- 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
re: Member when The Left wanted Obama to investigate Bush
Posted on 1/1/17 at 11:53 am to mmcgrath
Posted on 1/1/17 at 11:53 am to mmcgrath
Pure speculation. I have yet to be presented with a statute, elements, and evidence the elements were meant. I suspect there is a good reason for that.
If I used "likely would have shown" as evidence for Hillarys guilt you would be apoplectic. Not a surprise. I prefer not to deal with hypotheticals, speculation, and conjecture.
If I used "likely would have shown" as evidence for Hillarys guilt you would be apoplectic. Not a surprise. I prefer not to deal with hypotheticals, speculation, and conjecture.
This post was edited on 1/1/17 at 11:54 am
1
Posted on 1/1/17 at 11:56 am to BBONDS25
quote:You can't find a statute for presenting false testimony to Congress, violating the Geneva Conventions, destruction of government documents, misconduct in office, etc? Evidence is pretty easy to justify an investigation, which is what we are talking about. With some of the items the violation is freely admitted.
Pure speculation. I have yet to be presented with a statute, elements, and evidence the elements were meant. I suspect there is a good reason for that.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News