- 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
Per Bob Mueller: Obstruction was not a consideration since there was no evidence of an
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:08 pm
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:08 pm
underlying crime. As to the tweets and "with hunt" rhetoric just imagine if you were being assaulted AND investigated by a SC who spent $35M trying to prove a crime you KNEW YOU HAD NOT COMMITTED. 100% of us would be frustrated beyond reason and ANGRY to an extent we likely didn't know was possible. Yet there was complete co-operation from the accused and the white house who provided a huge number of documents and endless numbers of witnesses. This per George Will.
12
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:10 pm to jimdog
Que the sky yelling
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:13 pm to jimdog
Trumps anger is completely justified. If i had been in his position, heads would roll. Thats why Im not in politics though
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:25 pm to jimdog
eta: link?
This post was edited on 4/28/19 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:30 pm to jimdog
link?
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:38 pm to jimdog
Did I miss an interview with Mueller or questions or something?
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:38 pm to jimdog
but but but trump answered written questions saying he could not recall anything and had no recollection”at this time”. he refused a face to face
there goes ur theory.
there goes ur theory.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:39 pm to jimdog
Need a link here.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:40 pm to AlceeFortier
quote:
there goes ur theory.
What theory is that?
Posted on 4/28/19 at 6:40 pm to AlceeFortier
quote:what in the Sam Hill are you talking about?
but but but trump answered written questions saying he could not recall anything and had no recollection”at this time”. he refused a face to face
there goes ur theory.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 7:44 pm to AlceeFortier
quote:
but but but trump answered written questions saying he could not recall anything and had no recollection”at this time”. he refused a face to face
there goes ur theory.
I hope you’re not saying there goes “the White House cooperated fully” theory because he answered questions in writing as opposed to face to face. That’s a step further than he had to go CONSTITUTIONALLY (see 5th A), and it’s darn sure a step further than I would’ve gone with the jack legs.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 7:48 pm to AlceeFortier
First off this is not my theory. Quoting George Will a syndicated long time and respected columnist in the local paper. His column was centered on how foolish it is for the dems to consider impeaching a proven innocent man. Concluding that there is zero chance of him being removed and they will only, as Clint Eastwood said, "make my day" giving him yet another win.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 7:51 pm to NeverRains
quote:
Trumps anger is completely justified
Then maybe he shouldn’t have instructed his own people to launch the special counsel investigation.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 7:54 pm to TBoy
Didn’t you believe in Muh Russia?
Posted on 4/28/19 at 7:56 pm to jimdog
Nadless and Schittforbrains won't like this.
They won't like this one fricking bit.
They won't like this one fricking bit.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 8:15 pm to jimdog
You don’t need an underlying crime to obstruct justice. You can spin it however you want politically, but legally speaking, the first sentence of your OP is incorrect
Posted on 4/28/19 at 8:28 pm to boosiebadazz
Take that up with Bob Mueller and the AG of the USA.
This post was edited on 4/29/19 at 2:13 pm
Posted on 4/28/19 at 8:29 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You don’t need an underlying crime to obstruct justice.
No, but you do need to be convicted, or even just charged with obstruction would be a start. You have neither. Otherwise, in our justice system, we are innocent and shouldn’t have to deal with harassment by partisans in Congress who refuse to accept Muellers findings.
Posted on 4/28/19 at 8:31 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You don’t need an underlying crime to obstruct justice.
You rape little boys and any attempt by you to stop me from investigating the fact that you rape little boys is obstruction of justice.
This post was edited on 4/28/19 at 8:32 pm
Posted on 4/28/19 at 8:34 pm to thebigmuffaletta
And if I started asking people to lie for me and destroying documents and whatnot, I could still be charged with obstruction even though I do not/ did not rape little boys.
Two separate and distinct things. One is not a predicate for the other.
Two separate and distinct things. One is not a predicate for the other.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News