- 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: More obstruction of justice by Trump
Posted on 5/23/17 at 11:34 am to JuiceTerry
Posted on 5/23/17 at 11:34 am to JuiceTerry
quote:As he damn well should have. The conversation goes like this.
President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation
Comey: Mr President, you are not under investigation.
POTUS: Fine. Please state that publicly for the good of national unity.
Comey: No.
Congress: Mr. Comey, is there any evidence of collusion?
Comey: I cannot comment on that.
Congress: Mr. Comey, is the POTUS under investigation?
Comey: I cannot comment on that.
So Trump approaches two other IC Directors and asks them to publicly acknowledge what they already know, there is no investigation of the POTUS at this time.
So which is the obstruction?
Comey's continued allowance of false innuendo, or Trump's effort to GET THE FACTS OUT in the open.
2
Posted on 5/23/17 at 11:35 am to JuiceTerry
wrong board. this one is for Pepe and ostriches.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 11:35 am to NC_Tigah
That OP thinks this was obstruction signifies derangement
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 11:43 am
Posted on 5/23/17 at 11:36 am to CelticDog
quote:
wrong board. this one is for Pepe and ostriches.
d want, Hillary lost. Melt on.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 11:40 am to PsychTiger
quote:
How about when Obama and Hillary asked all of our nation's intelligence agencies to illegally spy on Trump?
Or have the IRS place tax processing on hold for conservative organizations.
Crazy stuff, right?
Posted on 5/23/17 at 11:42 am to LSU1NSEC
quote:
It's an LOL day when u can get multiple Trumpkins to defend multiple obstruction of justice charges.
What charges?
And why do you now care about this when you didn't in the previous administration?
So many posters on this board are so completely full of shite. It's embarrassing reading posts. From both sides, but you liberals just seem more full of shite.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 11:43 am to JuiceTerry
I see you are still not tired of looking like a complete hack.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 11:53 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
As he damn well should have. The conversation goes like this.
Comey: Mr President, you are not under investigation.
POTUS: Fine. Please state that publicly for the good of national unity.
Comey: No.
Congress: Mr. Comey, is there any evidence of collusion?
Comey: I cannot comment on that.
Congress: Mr. Comey, is the POTUS under investigation?
Comey: I cannot comment on that.
So Trump approaches two other IC Directors and asks them to publicly acknowledge what they already know, there is no investigation of the POTUS at this time.
So which is the obstruction?
Comey's continued allowance of false innuendo, or Trump's effort to GET THE FACTS OUT in the open.
Along those lines, what if Trump was briefed that Comey had produced no evidence of collusion and was wasting agency resources on a wild goose chase for political reasons?
Posted on 5/23/17 at 11:56 am to JuiceTerry
Juice........Juice......Juice........Juice.....Juice.
Pushback against an investigation is not an obstruction of justice . If the FBI were coming at me, I am well within my rights to pushback against them....refuse to speak to them, make fun of them, have my surrogates help me to make their lives as hard as possible.
I'm not allowed to lie or ignore a lawful subpoena, but if I want to send out my guys to try and set the FBI straight in terms of the narrative, I'm allowed to do it. It's not a one way street
Thus far nothing concrete has even leaked out and you gotta know that in something like this , if there was anything of real import, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time and CNN would be leaking the shite out of it
Not that I'm a huge Trump fan , but I truly dislike the federal government and what the FBI and other police agencies can do to you..... it can be ugly even for those that did nothing wrong....see Scooter Libby ending up being prosecuted for a penny ante process crime when Fitzgerald knew from Day 1 that Richard Armitage was the guy who outed Plame
Pushback against an investigation is not an obstruction of justice . If the FBI were coming at me, I am well within my rights to pushback against them....refuse to speak to them, make fun of them, have my surrogates help me to make their lives as hard as possible.
I'm not allowed to lie or ignore a lawful subpoena, but if I want to send out my guys to try and set the FBI straight in terms of the narrative, I'm allowed to do it. It's not a one way street
Thus far nothing concrete has even leaked out and you gotta know that in something like this , if there was anything of real import, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time and CNN would be leaking the shite out of it
Not that I'm a huge Trump fan , but I truly dislike the federal government and what the FBI and other police agencies can do to you..... it can be ugly even for those that did nothing wrong....see Scooter Libby ending up being prosecuted for a penny ante process crime when Fitzgerald knew from Day 1 that Richard Armitage was the guy who outed Plame
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 11:57 am
Posted on 5/23/17 at 12:07 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
You mean an allegation within a story anchored around a single anonymous source? The kind you and others are using to discredit the OP?
The computers and servers the Clinton team destroyed were subpoenaed right? Has Trump destroyed anything after it was subpoenaed to obstruct an investigation?
Any sane person knows that equipment was destroyed to hide evidence. Why else do it?
Posted on 5/23/17 at 12:18 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.
comey testified under oath that this didn't happen
Posted on 5/23/17 at 12:23 pm to monsterballads
Comey testified that the DOJ never pressured the FBI to end an investigation. That has nothing to do with the paragraph you quoted.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 12:26 pm to JuiceTerry
Is today a day that Trumpkins love anonymous sources or hate them? I can't keep up.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 1:24 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Is today a day that Trumpkins love anonymous sources or hate them? I can't keep up.
Here. I'll answer this for you for all time.
Anonymous sources should always be considered problematic for the following obvious reasons.
1)When you hear phrases like "an X official" or, "a senior official said" or any variation, you have no way of knowing exactly how important said source actually is. You don't even know if said source is a solid place to go for the information in question
2)Characterization of source quote is 100% that of the journalist doing the writing. For example. If I tell a journalist that I hear Joe saying that Jane could be helpful in getting something passed........journalist can refer to that as "bragging". Of course, such language has more to do with the journalist than with the information.
3)ALL decent sized agencies on the planet have people who are unhappy with their bosses. With an anonymous source, we have zero way of learning if the source is to be considered reliable.
4)We also have zero way of knowing if the journalist did their due diligence in checking the validity of the information they received.
With all the above in mind, we are left to look at the organizations who are using said anonymous sources. Well. OK. If you can look at the scene on the night of the election and say that you believe those same people are being 100% professional in their approach to vetting anonymous sources, I'm going to have to call you a fricking moron.
So. Bottom line. To answer your question. In today's highly partisan environment. ALL anonymous sources should be held to a VERY skeptical eye.
Posted on 3/25/19 at 11:51 am to JuiceTerry
Lol
Posted on 3/25/19 at 11:54 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Solid bump 
Posted on 3/25/19 at 11:55 am to Wally Sparks
Tangerine looking like a fool in this thread as well.
Posted on 3/25/19 at 11:59 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
Is today a day that Trumpkins love anonymous sources or hate them? I can't keep up.
lol
Posted on 3/25/19 at 12:00 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
JuiceTerry
Your daily failures are worth coming back to witness on a regular basis.
This post was edited on 3/25/19 at 12:01 pm
Posted on 3/25/19 at 12:01 pm to LSU Patrick
I love that defending yourself from an accusation became a crime in the minds of liberals both during the Trump and Kavanaugh witch hunts.
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News