- 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
1
Posted on 9/20/19 at 9:51 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Even if this “hypothetical” turns out to be true, please cite the law that makes it illegal
Thanks in advance
Posted on 9/20/19 at 9:53 am to Baron
quote:
If he said “if you don’t start investigating Biden, you are getting completely cut off,” then that’s one thing, but what are the chances of that? 0.0%? 0.00001%? Yet, a couple of posters are already getting spun up by putting those exact words in his mouth, which is ludicrous speculation. I just wish we (and I mean MSM, pundits, and TD posters) all would just let these things play out first.
Posted on 9/20/19 at 9:53 am to bmy
quote:quote:
Even if this “hypothetical” turns out to be true, please cite the law that makes it illegal
Thanks in advance
Posted on 9/20/19 at 9:53 am to bmy
No response?
The president exercising article 2 powers is illegal?
The president exercising article 2 powers is illegal?
Posted on 9/20/19 at 9:53 am to bmy
You didn't answer the question.
If it Is your position that presidential candidates shouldn't be investigated by political opposition, then youre going to have a whale of a time justifying the last 5 years.
I can't wait to see your thread condemning Schiff and Nadler for calling for Trump to be investigated over this very story.
If it Is your position that presidential candidates shouldn't be investigated by political opposition, then youre going to have a whale of a time justifying the last 5 years.
I can't wait to see your thread condemning Schiff and Nadler for calling for Trump to be investigated over this very story.
Posted on 9/20/19 at 9:59 am to half cajun
quote:
You’re delusional
Mental health professionals refer to this as psychological projection. You are quite literally engaged in the biggest mass delusional episode in American political history. I would guess the froth on your chin and the weight of the pitchfork in your hand has disoriented you. Exit The hysterical MOB and seek clarity.
Posted on 9/20/19 at 10:00 am to bmy
Huge dodge.
If firing Mueller was an affront to justice, wtf is threatening to cut off Ukraine if they don't fire their prosecutor? Why wouldn't we want that prior investigation, that predates trump, to be completed? How is that wrong or illegal?
If firing Mueller was an affront to justice, wtf is threatening to cut off Ukraine if they don't fire their prosecutor? Why wouldn't we want that prior investigation, that predates trump, to be completed? How is that wrong or illegal?
Posted on 9/20/19 at 10:04 am to Lsupimp
Fwiw you used to be one of my favorite posters. Clever, funny. WTH happened? I guess Trump happened. And you still didn’t answer the question.
Posted on 9/20/19 at 10:12 am to half cajun
The dreaded “ You used to be my fave “ concern troll? Oh no . How can I ever go on now ?
I see that self awareness is not your thing. Just a thought-Maybe you should reconsider the whole hysterical McCarthyite Never Trumper Scandal O The Day thing. It’s left tire tracks on your dome.
I see that self awareness is not your thing. Just a thought-Maybe you should reconsider the whole hysterical McCarthyite Never Trumper Scandal O The Day thing. It’s left tire tracks on your dome.
Posted on 9/20/19 at 10:14 am to bmy
The transcripts have already been leaked.
That’s the “troubling” language.
quote:
investigations of corruption cases, which inhibited the interactions between Ukraine and USA.”
That’s the “troubling” language.
Posted on 9/20/19 at 10:55 am to tigerinDC09
quote:
The linked video shows no such thing
Of course it does
Posted on 9/20/19 at 10:59 am to bmy
What is the IC doing listening in on the President’s phone calls?
3-4 years ago, I was told incessantly by you guys that the content of Hillary’s emails didn’t matter, but the fact that they were hacked at all meant the end of the world as we know it.
Has that all changed? Just because, you know, OrangeManbad?
3-4 years ago, I was told incessantly by you guys that the content of Hillary’s emails didn’t matter, but the fact that they were hacked at all meant the end of the world as we know it.
Has that all changed? Just because, you know, OrangeManbad?
Posted on 9/20/19 at 11:02 am to half cajun
quote:
half cajun
I’ll ask YOU:
What is the IC doing listening in on the President?
This post was edited on 9/20/19 at 11:02 am
Posted on 9/20/19 at 11:08 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The president exercising article 2 powers is illegal?
The whistleblower protection law seems to have not imagined a circumstance in which the DNI would withhold a complaint that the inspector general had deemed “urgent”. We seem to be having these assertions of absolute article II powers over laws which read that the executive "shall provide" x (whistleblower complaint, tax returns, etc.). We seem to have elected someone who believes he's immune from oversight. Congress is trying to get rulings in the courts, but they're slow as molasses. Hopefully, we won't see Trump refusing to obey court orders should they go against him because we'd truly be in a constitutional crisis at that point.
This post was edited on 9/20/19 at 11:11 am
Posted on 9/20/19 at 11:12 am to TigerDoc
I hate the term “constitutional crisis”
It’s been tossed around so much over last few years. A partisan pundit with a background in intelligence disagreeing with a president is not a constitutional crisis.
It’s been tossed around so much over last few years. A partisan pundit with a background in intelligence disagreeing with a president is not a constitutional crisis.
Posted on 9/20/19 at 11:14 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Hopefully, we won't see Trump refusing to obey court orders should they go against him because we'd truly be in a constitutional crisis at that point.
I foresee this being exactly like when Hillary and the left lost their minds that Trump said that he wouldn't automatically accept the election results if he lost because he would want to make sure there was no fraud. Then Hillary and the left have spent the last 3 years not accepting the election results.
Just know that you, and your sides, histrionics regarding every single thing that Trump does, no matter how mundane, has turned this former Never Trumper into a Trump voter. Congratulations.
ETA: Not sure why I put 5 years in my original post, I've corrected that to 3.
This post was edited on 9/20/19 at 11:18 am
Posted on 9/20/19 at 11:14 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that if courts rule against his administration's interpretations of his article II authority he would then have to agree to obey the law and accept oversight or rule essentially as if he's a monarch. I agree the term is overused, but that's the situation where the constitution has broken down.
This post was edited on 9/20/19 at 11:17 am
Posted on 9/20/19 at 11:16 am to TigerDoc
Sorry for the misinterpretation
I speed read your post
I speed read your post
Posted on 9/20/19 at 11:18 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Never been guilty of that offense.
Page 18 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News