- 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: Repeat after me, NO COLLUSION & NO OBSTRUCTION!
Posted on 5/30/19 at 9:55 am to Seldom Seen
Posted on 5/30/19 at 9:55 am to Seldom Seen
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Had the AG policy been that it was permissible to indict a sitting president, the conclusion could have turned out completely different. So when people say complete exoneration, that is simply not accurate.
Stated more clearly, let off the hook because he could not have legally been indicted.
Stated more clearly, let off the hook because he could not have legally been indicted.
2
Posted on 5/30/19 at 9:57 am to Seldom Seen
Succinctly put and I paraphrase from an opinion column: Accused of obstructing an investigation that was not obstructed into a conspiracy that did not exist.
Posted on 5/30/19 at 9:59 am to Demshoes
quote:
Stated more clearly, let off the hook because he could not have legally been indicted.
And your evidence for his indictment is?
Posted on 5/30/19 at 10:26 am to Centinel
Only Mueller's statement that if he had specific evidence to clear the president he would have stated that he had it. He did not. Thus, based on the policy there COULD have been a different result. I just disagree with people saying it was a complete exoneration because it was not.
Posted on 5/30/19 at 10:29 am to Centinel
FALSE NARRATIVE. An OLC Memo does not have the force of law AND does not stop Mueller from stating that he found evidence of crimes. He pulled a chickenshit maneuver that was DESIGNED to throw this whole case into the political realm. If you didn't see this coming, you're not very bright.
Posted on 5/30/19 at 10:38 am to Demshoes
Exoneration is not a term that is meaningful ina criminal/prosecutorial sense.
Posted on 5/30/19 at 11:12 am to BBONDS25
quote:quote:
And from them, we concluded that we would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the president committed a crime.
Combine this single sentence with the presumption of innocence and tell me what you think it means?
It means it's not the DOJ's job to determine the criminality of the findings, it's Congress' job.
All Mueller did was to conduct an investigation of the president. It's the job of Congress to act on the findings of the investigation.
This is a clear problem of people simply believing what they want to believe.
The Louisiana AG provides a fine case in point:
LINK
Poor Louisiana...
Posted on 5/30/19 at 12:49 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
It means it's not the DOJ's job to determine the criminality of the findings, it's Congress' job.
Yikes. The DOJ has sole criminal jurisdiction. Congress has zero authority to bring a criminal prosecution on this matter.
You see. It is the utter ignorance mixed with hubris from the left that is so confusing. This is really basic stuff.
quote:
This is a clear problem of people simply believing what they want to believe.
Your lack of self awareness is staggering.
This post was edited on 5/30/19 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 5/30/19 at 1:25 pm to Demshoes
quote:Nope. There is no DOJ policy preventing Mueller from concluding crimes were committed. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
Had the AG policy been that it was permissible to indict a sitting president, the conclusion could have turned out completely different.
Posted on 5/30/19 at 1:27 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
Exoneration is not a term that is meaningful ina criminal/prosecutorial sense.
Yep. Which is why it is so impressive Mueller took that step with collusion. It’s the only reason why anyone is even mentioning obstruction. Normally declining to prosecute combined with the presumption of innocence is enough to satisfy.
Not in this political environment, though.
Posted on 5/30/19 at 1:50 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The DOJ has sole criminal jurisdiction.
Not according to their own policy.
quote:
Congress has zero authority to bring a criminal prosecution on this matter.
USC
Article I
Section 2
Part 5: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
Section 3
Part 6: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
Part 7: "Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Article II
Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Article III
Section 2
Part 3: "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury..."
What this says is that Presidents are tried by the Senate (presided over by the CJ) for impeachment brought by the House due to crimes. All Mueller has done is turn a list of potential crimes over to the Congress. It's up to the House to determine if there are criminal actions warranting impeachment. If so, then it would be incumbent on the Senate to try the president for the crimes listed in the impeachment from the house.
Whether this meets your standard of "criminal prosecution" in your post or not is really irrelevant, as the Senate could prosecute a criminal trial for the president according to the US Constitution.
quote:
It is the utter ignorance mixed with hubris
I agree.
quote:
No obstruction!
quote:
No obstruction!
quote:
No obstruction!
quote:
No obstruction!
quote:
No obstruction!
"Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." - J. Goebbels
Posted on 5/30/19 at 2:13 pm to Centinel
quote:
And your evidence for his indictment is...
...In Mueller's report. At least, that's what Mueller is saying.
Posted on 5/30/19 at 2:15 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
At least, that's what Mueller is saying.
Except that's not what he's saying.
Posted on 5/30/19 at 5:47 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
USC Article I Section 2 Part 5: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Section 3 Part 6: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
Holy shite. Impeachment isn’t a criminal prosecution. Good lord!! You are tripling down on stupid. Does your ignorance know no bounds?! This is some very basic stuff.
You are the perfect Democrat. An idiot who is completely ignorant, yet arrogant enough to post as if you know something. Dummy.
This post was edited on 5/30/19 at 5:50 pm
Posted on 5/30/19 at 5:51 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Not according to their own policy.
you have zero clue what you are even arguing. You think the DOJ can cede jurisdiction over criminal procedures and prosecutions...to fricking congress? Effing morons. I swear I forget that anyone can post on this board. 
Posted on 5/30/19 at 6:40 pm to BBONDS25
quote:You are an ignoranus [not a misspelling]. What does the presumption of innocence have to do with this?
Combine this single sentence with the presumption of innocence and tell me what you think it means?
This post was edited on 5/30/19 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 5/30/19 at 6:48 pm to texridder
what does the presumption of innocence have to do with a criminal prosecution? What the hell are you misunderstanding this time?Posted on 5/30/19 at 6:57 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Holy shite. Impeachment isn’t a criminal prosecution. Good lord!! You are tripling down on stupid. Does your ignorance know no bounds?!
Dude, I don't know why you're freaking out. From all accounts it just looks like Mueller is handing over an investigation to the House to see if there are grounds for impeachment. Personally, I believe there probably are technical grounds for impeachment.
quote:
You are the perfect Democrat.
Except, I'm not a Democrat. I've never been a member of any party. But on this rare occasion, I agree with Pelosi that impeachment proceedings would not be in the best interest of the People.
I don't care about what the report says about Trump's bumbling and fumbling, I'm more interested in learning how foreign interests are trying to manipulate our elections, and what actions we may take to dissuade that threat. It's here that I believe the press and the gov't are failing us.
And as far as letting anyone post on the board, I consider myself your average intelligence voter. That means, there are a LOT of other guys out there just as dumb or dumber than I. We're not going anywhere, so you may as well figure out a way to deal with it. Hysterical is not a good look, fyi.
Posted on 5/30/19 at 6:59 pm to BBONDS25
[quote]what does the presumption of innocence have to do with a criminal prosecution? What does the presumption of innocence have to do with whether Trump actually committed obstruction?
Posted on 5/30/19 at 6:59 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Dude, I don't know why you're freaking out. From all accounts it just looks like Mueller is handing over an investigation to the House to see if there are grounds for impeachment. Personally, I believe there probably are technical grounds for impeachment.
Because I specifically pointed out that the DOJ has exclusive jurisdiction over a criminal prosecution for obstruction and you arrogantly, yet ignorantly posted about impeachment.
It is frustrating explaining basics over and over to people opining with such hubris from a place of total ignorance. Forgive me if it came out in my post to you. You are just one of many with this malady.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News