- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: I want to remind you all, the feds put a man in solitary confinement
Posted on 8/2/18 at 1:39 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 8/2/18 at 1:39 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:Only if it were Valerie Jarrett.
The bigger issue here is...are black trump supporters called trumpanzees, too? Is that not racist? What are the dang rules?
(too soon?)
1
Posted on 8/2/18 at 2:08 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
^^^^ Y'all see this everybody, we could have had Ol'HHHATW running this carnival. He could have put the ol kibosh on this nonsense from jump street.
I know you're trying to be a smart arse, but the reality is I'd throw my mom in prison if she broke the law, and I wouldn't skirt the law to imprison someone on fake charges.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 2:10 pm to LSUvet72
anger issues trumpkin. the doj and the fbi are just cleaning up the mess your president put himself in. some of you folks need help.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 2:11 pm to 56lsu
quote:Peter Strzok to the rescue!
the doj and the fbi are just cleaning up the mess your president put himself in.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 2:15 pm to LSUvet72
quote:
Yes I do now you read this you melting Snowflake arse hole with Trumo Derangement Syndrome......
Wrap the plastic bag you pick up you dogs shirte around your head and suffocate yourself because your dog is smarter than you not to see what the DOJ and FBI has conspired to do to a duly elected President....
My guess is that no one told you you were "book smart."
Posted on 8/2/18 at 2:17 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Only if it were Valerie Jarrett.
Can we just admit that yes Valeri Jarret looks like she walked straight off the Planet of the Apes set? Come on that's not racist.
Mean spirited ? Yes, but if you want equality that means it's as acceptable to call a white guy an orangutan and its acceptable to call a brown woman a monkey, or it isn't acceptable either way.
Myself, I laugh when people call Trump an orange orangutan that shite's funny, so is calling VJ an extra from Planet of the Apes.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 2:21 pm to Jbird
when the walls come tumbling down we will see if the dancing banana comes dancing from your side.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 3:00 pm to Bard
quote:
Oh?
quote: Manafort, 69, and the 48-year-old Moscow resident Kilimnik were both charged with obstructing justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice by using intimidation or force against a witness, and also with tampering with a witness, victim or informant
quote:
That's a pretty concrete statement of active contact.
That’s what you get for quoting CNBC
I’m looking right at the June 8th 3rd superseding indictment and there is no mention of force or intimidation. In fact, in its revocation motion filed a few days prior, the prosecution devotes much argument to the point that threats or intimidation is not required to be guilty of witness tampering. quote:
But even if it were only "attempts to contact and influence" that's still against the law.
Yes, I know. But I’m sure most would agree that threats or intimidation is much worse than just saying “hey remember we never did anything wrong.”
quote:
There's nothing anti-MAGA about admitting the truth on Manafort. If anything it shows he may well have been just as swampy as someone like McCain.
Yeah I said earlier I did not care for the guy. Guilty or not he certainly seems pretty shady to me but then again most people operating at that high a level seem that way.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 3:06 pm to Havoc
Rosie O'Donnel wasn't even looked into when she OPENLY bribed two US Senators, that really tells a person all they need to know about our justice system.
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
so how about this
i promise to give
2 million dollars to senator susan collins
and 2 million to senator jeff flake
if they vote NO
NO I WILL NOT KILL AMERICANS
FOR THE SUOER RICH
DM me susan
DM me jeff
no shite
2 million
cash
each
— ROSIE (@Rosie) December 20, 2017
Slam dunk case, I guarantee NO defense attorney would want to go to trial on that case, she should have been charged, plead guilty, paid a $6M fine and been labeled as a felon for the rest of her fricking life.
NO ONE can argue that that wasn't a bribe.
I'm ashamed of our legal system.
18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
so how about this
i promise to give
2 million dollars to senator susan collins
and 2 million to senator jeff flake
if they vote NO
NO I WILL NOT KILL AMERICANS
FOR THE SUOER RICH
DM me susan
DM me jeff
no shite
2 million
cash
each
— ROSIE (@Rosie) December 20, 2017
Slam dunk case, I guarantee NO defense attorney would want to go to trial on that case, she should have been charged, plead guilty, paid a $6M fine and been labeled as a felon for the rest of her fricking life.
NO ONE can argue that that wasn't a bribe.
I'm ashamed of our legal system.
This post was edited on 8/2/18 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 8/2/18 at 3:07 pm to Oddibe
quote:
I would like some clarification as to whether or not Rod Rosenstein chose NOT to press charges against Manafort 8 years ago when he had the opportunity.
yep, they decided there wasnt enough evidence to press charges against him at the time.
but now, since he helped trump get elected, they see things differently and are pushing for 99 years plus jail term if convicted with not a single new piece of evidence found.
i wonder why they decided to change their minds now?
Posted on 8/2/18 at 3:09 pm to TGFN57
You’re “with her,” aren’t you soy boy.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 3:09 pm to 56lsu
quote:
the doj and the fbi are just cleaning up the mess your president put himself in.
What a liar. They are cleaning up by covering up their own corruption and that of Obama, Clinton and the DNC. Not to mention the charges at issue don’t even involve Trump you idiot.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 3:11 pm to 56lsu
quote:
anger issues trumpkin. the doj and the fbi are just cleaning up the mess your president put himself in. some of you folks need help.
That’s rich coming from a lib. Should I check my privilege soy boy?
Posted on 8/2/18 at 3:18 pm to keakar
quote:You have no idea what you're taking about
with not a single new piece of evidence found.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 4:07 pm to Havoc
quote:
That’s what you get for quoting CNBC I’m looking right at the June 8th 3rd superseding indictment and there is no mention of force or intimidation. In fact, in its revocation motion filed a few days prior, the prosecution devotes much argument to the point that threats or intimidation is not required to be guilty of witness tampering.
The charges in question...
quote:
From in or about and between February 23, 2018, and April 2018, both dates being
approximate and inclusive, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants PAUL
J. MANAFORT, JR., and KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK knowingly and intentionally attempted to
corruptly persuade another person, to wit: Persons D1 and D2, with intent to influence, delay, and
prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.
quote:
From in or about and between February 23, 2018, and April 2018, both dates being
approximate and inclusive, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants PAUL
J. MANAFORT, JR., and KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK knowingly and intentionally conspired to
corruptly persuade another person, to wit: Persons D1 and D2, with intent to influence, delay, and
prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1512(b)(1).
18 U.S. Code § 1512 (b) (1)
quote:
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
"Threatening" and "corruptly persuades another person" are just other forms of saying "intimidation". What you're arguing is literally the difference between "six" and "half a dozen".
This post was edited on 8/2/18 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 8/2/18 at 6:18 pm to Cajunese
what ever floats your boat trumpkin. get some new so called insults soy boy was worn out before it started.
Posted on 8/2/18 at 6:39 pm to 56lsu
Yeah, and “Trumpkin” isn’t worn out or anything there hipster dough boy.
This post was edited on 8/2/18 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 8/2/18 at 8:25 pm to Cajunese
sounds like a melt trumpkin. at 70 I doubt i'm a hipster. nice try though.
Posted on 8/3/18 at 1:29 pm to Bard
quote:
"Threatening" and "corruptly persuades another person" are just other forms of saying "intimidation". What you're arguing is literally the difference between "six" and "half a dozen".
Not exactly, “corruptly persuade” is one of the forms of Tampering with a witness under the statute. Legally, you’re correct that this discussion is just semantics because they are all actionable under the statute.
However, what I’m saying is, to the extent that someone holds a more negative view of threats/intimidation versus persuading or suggesting, it’s a relevant moral distinction.
You can’t tell me that you think someone threatening to physically or otherwise harm someone for testifying is on the same level as suggesting a set of “facts” that occurred even if false. It’s like the moral difference between punching someone and lying to them.
Posted on 8/4/18 at 12:36 am to Havoc
quote:
You can’t tell me that you think someone threatening to physically or otherwise harm someone for testifying is on the same level as suggesting a set of “facts” that occurred even if false.
In this scenario I can. Someone with immense wealth and power is on trial and they knowingly break the law in order to come to you to give you the "facts" they want you to use if/when you are called as a witness in said trial... in no world does that not imply an attempt at intimidation or even a threat.
This post was edited on 8/4/18 at 12:37 am
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News