Law Professor: Trump Jr. may have violated Espionage Act

[Ted Frazier]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

That was your fifth comment in the thread, without making an argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you. Wanna make it six?
You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

 

[easyt65]

There's no question that Trump and his entire fucking family are a bunch of traitors. Trump maybe the first president that gets convicted of treason against his own country.

Why, because you snowflakes say so?

Hillary Clinton committed numerous crimes during her unauthorized personal server scandal, to include ESPIONAGE, according to Former FBI Director Comey. His explanation that she is innocent because she was too stupid to know she was doing it is BS, as even Comey knows that by law ignorance of the law is not an acceptable legal defense.

Barak Obama, aside from aiding terrorists / Mexican Drug Cartels / Human Traffickers / violent Illegals / etc... for 8 years, and his administration committed / facilitated numerous crimes - to include ESPIONAGE according to the Directors of both the NSA and FBI - in an effort to seditiously undermine / overthrow Trump.

D-Debbie Wasserman-Schulz intentionally committed ESPIONAGE by hiring terrorist-connected, criminal-record bearing, murdering, kidnapping/extorting Pakistani spies, gave them illegal access to classified House documents / files (for the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Intelligence) and to DNC e-mails - she then re-hired the spies and gave them access to the same material after they had been banned from the House and had begun being investigated for Espionage.

...yet you say nothing.

And you snowflakes, who have treasonously called for military coups and assassinations, continue to seditiously push your un-substantiated conspiracy theories. Every time you present another conspiracy theory it blows up in your faces.

In this case, for example, AFTER THE DEPT OF IMMIGRATION DENIED PUTIN'S LAWYER'S ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES, Barry, his corrupt US AG, and his head of Homeland Security (Jeh Johnson) bypassed the Dept of Immigration and gave Putin's Lawyer a 'special' rare 'Parole' entry Visa - one 'usually reserved for Humanitarian Emergencies' - so she could get into the country. How nice of Barry to do the Leader, who supposedly interfered in our election, a favor...

While here, Putin's lawyer was escorted around by Hillary's lawyer...I guess she forgot to mention that...and how coincidentally convenient. Also while here, Putin's Lawyer met with Democrats and Republicans and tried to meet with Hillary and Putin. She had Hillary's lawyer's ear, and then she reportedly met with Trump.

In the meeting itself, it was revealed, Obama's own Russian Translator / ex-FBI official just happened to be there. Gee, another Obama administration 'plant' who just happened to be in the room, the translator that was chosen.

So she would not have been in the country had Barry not done Putin a favor. Hillary's lawyer escorted her around. And Barry's man was in the meeting. Everything about this screams 'Obama set-up', like he and Valerie Jarrett have been trying to do - take down Trump - since Hillary lost.

And you sheep keep attacking Trump because the Democrats, who stole your ability to pick your candidate by rigging their Primaries, tell you to do so in defense of the worst candidate in US history, a career criminal politician who should never have been on the ballot on election day because she should have been forced out for being under multiple FBI criminal investigations for crimes she DID commit.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

I hate when you call someone stupid or an imbecile and screw up on your sentence..

Well, I can't say I hate that, but I do recognize the hypocrisy of one's using a grammatical error as a basis for declaring someone else stupid. We all make grammatical errors, and only a few of them and in a few instances is it clear that the mistake be rightly attributable to ignorance or idiocy rather than merely being an honest mistake.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

I hate when you call someone stupid or an imbecile and screw up on your sentence..

Well, I can't say I hate that, but I do recognize the hypocrisy of one's using a grammatical error as a basis for declaring someone else stupid. We all make grammatical errors, and only a few of them and in a few instances is it clear that the mistake be rightly attributable to ignorance or idiocy rather than merely being an honest mistake.

That's your sixth post in this thread without making any argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you.
Wanna make it seven?

 

[rightwinger]

There's no question that Trump and his entire fucking family are a bunch of traitors. Trump maybe the first president that gets convicted of treason against his own country.

There will have to be a smoking gun

Namely, that Trump offered policy concessions in return for help in winning the election

That would be treason

 

[iceberg]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

ouch.

now that's a bitchslap to the OP.

 

[iceberg]

And you wrote:

​

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

I hate when you call someone stupid or an imbecile and screw up on your sentence..

Well, I can't say I hate that, but I do recognize the hypocrisy of one's using a grammatical error as a basis for declaring someone else stupid. We all make grammatical errors, and only a few of them and in a few instances is it clear that the mistake be rightly attributable to ignorance or idiocy rather than merely being an honest mistake.

That's your sixth post in this thread without making any argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you.
Wanna make it seven?

well you're up to 809 without being at all productive so cut some slack to others man.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

That was your fifth comment in the thread, without making an argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you. Wanna make it six?
You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

No, it wasn't. My first comment in this thread is here: Law Professor: Trump Jr. may have violated Espionage Act

You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him, and I haven't an authoritative basis, without doing a lot of research, to expound on the ideas he shared; at this time his essay will suffice. Even if I disagreed with him, I, having no formal portfolio in legal theory and practice, would not deign on my own to refute his analysis of the law. If a comparably qualified attorney/jurist published a direct counterargument to Paradis', I might read it and then choose the position that I find more sound or more ethical or more practical, or some preponderant combination of the three.

 

[usmbguest5318]

And you wrote:

​

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

I hate when you call someone stupid or an imbecile and screw up on your sentence..

Well, I can't say I hate that, but I do recognize the hypocrisy of one's using a grammatical error as a basis for declaring someone else stupid. We all make grammatical errors, and only a few of them and in a few instances is it clear that the mistake be rightly attributable to ignorance or idiocy rather than merely being an honest mistake.

That's your sixth post in this thread without making any argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you.
Wanna make it seven?

Paradis owns you.

This is the second time you've said that, and in neither instance were you correct. You'd do well not to assume you know what's in someone else's mind and that they've not expressly shared with you.

 

[Ted Frazier]

It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

That was your fifth comment in the thread, without making an argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you. Wanna make it six?
You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

No, it wasn't. My first comment in this thread is here: Law Professor: Trump Jr. may have violated Espionage Act

You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him, and I haven't an authoritative basis, without doing a lot of research, to expound on the ideas he shared; at this time his essay will suffice. Even if I disagreed with him, I, having no formal portfolio in legal theory and practice, would not deign on my own to refute his analysis of the law. If a comparably qualified attorney/jurist published a direct counterargument to Paradis', I might read it and then choose the position that I find more sound or more ethical or more practical, or some preponderant combination of the three.

That was your seventh post in this thread without making any argument against the law professor. Wanna make it 8?

 

[koshergrl]

And you wrote:

​

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

I hate when you call someone stupid or an imbecile and screw up on your sentence..

Well, I can't say I hate that, but I do recognize the hypocrisy of one's using a grammatical error as a basis for declaring someone else stupid. We all make grammatical errors, and only a few of them and in a few instances is it clear that the mistake be rightly attributable to ignorance or idiocy rather than merely being an honest mistake.

That's your sixth post in this thread without making any argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you.
Wanna make it seven?

Why would he make an argument "against the law professor"? That's just ad hom.

Your "argument", meanwhile, consists of someone's opinion of the possibility of a potential crime.

Anything is *possible* and *possibility* has no relevance. It is *possible* that you are a lying leftist pig. So what?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

That was your fifth comment in the thread, without making an argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you. Wanna make it six?
You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

No, it wasn't. My first comment in this thread is here: Law Professor: Trump Jr. may have violated Espionage Act

You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him, and I haven't an authoritative basis, without doing a lot of research, to expound on the ideas he shared; at this time his essay will suffice. Even if I disagreed with him, I, having no formal portfolio in legal theory and practice, would not deign on my own to refute his analysis of the law. If a comparably qualified attorney/jurist published a direct counterargument to Paradis', I might read it and then choose the position that I find more sound or more ethical or more practical, or some preponderant combination of the three.

That was your seventh post in this thread without making any argument against the law professor. Wanna make it 8?

I don't often agree with koshergrl, but in this instance, I must remark that here supposition about you (noted below) is taking on increasing degrees of likelihood for being correct.

It is *possible* that you are a lying leftist pig.

Why do I think she may be correct? Because you keep remarking upon my not saying anything to refute Prof. Paradis' position and how Paradis, in your words, "owns me." I've told you he does not and I've told you why I've not said anything to refute him, but you've not actually bothered to read and comprehend the post in which I did so. I'm going to repost my explanation because I can't think of any clearer way to say it.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him...

I've also included a link to the definition of "furthermore," just in case that word escapes your understanding.

 

[Ted Frazier]

Would you tell me why the legal opinion of a physics professor whose specialty is lasers is something one should consider as well founded? Is the guy also a law professor or holder of a juris doctorate? I'd no sooner ask or accept as credible a physics professor's views on legal theory and practice than I would a lawyer's views on theory and behavior of light.

The point is this: how did you get "laser professor" out the description provided for Paradis. The article clearly says, "Michel Paradis is an international and constitutional litigator presently with the United States Department of Defense." Did you actually read the article? I have to ask because you didn't even spell the man's name correctly.

You embarrassed yourself:

And you wrote:

Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

That was your fifth comment in the thread, without making an argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you. Wanna make it six?
You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

No, it wasn't. My first comment in this thread is here: Law Professor: Trump Jr. may have violated Espionage Act

You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him, and I haven't an authoritative basis, without doing a lot of research, to expound on the ideas he shared; at this time his essay will suffice. Even if I disagreed with him, I, having no formal portfolio in legal theory and practice, would not deign on my own to refute his analysis of the law. If a comparably qualified attorney/jurist published a direct counterargument to Paradis', I might read it and then choose the position that I find more sound or more ethical or more practical, or some preponderant combination of the three.

That was your seventh post in this thread without making any argument against the law professor. Wanna make it 8?

I don't often agree with koshergrl, but in this instance, I must remark that here supposition about you (noted below) is taking on increasing degrees of likelihood for being correct.

It is *possible* that you are a lying leftist pig.

Why do I think she may be correct? Because you keep remarking upon my not saying anything to refute Prof. Paradis' position and how Paradis, in your words, "owns me." I've told you he does not and I've told you why I've not said anything to refute him, but you've not actually bothered to read and comprehend the post in which I did so. I'm going to repost my explanation because I can't think of any clearer way to say it.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him...

I've also included a link to the definition of "furthermore," just in case that word escapes your understanding.

You contradict yourself. You say you do not refute his argument, but you accuse me of not mentioning the post in which you allegedly refuted his argument. Embarrassing.

 

[usmbguest5318]

And you wrote:

​

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

That was your fifth comment in the thread, without making an argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you. Wanna make it six?
You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

No, it wasn't. My first comment in this thread is here: Law Professor: Trump Jr. may have violated Espionage Act

You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him, and I haven't an authoritative basis, without doing a lot of research, to expound on the ideas he shared; at this time his essay will suffice. Even if I disagreed with him, I, having no formal portfolio in legal theory and practice, would not deign on my own to refute his analysis of the law. If a comparably qualified attorney/jurist published a direct counterargument to Paradis', I might read it and then choose the position that I find more sound or more ethical or more practical, or some preponderant combination of the three.

That was your seventh post in this thread without making any argument against the law professor. Wanna make it 8?

I don't often agree with koshergrl, but in this instance, I must remark that here supposition about you (noted below) is taking on increasing degrees of likelihood for being correct.

It is *possible* that you are a lying leftist pig.

Why do I think she may be correct? Because you keep remarking upon my not saying anything to refute Prof. Paradis' position and how Paradis, in your words, "owns me." I've told you he does not and I've told you why I've not said anything to refute him, but you've not actually bothered to read and comprehend the post in which I did so. I'm going to repost my explanation because I can't think of any clearer way to say it.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him...

I've also included a link to the definition of "furthermore," just in case that word escapes your understanding.

You contradict yourself. You say you do not refute his argument, but you accuse me of not mentioning the post in which you allegedly refuted his argument. Embarrassing.

OMG! Your reading comprehension skills are severely and indeed impaired/deficient. That or you're just a basal prevaricator. I was sort of half joking (albeit derisively) when I earlier alluded to that being so. Now I know it is so.

BTW, you're the only person alleging I refuted Paradis.

 

[Ted Frazier]

And you wrote:

​

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed. You described the man as a "laser professor," not I. I merely responded to what you wrote.

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

That was your fifth comment in the thread, without making an argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you. Wanna make it six?
You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

No, it wasn't. My first comment in this thread is here: Law Professor: Trump Jr. may have violated Espionage Act

You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him, and I haven't an authoritative basis, without doing a lot of research, to expound on the ideas he shared; at this time his essay will suffice. Even if I disagreed with him, I, having no formal portfolio in legal theory and practice, would not deign on my own to refute his analysis of the law. If a comparably qualified attorney/jurist published a direct counterargument to Paradis', I might read it and then choose the position that I find more sound or more ethical or more practical, or some preponderant combination of the three.

That was your seventh post in this thread without making any argument against the law professor. Wanna make it 8?

I don't often agree with koshergrl, but in this instance, I must remark that here supposition about you (noted below) is taking on increasing degrees of likelihood for being correct.

It is *possible* that you are a lying leftist pig.

Why do I think she may be correct? Because you keep remarking upon my not saying anything to refute Prof. Paradis' position and how Paradis, in your words, "owns me." I've told you he does not and I've told you why I've not said anything to refute him, but you've not actually bothered to read and comprehend the post in which I did so. I'm going to repost my explanation because I can't think of any clearer way to say it.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him...

I've also included a link to the definition of "furthermore," just in case that word escapes your understanding.

You contradict yourself. You say you do not refute his argument, but you accuse me of not mentioning the post in which you allegedly refuted his argument. Embarrassing.

OMG! Your reading comprehension skills are severely and indeed impaired/deficient. That or you're just a basal prevaricator. I was sort of half joking (albeit derisively) when I earlier alluded to that being so. Now I know it is so.

BTW, you're the only person alleging I refuted Paradis.

Good boy. Now I want you to tell Steve McGarrett that the law professor made a good case for the Espionage Act. McGarrett posted a comment quoting a Trump Jr - committed- no- crimes theorist.
In going to use you against Trump lovers, since you allegedly liked Paradis' analysis.

 

[Avatar4321]

There's no question that Trump and his entire fucking family are a bunch of traitors. Trump maybe the first president that gets convicted of treason against his own country.

If there is no question, where is the evidence?

 

[Lewdog]

Democrat Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz: No crimes were committed.

Alan Dershowitz destroys Democrats' 'unconstitutional' argument against Donald Trump Jr.

Alan Dershowitz: 'I don't see any crime' that Donald Trump Jr. committed

Sorry, since when do you trust the word of a Jew? Is it one of those things you only do when it is convenient for you?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Right wingers asking which laws we think may have been broken by participants in the Trump Tower meeting would probably find this article informative. It is written by Michael Paradis, laser professor at Georgetown and Columbia:

PARADIS (7-15-2017): According to the AP report, “Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to Trump Jr. and suggested that making the information public could help the campaign.” And receiving this plastic folder, assuming it really happened, may have implicated the participants in espionage.
Paradis links to other experts analyzing additional laws that Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort may have violated. Wonderful article.

Could Trump Jr., Kushner, or Manafort Be Charged Under the Espionage Act?

I heard he may have unicorns held hostage in his basement.

 

[iceberg]

OH. So we have one guy typing a and the other one just addressing the fact about me having typed laser instead of law by mistake in my Swype keyboard. Note that I wrote law professor in the title, so you knew this was a typo. So far no right winger has laid out an argument against the article by the law professor.

me having typed laser instead of law

Okay, fine. It was a typo of some sort.

• Out of curiosity, how does one, namely you, type "laser" when one means to type "law?" I'm curious because besides beginning with "la" they are neither similar or similar in meaning..."laser" is even two additional letters ("er") ..."las," "lae," and "laq," rather than "law," are each typos one easily imagines being made...ess, ee, and que are all adjacent to double-u on a qwerty keyboard.
• Could you not have simply written "I made a typo when I wrote 'laser'" as your initial reply to my remarks? Instead of doing that, you embarked on the derisory line of what you supposed is my having embarrassed myself. Truly, I'm not an unreasonable person. If someone tells me they made a mistake, I'll "okay" and move on. I think most rational people would do the same thing.

That was your fifth comment in the thread, without making an argument against the law professor. Paradis owns you. Wanna make it six?
You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

No, it wasn't. My first comment in this thread is here: Law Professor: Trump Jr. may have violated Espionage Act

You choose to discuss typos as an excuse not to address Paradis' article.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him, and I haven't an authoritative basis, without doing a lot of research, to expound on the ideas he shared; at this time his essay will suffice. Even if I disagreed with him, I, having no formal portfolio in legal theory and practice, would not deign on my own to refute his analysis of the law. If a comparably qualified attorney/jurist published a direct counterargument to Paradis', I might read it and then choose the position that I find more sound or more ethical or more practical, or some preponderant combination of the three.

That was your seventh post in this thread without making any argument against the law professor. Wanna make it 8?

I don't often agree with koshergrl, but in this instance, I must remark that here supposition about you (noted below) is taking on increasing degrees of likelihood for being correct.

It is *possible* that you are a lying leftist pig.

Why do I think she may be correct? Because you keep remarking upon my not saying anything to refute Prof. Paradis' position and how Paradis, in your words, "owns me." I've told you he does not and I've told you why I've not said anything to refute him, but you've not actually bothered to read and comprehend the post in which I did so. I'm going to repost my explanation because I can't think of any clearer way to say it.

I didn't discuss Paradis' remarks in the essay he posted because you, in your OP, represented the man as a laser professor, not law professor. Furthermore, I agree with him...

I've also included a link to the definition of "furthermore," just in case that word escapes your understanding.

You contradict yourself. You say you do not refute his argument, but you accuse me of not mentioning the post in which you allegedly refuted his argument. Embarrassing.

OMG! Your reading comprehension skills are severely and indeed impaired/deficient. That or you're just a basal prevaricator. I was sort of half joking (albeit derisively) when I earlier alluded to that being so. Now I know it is so.

BTW, you're the only person alleging I refuted Paradis.

Good boy. Now I want you to tell Steve McGarrett that the law professor made a good case for the Espionage Act. McGarrett posted a comment quoting a Trump Jr - committed- no- crimes theorist.
In going to use you against Trump lovers, since you allegedly liked Paradis' analysis.

yea, you'll find that statement right after you admit there are also good cases for nothing being wrong except the burr up your ass.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I want you to tell Steve McGarrett that

I will not do that. He is an individual with whom I do not willfully have conversation.