- 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: For those of you who thought James Comey was going to slide.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:30 pm to John somers
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:30 pm to John somers
quote:
Ongoing conspiracies have no statute of limitations.
Well yeah...but because they are ongoing...not because they are conspiracies.
Is "undermining Trump" the on-going conspiracy? You're going to have to be more specific to find a federal statute that violates.
1
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:34 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Simple motion to quash should take care of this, no?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:38 pm to JimEverett
quote:
And it most likely will lose the appeal because the DOJ under Trump continuously makes unforced error after unforced error. Why in the hell was halligan the only attorney to sign the indictment? just dumb, stupid shite
Sounds like the DOJ needs to hire better attorneys. When are all the extremely talented, extremely knowledgeable conservative lawyers going to step up?
If lawyers outside the DOJ are so much better, we need them to help save the country. Are they willing to be more than a critic as the country falls?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:39 pm to Decatur
quote:
Simple motion to quash should take care of this, no?
Yes. Good point. That's what just happened when the DOJ recalled their subpoenas against the NYT reporters about Qatar Force One.
Maybe it's a trend with this DOJ. They had to recall subpoenas in June against WSJ and WaPo.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:39 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Sounds like the DOJ needs to hire better attorneys.
Haligan was appointed by Trump
That was his point. Trump keeps fricking up.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:40 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Sounds like the DOJ needs to hire better attorneys. When are all the extremely talented, extremely knowledgeable conservative lawyers going to step up?
They used to work at DOJ until it became Daddy’s sycophantic slop shop.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:41 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Betabill to the rescue for the dems
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
Seriously dude...get a life.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:44 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Honest Question here Bill, are you Trans? I know you are a dude ( I can tell), but you also have a lot of feminine qualities.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:46 pm to Pedropatterstine
quote:
Seriously dude...get a life.
His life IS trashing Trump. The other idiot, too.
This site alone makes me wonder what % of lawyers are total sleazebags.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 1:51 pm to Snipe
Right. Let us know when someone we heard of spends an hour in jail.
Nothing but a reality show of corruption by all of them.
Nothing but a reality show of corruption by all of them.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 2:17 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Sounds like the DOJ needs to hire better attorneys. When are all the extremely talented, extremely knowledgeable conservative lawyers going to step up?
My two cents:
Trump is a businessman. A successful one, and he has dealt with attorneys constantly during his whole professional life. In that context business people associate with attorneys as being extremely risk-averse. While business people, at least a lot of them, are prone to take educated risks.
But that relationship becomes problematic at the government level. Trump wants "Maryland Man" prosecuted, for instance, and any pushback on that is seen by Trump as another typical over-cautious attorney that lack boldness. So we end up losing a good U.S. prosecutor like Ben Schrader because the DOJ and White house wants to bring suspect charges for political reasons. It is also why Halligan herself was in the position she was in on the Comey case - a decent U.S. Attorney did not want to bring weak/bullshite charges.
Cautiousness - especially in a prosecutor - should be treated as a virtue, not something to be overcome.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 2:23 pm to Pedropatterstine
quote:
IvoryBillMatt
Betabill to the rescue for the dems
Always with the ridiculous, misguided personal attacks. Politically, I support Trump. Best President of my lifetime. There probably aren't many political issues about which you (or KCT) and I disagree.
Parts of Trump's unique personality are: he doesn't think he should have any limits; and, he's incredibly vindictive.
Therefore, he pushes "his" DOJ to ignore the law when going after his enemies. That leads to legal mistakes by DOJ.
My observations are based on my understanding of the law and facts. They aren't influenced by political ramifications.
I correctly predicted that Judge Hannah Dugan would be convicted in Wisconsin (pro-Trump result). I correctly predicted that the Comey perjury prosecution would fail (anti-Trump result).
Here, there's just no plausible legal theory where this headline from Fox matters:
"The Justice Department probe targets Daniel Richman over alleged leaks to the New York Times during Trump's first term"
So what? They occurred in Trump's first term...over 5 years ago, beyond the applicable statute of limitations. I could explain why the 10 year SOL wouldn't apply or why previous rulings about Richman suggest that this is a nothing burger....again. But that would be a waste of time with you.
I offered an informed legal take. [Of course, maybe there were some facts left out of OP's Fox article that would change that take.] You're not interested. You would rather wallow in ignorance. Wallow away angry one.
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 8/31/26 at 2:38 pm to KCT
quote:
His life IS trashing Trump. The other idiot, too
I haven't trashed Trump. I never do.
I just pointed out the legal problem with this particular case. What's sleazy about that?
It's sleazy of Fox not to at least write "Richman's leaks have been thoroughly investigated by Trump's DOJ already. The fact that the leaks occurred in 2017 would seem to put them well-beyond the applicable five-year statute of limitations."
But, Fox just wants clicks...they don’t care about accuracy.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 3:05 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Fed RICO is a 10 SOL.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 3:08 pm to JimEverett
Barr was in on it. But a Federal RICO indictment has a 10 year SOL.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 3:10 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Each denial is a separate charge and perpetuates the conspiracy. Duh
Posted on 8/31/26 at 3:11 pm to Timeoday
10 year SOL for Federal RICO applies only with bank fraud
Criminal federal RICO: generally 5 years under the federal catch-all statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3282. The Supreme Court specifically recognized that the five-year period applies to criminal RICO prosecutions.
But there is an important exception: if the RICO charge involves bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, the statute of limitations can be 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 3293.
Criminal federal RICO: generally 5 years under the federal catch-all statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3282. The Supreme Court specifically recognized that the five-year period applies to criminal RICO prosecutions.
But there is an important exception: if the RICO charge involves bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, the statute of limitations can be 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 3293.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 3:14 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
When are all the extremely talented, extremely knowledgeable conservative lawyers going to step up?
When they aren’t put in a position to earn bar disciplinary action.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 3:15 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
I correctly predicted that the Comey perjury prosecution would fail (anti-Trump result).
Still under appeal. But the Federal RICO, with its only two predicates needing to be committed over a 10 year period, should have been used against government officials when it was first enacted.
I always though 2 was a couple. With RICO, 2 is a pattern!!
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News