- 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: There are some posters noticeably absent today...
Posted on 8/9/22 at 11:58 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 8/9/22 at 11:58 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I am worried that SCOTUS fricked up
How did the scotus frick up. By actually interpreting the constitution?
1
Posted on 8/9/22 at 11:59 am to oogabooga68
killer zing 
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:00 pm to Scruffy
quote:Why?
The only appropriate opinion is “that was not a good idea”.
IF there is good cause to believe that Trump committed a crime (we don't know yet what info was contained in the supporting affidavits), how do YOU think the DoJ or the FBI should have proceeded?
Should they have just "asked nicely" for the documents and taken the chance that Trump or his people would destroy them? How would you react, if they took that approach with a Dem suspect?
quote:So a former POTUS should have immunity for all future crimes, excepting only high treason?
Unless Trump has documents detailing how he is selling Alaska to China, this was a terrible idea.
quote:IF there is good cause to believe that a former POTUS committed a crime, it most definitely SHOULD be "OK."
This is about the creation of a situation and making the tactic of raiding former president’s homes ok.
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:02 pm to BigJman
quote:Legally, Dobbs was the right call.
I am worried that SCOTUS fricked upquote:
How did the scotus frick up. By actually interpreting the constitution?
Politically, Dobbs may give the House to the Dems.
You decide.
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:02 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
IF there is good cause to believe that a former POTUS committed a crime, it most definitely SHOULD be "OK."
You mean like Biden and his family?
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:04 pm to LoneStar23
quote:Yes, exactly like that.
You mean like Biden and his family?
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:04 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
So a former POTUS should have immunity for all future crimes, excepting only high treason?
The best thing about you is that you will ALWAYS out yourself as a lying hypocritical bootlicker.
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:07 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Subpoena, as they have done in every situation, including Nixon.
how do YOU think the DoJ or the FBI should have proceeded?
I mean, frick, if they didn’t raid Nixon due to Watergate, what the frick is going on here?
quote:
Should they have just "asked nicely" for the documents and taken the chance that Trump or his people would destroy them? How would you react, if they took that approach with a Dem suspect?
I would be appalled if they raided the home of a former Democrat president, because the road it leads to is significantly worse.
quote:Well, the high treason was hyperbole, but raiding their home should require an exceptional reason, yes.
So a former POTUS should have immunity for all future crimes, excepting only high treason?
That prevents the devolution of our political system into a Venezuelan model of “attack the opposition with the police when we are in office”.
Unless you honestly believe no president prior to 45 has ever done anything like this, there is essentially a reason as to why this has never been done.
The tactic is now available to all, even in a situation as lowly as involving the National Archives.
quote:If there was a good cause, then it should come from the direct orders of the White House in writing, backed by the AG in writing, not from a magistrate judge in Florida, essentially showing they judge-shopped.
IF there is good cause to believe that a former POTUS committed a crime, it most definitely SHOULD be "OK."
The precedent this sets is unheard of.
This post was edited on 8/9/22 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:16 pm to Scruffy
quote:A judge in the federal district and division where the warrant was to be served? A judge who took the bench during the Trump administration? Judge-shopping? Seriously?
a magistrate judge in Florida, essentially showing they judge-shopped.
quote:Just another way to say "You have x-number of days to destroy the documents."
Subpoena
quote:Nixon was a sitting POTUS at the time and immune from prosecution. Ford pardoned him before any sort of investigation could even start.
they didn’t raid Nixon due to Watergate
quote:I tend to agree that it should be a high-level decision, undertaken in a cool and detached manner. We will see whether that happened. At this point, we just don't know yet.
If there was a good cause, then it should come from the direct orders of the White House in writing, backed by the AG in writing
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:21 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Just mention a drag queen parade being shut down and he will come running.
Like a fricking Bat Signal.
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
I see your hangover is better.
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
A judge in the federal district and division where the warrant was to be served? A judge who took the bench during the Trump administration? Judge-shopping? Seriously?
Lolzy
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:23 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
We will see whether that happened. At this point, we just don't know yet.
Funny, you didn't show that discretion or restraint when you called Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer...
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:24 pm to AggieHank86
Wonder why Trump has not released the warrant for everybody to see?
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:25 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
when you called Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer
He was using the Vulgate meaning of the word murderer as everyone knows.
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:25 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Subpoena Just another way to say "You have x-number of days to destroy the documents."
We'll bookmark this and see how consistent you are when one of your tribe are subpoenaed....
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:26 pm to the808bass
quote:
He was using the Vulgate meaning of the word murderer as everyone knows.
I firmly believe that next to his recliner is a long, rubber tube that he inserts in his arse and nose so that he may better smell his own farts.
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:29 pm to AggieHank86
quote:This is a magistrate judge, not a federal judge nominated and voted on by Congress.
A judge in the federal district and division where the warrant was to be served? A judge who took the bench during the Trump administration? Judge-shopping? Seriously?
And, yes, judge shopping.
quote:So, if that was the case, why were subpoenas used in every other instance like this, including Nixon, Hillary, Berger?
Just another way to say "You have x-number of days to destroy the documents."
quote:The White House already stated that they knew nothing about it.
We will see whether that happened.
Again, you are naive if you think this doesn’t set a problematic precedent.
This post was edited on 8/9/22 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:29 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
SDVTiger
Andrew Warren simp.
Posted on 8/9/22 at 12:31 pm to oogabooga68
quote:Well, no one was claiming that he did not shoot and kill those two yahoos.
you didn't show that discretion or restraint when you called Kyle Rittenhouse a murderer.
I said that he committed two murders, for which he would NOT be convicted because his actions were legally-excused under the doctrine of self-defense. When someone whined that I was using the Texas terminology (murder), rather than the Wisconsin terminology (homicide), I changed the phrasing for them.
At the same time, I was assuring the crowd that young Rittenhouse would NOT be convicted, when 95% of this forum was utterly convinced that Bruce Schroeder and the evil Kenosha Dem machine were going to railroad him to life in prison.
It is hardly surprising to me that you do not understand the mechanics of a legal defense to criminal charges. Most non-lawyers do not. What is surprising is that you refuse to listen, when the matter is explained to you.
FACTUAL DEFENSE: "I did not shoot those guys."
LEGAL DEFENSE: "I definitely shot those guys, but I was defending myself."
With a "legal defense," you acknowledge the offense, but explain why the behavior was justified.
This post was edited on 8/9/22 at 12:36 pm
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News