- 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: How do you completely mind frick a Prog/Dim leftist loon? It's easy........
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:22 am to tigerinDC09
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:22 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Congress is still stuck on if this was criminal enough to warrant an impeachment process.
They aren't stuck if there is substantial evidence as you claim. Substantial evidence would grease the rails of justice, would it not?
There isn't substantial evidence because none of it meets obstruction laws. If it did, the dems would make swift work to impeach.
0
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:23 am to Hooligan's Ghost
quote:
firing Comey is obstruction of justice?
Nope DOJ manual states that FBI investigation aren’t proceedings for obstruction. Again...DC is using a graphics some ignorant dem congressperson produced. He knows nothing of the actual law. Just what he is told. A perfect dem. Useful idiot.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:23 am to GumboPot
quote:
How about listing the statute(s) instead of listing a bull shite info-graphic of what you think the statute says?
Here's just one example of Mueller examining statutes... from page 169 of his report:
quote:
Before addressing Article II issues directly , we consider one threshold statutory construction
principle that is unique to the presidency: "The principle that general statutes must
be read as not applying to the President if they do not expressly apply where application would
arguably limit the President's constitutional role ." OLC , Application of 28 USC. § 458 to
Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges, 19 Op. O.L.C . 350, 352 (1995). This "c lear
statement rule," id., has its source in two principles: statut es should be construed to avoid serious
constitutional questions , and Congress should not be assumed to have altered the constitutional
separation of powers without clear assurance that it intended that result. OLC, The Constitutional
Separation of Powers Between the President and Congress, 20 Op. O.L.C. 124, 178 (1996).
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:24 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
They're all listed in Volume 2 of the Mueller report.
I mean, then indict.
We have a legal system.
It was used. It has been concluded. Finished. Done. It was used with more resources to investigate a hoax, yes a fricking hoax, more than any investigation in U.S. fricking history.
If you don't want it to die rally your Democrat politician at their own political peril to IN PEACH FOTY FIGH.
But Mueller is done. He said so.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:24 am to tigerinDC09
But you link Quinta the Uber anti Trumper. Lol
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:24 am to tigerinDC09
Mueller put his BS report together because he knows he would be laughed out of court had he chosen to pursue this nonsense.
This post was edited on 6/3/19 at 9:25 am
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:25 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Here's just one example of Mueller examining statutes... from page 169 of his report:
Not a single one of the code articles in that post are obstruction codes.
My god. You are really bad at this. This post was edited on 6/3/19 at 9:26 am
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:25 am to BBONDS25
No way!
He is well versed and has read all of the report, and to ask him anything.
Only when you do he pulls in an infographic that has nothing to do with the report.
He is well versed and has read all of the report, and to ask him anything.
Only when you do he pulls in an infographic that has nothing to do with the report.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:26 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
I wish I could have just one person speak to the obstruction allegations, example by example. It is such a weak argument and I’d like to articulate why. Unfortunately, nobody on the left cares. Like DC09....they would rather arrogantly remain ignorant. I mean...he couldn’t even get the elements right. My god.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:27 am to BBONDS25
09 just tossed some shite out there hoping it would stick.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:28 am to GumboPot
quote:
How about listing the statute(s) instead of listing a bull shite info-graphic of what you think the statute says? People are not criminally charge for actions contrary to an info-graphic made after the fact of said actions. They are criminally charged for breaking laws.
From pg. 160 of volume 2 of the Mueller Report. Again I say, ya'll didn't actually read the thing.
quote:
A. Statutory Defenses to the Application of Obstruction-Of-Justice Provisions to
the Conduct Under Investigation
The obstruction-of-justice statute most readily applicable to our investigation is 18 U.S.C .
§ 1512( c )(2). Section I 512( c) provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly-
(!) alters, destroys , mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or
attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for
use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences , or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts
to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The
The Department of Justice has taken the position that Section 1512( c )(2) states a broad,
independent, and unqualified prohibition on obstruction of justice. 1077 While defendants have
argued that subsection (c)(2) should be read to cover only acts that would impair the availability
or integrity of evidence because that is subsection (c)(l)'s focus, strong arguments weigh against
that proposed limitation. The text of Section 1512( c )(2) confirms that its sweep is not tethered to
Section 1512( c )(1 ); courts have so interpreted it; its history does not counsel otherwise; and no
principle of statutory construction dictates a contrary view. On its face, therefore, Section
1512( c )(2) applies to all corrupt means of obstructing a proceeding, pending or contemplatedincluding
by improper exercises of official power. In addition, other statutory provisions that are
potentially applicable to certain conduct we investigated broadly prohibit obstruction of
proceedings that are pending before courts, grand juries, and Congress. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503,
1505. Congress has also specifically prohibited witness tampering. See 18 U .S.C. § 1512(6 ).
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:30 am to BBONDS25
quote:
wish I could have just one person speak to the obstruction allegations, example by example.
You haven't read the report.
This is why we need Mueller to go on TV and do exactly what you are asking for.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:32 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
No way!
He is well versed and has read all of the report, and to ask him anything.
Only when you do he pulls in an infographic that has nothing to do with the report.
So when I take specific statutes (as requested by those on this board) from the Mueller report, I'm not well versed?
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:32 am to tigerinDC09
Nads doesn't want Mueller on TV.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:34 am to tigerinDC09
Statutes he outlined as the basis of his witch Hunt bfd.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:36 am to tigerinDC09
"Whoever corruptly"
Good luck proving this.
Good luck proving this.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:37 am to Jbird
quote:
Statutes he outlined as the basis of his witch Hunt bfd.
See you are caught red handed. You said that I couldn't cite any statutes that Mueller was using for Obstruction...
When I do, you pull a trump move and say its the basis of a "witch hunt". Its an obvious tell that you were proven incorrect.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:38 am to tigerinDC09
No, you’re not well versed. You found a site that put this all together and you are just pasting and copying it.
You really don’t understand what you are reading.
You really don’t understand what you are reading.
This post was edited on 6/3/19 at 9:39 am
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:38 am to Carl Kolchak
quote:
Good luck proving this.
This is true of any obstruction of Justice case, but guess what there are lots of people in jail for it.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 9:39 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
A. Statutory Defenses to the Application of Obstruction-Of-Justice Provisions to
the Conduct Under Investigation
The obstruction-of-justice statute most readily applicable to our investigation is 18 U.S.C .
§ 1512( c )(2). Section I 512( c) provides:
(c) Whoever corruptly-
Stop. "Corruptly" was never established. Never. Everything that follow is not applicable.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News