- 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
Far Left: For argument's sake only, let's stipulate POTUS DJT obstructed
Posted on 12/4/17 at 8:56 am
Posted on 12/4/17 at 8:56 am
Please explain to us all, again -or maybe for the first time, how that (theoretical) obstruction would or could have changed the election and caused HRC to lose.
Because that's where all this began and what it is really about, right?
Because that's where all this began and what it is really about, right?
3
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:05 am to Knight of Old
No, his obstruction of justice has nothing to do with the loss of the election- but I guess you righties will use any tactic to try and bring up HRC.
Keep on drinking the Kool-Aid. Maybe Jim Jones will save yall.
Keep on drinking the Kool-Aid. Maybe Jim Jones will save yall.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:07 am to lsufan31
Lol, wut?
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:09 am to lsufan31
The trump Kool aid tastes damn good you cuck bitch!
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:16 am to Knight of Old
quote:
explain to me, a colossal moron, how that (theoretical) obstruction would or could have changed the election
FIFY.
Collusion was the crime DJT et al. committed before the election.
Obstruction of justice is the crime DJT committed after the election.
I hope you're just an LSU fan and not a grad, or christ-on-a-bike, those degrees must be worthless....
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:18 am to Knight of Old
This is probably the dumbest question I've seen posted on this board. It displays a breathtaking level of ignorance.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:20 am to Quarterite
quote:
Obstruction of justice is the crime DJT committed after the election.
Alan Dershowitz has a different opinion:
quote:
Dershowitz countered that Trump had the constitutional power to fire FBI Director James Comey and to tell the Justice Department who to investigate and who not to investigate.
“If Congress were ever to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, we’d have a constitutional crisis,” Dershowitz said.
He explained that Congress would have to demonstrate “clearly illegal acts” on Trump’s part, such as former President Richard Nixon paying “hush money,” telling people to lie and destroying evidence in the Watergate scandal.
quote:
There’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority.
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 10:22 am
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:21 am to Quarterite
quote:
Collusion was the crime
Collusion is not a crime...
Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality.
Russians did not hack election machines nor were votes changed.. so your queen lost because she sucked as a candidate..
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:23 am to lsufan31
quote:
No, his obstruction of justice has nothing to do with the loss of the election
Begging the Question Fallacy.
Establish that he "obstructed justice" and go from there.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:25 am to Quarterite
quote:
Collusion was the crime DJT et al. committed before the election. Obstruction of justice is the crime DJT committed after the election.
That only exists in your mind.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:26 am to Quarterite
quote:
Collusion was the crime DJT et al. committed before the election.
Since that didn't actually happen...
then
quote:
Obstruction of justice is the crime DJT committed after the election.
What did he obstruct the justice of?
How can he be guilty of obstructing justice for doing something that he had every right to do.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:26 am to The Spleen
quote:
This is probably the dumbest question I've seen posted on this board. It displays a breathtaking level of ignorance.
Uh Huh.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:26 am to Quarterite
quote:
quote:
explain to me, a colossal moron, how that (theoretical) obstruction would or could have changed the election
Typical liberal. First thing you do is attack a persons intelligence simply because they disagree.
Keep screaming at the sky.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:30 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:Would his opinion change if the president knew that Comey's target had committed a felony?
Alan Dershowitz has a different opinion:
Hypothetically
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 10:31 am
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:31 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
There’s never been a case in history where a president has been charged with obstruction of justice for merely exercising his constitutional authority.
No, but one President was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a massive criminal conspiracy resulting in articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice and resignation in disgrace and another was impeached for obstruction of justice, so there's that.
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 10:33 am
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:31 am to Quarterite
quote:Your logic is, of course, crystalline. For though I still know not what exactly 'collusion' is or might be nor to what effect it could have been utilized, I have obviously misplaced in my memory the mountains of hard evidence that have been produced which irrefutably attest to its very existence.
Collusion was the crime DJT et al. committed before the election
Many thanks for setting me straight in all of my humble ignorance and stupidity!
ETA: verb and preposition agreement
This post was edited on 12/4/17 at 10:34 am
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:36 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
Would his opinion change if the president knew that Comey's target had committed a felony?
Not likely. Like it or not, POTUS has the power to direct enforcement.
Now, should he have that used AGAINST him politically....frick YES! But, I do not Alan would think it is a crime.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:39 am to TigerDoc
quote:
No, but one President was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a massive criminal conspiracy resulting in articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice and resignation in disgrace and another was impeached for obstruction of justice, so there's that.
JEEBUS!!!
Did you just not read the part where he said they would have to show "clearly illegal acts" and/or ask to destroy evidence (Nixon) or commit perjury (Clinton).
Damn.......It is not MY opinion. It is Dershowitz. A legal mind for whom I have respect. And, you pose a "gotcha" that is CLEARLY addressed in his opinion that I quoted.
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:39 am to Dale51
His own tweet is proof that he obstructed justice. He knew Flynn committed a crime when he asked Comey to "let it go".
Posted on 12/4/17 at 10:41 am to lsufan31
quote:
Keep on drinking the Kool-Aid
Pot....meet kettle
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News