- 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 9:01 pm to Decatur
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:01 pm to Decatur
quote:
But after reviewing documentation provided by the Deputy Attorney General's office, she said that she and her colleagues determined that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a grand jury probe into crimes including wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the United States.
She thought she had more of a discretion than her boss on what to do.
quote:
Isn’t there a word for what she was ordered to do?
Yea, insubordination against a lawful order from her superior.
0
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:05 pm to Decatur
quote:
What would you have done?
Exactly what Democrats did against Trump and his allies in the last 4 years. Reap what you sow bitch.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:06 pm to UncleFestersLegs
Decatur got arse handed to them in this thread 
This post was edited on 2/18/25 at 9:07 pm
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:08 pm to Decatur
quote:
Politico describes it as “freeze accounts”. You seem to be quibbling
The same Politico that, coincidentally, couldn’t pay their employees for the first time ever at the same time the US government stopped paying them millions of dollars for subscriptions? That Politico. Incredibly unbiased.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:10 pm to John Barron
You know Bondi targeted that turd with the assignment to make her melt down.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:13 pm to John Barron
There is a huge demand for criminal attorneys in DC right now so she's probably getting huge offers to leave.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 9:14 pm to MFn GIMP
Freeze/seize accounts/assets all seem to be appropriate terms of art.
This post was edited on 2/18/25 at 9:15 pm
Posted on 2/19/25 at 10:10 am to Decatur
quote:
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.
There never was an investigation because the US attorney refused to do so. This the resignation. Your attempts to muddy the water have come full circle. You are now just wildly speculating and attempting to back up your allegations tv at were based in complete ignorance. Like I said…you’re a dirty lawyer attempting to preach ethics to everyone else. You’re the worst of the worst. Luckily, you aren’t very bright, so shining a light on your dishonestly was pretty easy.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 10:11 am to tgrgrd00
quote:
Decatur got arse handed to them in this thread
Must be a day that ends in "Y".
Posted on 2/19/25 at 10:24 am to BBONDS25
quote:
There never was an investigation because the US attorney refused to do so. This the resignation.
She was asked to resign after she refused to send a freeze letter to the bank ordering that they seize accounts (referencing a criminal investigation that did not exist) because she was certain there was no probable cause and she did not have legal authority to do it.
quote:
You are now just wildly speculating and attempting to back up your allegations tv at were based in complete ignorance.
Why don’t you just find a copy letter and read it? That would probably clear up your confusion.
This post was edited on 2/19/25 at 10:32 am
Posted on 2/19/25 at 11:01 am to John Barron
Good.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 11:06 am to Decatur
quote:
She was asked to resign after she refused to send a freeze letter to the bank ordering that they seize accounts (referencing a criminal investigation that did not exist) because she was certain there was no probable cause and she did not have legal authority to do it.
Again, you don’t have the basic facts. You’re tripling down on a false talking point. Because you’re a dirty slime ball. She was asked to investigate. She refused. She was then told to stop the bank bank (account owned by the government) from making more payments until an investigation was done. She again refused. There is no probable cause requirement for either of those steps to occur. She absolutely had legal authority to do nothing these things. Clearly you have zero acumen in what powers the DOJ and the US attorneys office have. You are making up shite from a place of complete ignorance. You slime ball.
quote:
Why don’t you just find a copy letter and read it? That would probably clear up your confusion.
You don’t even have a grasp of the basic facts. You’re just muddying the waters because you are a dirty attorney. Zero ethics. Everyone here has seen me kick you around this thread for two straight days. It always ends up like that with dirty attorneys like you. You get in early and try to set your false narrative. When the facts eventually come out, your narrative gets absolutely destroyed. It’s what happened here. You’re pathetic.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 11:22 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Again, you don’t have the basic facts.
I just accurately paraphrased the letter you clearly have not read. You should read it. Seems like you don’t know what you don’t know here.
quote:
She was then told to stop the bank bank (account owned by the government) from making more payments until an investigation was done. She again refused. There is no probable cause requirement
The bank account does not appear to be controlled by the government. Looks like it’s controlled by one of these “green bank” entities. Hence, the attempt to use criminal process to claw back the money.
But clearly you know better than the (now former) head of the criminal division in USAO-DC that believed following the Constitution was more important than carrying out an unlawful order, even at risk of losing her job.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 11:42 am to Decatur
quote:
I just accurately paraphrased the letter you clearly have not read. You should read it. Seems like you don’t know what you don’t know here.
I’ve read the letter. You have your timeline and facts very confused. I’m guessing purposefully.
quote:
The bank account does not appear to be controlled by the government. Looks like it’s controlled by one of these “green bank” entities. Hence, the attempt to use criminal process to claw back the money.
They weren’t trying to claw-back money. They were trying to stop future payments pending an investigation. The investigation she refused to do. Because she talked to some of her other lawyers and they didn’t want to do it. It was a lawful order given by her boss and she decided to be insubordinate. No amount of you lying will change that.
quote:
But clearly you know better than the (now former) head of the criminal division in USAO-DC that believed following the Constitution was more important than carrying out an unlawful order, even at risk of losing her job.
Which section of the constitution are you now alleging would be violated? Which law specifically did this order violate? I already destroyed your lie about DOJ rules being broken. Now I’ll destroy your newest lie. Illl destroy whatever your next lie is too. That’s the deal with you dirty lawyers. All you being are lies. Then someone smarter than you exposes those lies.
This post was edited on 2/19/25 at 11:43 am
Posted on 2/19/25 at 11:46 am to Decatur
quote:
Denise Cheung, who supervised criminal cases at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, said she had been ordered to open a probe into a contract that she did not identify and that she believed the request was not supported by evidence, in a letter reviewed by Reuters.
Huh?? Wouldn't opening a probe/investigation be the method to determine if there's evidence of wrongdoing??? LoL
The upside down world some folks live in.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 11:59 am to BBONDS25
quote:
I’ve read the letter. You have your timeline and facts very confused. I’m guessing purposefully.
So you say you’ve read the letter but you still think I am confusing facts? Where’d you read it?
quote:
They weren’t trying to claw-back money.
Pretty sure this is what Lee Zeldin was referring to last week when he said he would work with DOJ to claw back the money. It fits with the timeline.
quote:
It was a lawful order given by her boss and she decided to be insubordinate
And you think this is because the U.S. government controls the account they were trying to freeze, yes? Does your view change if the account is not controlled by USG?
quote:
Which section of the constitution are you now alleging would be violated?
I’m sure you are familiar with PC. I’m not going to waste my time on this exercise.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 12:00 pm to BBONDS25
BBONDS GOING TO TOWN!
Thanks for validating my post about the internet retard of the week regarding you know who...
Thanks for validating my post about the internet retard of the week regarding you know who...
Posted on 2/19/25 at 12:11 pm to SoLaSMB
quote:
In the DOJ, prosecutors have discretion to determine whether a case meets the legal standard for prosecution.
Her and the FBI recommended a 30 day asset freeze citing lack of evidence
Almost everyone has a boss. Her boss told her the manner in which her job needed to be done. She chose not to do it, and she lost her job over it.
Pretty simple. Very few people operate with pure independence. Like virtually zero people.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 12:11 pm to Decatur
quote:
So you say you’ve read the letter but you still think I am confusing facts?
Yes. Your timeline has been all over the place. And you initially said DOJ rules were being broken. Then you said probable cause was needed for an investigation. Then you said the government was trying to seize someone’s bank account. You have been consistently very wrong on the basic facts.
quote:
Pretty sure this is what Lee Zeldin was referring to last week when he said he would work with DOJ to claw back the money. It fits with the timeline.
According to the quote YOU posted, they were simply trying to stop future payments. Again, you don’t have a grasp of the facts.
quote:
And you think this is because the U.S. government controls the account they were trying to freeze, yes? Does your view change if the account is not controlled by USG?
No. Interpleader is something you should brush up on. Though, I doubt that was even necessary here.
quote:
I’m sure you are familiar with PC. I’m not going to waste my time on this exercise.
We have already discussed that PC is not neeeed to open an investigation. Yet here you are still lying and obfuscating. Don’t worry about the exercise. I was very aware you wouldn’t be able to cite a single law or provision of the constitution that would have been violated. It was clearly a lawful order. You lying about that doesn’t change the facts. As I said. I am happy to shine a light on all of your lies as long as you I would like.
Posted on 2/19/25 at 12:54 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Yes.
I doubt it. Where’d you read it? You left out that part.
quote:
And you initially said DOJ rules were being broken. Then you said probable cause was needed for an investigation.
I smurfed the part about PC for opening an investigation, which I subsequently recognized that in this thread. There is a prediction threshold that must be met in order to open an investigation under DOJ rules. That is why Cheung and other folks in her office objected to opening a criminal investigation.
quote:
Then you said the government was trying to seize someone’s bank account.
Yes, it’s in the letter you are apparently now lying about reading.
quote:
No. Interpleader is something you should brush up on.
What does this have to do with criminal process?
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News