>>6641183

lawfag here

i have NO idea wtf barr is talking about

the definition is very clear and war and other cirsumstances are not a requirement

he is parsing/misleading for some reason

the only legit question he could raise for "legal definition" is not a definition but an element that he did refer to

INTENT

intent is not a legal definition it is a required element of all crimes

he was wrong either intentionally or not

if he meant he could not prove intent he should have said so

sloppy or maybe intentional if yoiu want to give him benefit of the doubt

i myself do not

>>6641214

weismann is the brains

mueller has always been a tool

>>6641293

how stupid

you know what an aryan is?

prolly not

>>6641555

got ya

if you think it means "white" you dont know what an aryan is

dumfuk useful idiot

>>6641563

yeah it would be awful of the actual words of the constitutution were followed

and i agree abuse of intel power is not treason PER SE

but if Q and POTUS are to be accurate more did occur

IMO planting evidence to support a removal of POTUS is treason

>>6641649

>planting evidence with foreign assistance

TREASON

>>6641658

Not making the case

if he was referring to intent that is typical for prosecutors to look first for proof of intent

he said maybe they were just over zeaolous or blinded by arrogance or bias

so yes - not guilty he said