- 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: Lindsey Graham to Introduce Bill Limiting Trump’s Ability to Fire the Mueller
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:15 pm to Sentrius
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:15 pm to Sentrius
quote:
No person, including Trump deserves to be subject to limitless investigation without end with no checks whatsoever. It's abusive and Mueller needs to be reined in.
Were you pissed off about the what 8(?) benghazi investigations?
Didn't think so.
I personally have no issue with investigating trump (or hillary). Eventually it gets excessive but we are well before that point with trump.
3
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:19 pm to a want
quote:
I bet it passes with over 75 votes in senate.
They can get 100 but it still wont matter.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:19 pm to TigerDoc
Mueller is not getting fired. Democrats will be the only ones indicted, though.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:19 pm to Haughton99
quote:
“If Jeff Sessions is fired,” he added, “there will be holy hell to pay.”
I really don't like the sound of that tone
Graham is GOPe that needs to be put out in a hot shed with no water....he needs to shut up
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:20 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Were you pissed off about the what 8(?) benghazi investigations?
Didn't think so.
I personally have no issue with investigating trump (or hillary). Eventually it gets excessive but we are well before that point with trump.
A) that's classic whataboutism
B) Yes I was , but I'm pissed at about everything the idiots in Congress do, unlike people like you I don't base my thoughts on party
C) That is ENTIRELY different than a criminal investigation. It's not even in the same ballpark, Congress has their own rules and such in regards to investigations, but even a special counsel is supposed to comport to the god damned Constitution of the united states.
If you had even an ounce of integrity in your body you would demand that anyone in the Justice Department either proffer charges or this shite got dropped
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:24 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Were you pissed off about the what 8(?) benghazi investigations?
There's was an actual incident and a crime to investigate there and the investigation never deviated from th scope of it.
That did not have the investigative powers of the DOJ and has no power to compel testimony or evidence.
The checks on it were being accountable to ethics committees and the voters.
It was never going to hurt Obama or Hillary because there was nothing Congress could do to prosecute a crime.
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:34 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Charges don't come until the end of the investigation, of course, but at least some of the crimes are known. Podesta and the DNA were hacked. Accessory before or after the fact with regard to hacking could fall under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Campaign violations for soliciting things of value may have happened under FECA (Flynn if he worked with Peter Smith might be implicated or Manafort, Kushner, or Trump Jr. meeting with the 3 Russians). The espionage act has even been brought up as a possibility if Jr. took Russian government materials from Veselnetskya.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:41 pm to Sentrius
quote:
There's was an actual incident and a crime to investigate there and the investigation never deviated from th scope of it.
There absolutely are incidents and crimes to investigate here.
quote:
That did not have the investigative powers of the DOJ and has no power to compel testimony or evidence.
FBI investigated benghazi
quote:
It was never going to hurt Obama or Hillary because there was nothing Congress could do to prosecute a crime.
likely cost her election which was the point of the 8 benghazi investigations. One was to get to the truth, the other 7 were pure politics.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:42 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
There was a great analysis on Rush this morn; Trump should order Sessions to instruct Meuller to stay within Regulatory Code parameters re the SPECIFIC CRIME upon which His (Meuller's) investigative authority was based. There is no crime!
Sessions can then appoint another SP to round up the Dems who are guilty of real collusion/election tampering.
Rush seems to forget that Sessions doesn't have the power to do any of that. He recused himself from anything relating to Russia which, by the way, was the plan of the Congressional Democrats all along -- neutralize Sessions.
I suppose he could "unrecuse" himself (not sure how that works), but that's another can of worms in itself.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:43 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Charges don't come until the end of the investigation, of course, but at least some of the crimes are known. Podesta and the DNA were hacked. Accessory before or after the fact with regard to hacking could fall under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Campaign violations for soliciting things of value may have happened under FECA (Flynn if he worked with Peter Smith might be implicated or Manafort, Kushner, or Trump Jr. meeting with the 3 Russians). The espionage act has even been brought up as a possibility if Jr. took Russian government materials from Veselnetskya.
It's clear that you don't have idea how our legal system works, so why don't you go color in your coloring book or something
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:44 pm to BBONDS25
Ok, that's a bit of a change. Before you thought it would be more Dems than Repubs. Gotcha down for zero Repubs, >0 Dems.
You don't think even Flynn's going down? He's not asking for immunity for nothing.
You don't think even Flynn's going down? He's not asking for immunity for nothing.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:48 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
I personally have no issue with investigating trump (or hillary). Eventually it gets excessive but we are well before that point with trump.
What about all elected officials and members of congress?
99% chance many of them and associates have been involved in nefarious activities and broke laws with foreign countries or individuals.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:48 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
There absolutely are incidents and crimes to investigate here.
Explain and be specific
Otherwise you just keep making a fool of yourself
Posted on 7/27/17 at 2:56 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Otherwise you just keep making a fool of yourself
quote:
SDVTiger
Says the guy who never contributes.
FARA.
FEC violations
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:01 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
FARA.
FEC violations
be specific
in order to open a federal investigation, you have to be able to SPECIFICALLY identify laws that you reasonably believe were broken, THEN you investigate those crimes to determine who committed them.
In this case we're investigating Trump and his associates to see if they broke any laws.
There is , obviously, no way you would be okay if this was done to you. And I wouldn't be okay with it being done to you either.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:05 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
be specific
why?
The people here will just "witch hunt" or manafort was just a bit player.
I am not responsible for the investigation. I have to trust the DOJ/FBI to do the right thing. They rightfully know mroe than I do. I am just a pleeb in my underwear posting on a message board.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:06 pm to Volatile
quote:
And then the veto will be overridden.
No it wouldn't.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:22 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
First vote was an overwhelming majority.
Quit being stupid.
Quit being stupid.
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:24 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
FARA.
FEC violations
So nothing and you cant be specific shocked.
All you contribute is paranoia
Posted on 7/27/17 at 3:25 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
If Congress were to say that his firing would require additional DOJ oversight (and the article does say his firing would be subject to "judicial review" so I presume that would be DOJ), they'd probably be in the clear (Constitutionally at least).
DOJ is under the Executive Branch - Article II
"Judicial Review" (i.e., Judiciary) = Article III
Morrison won't apply because IC was a creation of Congress (i.e., it existed under a specific statute grating to CONGRESS the authority to appoint the IC [thus, Congress had the authority of oversight]). Because that law no longer exists, that is why the DOJ (i.e., the Executive Branch) has to appoint the special counsel. Therefore, as the CEO and head of the Executive Branch, Trump can fire him.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News