Lin's guessing like everyone else. Might he be right? Sure, but the name is so common… John Roberts on Fox, for example.
Oh jeezus, that settles it for me. This is the disgruntled DoJ ex-employee that worked for
Rosenstein and is currently involved with the Sharyl Attkisson trial. People believe the guy because
they want to hate on Rosenstein… the dude that cleared Trump. Gotcha.
True… unless they change the rules. Yikes.
I believe that's his call, but I'm not sure. Committee rules are different.
Thus proving my point…
Dude claims a lot of shit. Dude's a retard.
I proved that retards exist. Well, technically, YOU proved that retards exist. Thanks.
C'mon anon, that's pretty low energy for an autist. You can't do better than that? Oh wait, the whole
retard thing. Sorry. Forgot that you're a retard.
No, but code does encounter a state that isn't accounted for in the code, which causes a previously
unseen effect. That's what's called a bug, and if anon thinks code is, or should be, bug free, anon
is stupider than the retard I've already pointed out in here.
>tl;dr: CM is a fucking retard and has stupid hair.
I was right. The other retard isn't the biggest retard in here.
One of those invisible ear pieces, coupled with some grainy photography (low-quality digital image).
It means he's probably getting answers over wi-fi or bluetooth.
He may be, and one of these days one of you nitwits will actually offer up proof (hell, even evidence),
but until then, he's the reason Trump wasn't impeached for "muh Russian collusion."
People latch on to anyone that supports their beliefs. Right now, that person is Lin Wood for
conservatives. He's a good guy, probably even a good attorney. I wouldn't know, for that matter,
none of us would, we don't even know what he did for Sandman except the out of court settlement
with undisclosed terms.
>That does not mean the name in the flight logs isn't him
Correct, but until there's actual evidence it is, the null hypothesis is that it isn't, simply because
it's a common name.
>>>10738544 (You)
>Right - this is exactly my point. Too many anons working in the realm of "belief" instead of "facts".
Yup, seems a theme tonight. Well, most nights.
>>>10738542
>According to IL and WI state law, he quite literally was not. Read up on:
>3. Trafficking of weapons across state lines into WI.
If true, yes, but Lin claims he didn't do this, which changes the entire game. We shall see…
It's not round, it's an oblate spheroid. It's easy to prove that it's at least nearly a sphere: at any
point on the earth, except very near the poles, the sun ALWAYS moves across the sky 15
degrees per hour. It is physically impossible for that to occur otherwise.
Kek!
>OK, since you people still have done proper research, you do realize that WI law is similar to IL in regards to being underage and possession of a firearm, right?
I guess you chose not to read what I said.
The game changes if the firearm was from WI. "Intent" becomes almost impossible to prove.
He may still be convicted of a crime, but that's afar cry from intentional homicide if he transported
a firearm across state lines.
But keep pretending only you are paying attention.
>In (almost?) every State, rifles are treated differently to handguns.
In WI it is a misdemeanor to open carry a long gun under 18.
But that's different than carrying a long gun across state lines.
>"Intent" becomes almost impossible to prove.
More importantly, he wasn't already committing a felony. HUGE difference.
>He was not under direct supervision of a parent or guardian.
It's only a misdemeanor. Not sure why that's so hard.
Yes, that was my point. So he committed a misdemeanor, not a felony, by carrying the rifle.