- 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: Dems claim President Trump did commit obstruction
Posted on 4/19/19 at 9:56 pm to texridder
Posted on 4/19/19 at 9:56 pm to texridder
quote:
Yea, because you're sure it meant to.
No. Because that is not the role of a prosecutor. I thought you said you weren’t ignorant to that? Simple stuff Tex.
quote:
Did you miss the part where Trump's lawyers said they were going to fight giving an interview?
Every defendant ever that pleads not guilty says they are fighting. Do you think that means something to a prosecutor? Are you under the impression when someone files a motion to quash that ends the investigation?
See Shorty...this isn’t dishonesty. It’s stupidity.
This post was edited on 4/19/19 at 9:59 pm
1
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:02 pm to gthog61
quote:Did you learn to talk like that in reform school? Makes sense.
Eat shite you worthless mother fricker.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:03 pm to texridder
quote:
Did you learn to talk like that in reform school? Makes sense.
oh my. After all of your colorful language in this thread? Your lack of self awareness is staggering. Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:14 pm to BeeFense5
quote:What is hilarious when dumbasses like you don't make a single post in the entire thread and then post crap like this.
It's always hilarious when a pompous a-hole like yourself continues to show his true colors.
I will never forget how much you embarrassed yourself with the kavanaugh stuff. Now you are doing the same thing here. You just can’t help yourself.
Come on chickenshit. Post a real response to anything I posted.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:17 pm to BBONDS25
quote:You can't figure it out? Try again. And then after that GFY.
Which part, specifically, do you think is a lie?
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:27 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Did you miss the part where Trump's lawyers said they were going to fight giving an interview?
quote:
Every defendant ever that pleads not guilty says they are fighting. Do you think that means something to a prosecutor? Are you under the impression when someone files a motion to quash that ends the investigation?
Are you impaired? I said Trump was going to fight having to give an interview.
You're a fool. Go away.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:34 pm to ShortyRob
quote:Posting something about me to someone else. What a shickenshite.
He's just blindingly dishonest and an enormous piece of shite human being
Why don't you post something that you think I was dishonest about in this thread and why it was dishonest.
No way a weasel like you will respond.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:46 pm to texridder
quote:
Are you impaired? I said Trump was going to fight having to give an interview.
And? That ends the inquiry? You are so ignorant on so many things. Good lord.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 10:47 pm to texridder
quote:
Are you impaired? I said Trump was going to fight having to give an interview.
Well I only made two statements. Innocence carries more weight in a legal sense than exoneration...that is a fact. Not disputable.
So all that is left is you saying you didn’t admit trump was innocent. Is that it? If so, fantastic. Let’s discuss that. Have you heard of the phrase “innocent until proven guilty?”
This post was edited on 4/19/19 at 10:48 pm
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:21 pm to BBONDS25
quote:No one is talking about innocence- except you. You're a dope. Go away.
Well I only made two statements. Innocence carries more weight in a legal sense than exoneration...that is a fact. Not disputable.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:25 pm to texridder
quote:Remember when you argued for months that the "platform change" at the GOP convention was linked to russian collusion?
texridder
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:27 pm to texridder
quote:
No one is talking about innocence- except you. You're a dope. Go away.
Why wouldn’t you talk about innocence in a thread about alleged crimes? Seems an odd thing to avoid. Unless you are a dishonest hack who cannot hang with facts. Oh wait. That’s you.
I’ll go ahead and finish our conversation so I can go to sleep.
Me: have you heard of innocent until proven guilty?
You: yes
Me: was trump found guilty?
You: no
Me: therefore, in the eyes of the law, he is innocent
You: wahhhhh! Why do I suck at everything?
Me: because you have a single digit IQ
You: what’s an IQ?
That about sums up what the next three hours would have looked like. Glad I could save us the time. Night night dummy.
This post was edited on 4/19/19 at 11:29 pm
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:31 pm to BBONDS25
quote:texridder has this downright bizarre idea that a prosecutor/investigation's job is to prove that someone did NOT do something.
BBONDS25
That is an impossible standard....you can not prove that something does not exist. You cannot prove that Santa doesn't exist.
Mueller is CLEAR in volume 1 that he DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE that the trump campaigned colluded with russia in carrying out thr2 pronged interference operation: facebook ads and hacking.
Texridder is essentially admitting that NOTHING will convince him that the campaign did not coordinate with russia.
it's a dogma.
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:34 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Nope. But, I do remember saying that I didn't buy Trump saying he didn't have anything to do with the change.
Remember when you argued for months that the "platform change" at the GOP convention was linked to russian collusion?
Posted on 4/19/19 at 11:59 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Is that your post or Bonds. Either way it is stupid. I never came close to saying that.
texridder has this downright bizarre idea that a prosecutor/investigation's job is to prove that someone did NOT do something.
quote:
Mueller is CLEAR in volume 1 that he DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE that the trump campaigned colluded with russia in carrying out thr2 pronged interference operation: facebook ads and hacking.
Mueller's report said that the investigation did not establish that the campaign coordinated with Russia.
Do you dispute that?
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:06 am to texridder
quote:No, I do not. But why are you acting like that shows anything other than what I claimed? That he, in the course of the investigation, did not find any evidence that the trump campaign worked with russia in
Mueller's report said that the investigation did not establish that the campaign coordinated with Russia.
Do you dispute that?
a) facebook ads
b) hacking of the DNC and podesta emails.
Did you read volume 1? He listed all instances he found where campaign members were in contact with russian individuals or people connected to kremlin. None of those instances involved the campaign working with russia to
a) run ads on facebook and other social media sites
b) hack into dnc and podesta emails, transmit them to wikileaks, and coordinate their release.
Can you please link me any evidence in volume 1 where mueller suggests "this COULD be an example of campaign coordination with russia in those 2 endeavors". I don't see it.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:13 am to BBONDS25
quote:The report never mentioned innocence. You're just a turd trying to disingenuously divert the discussion away from the stupid shite you posted. Same as always.
Why wouldn’t you talk about innocence in a thread about alleged crimes? Seems an odd thing to avoid. Unless you are a dishonest hack who cannot hang with facts. Oh wait. That’s you
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:28 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:The report did not say it didn't find any evidence. It said the investigation did not establish coordination.
Mueller's report said that the investigation did not establish that the campaign coordinated with Russia.
Do you dispute that?
No, I do not. But why are you acting like that shows anything other than what I claimed? That he, in the course of the investigation, did not find any evidence that the trump campaign worked with russia in
The report that discusses the DOJ prosecutor's manual and what considerations should go into a decision whether or not to bring charges. You should read that.
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:34 am to texridder
quote:I get that, but the report also detailed every single instance it found where anyone on the campaign was in contact with a russian or kremlin operative. None of those instances were described by Mueller as coordination with russia to
The report did not say it didn't find any evidence. It said the investigation did not establish coordination.
a) run social media campaign
b) hack emails
Where in the report does mueller list evidence he found that the campaign coordinated with russia?
Are you saying he found evidence but didn't include it in report? That's your own speculation
This post was edited on 4/20/19 at 12:35 am
Posted on 4/20/19 at 12:44 am to davyjones
quote:I don't think Mueller thought he should leave any meat on the bone. I don't he would imply that unless he had a lay down case which he didn't think he had.
Is there anything to be gleaned from Mueller's lack of including a caveat of "declining to charge at this time" which could signal a strong possibility that should Trump exit office prior to any relevant statutes of limitation running out that he may well be pursued at that time? Myself, I find it odd that he didnt leave a little meat on the bone for those who feel prosecution is warranted.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News