Mike CernovichVerified account

What is he even talking about? Trump broke no laws, intent or no-intent.

I had to read this over a couple times for it to make sense.

"Hillary didn't intend to break the law!" "How can we know that?" "....Because she's a GIRL, stupid! She had no idea what she was doing then and she still doesn't!" "........ But.............. "

Ben, color inside the lines. You're off-base.

Uh, he’s right though. Comey read “intent” into the statutes HRC violated.

The report documents a wildly successful campaign by Russians to influence election including many instances of collusion w Trump associates, & abundant evidence of obstructive intent & actions. Mueller cries out to Congress to impeach.

Could have saved thousands and just used Wikipedia... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea  but what do I know.

Whenever I've listened to Ben talk about T, he seems to have a fussy holier-than-thou attitude, and when asked to provide T's specific transgressions, cannot produce them. Modern Day Political Pharisee

And there was intent. But the GOP want the president to be a king so.

Hildebeast did in fact meet the criminal standard of mens rea. Trump did not.

That’s not what it says

Pos

As a lawyer he should know that intent is not always an element of a crime. Manslaughter comes to mind as one example.

One of the biggest reasons I follow @Cernovich is that he has no dog in the race. He calls it has he sees it!

Mike — would you consider making a video on this issue? Would REALLY help

Quite often Ben’s TDS shows up exposing his bias, makes him less trustworthy.

Yeah, Ben is on the WRONG side of history here. I guess selling enough Boll and Branch sheets can make anyone’s ego big enough to lose perspective.

Even that is kind of giving him the benifit of the doubt.