- 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's Lieutenant’ Applauded Official For Defying Trump (another Giglio V)
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:46 pm to VOLhalla
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:46 pm to VOLhalla
quote:
Revealing details would compromise finding the truth.
How so? It's by committees cleared for oversight. They have been trying since July and we just now found out only because it was leaked through other avenues. Congress isn't the problem here
. Muellers team is compromised and he's trying to hide it to get his indictment.
1
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:47 pm to bhtigerfan
Depends on whether I'm posting here or befriending your maternal unit.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:49 pm to VOLhalla
quote:
Something big must be coming against Trump soon. All you paid Trump posters are desperately trying to discredit this investigation
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:50 pm to BobBoucher
Congress isn’t a tight ship. Congressmen leak or talk to their aides who then leak. Mueller clearly likes to run a tight ship. He doesn’t work for Congress so there’s no way he talks to them until he’s ready.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:52 pm to Woody Glazer
Oh, you're going off script? You better not let your supervisor see this.
So, I've heard you have to suck David Brock's dick to show your loyalty to him when you're hired. How bad was it?
So, I've heard you have to suck David Brock's dick to show your loyalty to him when you're hired. How bad was it?
This post was edited on 12/5/17 at 10:53 pm
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:54 pm to VOLhalla
Mueller doesn't get to choose what he discloses and when. That's shite happens in dictatorships. That's why we have congressional oversight and dictators don't.
When the job your doing is potentially compromised and your boss wants answers, you give it. Unless you're hiding something, and its pretty clear at this point he didn't want the world to find evidence of his agenda.
Glad it got out. Weapononozing law against political opponents undermines our democracy.
When the job your doing is potentially compromised and your boss wants answers, you give it. Unless you're hiding something, and its pretty clear at this point he didn't want the world to find evidence of his agenda.
Glad it got out. Weapononozing law against political opponents undermines our democracy.
This post was edited on 12/5/17 at 11:03 pm
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:57 pm to bhtigerfan
That's not a factual statement.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 10:58 pm to Woody Glazer
quote:So you enjoyed it? Figures.
That's not a factual statement.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:03 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
You and the SCOTUS have a difference of opinion. Guess which one actually matters.
SCOTUS didn't rule on that one.
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:08 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
Mueller doesn't get to choose what he discloses and when. That's shite happens in dictatorships. That's why we have congressional oversight and dictators don't.
Details of ongoing investigations are almost never made public. You’d have to be insane to expect every police department to publicly release updates in every criminal investigation. And Mueller doesn’t work for Congress, so he’s not going to willingly update them.
Once the investigation is over there will be detsils released to the public. If you don’t like it you can move to this mythical country where the police cannot keep investigatory details quiet
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:17 pm to VOLhalla
quote:
Details of ongoing investigations are almost never made public. Y
Its not public. These committes exists to ensure the integrity of the system. The fact that the committees haven't complained publicly that their requests have gone unanswered from the FBI until the Strozk thing leaked elsewhere is perfect evidence.
That committee knew about it in July and NEVER LEAKED IT.
You should be concerned that If dems can look the other way and ignore crimes from fellow dems but prosecute Pub for those exact crimes, that some day soon it could go the other way. That's not how it's supposed to work. Again. That's how places like Russia operate against their political opponents
This post was edited on 12/5/17 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 12/5/17 at 11:28 pm to BobBoucher
You do realize that the White House is refusing to comply with Congressional investigations, right? And they don’t have the excuse that they are actively investigating a crime and disclosing details jeopardizes the investigation.
Did the Starr investigation give Congress update reports in the middle of the Clinton investigation?
Our government has to disclose to the public details of criminal investigations, but not during the actual investigation. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp.
Did the Starr investigation give Congress update reports in the middle of the Clinton investigation?
Our government has to disclose to the public details of criminal investigations, but not during the actual investigation. This isn’t a hard concept to grasp.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 12:21 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
Do y'all get paid per post or by the hour?
No shite, right?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 12:31 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
That's not a factual statement.
So you enjoyed it? Figures. ?
Lol
Posted on 12/6/17 at 3:07 am to zunic
quote:
SCOTUS didn't rule on that one.
G
I
G
L
I
O
V
I
O
L
A
T
I
O
N
Posted on 12/6/17 at 6:46 am to Jjdoc
quote:
You and the SCOTUS have a difference of opinion. Guess which one actually matters.
Clue: not yours
Posted on 12/6/17 at 9:23 am to mofungoo
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:08 am to Woody Glazer
quote:
You all are so desperate.
This guy wrote this email on Jan 30th, a few days after the first version of the travel ban was announced. Sally Yates refused to support this version of the ban.
The courts ruled against it.
Trump could have appealed to the Supreme Court, but he didn't.
You know why, because he knew he would lose.
His team decided to rewrite the travel ban instead, in response to the legal issues raised by ninth circuit.
This guy Weissmann was right about the first version of the ban.
He was right to be proud of Yates.
We should all be proud when the rule of law is upheld.
This is why I come here.
Someone with half a brain takes the time to compose a load of horshite without ever bothering to research any of it. My favorite part:
quote:
He was right to be proud of Yates.
And now Yates in her own words
quote:
She explained to the graduating class that her choice was based on a moment when her conscience intersected with the law.
HER conscience, THE law
She knew what she was doing, and so did that idiot Weissmann. But obviously not that idiot, that is you
quote:
At first, Yates thought she might resign instead of having to make the decision to defend or deny the order from Trump. Using the power of hindsight, many have said that she should have simply resigned, which would have saved her the trouble and prevented an issue with the president. Yates argued that would have only pushed the decision onto whomever took her place, which wasn’t something she was prepared to do.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:08 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
Do you and Pbhog have a contest going on to see who can be the most ignorant lib on the board?
Y'all are neck and neck.
Nah PBhog got her beat by a long mile.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News