- 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
0
Posted on 6/10/23 at 5:33 pm to Thundercles
No, as a DeSantis supporter his indictment is a political witch hunt. FJB.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 5:35 pm to Flats
Sure commie, Biden it is
Posted on 6/10/23 at 5:36 pm to OldFatDog
U post to much. 
Posted on 6/10/23 at 5:45 pm to ChineseBandit58
why even ask this? Its all laid out in plain English what he did. It better be verifiable if its released in a federal indictment for the world to see. Its asinine to think otherwise. Its going to have to be presented in court
Posted on 6/10/23 at 6:17 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Alan Dershowitz (who I tend to trust) said the majority of it can be swept aside but there are a couple of trouble spots
1. false swearing. 5 years
2. obstructing. I expect his appointee judge gives him the minimum.
out in 8 or 9 years.
of course fanni willis district attorney of fulton county Georgia will have a go at the RICO case for Giuliani, Sidney Powell and trump and 6 fake electors including the state R party chair. I expect a career making win for fanni willis on RICO.
j6 seditious conspiracy vs trump requires an insider like Meadows.
well see.
anyhow yes I expect trump to lose the MAL obstruction charge AND the false swearing.
no idea about PRA vs Congress. Supremes get that part.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 6:19 pm to CelticDog
quote:
out in 8 or 9 years.
Haha.
So when is he going to prison?
Posted on 6/10/23 at 6:25 pm to CelticDog
Otto is a true believer. He really thinks Trump is going to jail.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 6:31 pm to lsunatchamp
quote:
why even ask this? Its all laid out in plain English what he did. It better be verifiable if its released in a federal indictment for the world to see. Its asinine to think otherwise. Its going to have to be presented in court
You think the left gives a shite about telling bald faced lies? They’ve faced ZERO repercussions to date for all the lies they’ve told the last 7 years but now all of a sudden they’re worried about dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s?
Posted on 6/10/23 at 6:35 pm to Thundercles
Only the evil people but even they don’t believe it.
They’re just evil to the core.
They’re just evil to the core.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 6:36 pm to CelticDog
quote:
j6 seditious conspiracy vs trump
Trump's already been acquitted for insurrection.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 6:44 pm to davyjones
quote:
In the practice of criminal law, one of the tip top, prevailing factors that drive the government’s approach to a given case is the record or history of misdeeds of the defendant. That’s a universally held belief and approach.
Based on their own standards and practices as described above, I award them and their allegations/indictment neither credibility, reliability nor verity whatsoever. Zero. Zip. Zilch. In terms of a comparable defendant who would receive the same woeful marks, it would be similar to a person having 10 prior felony convictions, ranging from robbing old ladies to grand larceny of a chariy.
In other words, they’re bandits who shouldn’t be trusted with a single thing.
Jack O. Smith must be going for his Daniel Ortega merit badge.
They are right up there with, "Badges, badges, we don't need no stinking badges."
Posted on 6/10/23 at 7:48 pm to Thundercles
It’s definitely valid. Trump exposed national secrets - real secrtets, too - to some unauthorized yo-yo, and the transcript includes Trump saying he’s knows they are important secrets and he’s not supposed to be showing them. Yes, that’s serious.
The bigger question is, why weren’t similar serious situations looked into when they involved Hillary and Joe?
The bigger question is, why weren’t similar serious situations looked into when they involved Hillary and Joe?
Posted on 6/10/23 at 7:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Presidential Records Act supersedes all else
This is certainly a meme, but I don't know if it's true.
Until Trump took government documents it was true,…..not now, doesn’t apply to OMB.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 7:53 pm to Paddyshack
Slowflo's shtick is like Pedohank's, he's your typical pontificating mealy mouthed lawyer but he likes to stamp it with his particularly low IQ pseudointellectial patina.
Posted on 6/10/23 at 7:58 pm to Thundercles
quote:
Does anyone believe the latest political charge against Trump is valid?
Message Board Loser is spewing her vaginal juices all over every thread, assuring everyone that Trump will rot in a cell soon.
But even she doesn't actually believe it.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 6:22 pm to TigerAxeOK
First 30 mins of Sarah Isgur's podcast pretty good about laying it all out. She defends Trump about as well as anyone who doesn't drink the koolaid at every meal -- so not enough for a swath of the folks here, but anyway.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 6/11/23 at 6:28 pm to OldFatDog
quote:
Well, I do take PRIDE in my support of the rule of law.
Do you wipe the shite off the law when you're "finished?"
Posted on 6/11/23 at 6:51 pm to Thundercles
quote:
In her ruling, Jackson wrote that “the President enjoys unconstrained authority to make decisions regarding the disposal of documents: ‘[a]lthough the President must notify the Archivist before disposing of records . . . neither the Archivist nor Congress has the authority to veto the President’s disposal decision.’”
Is this the ruling that dealt with the Archives suing to compel President Trump to have to keep records? He was still president at the time and had to do with whether or not he was required to keep certain documents or if he could dispose of presidential records as he wished. He is no longer president and this is about documents he held onto not got to of. It doesn’t seem this ruling means what this person is acting like it does.
Posted on 6/11/23 at 6:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
It is true and the SCOTUS has ruled on that:
LINK
LINK
quote:
An Obama judge confirmed that in 2012 when former President Clinton had 8 years of highly classified recordings of his presidency in his sock drawer.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News