- 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: Top D.C. prosecutor resigns after being told to investigate Biden's climate spending
Posted on 2/18/25 at 4:29 pm to John Barron
Posted on 2/18/25 at 4:29 pm to John Barron
They all need to be fired and replace anyway. That's actually normal after a change of administration.
0
Posted on 2/18/25 at 5:02 pm to John Barron
These people assume they're going to get some high paying, cush position with some ultra-liberal organization. They act like they're falling on their sword, believing they will reap a great reward.
Well, welcome to 2025.
Your giant, left-wing slush fund, AKA bullsh** NGOs, are being cut off at the knees. No more taxpayer funds. You will have no place to go.
Well, welcome to 2025.
Your giant, left-wing slush fund, AKA bullsh** NGOs, are being cut off at the knees. No more taxpayer funds. You will have no place to go.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 5:22 pm to Decatur
quote:
Well Politico and Reuters both have the letter and that’s what they wrote. Reuters describes it as an “asset freeze” and Politico describes it as “freeze accounts”. You seem to be quibbling.
Your own post has a quote describing it as freezing distributions. I’m not quibbling. I’m pointing out you don’t even have a grasp of the basic facts. You asked me about probable cause….which didn’t go well for you, so you pivoted to “freezing someone’s bank account” which isn’t what was ordered. You got everything you possibly could wrong and use it to vilify Trump. If you aren’t intentionally muddying the waters, you’re simple a moron. Don’t care which it is. But those are your two options.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 5:22 pm to Lou the Jew from LSU
quote:
I thought the Grand Jury decided if there was enough evidence to proceed. This is just a law fare con to kill any further investigation
Precisely. Decatur just being a slime ball like always.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 6:06 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Your own post has a quote describing it as freezing distributions
I didn’t use this language. Where’d you get that from?
quote:
You asked me about probable cause….which didn’t go well for you, so you pivoted to “freezing someone’s bank account” which isn’t what was ordered.
Both are implicated in this matter. Seems you are quibbling over how to describe what Cheung was ordered to do with the bank account, but the issue is she knew she didn’t have probable cause to order the bank to freeze/seize the funds. Also, whatever predicate threshold she needed (not PC - my bad) to open a criminal investigation she believed she did not have. But that's not why she was fired.
Frankly this whole episode kind of looks like “DOGE” by other means, using the law enforcement powers of DOJ to go after funding that Trump and Republicans don’t like.
This post was edited on 2/18/25 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 2/18/25 at 6:35 pm to Decatur
In support of this being "DOGE" by other means
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 6:43 pm to John Barron
Wait?
Another liberal woman making a self promotion out of Trump wanting her to do her job. Shocked I tell you. Unbelievably shocked
Another liberal woman making a self promotion out of Trump wanting her to do her job. Shocked I tell you. Unbelievably shocked
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:06 pm to Decatur
quote:
Your own post has a quote describing it as freezing distributions
quote:
didn’t use this language. Where’d you get that from?
From your quote:
quote:
there was concern that contract awardees could continue to draw down on accounts handled by the bank handling the disbursements,
Like I said. It came from your own post. You don’t have a grasp on the basic facts yet have no problem making accusations and conclusions.
quote:
Both are implicated in this matter. Seems you are quibbling over how to describe what Cheung was ordered to do with the bank account, but the issue is she knew she didn’t have probable cause to order the bank to freeze/seize the funds.
You don’t have to have probably cause to stop a distribution. If it violates a contract, the entity has recourse. You know all of this, right? No way you got through law school in without learning basics of commercial paper and contract law.
quote:
Frankly this whole episode kind of looks like “DOGE” by other means, using the law enforcement powers of DOJ to go after funding that Trump and Republicans don’t like.
Quite the leap. He simply asked for an investigation. She refused. She got told to resign. You’re muddying the water and obfuscating. We all see it and I will continue to call out your dishonesty.
This post was edited on 2/18/25 at 7:07 pm
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:12 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You don’t have to have probably cause to stop a distribution. If it violates a contract, the entity has recourse. You know all of this, right? No way you got through law school in without learning basics of commercial paper and contract law.
Direct quote
quote:
"Based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described, including sufficient evidence to tell the bank there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified."
quote:
e simply asked for an investigation. She refused. She got told to resign.
She did not get asked to resign until she refused to send the letter to the bank.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:13 pm to Decatur
quote:
She did not get asked to resign until she refused to send the letter to the bank.
She did not get told to send the letter to the bank until after she refused to investigate. You have zero grasp of the facts. You are opining from a place of complete ignorance. Total slime ball.
quote:
Based upon the evidence I have reviewed, I still do not believe there is sufficient evidence to issue the letter you described, including sufficient evidence to tell the bank there is probable cause to seize the particular accounts identified.
The accounts are controlled /owned by the government you moron. You don’t have to have probable cause to put a stop payment on an account you own.
This post was edited on 2/18/25 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:20 pm to Decatur
Her job? If you can't do it...you quit...like a bitch.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:22 pm to John Barron
When you see a pattern of $100's of millions in funding and grants going to companies that NEVER end up producing the product or services they were paid to it's your obligation to investigate. $1.5 BILLION for EV Buses. Where are they? Solyndra anyone?
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:30 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
She did not get told to send the letter to the bank until after she refused to investigate.
Yes, I know
quote:
The accounts are controlled /owned by the government you moron. You don’t have to have probable cause to put a stop payment on an account you own.
I imagine if they could just stop payment at Citibank rather than leverage the power of the Justice Department to start a criminal investigation, empanel a grand jury, etc., then they'd just do that and call it a day's work.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 7:53 pm to Decatur
quote:
Like if you were ordered to open an investigation into someone and you are certain that probable cause has not been met
Do you understand how stupid you are???
Read above and try and figure it out. I will help you.
She was ordered to begin an investigation. Yet she said probable cause was not met. Is there not supposed to be an investigation to determine if there is probably cause to present the evidence. Of course there is no evidence because the investigation has not happened yet.
You officially win the retard of the thread award..
Posted on 2/18/25 at 8:02 pm to dafif
As I subsequently recognized, there has to be a predicate threshold (not PC) that must be met in order to open a criminal investigation. Cheung did not believe that threshold had been met based on the review materials provided (pretty sure it included a Project Veritas video).
Posted on 2/18/25 at 8:10 pm to John Barron
No one rearry cares
Posted on 2/18/25 at 8:43 pm to Decatur
quote:
quote:
You alleged she was ordered to break DOJ rules.
I was responding to your post that she was ordered to do something and I guess your response implied FAFO.
Let's see your actual post:
quote:
quote:
If your supervisor ordered you to ignore DOJ rules regarding opening an investigation then you’d do that no problem?
Looks like BBONDS was right and you are a liar
Posted on 2/18/25 at 8:45 pm to BBONDS25
quote:don't forget liar. Twice.
Total slime ball.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 8:46 pm to Decatur
quote:
As I subsequently recognized
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News