He's a moron stooge. He didn't tell anyone shit. His masters are in charge.
jews in charge of all major institutions. What do you expect?
They're trying to make an obvious case where the court should be allowed to deny a government motion to dismiss a case. They're trying to find boundaries, and the court watching the state being bribed is an open and shut case of the court being party to corruption.
That's the point.
Because it's a hypothetical to establish boundaries.
The question is, do you think a judge should be allowed to not accept a dismissal of the case by the government if the judge watches the defendant bribe the prosecutor?
The relationship of those facts to the case are not of concern. That's a future question. The first question is to establish what SHOULD happen in that case, and then go from there.
It's not a strawman argument. It's a hypothetical argument.
This is why children shouldn't be listening to adult conversations. Lurk moar newfag.
Sullivan's lawyer isn't lying. She's evil. There's a difference.
Well depends on if you believe you can weaponize the truth.
Lies come in many shapes and sizes, and evil is good at using them all. But I take your point.