is it a stretch to say barr is guilty of coverups?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 hours ago, homersapien said:

How can my opinion that shaming Trump is ******* hilarious be "wrong"?

I can verify that is my true and accurate opinion. 

And BS on you answering my questions "with absolutely no reluctance".  You damn well knew when I asked that the "punishment" associated with a motion of censure is based on shaming and stigmatization.  You could have just said that instead of providing me sources to read up on it.

And I don't know what you mean by saying "substantive arguments mean nothing to me". 

Did I not concede you were correct in stating the legal precedent? So what exactly are you referring to by "substantive arguments"?

You need to be more thoughtful in your statements.  As a student of law, I can only assume you have it in you. You have a lot more in common with David that I would have imagined. I expect more from a law student. (I hope you aren't flunking out.)

 

So, back to the discussion:  Are you now arguing that "shaming" Trump with a motion of censure is actual, real punishment and therefore, such a motion of censure is equivalent to a bill of attainder and  should be ruled unconstitutional? 

Is that your argument?  Please try to answer directly without obfuscation.

Like

 

**says the man-child who continually illustrates his alleged desire for civility of discussion, and who bestows upon the forum numerous articles day in and day out, but whines like a little b***h when someone else provides him with the same "to read up on."**

How's that for "obfuscation," son? 

Aside, you're completely missing the essence of the discussion. The focus is not on, as you would have it, baseless emotional arguments [which are void of any authority] attempting to apply different standards of what legislative acts comport with established notions of punishment on the mere basis of the recipient (e.g., Mean Trump vs Nicer President). Further, the sufficiency and soundness of the notions at play (previously expounded upon in my own words and those of the article) are not dictated by subjective perceptions conjured up in ether, i.e., yours. This is all to your detriment. 

You'll need to tighten up on the loose ends before we can proceed. I expect more from a retired scientist. But then again, these tactics might fly in science realm... but they are patently meaningless here. You will not create standards out of thin air. The cookie will not crumble that way. Got it?

Now, be a good boy and I will ease up. 

*I might not be student of the law anymore. Could have transitioned into another field. You may have no clue what I do, so you'll need to find another jab to rely on, you old fart (at least I am 100% certain on that ). Don't worry, I'm still richer and better looking than you. 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

13 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

**says the man-child who continually illustrates his alleged desire for civility of discussion, and who bestows upon the forum numerous articles day in and day out, but whines like a little b***h when someone else provides him with the same "to read up on."**

How's that for "obfuscation," son? 

Aside, you're completely missing the essence of the discussion. The focus is not on, as you would have it, baseless emotional arguments [which are void of any authority] attempting to apply different standards of what legislative acts comport with established notions of punishment on the mere basis of the recipient (e.g., Mean Trump vs Nicer President). Further, the sufficiency and soundness of the notions at play (previously expounded upon in my own words and those of the article) are not dictated by subjective perceptions conjured up in ether, i.e., yours. This is all to your detriment. 

You'll need to tighten up on the loose ends before we can proceed. I expect more from a retired scientist. But then again, these tactics might fly in science realm... but they are patently meaningless here. You will not create standards out of thin air. The cookie will not crumble that way. Got it?

Now, be a good boy and I will ease up. 

*I might not be student of the law anymore. Could have transitioned into another field. You may have no clue what I do, so you'll need to find another jab to rely on, you old fart (at least I am 100% certain on that ). Don't worry, I'm still richer and better looking than you. 

 

Thanks for the straightforward answer - no obfuscation there!  

(I will admit the highlighted paragraph is damn funny!  )

I am disappointed in you.  Your acting like a kid who knocks the game board over because they don't like the way it's going.

And I still don't really know what your bottom line argument is. Do you think a motion of censure is constitutional or not?

Finally, assuming you are a law student is most certainly not a "jab", just the opposite, it's a compliment.  Geez, what a snowflake. 

Why so touchy?  Did you flunk out?  If so, I apologize for bringing it up.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

46 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Do you think a motion of censure is constitutional or not?

re-read the entire thread. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Did you flunk out?

Yep. I am a farmer now. Oops, shouldn't have told you that.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

re-read the entire thread. 

See?  Here we go. 

All you had to do is say "yes" or "no".

You obfuscate and evade like Trump lies.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yep. I am a farmer now. Oops, shouldn't have told you that.

Well, if you are telling the truth, I am sorry about that.

You have a real talent for obfuscating and prevaricating.  Probably would have made a decent lawyer. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

21 minutes ago, homersapien said:

See?  Here we go. 

All you had to do is say "yes" or "no".

You obfuscate and evade like Trump lies.

I guess that means I’m Presidential. Thanks.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You have a real talent for obfuscating and prevaricating.  Probably would have made a decent lawyer.  

Good stuff brother Homer 

[homersapien 11,393]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I guess that means I’m Presidential. Thanks.

Apparently.

But you still have a lot of work to do regarding developing corruption skills.  And I don't think you are a psychopath.  Narcissistic?  maybe, psychopath? no.