- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/16/24 at 5:47 am to oklahogjr
quote:Jesus fricking Christ
Why do you think she has a relatively low IQ? This sounds like something my racist grandpa would say
Sir, you have to be a complete moron not to recognize the significant potential that she’s a low iq, combative bitch.
What were your takeaways from her testimony?
Posted on 3/16/24 at 7:33 am to doya2
I don’t know about “wins”. She has to change her team.
Nobody thought that somehow the case would be dropped, did they?
Nobody thought that somehow the case would be dropped, did they?
Posted on 3/16/24 at 7:40 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Why do you think she has a relatively low IQ? This sounds like something my racist grandpa would say...I'm not sure exactly what you wanted here except a trump win based on assumption?
You’re the racist one for trying to act like she isn’t being controlled by a rich white Jew. Why do you support slavery?
Posted on 3/16/24 at 7:48 am to davyjones
quote:
Supremacy clause.
What federal law would be in conflict with GA's state law, and why doesn't that conflict exist today?
quote:
Plus as a practical matter, what the Office of the President could or would do is simply ignore the matter, or maybe ignore isn’t the best word, perhaps just decline to cooperate/participate
Assuming this isn't part of any immunity the USSC would grant in the coming months, you're essentially stripping states of their police power over non-immune crimes.
quote:
Bottom line is Georgia would have to make application probably directly to the Supremes
An application? For what, exactly?
Posted on 3/16/24 at 7:51 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Again, the out the trash judge used that doesn't stand up to any reasoned scrutiny.
What specific documentary evidence was used to prove this at the appropriate standard of review?
Their documentary evidence was scant.
The strongest evidence was text messages sent by a third party who was not an eyewitness to any of the events.
Can we make an inference about this? Sure.
Is that proof meeting the legal standard? Naw.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:00 am to SlowFlowPro
Another 15 page thread with SFP defending a corrupt Dim. Hey dude how about dimocrat-darling Rachael Rollins being disbarred for lying under oath? You think potato joes DOJ will go after her for perjury 
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:03 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Another 15 page thread with SFP defending a corrupt Dim
I said I'd put money on her being prosecuted down the line, ITT, I believe.
How is that "defending" her?
quote:
Hey dude how about dimocrat-darling Rachael Rollins being disbarred for lying under oath?
I had no idea who this was until you mentioned her, and your statement is way off
She's suspended for not paying her bar dues.
LINK
quote:
Rollins can be reinstated upon paying her annual $300 registration fee and a motion to Justice Wendlandt requesting reinstalment.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:06 am to NC_Tigah
Right. What do you think Wade was meeting with WH counsel for? Lasagna recipes?
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:06 am to SlowFlowPro
Exactly what law requires that the President would have to leave Washington and voluntarily go to any given state and submit himself to the single state’s law if said President refers the state to the Department of Justice for guidance on whether they can prosecute a sitting President? Are Georgia state law enforcement officials going to form a posse and go grab the President? Of course not. Thus, as I said, Georgia would have to seek clarification from the Court for a ruling ordering that the Executive Branch and sitting President can indeed be prosecuted and that the Justice Department must cooperate in facilitating that process. Which once again will never come to fruition.
You seriously think the District Attorney of Lincoln Parish, Louisiana, for example, can simply file a Bill of Information for instance, charging him with whatever they want, thereby forcing the sitting President to hoof it on down to Ruston at the courthouse annex and spend a year dealing with that, regardless of whether it’s ultimately a failing effort by the DA? You’re trying too hard to be contrarian, again.
You seriously think the District Attorney of Lincoln Parish, Louisiana, for example, can simply file a Bill of Information for instance, charging him with whatever they want, thereby forcing the sitting President to hoof it on down to Ruston at the courthouse annex and spend a year dealing with that, regardless of whether it’s ultimately a failing effort by the DA? You’re trying too hard to be contrarian, again.
This post was edited on 3/16/24 at 8:09 am
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:09 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Another 15 page thread with SFP defending a corrupt Dim.
No he’s not bro. He’s merely hounding the shite out of every single poster expressing frustration over this awful ruling with meaningless egg-headed legalese and gaslighting, but he’s definitely NOT defending it bro.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:16 am to davyjones
quote:
Are Georgia state law enforcement officials going to form a posse and go grab the President?
I'm sure the President would be given some leeway, but ultimately if he didn't appear he'd be held in contempt, at some point.
Sitting Presidents have been held in contempt of court before. And not like in 1802. Bill Clinton was held in contempt.
quote:
Georgia would have to seek clarification from the Court for a ruling ordering that the Executive Branch and sitting President can indeed be prosecuted
Why? That's not how it works.
quote:
You seriously think the District Attorney of Lincoln Parish, Louisiana, for example, can simply file a Bill of Information for instance forcing the sitting President to hoof it on down to Ruston at the courthouse annex and spend a year dealing with that?
Again, assuming no immunity or behavior within the executive duties, why would a President be permitted to commit crimes without recourse? That's a much more absurd position to take.
quote:
You’re trying too hard to be contrarian, again.
I'm a believer in states' rights and federalism, and not arguing for a position of absurdity like the President is immune from criminal prosecution.
And don't bring up the impeachment process, as the Constitution clearly states that criminal prosecution of a President is completely separate from the impeachment-removal process.
If the President could not be prosecuted for crimes, then I don't understand why the Constitution includes this language:
quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Clearly "indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment" of a sitting President is possible, per the Constitution, and this is a separate process from the Congressional impeachment-removal process.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:17 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
but he’s definitely NOT defending it bro.
I said I think she'll be prosecuted and possibly disbarred. How is that defending her?
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:19 am to SlowFlowPro
Do you think she should be prosecuted and disbarred at a later time? Yes or no.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:21 am to oklahogjr
quote:
Why do you think she has a relatively low IQ? This sounds like something my racist grandpa would say...I
White guilt cuck
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:21 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Do you think she should be prosecuted and disbarred at a later time? Yes or no.
I think she should, and will, be investigated on both spectrums. I have already said this, ITT
If those investigations bear fruit for prosecution or disbarment (which I imagine they will), then those actions should proceed. Again, already stated (A few times) ITT.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:25 am to SlowFlowPro
So an AG who should be disbarred and prosecuted for misconduct wrt prosecuting the POTUS, should be allowed to continue to prosecute said POTUS? You see why people are pissed. So maybe just STFU and let them be pissed. No one wants to hear your gaslighting bullshite.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
I find it suspect that after extensive national discussion of this particular topic that you’re having problems recalling the guiding principle on the matter. For your convenience, here it is, to follow:
LINK
So who do you think is going to win out on this as things stand now re: a sitting President? And what process would a state have to undertake to attempt to get their way? I believe it will come full circle for you in short order.
LINK
So who do you think is going to win out on this as things stand now re: a sitting President? And what process would a state have to undertake to attempt to get their way? I believe it will come full circle for you in short order.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:30 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
So an AG who should be disbarred and prosecuted for misconduct wrt prosecuting the POTUS, should be allowed to continue to prosecute said POTUS?
If she's disbarred, no.
Again, already stated ITT.
quote:
You see why people are pissed.
They're being emotional-irrational.
I'm explaining things logically and they're rejecting it b/c they don't want logic or anything resembling that spectrum.
They want to rage because they listened to charlatans and grifters lie to them about what could/should happen with this motion.
As always, I'm trying to lead the sheep away from irrational-emotional meltdowns back to the land of rationality and facts.
Facts and logic > emotions.
Posted on 3/16/24 at 8:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
As always, I'm trying to lead the sheep away from irrational-emotional meltdowns back to the land of rationality and facts.
Oh good grief. All you do is make contrarian arguments and claim to be on the side of rationality. The reality is that you just have a shtick that argues against whatever the majority of the board believes.
Page 13 of 18
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News