- 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
Who invented the obligation/requirement to "exonerate"?
Posted on 7/25/19 at 7:59 am
Posted on 7/25/19 at 7:59 am
When did "exoneration" become a thing? Who declared it a requirement of the SC Investigation? Why are so many people buying into this arbitrary rulemaking? It seemed to take on a life of its own about the time the report was released. I'm disappointed that the Republicans aren't killing it and burying it forever. It's such a stupid, desperate narrative. Enough.
19
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:03 am to tigerpawl
quote:
Who invented the obligation/requirement to "exonerate"
Weissman, after realizing the special council needed to hurt Trump politically given the entire Russia fairytale was a hoax
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:04 am to tigerpawl
A couple GOP congressmen took Mueller to the shed on this yesterday.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:04 am to tigerpawl
Mueller and his Merry Band of Democrats couldn’t make the case for Obstruction so they created a brand new non-legal standard: exonerate. Low T and low information libtards think this is actually a thing.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:07 am to tigerpawl
Who?
The Left.
The side that depends on dishonesty and obfuscation to deceive and manipulate its voter base.
The Left.
The side that depends on dishonesty and obfuscation to deceive and manipulate its voter base.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:10 am to tigerpawl
Exoneration in prosecutions has never existed ever in the history of our country. It seems to have been created to excuse Mueller in including part 2 of his report. Without that theory in place, there can only be part 1.
Thats how you know its a hack job. He turned jurisprudence on its head so he could publicize things he thought might hurt the POTUS.
Thats how you know its a hack job. He turned jurisprudence on its head so he could publicize things he thought might hurt the POTUS.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:17 am to McChowder
quote:
Thats how you know its a hack job. He turned jurisprudence on its head so he could publicize things he thought might hurt the POTUS.
And in doing so - to undermine a sitting president.
That’s sedition. These assholes should be charged with it. But technically they didn’t release the report. Not sure how that works.
This post was edited on 7/25/19 at 8:20 am
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:29 am to tigerpawl
Leftists don't like to lose.
When they realized the verdict would be "not guilty", they couldn't accept it.
Therefore they moved the goalpost from "guilty/not guilty" to "not guilty/innocent". Of course, no one is ever declared "innocent", just "not guilty". To a liberal, this assures a victory for themselves.
When they realized the verdict would be "not guilty", they couldn't accept it.
Therefore they moved the goalpost from "guilty/not guilty" to "not guilty/innocent". Of course, no one is ever declared "innocent", just "not guilty". To a liberal, this assures a victory for themselves.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:40 am to tigerpawl
I defer to Aggie Hank.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:42 am to tigerpawl
I take your question.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:42 am to tigerpawl
It's called "New Law".
It's a new standard of criminal law invented by Der Staat to be used against political opponents of the Revolution.
Those who stand in the way of the creation of the United Socialist States of America are subject to New Law.
It's a new standard of criminal law invented by Der Staat to be used against political opponents of the Revolution.
Those who stand in the way of the creation of the United Socialist States of America are subject to New Law.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:42 am to tigerpawl
“Did not exonerate the President” removes the presumption of innocence. Which held President Trump to a higher standard than what is required by our judicial system.
The report basically states he did some bad shite, not necessarily broke the law and even though we could not find a crime doesn’t mean he didn’t commit one. So we cannot exonerate him.
It’s ok to say that behind closed doors when prosecutors don’t have enough evidence to file charges but for them to publicly state those concerns would lead to defamation lawsuits.
The report basically states he did some bad shite, not necessarily broke the law and even though we could not find a crime doesn’t mean he didn’t commit one. So we cannot exonerate him.
It’s ok to say that behind closed doors when prosecutors don’t have enough evidence to file charges but for them to publicly state those concerns would lead to defamation lawsuits.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:47 am to tigerpawl
It is just not American.
I suppose I am possibly on the hook for just about every crime committed around Louisiana last night.
I suppose I am possibly on the hook for just about every crime committed around Louisiana last night.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 8:51 am to Oddibe
quote:
Which held President Trump to a higher standard than what is required by our judicial system.
Which held Trump to a higher standard than ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 9:12 am to SSpaniel
quote:It actually started with Kavanaugh. "Somewhat guilty until proven really guilty - just give us a minute."
Which held Trump to a higher standard than ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN.
Posted on 7/25/19 at 9:30 am to McChowder
Isn’t all this what Janet Reno warned against when the CLINTON administration let the Independent Counsel statute expire and the reporting requirement amounting to a pretty big reason why?
Posted on 7/25/19 at 9:38 am to tigerpawl
quote:
It's such a stupid, desperate narrative.
You are correct... and this "narrative" is what happens when you're intellectually bankrupt, desperate and start pulling stuff out of your butt to try and recover...
Posted on 7/25/19 at 9:42 am to tigerpawl
quote:I seem to recall Trump making claims very early on (perhaps as early as when potential content of the report was being leaked) regarding “exoneration.” I do not recall anyone mentioning that term prior to these assertions.
When did "exoneration" become a thing?
Thus, it would seem that Trump “made it a thing.”
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News