- 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
0
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:19 pm to mwade91383
quote:
If you have a legitimate point about the validity of the claim or a potential GN arrest, just spit it out already.
quote:
Why would anyone would care about a certain code pertaining to an arrest that nobody thinks will ever happen?
you’re twisting yourself in knots. Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:20 pm to BBONDS25
Your really doing a reacharound on a eunuch on this one counselor. Newsome is neither a mobster or some corporate officer involved in an Antitrust proceeding. Besides, you would have so much to prove because at best all actions were done out in the open and after the fact. Plus, where is the threat of retaliation since peaceful protest is protected under the First Amendment.
Last I checked, ICE actions are not immune from criticism or protest. Is Newsom intent to stop further ICE raids? No and irrelevant. Even if yes, so long as he is not instigating violence or interference he's entitled to First Amendment protections. Protest does not equal interference, per se.
What official proceeding is Newsom preventing or interfering with either actively or in a direction capacity?
I suspect that's where you are going
Last I checked, ICE actions are not immune from criticism or protest. Is Newsom intent to stop further ICE raids? No and irrelevant. Even if yes, so long as he is not instigating violence or interference he's entitled to First Amendment protections. Protest does not equal interference, per se.
What official proceeding is Newsom preventing or interfering with either actively or in a direction capacity?
I suspect that's where you are going
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:22 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
Newsome isn’t stupid.
Do you believe this?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:22 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Your really doing a reacharound on a eunuch on this one counselor. Newsome is neither a mobster or some corporate officer involved in an Antitrust proceeding. Besides, you would have so much to prove because at best all actions were done out in the open and after the fact. Plus, where is the threat of retaliation since peaceful protest is protected under the First Amendment.
Shh.. he cited a specific code that is irrelevant here. Let him claim his prosecutorial prowess.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:23 pm to BBONDS25
Ah yes pointless obfuscation, maybe you actually are an attorney.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:23 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Your really doing a reacharound on a eunuch on this one counselor. Newsome is neither a mobster or some corporate officer involved in an Antitrust proceeding. Besides, you would have so much to prove because at best all actions were done out in the open and after the fact. Plus, where is the threat of retaliation since peaceful protest is protected under the First Amendment.
Threat of retaliation isn’t the portion of the code that is applicable. Obstruction of a proceeding is.
quote:
What official proceeding is Newsom preventing or interfering with either actively or in a direction capacity? I suspect that's where you are going
Nice. Immigration hearings are official proceedings. Surely you are aware of that.
This post was edited on 6/9/25 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:25 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
Shh.. he cited a specific code that is irrelevant here.
at least Kiwi knew which part of the code is applicable. You couldn’t even get that far. Stick around. I’ll get you there eventually. Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:26 pm to mwade91383
quote:
Ah yes pointless obfuscation, maybe you actually are an attorney.
You asked for something. I provided it. Then, without addressing it, you said “nobody cares.” Remind me who is obfuscating?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:29 pm to Geauxgurt
No because it's a lawyer's trick, cite some code that may or may not have relevance in the discussion in order to show how "smart" he is compared to a lay man when he knows damn well that at best it has nothing to do with the circumstances.
Lawyers deny this tactic, but they do it all the time, especially average prosecutors.
Lawyers deny this tactic, but they do it all the time, especially average prosecutors.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:32 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
No because it's a lawyer's trick, cite some code that may or may not have relevance in the discussion in order to show how "smart" he is compared to a lay man when he knows damn well that at best it has nothing to do with the circumstances.
You knew what I was talking about. If someone is making a definitive claim, but is a lay person that doesn’t understand the elements, they shouldn’t be making that claim. Yet you call calling that out a “lawyers trick”
quote:
Lawyers deny this tactic, but they do it all the time, especially average prosecutors.
I was average over 15 years ago when I was prosecuting. No money in that game either.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:34 pm to theballguy
quote:
Everybody cheers on the talk but there's never any action taken.
Sums up conservatives perfectly
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:35 pm to sorantable
quote:
He won’t beat the fascism charges with rhetoric like this.
Charges?
Do you mean propagated lies?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:37 pm to BBONDS25
No Im trying to get you to see the bottom line that most people are discussing and actually care about in this thread.
Does this matter? Will anything happen? How likely? Give us a % chance?
Nobody cares if a slimy lawyer could make up some frivolous lawsuit (or about the code they might use), nobody. Sure it’ll give them some billable hours, but also get them laughed out of the courtroom. Those lawyers are always out there and that’s ALWAYS true.
Does this matter? Will anything happen? How likely? Give us a % chance?
Nobody cares if a slimy lawyer could make up some frivolous lawsuit (or about the code they might use), nobody. Sure it’ll give them some billable hours, but also get them laughed out of the courtroom. Those lawyers are always out there and that’s ALWAYS true.
This post was edited on 6/9/25 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:40 pm to BBONDS25
He's not obstructing an immigration proceeding unless you are saying that forcefully objecting to them rhetorically constitutes obstruction. Are you suggesting that he hurt the ICE director's feelings?
You would have to prove that he was explicitly....or even implicitly trying to actively obstruct or impede federal proceedings or the execution thereof.
He's not obstructing immigration hearings. Your application is at best reaching....at worst damn ignorant of what is going on here. Which is it?
You would have to prove that he was explicitly....or even implicitly trying to actively obstruct or impede federal proceedings or the execution thereof.
He's not obstructing immigration hearings. Your application is at best reaching....at worst damn ignorant of what is going on here. Which is it?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:42 pm to SDVTiger
Shouldn't you be out overcharging people out on the water.. or is the boat undergoing "repairs" again?
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:48 pm to BBONDS25
Yep, I knew exactly where you were going and what you were attempting specifically ( 18 USC 1505)... and it is a lawyer's trick that they like to play on lay people.
Physicians like to do the same thing in their own way.
Physicians like to do the same thing in their own way.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:54 pm to mwade91383
quote:
Nobody cares if a slimy lawyer could make up some frivolous lawsuit
nobody mentioned a lawsuit. That is a civil matter. We are discussing criminal. Perhaps you shouldn’t be opining on the law if you don’t know those basics. quote:
Sure it’ll give them some billable hours,
prosecutors don’t bill hours. My Lord, you don’t know basic procedure.
quote:
but also get them laughed out of the courtroom. Those lawyers are always out there and that’s ALWAYS true.
you have proven to know nothing about the law. Perhaps you shouldn’t be making definitive statements. Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:56 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
He's not obstructing an immigration proceeding unless you are saying that forcefully objecting to them rhetorically constitutes obstruction. Are you suggesting that he hurt the ICE director's feelings?
I did not suggest anything about forceful objection or your flippant and snide comment about the ICE director.
quote:
You would have to prove that he was explicitly....or even implicitly trying to actively obstruct or impede federal proceedings or the execution thereof.
Would instructing anyone to assist in illegals not be taken to court or be arrested be sufficient?
quote:
He's not obstructing immigration hearings. Your application is at best reaching....at worst damn ignorant of what is going on here. Which is it?
Let’s continue the conversation before you self-declare victory. You’re acting like Rex. I knew Rex. You, sir, are no Rex.
This post was edited on 6/9/25 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:57 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
lawyer's trick that they like to play on lay people. Physicians like to do the same thing in their own way.
Appears you seem to have something against professionals.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News