presidents you mentioned was officially declared liar of the year? LMAO
"Regime"?No it doesn't require a conspiracy, it's a difference in legal opinions and strategies, many career prosecutors disagreed with Comey's assessment that no prosecutor would proceed on those facts. But no one can be proven right without the facts objectively being presented to a grand jury, can they? Take a look at a brief history of the DOJ under this regime. When Holder was found in contempt of congress, law required the DOJ to present the case to a grand jury, the DOJ refused to follow the law. Holder was small potatoes compared to the hildabitch. DOJ lawyers flat lied to the judge in TX, nothing happened to them. This regime has a pattern of not allowing it's members to be prosecuted in any way. Is that a conspiracy, nope, it's political policy.
You're deluded. It's over. The most you can hope for is hearings over supposed perjury.
A congressional referral has already been made to DOJ, of course they will refuse to act on it, just like they refused to present the contempt of congress referral on Holder to a grand jury as required by law.
Let's review a little history, shall we:
What was the Saturday Night Massacre? - Ask History
Later the Democrats held a hearing on Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court, and voted against him.
A little more dirty laundry on the Republican side of the aisle:
List of Reagan administration convictions.
And let's not forget the appearance of GWB's cabinet who engage in fear mongering to gin up the invasion of Iraq:
Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq
And yet the crazy right wing continue to call HRC a crook and President Obama a liar.
All the deflection noted, and remind us again which of the presidents you mentioned was officially declared liar of the year? LMAO
Texan's are very stupid, I learned that at NTCSD the first day of boot camp. Is it the water in Texas, or something else (consider the ? rhetorical, as a Texan there is little you know)?
