homersapien 11,357 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: As you know, That would be unconstitutional How about "encouraging fines - or worse - for black people making a valid protest." That's constitutional. Is it appropriate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 52 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Nola + Elle = white-hot heat. @AUFAN78 you better shut this down quick I actually have a nice tan going on now so I’m more caramel than white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 “I don’t think people should be staying in locker rooms,” Trump told Fox News. “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing. You shouldn’t be there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.” Is that an appropriate thing for the POTUS to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted May 24, 2018 Author Share Posted May 24, 2018 23 minutes ago, homersapien said: How about "encouraging fines - or worse - for black people making a valid protest." That's constitutional. Is it appropriate? Who encouraged fines for black people making a protest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted May 24, 2018 Author Share Posted May 24, 2018 20 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said: I actually have a nice tan going on now so I’m more caramel than white. Oh I wasn’t talking about your skin color. I meant, so hot that the heat is “white.” Which is super duper hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 40 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Oh I wasn’t talking about your skin color. I meant, so hot that the heat is “white.” Which is super duper hot. See in less than 24 hours I’ve got you flirting better. You gone form insulting to complimentary. Well done, grasshopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 1 hour ago, homersapien said: “I don’t think people should be staying in locker rooms,” Trump told Fox News. “You have to stand proudly for the national anthem or you shouldn’t be playing. You shouldn’t be there. Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country.” Is that an appropriate thing for the POTUS to say? This a**hole mocked a Vietnam POW! Piss on him and every a**hole that is hypocritically kissing his fat belligerent ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 Pulled this off FB: I stand to honor the promise the flag represents. You kneel because that promise has been broken. I stand to affirm my belief that all are created equal, and to fight alongside you for that promise. You kneel because too few stand with you. I stand because we can be better. You kneel to remind us to be better. I stand to honor all that have fought and died so that we may be free. You kneel because not all of us are. I stand because I can. You kneel for those who can't. I stand to defend your right to kneel. You kneel to defend my right to stand. I stand because I love this country. You kneel because you love it too. written by: Andrew Freborg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 19 hours ago, GiveEmElle said: I referred to Trump supporters because it was Trump supporters who cheered when Trump called NFL players sons of bitches. Let me know if I need to link Trump saying that. I’ve talked to several vets and it doesn’t anger them, my dad included. It wouldn’t bother me in the least if AU players did this to protest injustice to African Americans in our country. Don't forget VP Pence walking out of a Colts game when the players knelt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, channonc said: Don't forget VP Pence walking out of a Colts game when the players knelt. And hardly anyone got enraged about that PR stunt that cost taxpayer dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 1 hour ago, channonc said: Don't forget VP Pence walking out of a Colts game when the players knelt. Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 6 hours ago, GiveEmElle said: @Proud Tiger This is why I said Trump supporters were appeased. Already we have a Trump supporter claiming NFL fines as a Trump victory. I guess all you Trump haters have short memories. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 14 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said: Good for him. Not really. He did it as a pure publicity stunt at the expense of tax payers. That's simply a waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 Just now, Brad_ATX said: Not really. He did it as a pure publicity stunt at the expense of tax payers. That's simply a waste of money. Not near as big a waste as the Mueller investigation into NO collusion.....now over $200M. Bunch of lawyers getting very rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 34 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said: I guess all you Trump haters have short memories. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/ When I back up what I say with evidence, you change the subject. ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 28 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said: Not near as big a waste as the Mueller investigation into NO collusion.....now over $200M. Bunch of lawyers getting very rich. Bunch of indictments and guilty pleas too. Amazing considering it’s an alleged witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HVAU 673 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 22 minutes ago, GiveEmElle said: Bunch of indictments and guilty pleas too. Amazing considering it’s an alleged witch hunt. I don't know. I think I'm catching the "no collusion" bug. There was no collusion. There was however conspiracy to defraud the United States aplenty: " 923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371). The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act. Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows: ..... To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention. .... The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. .... Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371. .... In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways: [cited in USAM 9-42.001] They cheat the government out of money or property; They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality." So we're agreed, right? From now on no it's not collusion. It's conspiracy to defraud the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371). The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act. Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows: ..... To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention. .... The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. .... Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371. .... In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways: [cited in USAM 9-42.001] They cheat the government out of money or property; They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality."
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 13 minutes ago, HVAU said: I don't know. I think I'm catching the "no collusion" bug. There was no collusion. There was however conspiracy to defraud the United States aplenty: " 923. 18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371). The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act. Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows: ..... To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention. .... The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. .... Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371. .... In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways: [cited in USAM 9-42.001] They cheat the government out of money or property; They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality." So we're agreed, right? From now on no it's not collusion. It's conspiracy to defraud the United States. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371). The operative language is the so-called "defraud clause," that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the "offense clause" in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act. Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined "defraud" as follows: ..... To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention. .... The intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government. .... Thus, if the defendant and others have engaged in dishonest practices in connection with a program administered by an agency of the Government, it constitutes a fraud on the United States under Section 371. United States v. Gallup, 812 F.2d 1271, 1276 (10th Cir. 1987); Conover, 772 F.2d at 771. In United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990), the defendants' actions in disguising contributions were designed to evade the Federal Election Commission's reporting requirements and constituted fraud on the agency under Section 371. .... In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways: [cited in USAM 9-42.001] They cheat the government out of money or property; They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality."
HVAU 673 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 If we also liberally apply these statutes a case can begin the develop that jumps from mere conspiracy to conspiring with an enemy of the United States. "Enemy of the United States Law and Legal Definition According to 50 USCS § 2204 [Title 50. War and National Defense; Chapter 39. Spoils of War], enemy of the United States means any country, government, group, or person that has been engaged in hostilities, whether or not lawfully authorized, with the United States; (3) the term "person" means (A) any natural person; (B) any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity; and (C) any organization, association, or group." The Senate IC, the IC agency leaders and even Trump's current Secretary of State agree that Russia was actively engaged in an attack on our elections, one of the cornerstones of our government. That places Russia in the category of enemy of the United States. It also places those that were conspiring with Russia in a pretty precarious legal position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 Who has been convicted of anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,357 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said: Not near as big a waste as the Mueller investigation into NO collusion.....now over $200M. Bunch of lawyers getting very rich. Presumably, you are referring to defense lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 1 hour ago, GiveEmElle said: When I back up what I say with evidence, you change the subject. ???? LMAO. You just don't like the other side of the subject. But what the heck is the subject? I think the OP subject got lost a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted May 24, 2018 Author Share Posted May 24, 2018 6 hours ago, GiveEmElle said: See in less than 24 hours I’ve got you flirting better. You gone form insulting to complimentary. Well done, grasshopper. Clearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiveEmElle 1,559 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said: LMAO. You just don't like the other side of the subject. But what the heck is the subject? I think the OP subject got lost a long time ago. LMAO. You can’t stick to the subject without a “but Obama.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augolf1716 21,102 Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 Well I blame Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.