- 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
re: Acting AG just fired more than a dozen officials who assisted Jack Smith
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:27 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not I'm saying if you want Trump to actually be effective, you want him to do things the right way. I thought he had learned his lesson after his first administration but it appears he has not
Oh but you are.
You defended the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment. You simped for his law fare campaign against Trump and Trump’s team. Jack Smith failed at every level, ultimately resigning in disgrace.
NOW you’re worried about the perceived legality of what Trump is doing. Sorry, a new precedent was set and the game has changed. You’re going to need a lot more copium to survive the next 4 years.
Have a nice day!
2
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:28 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Flailing around
He might still believe the Colombian president was going to let some shitstain criminals that he wouldn’t let shine his shoes fly back to Colombia in his plane.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:29 am to Paddyshack
quote:
Jack Smith failed at every leve
Jack tried to get some things done in the court and he failed. He did not learn the lessons of the past. He did not understand the culture.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:29 am to the808bass
quote:
First - any administration would’ve done this.
That's a major assumption. When was the last time a President did do this? It's routine for the USAs to be replaced, but not the regular prosecutor types.
quote:
And there wouldn’t have been a peep out of you.
No, unlike you, I don't pick political stances based on perceived in groups or partisan sides.
The problem is when I'm proven right, you'll just melt and call me a fig and do your legal doomer schtick rejecting our system of law, and then the more emotive types will melt with some version of the, "why do you hate America?" melt, because their side became a joke (again).
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:30 am to the808bass
quote:
You’re litigating on a football message board an issue that is not currently relevant
DACA is still very relevant
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:31 am to Paddyshack
quote:
You defended the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment.
I said it conformed with our law and appellate precedent. What's incorrect about that?
quote:
ou simped for his law fare campaign
Now that's just wrong.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The problem is when I'm proven right,
Do you ride off into the sunset on your unicorn?
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:32 am to shinerfan
quote:Naw a special Presidential aircraft.
Do you ride off into the sunset on your unicorn?
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:32 am to shinerfan
quote:
Do you ride off into the sunset on your unicorn?
No I just watch the melts and ad hom attacks, waiting for the return of rationality and the rejection of emotional thinking on here
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
When was the last time a President did do this?
The last time this happened? When a Presidential candidate was illegally targeted with surveillance from the Federal government to enable a cavalcade of criminal charges to attempt to prevent them from winning an election? I do not recall one. Your appeal to analogy fails as there is no analogous situation.
If this was further back in our history, Jack Smith and Trump would’ve paced off some distance and there’d be one fewer piece of shite on the planet.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
DACA is still very relevant
It’s relevant to lawyers. There are far more pressing matters for the President as you can see by his priorities.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:33 am to the808bass
quote:
When a Presidential candidate was illegally targeted with surveillance from the Federal government to enable a cavalcade of criminal charges to attempt to prevent them from winning an election? I
That is specifically not what I asked, so no.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:34 am to SlowFlowPro
But that’s what he’s responding to. So you don’t want to ask that because it lays bare your idiocy.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:37 am to the808bass
quote:
But that’s what he’s responding to.
So Presidents now can make any scenario they want idiosyncratic (which can be done in any scenario if you look hard enough) to ignore the law?
That sounds like a good precedent moving forward. Can't wait for the next DEM admin with that justification to act unilaterally.
quote:
So you don’t want to ask that because it lays bare your idiocy.
No you're just trying to make the scenario idiosyncratic to pretend there can be no precedent, to avoid answering the question.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:No shite.
Can't wait for the next DEM admin
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So Presidents now can make any scenario they want idiosyncratic (which can be done in any scenario if you look hard enough) to ignore the law?
We’re talking about HR regs here. Let’s not pretend that Trump moved Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:41 am to Jbird
quote:
No shite.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:41 am to SlowFlowPro
Naw I knew what you were trying for.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No you're just trying to make the scenario idiosyncratic to pretend there can be no precedent, to avoid answering the question.
Feel free to give me an analogous situation in history. We are all ears. I speak for all of us laughing at you in yet another thread.
Posted on 1/28/25 at 7:43 am to the808bass
quote:
We’re talking about HR regs here. Let’s not pretend that Trump moved Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.
That's quite the pivot.
Which areas of Congressional law do you accept a DEM admin idiosycratizing away their constraints to ignore that area of law?
So far we have "HR regs". Any others or is this just another idiosyncrasy convenient for your point in this thread?
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News