Random Politics & Religion #24

Wrong, and wrong.

Or are you going to say that your "definition" of perjury trumps the legal definition of perjury?

Thousands yearly. Unfortunately, there is no separate reporting for non-violent crime on the FBI database. But to say it's nearly impossible to prove Perjury is saying that it's nearly impossible to breath.

Just because it's part of your beliefs doesn't mean the above statement isn't bigoted.

And by you, I don't specifically mean you, KN.

The definitions you posted are the same thing but using legal terms. You serious right now?

I meant it is impossible prove Perjury in Comey's statement.

I know you're not religious but you like to hang off the side of the persecution train.

It's not a religious test. More of a *** test.

Except, you know, you say he didn't commit perjury because, you know, he wasn't "aware" of the memo, even though he really was.

So am I wrong or lying in this situation or did I just forget?

Could be either, but you don't need to actually be lying to be convicted of perjury.

Comey confirmed that under our Constitution, the president has the authority to direct the FBI to stop investigating any individual. I paraphrase, because the transcript is not yet available: the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.

As a matter of law, Comey is 100 percent correct. As I have long argued, and as Comey confirmed in his written statement, our history shows that many presidents—from Adams to Jefferson, to Lincoln, to Roosevelt, to Kennedy, to Bush 1, and to Obama – have directed the Justice Department with regard to ongoing investigations. The history is clear, the precedents are clear, the constitutional structure is clear, and common sense is clear./quote]

No matter how you cut it, even if "hope" was a secret code for Comey to act in a certain way (which it wasn't), Trump didn't break any laws by doing so. It's absurd to think he would HAVE to. He doesn't have to beat around the bush, wink his eyes and jab his subject with his elbow. He has the authority to say "stop".

What is the argument here? That Trump didn't want to come out and just say it because then Comey could then expose him? Oh wait...

Could be either, but you don't need to actually be lying to be convicted of perjury.

Keep stretching eliroo.

You have to:

1) Take an oath to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth
2) Lie
3) Willfully lie (to protect those who lie without knowing they lied)
4) Materially lie (to protect those who willfully lie on subjects not associated with the testimony)

You cannot prove

So, Article VI doesn't exist in your reality? Or does it exist only when you want it to?

Oh Pleebo it's still too early for the "victimization at the hands of Christians" card.

He did neither of those. You cannot prove that when he answered the question he was aware of that memo. This is where you a wrong, and right now being a total idiot.

If its not useful to their immediate needs then it doesn't exist. If at some future date it becomes useful then it does exist then. This also applies to history, science, technology and all forms of government.

But yeah the Dems went into this with a "We're going to Impeach Trump!!!" and they came out with a huge *** nothing. The left media is going nuclear and rearranging / redefining words to make it look like the testimony was a big loss for Trump and he's on the way out, while his supporters are laughing their ***'s off cause nothing came from this that they didn't already know.

One does not have to be a proven liar in order to be convicted of perjury.

Wait, did you just state that he wasn't under oath, nor did he lie?

religion fandom is a hobby.

Wait, did you just state that he wasn't under oath, nor did he lie?

Yeah KN, Nausi never "denies reality".