OFFICIAL: Donald Trump thread.

[1bad65]

I gave you TWO that were CONVICTED you moron. If you can't read and understand, then that's on you.

Just admit that you were wrong and tell me what I won

Correct, you did cite two convictions.

But in both cases there were underlying crimes.

Remember, this is the point you chose to challenge:

We dont convict people of obstruction of justice without an underlying crime.

And in this case there is no underlying crime.


You cited a legal argument it 'could be possible', and now you've cited two cases with convictions, but convictions where there were underlying crimes.

None of that refutes what I specifically stated.

[GGG Gloveking]

Was there a CONVICTION in that case?

I don't see one, and that word was clearly stated by me up front.

We dont convict people of obstruction of justice without an underlying crime.

And in this case there is no underlying crime.


See, there's that pesky word again.

Keep on tryin'.


(A tip; instead of solely focusing on 'winning', first make sure you know exactly what my point is, and thus what you will need in order to successfully refute it.)

Quick question for clarity. When you speak of underlying offense, 1) are you referring to a conviction for an underlying offense, or just being charged with an underlying offense, and 2) are you referring to the 'defendant' of the obstruction being either convicted or charged, or someone else being charged/convicted for an underlying offense?

[1bad65]

Quick question for clarity. When you speak of underlying offense, 1) are you referring to a conviction for an underlying offense, or just being charged with an underlying offense, and 2) are you referring to the 'defendant' of the obstruction being either convicted or charged, or someone else being charged/convicted for an underlying offense?

I may be confused as to what you're asking, but I think both.

To be specific, in the Stewart case there were convictions for the underlying crimes (insider trading iirc).

In the Libby case, Mr Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, but was also convicted of underlying crimes in the act of his obstruction, such as perjury, lying to investigators, etc. FOUR total convictions, so obviously you have 3 underlying crimes.

In both cases, there sure appear to be underlying crimes right there for all to see.

Remember, I predicted these two cases would be cited, and I was ready to go as you saw by how quickly I was able to point out those cases didnt fit the specific criteria I pointed out before he accepted the challenge.

[Tomjas]

Exactly! Dude has had me on ignore for a minute, then he thought he could play the gotcha game so he decided to take me off ignore.


Now that he knows he's wrong, he'll surely be placing me back on ignore. It's beyond pathetic.

Yep

Also notice how they have forgotten about the border now that Trump’s announcement has been revealed as fake news?

Like clockwork

[travestyny]

I may be confused as to what you're asking, but I think both.

To be specific, in the Stewart case there were convictions for the underlying crimes (insider trading iirc).

In the Libby case, Mr Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, but was also convicted of underlying crimes in the act of his obstruction, such as perjury, lying to investigators, etc. FOUR total convictions, so obviously you have 3 underlying crimes.

In both cases, there sure appear to be underlying crimes right there for all to see.

Remember, I predicted these two cases would be cited, and I was ready to go as you saw by how quickly I was able to point out those cases didnt fit the specific criteria I pointed out before he accepted the challenge.

Complete failure

The underlying crime for Martha Steward was insider trading. She was NOT convicted of that.

Yet she was convicted of obstruction.

Obstruction of justice recently reappeared in the headlines and generated confusion as to whether an underlying crime is required before charging an individual with obstruction of justice. This recent confusion probably came as a great surprise to lifestyle and media mogul Martha Stewart who in 2004 was convicted of obstruction of justice after a five week jury trial. Ms. Stewart served a sentence of five months in prison, five months of home confinement, two year’s probation, and paid a substantial monetary fine even though she was not charged with any underlying crime at the time of her trial.

https://will.illinois.edu/legalissue...ewart-revisted

As for Libby, the underlying crime was outing a CIA agent. Libby was found to have nothing to do with that, but he obstructed justice.

Says it here in plain English.

With no evidence that he had anything to do with the underlying offense, Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined $250,000.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/the-e...-scooter-libby

That ends your little challenge Tell me what I won! You should have kept me on ignore instead of willfully embarrassing yourself!

[travestyny]

Yep

Also notice how they have forgotten about the border now that Trump’s announcement has been revealed as fake news?

Like clockwork

Oy yea, they forgot about the border after he got clowned for not keeping his promise of Mexico paying for it. But you know how it is, bro. They are learning from Daddy Trump. When something goes wrong, deflect to something else...until that goes wrong. Rinse and repeat.

[1bad65]

Complete failure

The underlying crime for Martha Steward was insider trading. She was NOT convicted of that.

Um, where exactly did I say the person convicted of obstruction must also be convicted of the underlying crime?

Fact is, I didn't.

I clearly stated only that there only has to be an underlying crime, and in both the Stewart and Libby cases there were underlying crimes.

Dude, do you not think I crossed all my Ts and dotted my Is before I engaged with a rabid Gotcha! player like yourself?

That ends your little challenge Tell me what I won! You should have kept me on ignore instead of willfully embarrassing yourself!

Again my child, you're not the judge in this challenge.

Glove is.

And I await his opinion.


As I said earlier, do you think I'd engage you in a contest and actually allow you to be the judge of the contest and no doubt award yourself your 17,278th win??? Lmfao!!!!

Let's await Glove's word and quit trying to run up phantom Gotcha! points.

I know it's hard, but quit banging on your keyboard and try to wait for someone else (Glove in this case) to be the final word.

[travestyny]

Um, where exactly did I say the person convicted of obstruction must also be convicted of the underlying crime?

Fact is, I didn't.

I clearly stated only that there only has to be an underlying crime, and in both the Stewart and Libby cases there were underlying crimes.

LMAOOOOOOOOO. You big dummy. Your squirming isn't going to help you

Look at how pathetic you are I love it!

Dude, do you not think I crossed all my Ts and dotted my Is before I engaged with a rabid Gotcha! player like yourself?

You're a failure, son. LMAOOOOO. This is epic. Look what I made you do!

Again my child, you're not the judge in this challenge.

Glove is.

And I await his opinion.


As I said earlier, do you think I'd engage you in a contest and actually allow you to be the judge of the contest and no doubt award yourself your 17,278th win??? Lmfao!!!!

Let's await Glove's word and quit trying to run up phantom Gotcha! points.

I know it's hard, but quit banging on your keyboard and try to wait for someone else (Glove in this case) to be the final word.

Dude, I have the word of experts, I have entire articles written backing me up, I have verified court cases. You're done!!!! LMAOOOOOO. Utter embarrassment!

[travestyny]

We dont convict people of obstruction of justice without an underlying crime.

And in this case there is no underlying crime.

Martha Stewart. CONVICTED OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WITHOUT AN UNDERLYING CRIME.

While the Martha Stewart case is perhaps the most high profile instance of prosecuting a case for obstruction without an underlying crime, it is far from the only example.

https://will.illinois.edu/legalissue...ewart-revisted

R.I.P. 1sad

[1bad65]

LMAOOOOOOOOO. You big dummy. Your squirming isn't going to help you

You didnt answer my questions about the point you've challenged, and you're once again going in circles and patting yourself on the back.

Where did I specify the person being convicted of obstruction must also be convicted of the underlying crimes?

Please quote me saying that, and not just repeating your insults and win claims.


I thought we were done presenting our cases and were awaiting Glove's decision?? I'd given you the last word and everything.

Can you truly not be quiet and let others speak for once?

Please, either quote me saying what you're now claiming I did, or just sit back quietly and await Glove's decision.

Is that really too hard for you?


Damn dude, I take you off Ignore for a quick exercise, and my Notifications are gummed up in double digits before I can even blink. Sad, sad, sad.....