- 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 10:01 am to tigerinDC09
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:01 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
This is blatantly false. The law states that anyone who endeavors to obstruct, is guilty of obstruction.
No, it's not.
There has to be intent, and you don't have it. You simply insist what you believe to be his intent, which is against all logic.
Why would anyone obstruct an investigation when they know they are innocent of the crime being investigated?
Mueller concluded himself that Trump didn't conspire or collude with Russians.
This means he's innocent.
This means Trump didn't do what he was being investigated for.
This means he knew he was innocent.
So again, use your fricking dumbshit brain for once.
Why would he obstruct an investigation into a crime he knew he was innocent of?
He wouldn't. Therefore your interpretation of intent is WRONG and clearly shows that either you're a moron, or a biased as frick a-hole... or likely both.
0
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:02 am to tigerinDC09
Mueller could have laid all of the crimes out without indicting.
Nothing in the OLC stops that.
He also said the OLC was not a factor and even corrected himself with a statement after his bumbling presser.
Nothing in the OLC stops that.
He also said the OLC was not a factor and even corrected himself with a statement after his bumbling presser.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:05 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Mueller said that he can only clear the president of wrongdoing when the evidence points in that direction. He said it would be unfair to accuse the president of anything, no matter how much evidence, because the President wouldn't be able to defend himself.
This is such bullshite and you know it.
Mueller specifically said "Trump did not conspire or collude with any Russians."
You're a dishonest hack and everyone knows it. Even you.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:07 am to tigerinDC09
quote:Mueller could charge, his dubious claims to the contrary notwithstanding. As "indictment" bypasses Congress, indictment is not the Constitutional avenue.
if Mueller could indict
Again, you should take another look at your interpretation of Mueller's findings. You cited Mueller's inaction on DJTJr supposed obstruction as indicative of Mueller's inability to pursue the case as he deemed fit. Yet there were no impediments, real or perceived, by TeamMueller in pursuing DJTJr. Had there been a case, they would have indicted. There wasn't. They didn't.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:08 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
From pg. 160 of volume 2 of the Mueller Report. Again I say, ya'll didn't actually read the thing.
please oh please let us know what you think is being discussed there. Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:08 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
You haven't read the report.
Of course I have. YOU stated the report stated the elements of obstruction were met with 5 specific actions. THIS IS A LIE. Cite the page.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:09 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:Correct.
Mueller could have laid all of the crimes out without indicting.
Nothing in the OLC stops that.
And Mueller made clear the existence of the OLC memo did not bear on his SC findings.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:09 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
So when I take specific statutes (as requested by those on this board) from the Mueller report, I'm not well versed
your first post was not obstruction code. The second set was about defenses. You have no clue what you’re reading. Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:10 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Wait, so I find a graphic that summarizes the intricate legal details of the obstruction case
It does not do that. I have explained this to you. It gets the basic elements wrong.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:13 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
This is blatantly false. The law states that anyone who endeavors to obstruct, is guilty of obstruction.
Wait. The law for obstruction requires an element of obstruction?
You don’t even understand why this is such a sad post, do you?
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:14 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
Mueller said that he can only clear the president of wrongdoing when the evidence points in that direction.
That’s not what he said. He said because he cannot indict a sitting president he did not even go down the road of making a determination on obstruction. It was clearly untrue. As he made a determination on conspiracy.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:17 am to BBONDS25
He/she doesn't even have the cognitive ability to realize he/she is being eviscerated in this thread.
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:19 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
That's like asking why the OJ trial took so long to start if they had all the evidence they needed when they arrested him.
This loon is now comparing the witch hunt against Trump to OJ fricking Simpson!!
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:22 am to BBONDS25
DC is giving a master class in How to be a Fundamentalist Progressive True Believer. It’s amazing that after being demonstrably wrong on virtually everything over a period of years, that he and those like him would lack the humility and self awareness to tap the brakes. And then it dawns on you- this is a religious quest-it has absolutely zero to do with facts and truth. It’s just a guy screaming Fundamentalist religious dogma .
Posted on 6/3/19 at 10:34 am to tigerinDC09
Every item in this partisan hack Quinta Jurecec's kindergarten chart is further proof that Trump wasn't colluding with the Russians, what the chart does show is the "gotchas" that anyone is susceptible to by the Swamp if you kick their chosen candidate's azz in a presidential election. Every American that was ultimately charged with a crime was cleared of cooperating with any foreign agents to effect the outcome of the 2016 GE. Trump's biggest concern when the SC formed were members of his cabinet and campaign getting screwed over on perjury and process crimes totally unrelated of the SC mission statement which was investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 GE....guess what? Trump was right again!
Posted on 6/3/19 at 3:45 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:Was Mueller's deliberate failure to divulge Volume 1 conclusions of no chargeable conspiracy, collusion, etc which had been formed well in advance of the 2018 election an obstruction of justice?
what Mueller says in his own report
This post was edited on 6/3/19 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:14 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
On this chart, where Obstruction, Intent, and Nexus all have YES, then there are your alleged crimes.
Lets look at that chart:
1. Fire comey - totally legal. It is his right.
2. Tried to fire mueller - seriously...NO. Not even close.
3. Tried to get the investigation to focus only on future. Seriously, this is the crap you are relying on?
4. Attempted to influence Manafort? How so? Again, not even close.
5. Publicly attacked cohen. Wow, you really are not good at this.
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:19 am to tigerinDC09
tigerinDC09
I know you copied this but do you even know what this means?
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).
I know you copied this but do you even know what this means?
Posted on 6/4/19 at 8:24 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences , or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts
to do so,
This is the entire basis for your beliefs as I understand it.
The problem with this involves the timing aspect. Specifically, there came a moment in time when the investigation became aware that there was no collusion. Once they became aware, there can be no obstruction. Given no collusion and a knowledge of no collusion, there can be no obstruction. Sorry.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News