His attorney argues that Congress intended the obstruction law to apply only to instances where defendants tampered with physical evidence, such as destroying or forging documents used in proceedings.
The court is sympathetic to this bullshit argument. Since it’s not demonizing black people, you ignored it.
Have a good pipedream
Expecting you to quit whatabouting for Trump’s inbred violent minions is a bit of an unrealistic expectation, yes.
Because I actually read the article instead of immediately being like “buh whuubut BLM?!??!?!”
Removed by mod
It’s in the article that you ignored because you’d rather demonize BLM. Don’t bother me again.
Removed by mod
From the article you will never read:
The court is sympathetic to this bullshit argument. Since it’s not demonizing black people, you ignored it.
Expecting you to quit whatabouting for Trump’s inbred violent minions is a bit of an unrealistic expectation, yes.
Removed by mod
You’ve admitted they’re illegitimate already. They’re sympathetic to any argument as long as its application yields results Republicans want.
Because they want to limit the scope of the law to documents only. Why would they question the part of the law they want to keep?
Removed by mod
This thread is now 4 days old, and the comment to which you responded is two days old.
You are trying to waste my time, and I’m not going to participate in this discussion any longer.