- 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: Deputy AG says he may have to recuse himself from Russia probe
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:47 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:47 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Yall keep forgetting the salient portion of the law. The person must have INTENT to obstruct, and it must be a corrupt attempt.
The President has the legal authority to end any criminal investigaton by the Justice Department. It is ONLY obstruction if he corruptly does it, Meaning he takes a cash payment from someone to quash an investigation into them or whatever. That would be illegal.
Simply saying " I think this buy's been through enough end this investigation" is not corruption.
Without corruption you can not have obstruction
What the Dims are calling obstruction is more akin to waving hello as you pass a cop running a radar gun. Or, as I started calling it before, like diverting a flood with a chain link fence. To the Dims, whenever a (R) is POTUS either scenario is obstruction.
0
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:49 am to skrayper
You are using a generic definition. There are over twenty different Federal obstruction statutes. The one the left wants to get trump on is 18 USCa 1505. Go read it...then peruse some of the case law and let us know if you think the claim has any validity.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:50 am to MButterfly
Rats and Fence-sitters jumping off. 
Rush said that the reason Meuller is leaking is that he is scared of Trump firing him. Trump's Twitter is lethal. Why fire the Guy when you can manipulate him into either total honesty...or public humiliation; if not expose him commiting overt criminality (Obstruction/Cover-up re Comey/Lynch).
Bottom line. The Dems will rue the day they hit Trump under the belt. Might have worked on a lesser POTUS...but this one is ruthless. That is why we elected him. We knew what it would take. Beats the hell out of a civil war.
Rush said that the reason Meuller is leaking is that he is scared of Trump firing him. Trump's Twitter is lethal. Why fire the Guy when you can manipulate him into either total honesty...or public humiliation; if not expose him commiting overt criminality (Obstruction/Cover-up re Comey/Lynch). Bottom line. The Dems will rue the day they hit Trump under the belt. Might have worked on a lesser POTUS...but this one is ruthless. That is why we elected him. We knew what it would take. Beats the hell out of a civil war.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:50 am to GumboPot
quote:
Who does Mueller report to if not Sessions or Rosenstein?
Mullier reports to Rosenstein since Sessions has recused himself.
That's the law. Trump couldn't even fire him, which makes rumors that he was considering it so silly. He does not have the authority to fire a special counsel. He could either order Rosenstein to do it and fire him if he didn't, or fire Sessions and appoint an AG who isn't recused and have him do it, but he can NOT fire the Special Counsel.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:51 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Imagine how great we could be if we could clear the deck of all the lifers .
THIS.
frick the Wash DC Lifers.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:55 am to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Trump couldn't even fire him
Richard Nixon disagrees
So does Archibald Cox
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:55 am to MButterfly
This is a Trump admin counter punch to the games the dems were playing. They made it where Trump would look guilty if he fired Meuller. Now by deputy AG recusing, it makes Meullers firing ok, because he was hired by a recused person, imo
Brilliant! Next guy in line will can Meullers arse
Brilliant! Next guy in line will can Meullers arse
This post was edited on 6/16/17 at 11:59 am
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:56 am to MButterfly
All the usual "experts" (Kristol, Favreau, Mair, etc) were mocking TRUMP for this tweet earlier today. 
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:57 am to MButterfly
Trump has already counter-punched his way to more victories in 7 months than every Republican in DC combined has achieved for the past 16 years.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:58 am to AUstar
quote:
Pretty sure this has been Trump's plan all along.
Bro, sure.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 11:58 am to Jay Quest
quote:And how many AGs did Nixon have to can before Cox was fired? Do you know why? Because the AG had to fire Cox.
Richard Nixon disagrees
So does Archibald Cox
Posted on 6/16/17 at 12:00 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
And how many AGs did Nixon have to can before Cox was fired? Do you know why? Because the AG had to fire Cox.
The AG didn't fire Cox. Nixon fired Cox
Edit to add: to be more precise he had Robert Bork fire him, Bork was not AG
This post was edited on 6/16/17 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 6/16/17 at 12:03 pm to MButterfly
quote:
I feel like we are watching the nations gov devolve into a chaotic circus and will allow something like a dictator or military coup to take over...
Just as TX Tiger predicted.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 12:04 pm to Jay Quest
quote:
Bork was not AG
Historically it can be argued Bork became acting AG after Richardson and Ruckelshaus resigned.
But it was indeed Nixon who pulled the trigger.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 12:09 pm to Jay Quest
Bork was sworn in as acting AG before he fired Cox.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 12:11 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
will allow something like a dictator or military coup to take over...
Hopefully.
I've been saying for years that we need a military junta to take over and purge the country of socialists. Like what the had in Chile with Pinochet.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 12:11 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You are using a generic definition. There are over twenty different Federal obstruction statutes. The one the left wants to get trump on is 18 USCa 1505. Go read it...then peruse some of the case law and let us know if you think the claim has any validity.
This was and will likely never be resolved in a criminal court. At least with regards to the president and obstruction. As issues of corruption and abuse of power are largely something the founders left up to the political process through impeachment. By design. You need a process by which you are not just governed by the laws on the books to remove a public servent. Since in a corrupt society, as the framers were keenly aware of with England and Rome, a corrupted official can use the law and the powers of his office to aid his corruption and abuse.
So in the end it comes down to congress and what they think qualifies as charges.
This post was edited on 6/16/17 at 12:16 pm
Posted on 6/16/17 at 12:12 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Bork was sworn in as acting AG before he fired Cox.
Yea, Erin just educated me on that point as well. Still presidents have and can remove special prosecutors if the body count doesn't concern them. I don't believe it does with this president.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 12:16 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
So in the end it comes down to congress and what they think qualifies as charges
Very true. And this would be the 'Congress' that full well KNOWS that Lynch/Comey both committed Obstruction of Justice...as Comey has sworn to UNDER OATH.
The days of that Bunch playing dirty tolerating double standards with no repercussions...are OVER. The whole bunch had better get honest up there...or down we go. And they won't be able to exempt themselves (like Healthcare) from what they cause on the rest of us.
Posted on 6/16/17 at 12:26 pm to Jay Quest
quote:That's a long way from your original take
Still presidents have and can remove special prosecutors if the body count doesn't concern them
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News