- 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: Mueller To Make Statement At 11:00 ET
Posted on 5/29/19 at 11:59 am to tigerinDC09
Posted on 5/29/19 at 11:59 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
I don't think most in here would have like where Mueller would have landed if he didn't "punt".
The fact that you say this, and have no clue what you are talking about, shows how low your intelligence actually is. If you "KNOW" all of these things, post it. Post the facts and evidence, the crime (cite the criminal statute as well) and then maybe march over to Washington and hand over evidence that only YOU have.
Oh, and 2 years of investigating is now "punting"? Fool.
This post was edited on 5/29/19 at 12:00 pm
2
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:14 pm to BugAC
Mueller is a goddamn coward.
He comes out with a 9 minute "statement" full of impeachment talk and moaning and whining about how the OLC wouldn't allow him to indict Trump and say Trump is not exonerated and then he just walks off without taking questions?
frick that shite. The senate needs to put a subpoena in the hands of that son of a bitch yesterday and rake him over the hot coals over his politicized "investigation", "report" and "statement".
He comes out with a 9 minute "statement" full of impeachment talk and moaning and whining about how the OLC wouldn't allow him to indict Trump and say Trump is not exonerated and then he just walks off without taking questions?
frick that shite. The senate needs to put a subpoena in the hands of that son of a bitch yesterday and rake him over the hot coals over his politicized "investigation", "report" and "statement".
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:28 pm to BugAC
quote:
The fact that you say this, and have no clue what you are talking about, shows how low your intelligence actually is. If you "KNOW" all of these things, post it. Post the facts and evidence, the crime (cite the criminal statute as well) and then maybe march over to Washington and hand over evidence that only YOU have.
It's all in the Mueller report. When Trump leaves office, assuming it's still within the legal time limitation, a federal prosecutor will use this as a guide for a prosecution decision.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:29 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
It's all in the Mueller report. When Trump leaves office, assuming it's still within the legal time limitation, a federal prosecutor will use this as a guide for a prosecution decision.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:33 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:Two charges. Perjury and Obstruction of Justice
What federal crime was Clinton charged with?
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:37 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Two charges. Perjury and Obstruction of Justice
Technically not true, we was never charged with a crime. These were in the articles of impeachment.
He agreed to give up his law license in lieu of criminal proceedings after he left office.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:37 pm to tigerinDC09
Lol wanna ban bet?
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:41 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
Lol wanna ban bet?
Well, you would lose:
quote:reme Court bar during the 40-day appeals period.[32]
In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this citation, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine, and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[29]
Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, the judge wrote:
Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ...[29]
On the day before leaving office in January 2001, President Clinton in what amounted to a plea bargain agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and to pay a $25,000 fine as part of an agreement with the independent counsel Robert Ray to end his investigation without filing any criminal charges for perjury or obstruction of justice. [30][31] Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar as a result of his law license suspension. However, as is customary, he was allowed 40 days to appeal an otherwise-automatic disbarment. The former President resigned from the Sup
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:44 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:There is not a chance in hell that case is ever brought.
When Trump leaves office, assuming it's still within the legal time limitation, a federal prosecutor will use this as a guide for a prosecution decision.
Why?
Because there is no case. None!
There was no collusion.
There was no conspiracy.
Facts about which the POTUS was keenly aware.
There was however an effort to orchestrate a hoax, to sully the Trump election and slander his administration with false innuendo. Insofar as that orchestration constituted an attempt to undermine a duly elected President of the United States, it constituted a political impediment to Trump exercising elective mandates.
To the extent the President is Constitutionally entitled to minimize such impediment, not only is he not obstructing justice (as there was no justice to obstruct), he is fulfilling his Constitutional obligations as Chief Executive in doing so.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:48 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:The charges were for perjury and obstruction of justice. Those are crimes. Impeachment is conducted for high CRIMES and misdemeanors. Clinton was disbarred as a result of commission of those crimes.
Technically not true, we was never charged with a crime.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 12:50 pm to yatesdog38
quote:naive
Obstruction wouldn't even be in the discussion if Trump would shut his piehole
quote:
They arrested those people and found bad actors
when did this happen? who are these people? quote:the mueller report revealed basically nothing about this. the russians are as involved as they always have been. nothing on that has changed and the only new info that i am aware of is the specific fb bots. those people were charged and to my knowledge, that charge didn't stick in court. the mueller report was a totally pointless fiasco
Now we know how heavily involved Russia is in the democratic election process across the globe
quote:
That is enormous leverage to squeeze all of their trade partners with.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 1:01 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:wrong. there is no clear message. if anything, his pc just muddied the waters
Andrew Napolitano said there was one pretty clear message from Robert Mueller: “The president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would’ve indicted him.”
quote:but that is no indictment.
if they were confident President Donald Trump had not committed a crime, they would have said so.
quote:no, that was not AT ALL basically the message. that is wrong
Mueller’s message was basically “We had evidence that he [Trump] committed a crime, but we couldn’t charge him because he’s the President of the United States.”
quote:again, wrong.
He said it’s “stronger than the language in his report”
Posted on 5/29/19 at 1:04 pm to bmy
quote:yet never said he should be charged even though we know he can't be. face it, mueller politicized it. he has had every chance in the world to state unequivocally that he thinks the president is guilty and he NEVER did. heck, he went so far as to say that barr's summary was accurate. he definitely played both sides of the fence.
The report outlined several instances that may be obstruction and uses the phrase "substantial evidence"
Posted on 5/29/19 at 1:06 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:both? tell me what you think the president did to "obstruct". mueller's opinion on the matter is laughable and probably the reason why he has NEVER said the president is definitely guilty
Is he a sissy for not making a decision or is he playing politics by quoting his own report?
Posted on 5/29/19 at 1:07 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:Mueller just resigned. I would guess he has no obligation to continue with omerta.
So I assume he had to get Barr's permission to do this? The chain of command has been blurred during the last two years.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 1:10 pm to BigAppleBucky
Lol
Posted on 5/29/19 at 1:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The charges were for perjury and obstruction of justice. Those are crimes. Impeachment is conducted for high CRIMES and misdemeanors.
Wrong, an article of impeachment is not the same as a criminal charge.
Congress could impeach a president for wearing a blue suit if they wanted to. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, period.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 1:12 pm to MrLarson
Nads is a nut....
Posted on 5/29/19 at 1:13 pm to bfniii
quote:
both? tell me what you think the president did to "obstruct". mueller's opinion on the matter is laughable
If Mueller's opinion on the matter doesn't matter then why the hell should any one care about bfniii's opinion, a anonymous poster on a political message board.
Posted on 5/29/19 at 1:20 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:But they didn't.
Congress could impeach a president for wearing a blue suit
They didn't even impeach for Monica wearing the president on her blue dress.
Congress impeached Clinton for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. The same crimes he was disbarred for having committed.
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News