What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (1 Viewer)

Don't Noonan said:
Nope, just one of the countless corrupt FBI folks fired for partisan incompetence
Click to expand...
That’s funny you say that because apparently Barr has shown lack of candor under oath. He also today conceded that partisan political influence in the DOJ is a federal offense but when asked if Trump had tried to influence him in pursuing certain prosecutions he refused to answer.

So, yeah, noted.

 
Sheriff Bart said:
They don't honor those either.  See Mnuchin, Steve.
Click to expand...
In comments to reporters on Capitol Hill, Nadler also said the Justice Department told the committee it would not comply with its subpoena for the full, unredacted report from special counsel Robert Mueller, a subpoena which had a deadline of Wednesday to comply.
Click to expand...
There are no laws any more.    :(

 
Lawyerguys, a friend told me that when regular people ignore subpoenas some guys show up and arrest you.  What happens now with these folks? 

TIA

 
Johnnymac said:
I know you don't realize this, but you have absolutely no idea what is actually happening.  You may as well be completely in the dark on this thing because everything you post is a fantasy.
Click to expand...
Weird, because I have been correct on everything so far.  Sorry the Mueller report didn't turn out the way you wanted!  🍔

 
[scooter] said:
I love how he just dismisses them as "some opinion people who appear on this network".
Click to expand...
Can you imagine everyone you work with you despise?  I mean there are a couple people I work with that I don't respect, but at least the majority are good people.  I just don't get these people, do they not have kids and/or family that they want to set an example for?  How do you go home and tell junior, yeah work was great today, I spent 4 hours researching how to spin the President's tweets and actions and then spend an hour on air lying?

 
yak651 said:
Can you imagine everyone you work with you despise?  I mean there are a couple people I work with that I don't respect, but at least the majority are good people.  I just don't get these people, do they not have kids and/or family that they want to set an example for?  How do you go home and tell junior, yeah work was great today, I spent 4 hours researching how to spin the President's tweets and actions and then spend an hour on air lying?
Click to expand...
Manafort's daughter was appropriately horrified by the monster her father is. 

 
We've got a straight up kleptocracy in the White House and controlling the Senate right now. It's like a bad George Lucas script come to life.

 
If the Dems believe they "got 'em".....impeach him...or shut up and get off the pot.

It won't happen and Trump will be reelected in 2020 either way they go.

 
Q:  Mr. Attorney General, are you, like most first year law students, acquainted with trial procedure and the rules of evidence?

Q:  It is the intent, is it not, that the rules are designed to elicit truthful and responsive testimony at trails and hearings?

Q:  It is true, is it not, that when a witness is argumentative that such a response is objectionable precisely because it hinders the fact finding process as established for trials and hearings?

Q:  It is true, is it not, that when a witness is nonresponsive that  such a refusal is objectionable because it hinders the fact finding process established for trial and hearings?

S:  I have never seen an officer of the court so clearly show contempt and attempt to obstruct an investigation as you have shamefully done here today with your argumentative and nonresponsive responses (I will not dignify what you have testified to by calling them answers since you answered nothing).  No you may not respond there is no question before you.  But since you are in the mood, now, to respond, where you have not been all day, you can respond to this question:

Q:  Why should this body not immediately begin perjury proceedings against you?

S & Q:  Again you are contemptuous and argumentative, and nonresponsive so I will ask why we should not expect your resignation and or investigate whether we can charge an A.G. with contempt of Congress?

S:  I'm done with this non-witness, for I would not dignify his contemptuous performance here today as that of a sworn witness.  You may return to your master.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Opie said:
impeach him...or shut up and get off the pot.
Click to expand...
In pursuit of Mueller's grand jury materials, Democrats face an impeachment dilemma

...If Democrats frame their requests as preliminary to a potential impeachment proceeding, they would likely be on stronger legal footing because it would make an exception to the general rule of grand jury secrecy available to them — one that likely would not be available for a simple oversight request. However, adopting that stronger legal position to obtain investigative materials would run the risk of contradicting the political messaging of Democratic leaders, including Pelosi, who have sought to take impeachment off the table.

...

“By contrast,” Foster continued, “where a congressional committee has sought grand jury materials in connection with the contemplated impeachment of a specific public official, several courts have recognized that court-ordered disclosure may be available pursuant to the ‘judicial proceeding’ exception.”

The key distinction is that an impeachment proceeding involves the prospect of a trial in the Senate to hear the charges against the public official and decide whether the individual ought to be removed from office; several courts have recognized an impeachment trial as a quasi-judicial proceeding similar enough to a proceeding in court that it justifies the use of the “judicial proceeding” exception. ...
Click to expand...
- The Dems could use their impeachment powers to compel the production of the Mueller report unredacted and the appearance of Barr and others. Congress would not need to go through DOJ to do this, though Congress has not had to use that power since before WW2. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow said:
Don't Noonan said:
Weird, because I have been correct on everything so far.  Sorry the Mueller report didn't turn out the way you wanted!  🍔
Click to expand...
I pointed out just like three pages ago how you erred in statements about the mueller report. 
Click to expand...
Stop taking him literally.

When he says "I have been correct on everything", you need to translate it as, "Trump is still president". Because that's what it really means.

You can correct an infinite number of errors, mistakes, lapses in logic, fundamental nescience, etc. It won't matter.

 
[scooter] said:
Stop taking him literally.

When he says "I have been correct on everything", you need to translate it as, "Trump is still president". Because that's what it really means.

You can correct an infinite number of errors, mistakes, lapses in logic, fundamental nescience, etc. It won't matter.
Click to expand...
Better yet. Stop engaging with drivel (advice for @Zow)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sheriff Bart said:
Lawyerguys, a friend told me that when regular people ignore subpoenas some guys show up and arrest you.  What happens now with these folks? 

TIA
Click to expand...
Problem is, the attorney general is the where the buck stops and who would ultimately need to sign off on the arrest. See how Trump managed to work the system? Anything goes at this point and no one has to answer to any crimes or wrongdoings. Trump won. America lost.

 
[scooter] said:
Stop taking him literally.

When he says "I have been correct on everything", you need to translate it as, "Trump is still president". Because that's what it really means.

You can correct an infinite number of errors, mistakes, lapses in logic, fundamental nescience, etc. It won't matter.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Noonan has been embarrassingly wrong on everything he's said for the last two years. It's laughable.

 
TobiasFunke said:
You're giving Noonan too much credit. Mueller didn't explicitly say that he couldn't prove obstruction. He basically said it's not his role to make that call due to all the unique and complex issues, so here's all the evidence and you all can do with it what you like. You can't fail to do something you never attempted to do.
Click to expand...
If you look at each of the instances of corruption IIRC Mueller found the requisite intent necessary for a charge on almost every single one. Hence Blumenthal’s chart at the hearing showing that.

 
Don't Noonan said:
Where we agreed Mueller had no proof that Trump obstructed justice?  
Click to expand...
DN serious question for you (or for any other Trump supporter here): 

Yesterday Bill Barr argued that if the President believed he was the target of a flawed or false investigation initiated by the Justice Department, he could decide to terminate that investigation and it would not be obstruction of justice- thus, Trump had the right not only to fire Mueller but to shut down the investigation, and there would be nothing wrong with that. 

My question is, do you agree with Mr. Barr’s argument? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Actually I do. 

I could be wrong but Don’t Noonan strikes me as one of the few Trump supporters around here who seems willing to engage in discussion. 
Click to expand...
Not could be...would be.  And Ive tried having an actual discussion...read the posts from yesterday's hearing and tell me those are from someone wanting to have an actual discussion tim.

 
sho nuff said:
Not could be...would be.  And Ive tried having an actual discussion...read the posts from yesterday's hearing and tell me those are from someone wanting to have an actual discussion tim.
Click to expand...
I read your exchange and I tend to agree. But at other times he’s shown more willingness to engage. 

Anyhow I thought it was important to throw my question out there. It’s for all Trump supporters or defenders. 

 
sho nuff said:
Not could be...would be.  And Ive tried having an actual discussion...read the posts from yesterday's hearing and tell me those are from someone wanting to have an actual discussion tim.
Click to expand...
Please list Trump supporters you manage to have productive discussions with.  You can even include non Trump supporters that disagree with you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matuski said:
Please list Trump supporters you manage to have productive discussions with.  You can even include non Trump supporters that disagree with you.

I have a hunch on a common denominator.
Click to expand...
Please list actual Trump supporters?  Or we can not go down that road as I don't think the mods want that.

I think the common denominator is there don't appear to be Trump supporters here willing to engage in actual discussion beyond owning the libs.  If it was all about me, you wouldn't have numerous other posters saying the exact same thing I just did about that poster (or a few others).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff said:
Please list actual Trump supporters?  Or we can not go down that road as I don't think the mods want that.

I think the common denominator is there don't appear to be Trump supporters here willing to engage in actual discussion beyond owning the libs.
Click to expand...
You appear to have been unable to produce a single name on your list.

Point made, thank you.   I doubt it was taken.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
4K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
213
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top