toddc

Verified Member
  • Content Count

    1,553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,397 Sterling

About toddc

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Auburn Football, rock(arrowhead) hunting, and newly deer hunting
  • Location
    Athens, Al
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,029 profile views
  1. Who are the coaches that you guys think we could hire to do what needs done in order for our program to thrive in our current environment with recruiting, development, etc? Honest question.
  2. It’s definitely sounding like you are describing a monopoly! Or what my country grandmother called “too big for your own briches “!
  3. I misspoke—-jury! Not grand jury.
  4. As a R.I.N.O? I’ll agree with that statement.
  5. I’m sorry sir/ma’am, but you are the one who obviously has wrong information.
  6. Yeah, they’re in the Bill of Rights and they are inalienable rights! Thanks nolatiger
  7. I don’t think you can have a debate with someone who starts name calling either! That’s going to end the debate every time.
  8. I never said there wasn’t any evidence of “possible “ obstruction, but that there wasn’t enough evidence that a grand jury would find beyond a reasonable doubt that that was the presidents intention in the things he did. If y’all can prove it was his intent to obstruct you’re a better lawyer than 15-16 that worked for Mueller.
  9. His report was never meant for congress, it was a report of the findings to his boss, AG Barr. Barr was under no obligation to give the report at all to Congress, but did so out of transparency. Mueller wrote the report in a such a way in book two because he knew Barr was going to release it, and he wanted to stir the pot in an effort to harm the president/give ammunition to congress and the press!
  10. If there was obstruction with intent to hamper the investigation, which he couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt if taken to a grand jury, or he could/would have recommended charges.
  11. To me, the question that needs to be answered/clearly defined in the laws are when does the right to life begin, I.e., when does life begin! It might be at birth legally , but I don’t agree with that assessment.
  12. If you’re speaking of the policy of not charging a sitting president that’s not the reason for Mueller not charging him.
  13. First of all, it was Mueller who misrepresented in his report, and did something it was never intended to do. He went into details about the investigation that should not have been included. His job was to investigate and recommend charges if laws were broken. They couldn’t prove obstruction, and to say he couldn’t exonerate the president went beyond the scope of what he was supposed to do for the sole purpose of hurting the president. The president had every right to fire Mueller, who worked for the justice department/William Barr/the president —in that order.
  14. If he means infringement on the rights of others, I get it, if not, I’m not sure.