I wonder what kind of collusion Weinstein and Epstein had? I think I am on to something.....
... I'm going to have to ask for some clarification here, that you're not hinting at what I think you're hinting at.
I wonder what kind of collusion Weinstein and Epstein had? I think I am on to something.....
... I'm going to have to ask for some clarification here, that you're not hinting at what I think you're hinting at.
No hinting....no implying.
Nada.....
Ah, interesting question.
"International Waters" are a decent place to commit a crime as all crimes have a jurisdictional component and most define that according to where the crime is committed, though there are things besides physical presence that can provide jurisdiction.
Here, the crime being committed in international waters is not the issue, but apprehending someone with a (presumably) valid federal warrant.
Generally speaking, the U.S. can exercise jurisdiction (and apprehend) in "international waters" any person who committed a crime in the U.S. or where the victim of a crime is in the U.S.
That is interesting, and lets say that the vessel strays into the territorial waters of another nation, off limits then?
Why the creative underlining?
Can we at least have a trial before we execute him?
I know, I know....trials are for people we like.
I thought they had changed it to guilty until you prove yourself innocent.
“Guilty By Accusation”Can we at least have a trial before we execute him?
I know, I know....trials are for people we like.
Sort of weird for Bill Clinton to jump in, unsolicited, to say "I didn't know anything"
i.e., Bill “dint du nuffin”.What are the chances that old jeffy has evidence to the contrary?
This is called getting out in front of the story.
Sort of weird for Bill Clinton to jump in, unsolicited, to say "I didn't know anything"
Sort of weird for Bill Clinton to jump in, unsolicited, to say "I didn't know anything"