- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Newly Released Peter Strzok Doc
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:30 am
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:30 am
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Replying to @RealSLokhova
"There's nothing to this, but we have to run it to ground."
That sounds like Obama told them that they "had to."
19
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:32 am to Jbird
quote:
That sounds like Obama told them that they "had to."
I don't think that's really in dispute at this point.
The question is based around what criminal liability exists from that direction by the POTUS.
Obama ordering this may insulate the people under him from criminal liability.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:33 am to Jbird
Disgusting... we need a tear down.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obama ordering this may insulate the people under him from criminal liability.
So... "just following orders", you say?
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:40 am to Jbird
My belated kindest wishes for Honest Bob being in a memory care facility
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:41 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obama ordering this may insulate the people under him from criminal liability.
Not if it was a felony. And, it was.
I can't order my employees to steal from my competitor, and see that they are absolved of the responsibility of having done so.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:53 am to Jbird
This was known at the time as well. Just like everything else these exact words were relayed verbatim a long time ago and it was roundly shat up on by all naysayers. Now just look at the first response to this OP. "Of course, that isn't in dispute."
What the frick ever. Bunch of clowns up in this joint.
What the frick ever. Bunch of clowns up in this joint.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:55 am to SallysHuman
quote:
So... "just following orders", you say?
Effectively. If it's not a crime for the President to do this, then how could criminal liability flow to those following those non-illegal orders?
This is where the opinions, subjectivity, etc. of intelligence come into play, as well as the power of the head of the executive agency. This isn't even a comment on immunity.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:57 am to Jbird
Not complaining but we knew this like 6 years ago.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:58 am to OccamsStubble
quote:
I can't order my employees to steal from my competitor,
You're not the President and your hypothetical implies illegality of the order, which my scenario does not. It's not an apt comparison.
This would be more akin to you being given a report on your competitor that you disagreed with, and you telling your underlings to craft a report reflecting your opinions on the matter. If your opinions ultimately hurt your company, there wouldn't be criminal liability for it. You may lose in the court of public opinion and face those paths, like losing your position (but that isn't applicable to the POTUS).
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:58 am to AlterEd
quote:
This was known at the time as well. Just like everything else these exact words were relayed verbatim a long time ago and it was roundly shat up on by all naysayers. Now just look at the first response to this OP. "Of course, that isn't in dispute."
It hasn't been in dispute for 5-6 years
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
Lol
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:59 am to SlowFlowPro
Always defending tLeft
Posted on 8/8/25 at 9:59 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Always defending tLeft
Nothing I said is a "defense"
Pointing out flaws in an argument that you perceived to be on your side in no way means I'm supporting the other side. It's just a weak argument.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're not the President and your hypothetical implies illegality of the order, which my scenario does not. It's not an apt comparison.
It’s apt. You either can’t understand or don’t want to.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:02 am to OccamsStubble
quote:
It’s apt. You either can’t understand or don’t want to.
How is using a hypothetical with illegality comparable to a hypothetical without illegality?
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This isn't even a comment on immunity.
Interesting to know Strozk and pals have presidential immunity.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Effectively. If it's not a crime for the President to do this, then how could criminal liability flow to those following those non-illegal orders?
this is probably something for real lawyers to figure out, not something for people who pretend to be lawyers on the interweb and post 1/2 million times on secrant.
thank for your attention to this matter!
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:03 am to SallysHuman
quote:
Interesting to know Strozk and pals have presidential immunity.
Why did you post that when the quoted language specifically said it was not a comment on immunity?
Page 1 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News