Comments by "Simon Harris" (@simonharris4873) on "LegalEagle" channel.

  1. GTA's Rosenberg was modelled on him, I'm sure of it. Could defend an innocent man all the way to death-row.
    86
  2. Clinton never tried to suggest that anyone planted anything on her mail server either, so there's that.
    41
  3.  @WackadoodleMalarkey  Nobody ever accused Trump supporters of being good at math.
    30
  4.  @thenethuns5271  They like to cherry pick, and ignore the fact that rights come with responsibilities.
    17
  5.  @GollumGollum1000  So he didn't accuse families of lying about, and being directly involved with the cover-up of, the deaths of their own children? If you lost a child in those circumstances, then had someone do what Jones did to you, I'm sure you'd be rethinking your take on what is and isn't horrific.
    15
  6.  @GollumGollum1000  Straw man.. "Nobody should have the right to cause harm with their knowingly invalid speech" is all I'm saying.
    11
  7.  @GollumGollum1000  I responded to thenethuns, so obviously the group of people he was talking about, is the "they" you're asking about. If you still don't understand, ask a grown up to explain it to you.
    9
  8.  @GollumGollum1000  What a terrible world it would be, if people like you could say what ever they like, without any consequences.
    8
  9. Yep, justice wont be done until he's living in a cardboard box, eating whatever he finds in other people's trash.
    7
  10. @Phillip Banes I'd be far more concerned with the question "What is a loser" if I were you.
    7
  11.  @GollumGollum1000  "good" - Thought you'd feel that way. If that's what it takes for you to free vindicated, you probably didn't have a valid point to begin with.
    7
  12.  @GollumGollum1000  Let's just say the sup crt has already ruled on situations like this. They didn't agree with you.
    7
  13. @WeWillAlwaysHaveVALIS  He wasn't charged with a crime. He was sued for damages as a result of his morally questionable comments.
    7
  14.  @GollumGollum1000  You ignored context in order to claim the existence of ambiguity.
    6
  15.  @GollumGollum1000  No, that's not my logic at all. What part of "If your speech causes harm..." do you not understand?
    6
  16.  @GollumGollum1000  "You just want to paint everything I do as arguing in bad faith" - Do you copy and paste that phrase. Might save you some time if you did.
    6
  17.  @GollumGollum1000  You attacked an argument I never made. That's a straw man.
    6
  18.  @GollumGollum1000  In context, there was no ambiguity.
    5
  19. He should be using that in his campaign. "Vote Pence, even Trump says he's honest."
    4
  20.  @GollumGollum1000  Any time I reply to you with anything on this topic, the reply gets removed.
    4
  21. @poo flap Pot and Rizla.
    2
  22. He only hired her because she thinks she can show up to court with nothing but unsupported allegations, like all the other lawyers he hires. Lawyers who know you require evidence in court, they wont work for Trump.
    2
  23. But Trump supporters still believe they have it, and that's all that matters.
    2
  24. GT Roger Stone. LOL. Nice one.
    1
  25. Would there be any conflict of interest in member of TSC who were appointed by Trump, making decisions on charges against Trump?
    1
  26.  @2MinuteHockey  Imagine being gullible enough to believe the garbage you posted in this thread.
    1
  27. @Phillip Banes The only people who don't know are bigots like you, who mistakenly think they're making a valid point by asking the question in the first place.
    1
  28.  @youtubestuff683  Correction, only some of us know more.
    1
  29. 3:12 Clearly this boss is trying to cover up the fact that Peter didn't put the new coversheets on his TPS reports. You see, we're putting the new coversheet on all TPS reports, before they go out, so if you could try to remember to do that from now on, that'd be great.
    1
  30. How and why would it be legal for the army to pay you based on marital status?
    1
  31.  @GollumGollum1000  OH!!! You think free speech means you can say what ever you like, without consequences? Well SCOTUS doesn't see it that way. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a packed theatre, then claim you're not responsible for the injuries that occur as a result of the stampede you caused. Many people incurred damages as a result of his speech.
    1
  32.  @GollumGollum1000  "They" = people who don't realise that SCOTUS has already made it clear, harmful speech has ramifications.
    1