- 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: Landry/Murrill press conference Wednesday at 2pm
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:31 am to Y.A. Tittle
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:31 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
You mean a trial on the accusation or a trial determining the frivolity of such?
If the charges have merit. The charges are the accusation. A Grand Jury determined the charges did have merit, which, IMO, demonstrates that the charges had some merit.
Obviously this is unpopular, but it's impossible for me to have sympathy for Liz Murrill after she herself indicted officials in New Orleans on frivolous charges. She's getting a taste of her own medicine and doesn't like the taste of it. The difference is that Hutson and Brown actually did get arrested and did have to post bail.
This post was edited on 7/23/26 at 10:32 am
2
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:35 am to 4cubbies
quote:
What crimes were allegedly committed and by whom?
If only someone in NOLA or even you would have asked this honestly, before trying to indict Murrill, then maybe Moreno, the city council, and all involved wouldn't be shitting bricks right now.
NO is in the FO phase.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:38 am to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
Some potential possibilities...
Abuse of office or malfeasance
Obstruction of Justice
Perjury
False Statements
Conspiracy
Civil Rights violations- unreasonable seizure, due process, retaliation(1st amendment), equal protection.
If enough evidence is uncovered and Blanche gets involved, you can add RICO to that list as well. No doubt there will be someone squealing before long.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:38 am to BugAC
quote:
If only someone in NOLA or even you would have asked this honestly, before trying to indict Murrill, then maybe Moreno, the city council, and all involved wouldn't be shitting bricks right now.
You realize that an indictment involves charges, correct? The indictments specifically lay out which crimes were allegedly broke by Liz Murrill. That's literally what an indictment is.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:39 am to 4cubbies
quote:
A Grand Jury determined the charges did have merit, which, IMO, demonstrates that the charges had some merit.
Louisiana law requires grand jury returns to occur “in open court.” The Louisiana Supreme Court later described the closure as violating “express provisions of state law requiring that grand jury returns occur in the public eye, ‘in open court,’” noting reports of reporters being handcuffed and removed. The court stayed the indictment shortly afterward, citing “disturbing defects” in the grand jury proceedings and the trial court’s handling of them.
This didn't disturb you?
quote:
Obviously this is unpopular, but it's impossible for me to have sympathy for Liz Murrill after she herself indicted officials in New Orleans on frivolous charges.
LInk?
quote:
The difference is that Hutson and Brown actually did get arrested and did have to post bail.
Holy shite! Are you really equating the 2 matters?
quote:
In late April 2026, a special grand jury (brought by AG Liz Murrill’s office) returned charges related to the high-profile May 2025 jailbreak in which 10 inmates escaped from the Orleans Parish jail (reportedly through a hole left by a ripped-out toilet).
Hutson faced a 30-count indictment, including multiple counts of malfeasance in office, conspiracy to commit malfeasance, filing/maintaining false public records, and obstruction of justice.
Brown faced a 20-count indictment on similar charges (malfeasance, conspiracy, false public records, and obstruction).
The allegations centered on failures in jail security, staffing, funding claims, and related administrative/records issues spanning Hutson’s term. Both pleaded not guilty. Bonds were set at $300,000 for Hutson and $200,000 for Brown.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:41 am to 4cubbies
quote:
You realize that an indictment involves charges, correct? The indictments specifically lay out which crimes were allegedly broke by Liz Murrill. That's literally what an indictment is.
And the entire indictment was thrown out by the Louisiana Supreme Court and rescinded by those that drummed up the charges. But you ignore that because it doesn't paint the picture you want, does it?
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:42 am to BugAC
quote:You're opining about something you admittedly know very little about.
LInk?
quote:I'm comparing when Liz Murrill indicted public officials in Orleans on questionable charges to Liz Murrill being indicted by officials in Orleans on questionable charges. Yes.
Holy shite! Are you really equating the 2 matters?
This post was edited on 7/23/26 at 10:43 am
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:43 am to BugAC
quote:
And the entire indictment was thrown out by the Louisiana Supreme Court and rescinded by those that drummed up the charges. But you ignore that
When did I ignore that the charges were dropped?
The supreme court didn't throw out the indictment. They put a stay on the arrest warrant.
This post was edited on 7/23/26 at 10:45 am
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:44 am to Bigdibber
Pass the 
I'm out.
I'm out.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:46 am to 4cubbies
quote:
he indictments specifically lay out which crimes were allegedly broke by Liz Murrill.
You haven't read the letters have you? Any intelligent person can ascertain that the AG was warning the Mayor what they were doing was illegal and the consequences of such actions. Hell, Murrill just repeated that in the press conference the just of the letters. Are you suggesting she gets indicted again for "intimidation"? That's asinine and that's why your chosen retards are getting their asses handed to them at the moment. Why hitch your wagon to the dumbasses of New Orleans government?
quote:
Critics (including Murrill, Gov. Landry, and many legal observers) argued the letters were standard enforcement communications by the state’s chief legal officer:
Warning public officials of potential legal consequences for violating statutes is a core function of an attorney general’s office.
The “threats” were of legal consequences under existing usurper laws, not of violence or extralegal harm.
Prosecutors and elected officials routinely send demand letters or warnings of civil/criminal exposure; treating this as a felony would criminalize ordinary law enforcement and intergovernmental disputes.
Absolute prosecutorial immunity and free-speech/official-duty protections were also raised.
This post was edited on 7/23/26 at 10:47 am
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:48 am to 4cubbies
quote:
When did I ignore that the charges were dropped?
The supreme court didn't throw out the indictment. They put a stay on the arrest warrant.
The Louisiana Supreme Court quickly stayed the indictment, citing “disturbing defects” in the grand jury process. The charges were later fully dismissed at the request of the same New Orleans officials who had initially complained, after which Murrill described the entire episode as a political abuse of the criminal process.
Yet you are still contending a crime occurred and that the indictment was valid. Yet the ones who filed the complaint do not.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:48 am to 4cubbies
quote:As the old saying goes, an Orleans Parish DA can convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
A Grand Jury determined the charges did have merit,
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:48 am to BugAC
Your opinion is that Liz Murrill was acting appropriately. Noted. That has no bearing on anything. My opinion on whether she acted appropriately or not also has no bearing on anything.
quote:What specifically are you referring to?
Why hitch your wagon to the dumbasses of New Orleans government?
This post was edited on 7/23/26 at 10:51 am
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:49 am to BugAC
quote:
Yet you are still contending a crime occurred and that the indictment was valid.
Huh? Link the post you are referring to.
Also, the Supreme Court didn't dismiss the indictment like you claimed.
This post was edited on 7/23/26 at 10:51 am
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:51 am to 4cubbies
Your first post on this page
quote:
A Grand Jury determined the charges did have merit, which, IMO, demonstrates that the charges had some merit.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:52 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Also, the Supreme Court didn't dismiss the indictment like you claimed.
Sorry, they put a stay on it because the appearance of impropriety, per the LSC words were "disturbing". That doesn't help your case.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:54 am to BugAC
OK, so your position is that an indictment is NOT evidence that a charge has merit?
So no indictments should be taken seriously? Or are you saying when a Republican is indicted, that indictment shouldn't be taken seriously but if a Democrat like Susan Hutson is indicted, we should take that as proof that the charges have merit?
So no indictments should be taken seriously? Or are you saying when a Republican is indicted, that indictment shouldn't be taken seriously but if a Democrat like Susan Hutson is indicted, we should take that as proof that the charges have merit?
This post was edited on 7/23/26 at 10:55 am
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:56 am to BugAC
quote:
That doesn't help your case.
What is my case? My case is that the Grand Jury indicted Liz Murrill and the charges were dropped. What do you think you're arguing here?
Posted on 7/23/26 at 11:00 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Is the substance liquor? Or an opiate?
Holy whiffed it, Batshim!!!!
PS: So sorry that Landry, like Trump, had you by the pussy. Will keep you in my thoughts and prayers.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 11:02 am to 4cubbies
quote:
OK, so your position is that an indictment is NOT evidence that a charge has merit?
In this specific case, absolutely not. By all means, what merit is there. Here is the law by the way.
quote:
A. Public intimidation is the use of violence, force, extortionate threats, or true threats upon any of the following persons, with the intent to influence his conduct in relation to his position, employment, or duty:
(
quote:
1) Public officer or public employee.
(2) Grand or petit juror.
(3) Witness, or person about to be called as a witness upon a trial or other proceeding before any court, board or officer authorized to hear evidence or to take testimony.
(4) Voter or election official at any general, primary, or special election.
(5) School bus operator.
B. Retaliation against an elected official is the use of violence, force, extortionate threats, or true threats upon a person who is elected to public office, where:
(1) The violence, force, or threat is related to the duties of the elected official; and
(2) Is in retaliation or retribution for actions taken by the elected official as part of his official duties.
Pay attention to this:
quote:
C. Definitions
(1) “Extortionate threats” occur when a person communicates an unlawful threat to harm another person with the intention to obtain anything of value or any acquittance, advantage, or immunity of any description and the person would not otherwise be able to lawfully secure such advantage willingly from the victim.
(2) “True threats” occur when a person communicates a serious expression of an intent to commit an unlawful act of violence upon a person or group of persons with the intent to place such persons in fear of bodily harm or death. The person need not actually intend to carry out the threat.
So, please cite the wording in the letter that shows an "extortionate threat" or a "true threat".
Now give me your opinion of what portion of the letter was considered a threat by your definition.
This post was edited on 7/23/26 at 11:03 am
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News