- 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: It's Mueller's burden to prove the necessity of an interview with President Trump
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:57 pm to starsandstripes
Posted on 1/27/18 at 7:57 pm to starsandstripes
0
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:00 pm to Sentrius
Pretty sure that line was crossed when Trump slipped up and said “it’s looking like in 2-3 weeks”
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:00 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
s been awhile since I've run across a pigeon shitting on the board and claiming victory. I forgot how enjoyable that can be
Texridder is here all the time.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:18 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:20 pm to cajunangelle
so rustled. can't stop screaming at the sky
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:24 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You said there needs to be a crime. I showed you the crime.
I understand if you don’t want to discuss more from there.
There are crimes committed every second, doesn’t mean Trump is involved.
The point is you can’t drag the president into your fishing expedition.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:26 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
keep reading
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:33 pm to boosiebadazz
Your last sentence is common sense, and I agree with it.
All of your other posts in this thread, and elsewhere, lead me to believe you aren't an attorney. I hope this is true.
All of your other posts in this thread, and elsewhere, lead me to believe you aren't an attorney. I hope this is true.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:33 pm to Iowa Golfer
ad hom away
it's pretty much your m.o. with me
it's pretty much your m.o. with me
This post was edited on 1/27/18 at 8:34 pm
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:37 pm to Iowa Golfer
here's a quick synopsis: LINK
Jefferson wasn't riding horseback to appear and that was really the only case until Nixon and Clinton.
Feel free to offer something substantive in rebuttal to anything I've said,. but I'm tiring of your running to ad hom repeatedly any time you address me. Be better than that.
Jefferson wasn't riding horseback to appear and that was really the only case until Nixon and Clinton.
Feel free to offer something substantive in rebuttal to anything I've said,. but I'm tiring of your running to ad hom repeatedly any time you address me. Be better than that.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:38 pm to boosiebadazz
I'm not attacking your argument, other than to state it leads me to a belief that you aren't an attorney.
So let's pretend we were in court and I was asked a question, I answered the question and also gave some observations. Sort of like above, but not exactly. You're a smart guy, so you already know where I'm going. You object to my answer. Because I made an observation as part of my answer.
Now how exactly do you think the Judge will react to your objection? And I'm talking about a real court, not some shithole small town in Alabama, or Northern Florida.
So let's pretend we were in court and I was asked a question, I answered the question and also gave some observations. Sort of like above, but not exactly. You're a smart guy, so you already know where I'm going. You object to my answer. Because I made an observation as part of my answer.
Now how exactly do you think the Judge will react to your objection? And I'm talking about a real court, not some shithole small town in Alabama, or Northern Florida.
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:41 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
So let's pretend we were in court and I was asked a question, I answered the question and also gave some observations. Sort of like above, but not exactly. You're a smart guy, so you already know where I'm going. You object to my answer. Because I made an observation as part of my answer.
Now how exactly do you think the Judge will react to your objection? And I'm talking about a real court, not some shithole small town in Alabama, or Northern Florida.
I don't follow this at all
A lot of missing pieces
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:41 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I don't follow this at all
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:42 pm to Iowa Golfer
Don't be the pigeon. Please tell me you're drinking
Posted on 1/27/18 at 8:48 pm to starsandstripes
quote:Even if it was an inside job it was still a crime.
You did not show me the crime. The Russian hacking story has been disputed by the people that published the emails.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 12:02 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
So the gist is that Trump shouldn’t be questioned because he’s the President and he’s bombastic and may not do well in the interview?
That’s it?
No. They must have solid evidence to prove that they need to interview/question the president. Questions should pertain to actual evidence.
No evidence, no questions.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 5:22 am to Sentrius
Posted on 1/28/18 at 5:39 am to boosiebadazz
And to get in front of your Watergate whataboutism, there were crimes committed here. Russians hacked into the emails of the DNC. Phishing/malicious code... it’s a crime. Now it’s time to see if anyone in Trump’s camp knew or directed it.
We don’t actually know that any of the above is true. Absolutely zero of our intelligence agencies or any law enforcement ever got to examine the DNC’s sever. We also have zero idea who phished Podestas email account. Those two statements are fact and not conjecture like your previous paragraph
Edit: I work in computer security and have particular expertise in this field. I remain convinced that the it was an inside job and not Russian hacking
We don’t actually know that any of the above is true. Absolutely zero of our intelligence agencies or any law enforcement ever got to examine the DNC’s sever. We also have zero idea who phished Podestas email account. Those two statements are fact and not conjecture like your previous paragraph
Edit: I work in computer security and have particular expertise in this field. I remain convinced that the it was an inside job and not Russian hacking
This post was edited on 1/28/18 at 5:45 am
Posted on 1/28/18 at 6:01 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
So the gist is that Trump shouldn’t be questioned because he’s the President and he’s bombastic and may not do well in the interview?
Reading comprehension much??
He should not be grilled by Mueller because no crime that has been alleged, let alone supported by evidence.
This is a witch hunt in the most precise definition of witch hunts, Mueller is examining the laundry to see if he can find some kind of dirty underwear.
There is no crime. There is not collusion, and even if there were, that is not a crime.
I assume you have never murdered anyone - It is like if one of your enemies accused you of some murder, and a prosecutor was assigned to see if anyone would say you once picked up a tip left for the waiter at McDonalds - or audited your tax returns for the past 50 years plus the returns of all yoru family and associates.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I cannot understand how any sane person can be OK with it.
Posted on 1/28/18 at 6:05 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
there were crimes committed here. Russians hacked into the emails of the DNC. Phishing/malicious code... it’s a crime.
Oh good grief - weak sauce there.
quote:
Now it’s time to see if anyone in Trump’s camp knew or directed it.
Why not see if Clinton's cam knew or directed it?? Or DWS??? or Podesta??
Until there is some evidence that Trump was involved, why investing HIM???
Seth Rich was murdered - that is a crime - why not put the screws on Clinton and use that crime as a springboard to looking into the $$$$ dealings of the Clinton Foundation for the past 30 years???
see how that works??
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News