2
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:05 pm to Decatur
quote:
That’s all this amounts to, brother.
That and possible brain damage
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:06 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
But...him saying Obama's name is a first. He did a twofer. Made the claims seem absurd, while insinuating if he goes down for anything Obama will be named and cover his arse with immunity executive privilege.
Yep, but like you, I can not stand, which is why I do not watch, the MSM protection provided the slimeballs who manipulate almost all minds that hear their messaging.
Can you even imagine Brennan's face if she had said, "American people, did you just hear what Mr. Brennan said. Obama was in on it, too."
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:08 pm to BoarEd
quote:
It's probably going to come in handy for the prosecutors that the idiots obtained FISA warrants illegally and even extended them beyond when Trump took office despite not producing any evidence of their claims. Renewed them 4 separate times.
Legal FISA warrants that have nothing to do with a legal MAL raid 5+ years ago is just proving my point
Renewing warrants approved by a judge is going to be impossible to turn into a crime unless you have Clinesmith-esque evidence, and, even then, the SOL on that is likely over at this point.
quote:
Because if it was immediately, like I assume it was considering they knew full well what was happening, it might not be hard at all to map out every connection made by every co-conspirator because they may have been under FISA surveillance themselves this entire time.
Then this grand jury shouldn't have taken this long and they wouldn't' be using the GJ as a fishing expedition.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:09 pm to Decatur
quote:
No not clearly at all. One of the things declassified by Gabbard was in fact an appendix to his report.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then this grand jury shouldn't have taken this long and they wouldn't' be using the GJ as a fishing expedition.
It sounds like I was wrong before. It sounds like we do have someone working the case. None other than the paralegal who also bills hours to the boss man while pretending to be a lawyer right here.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:14 pm to Decatur
Maybe, but like I said, evil actions and we'll find out if anything was highly illegal, which even Digenova in his outgoing interviews said there is plenty there.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:15 pm to BoarEd
Can we get just ONE perp walk?
Is that asking too much?
Is that asking too much?
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why would Brennan be associated with MAL?
quote:
SlowFlowPro
NO EVIDENCE!!!
I'm no genius attorney like you slow-man, but it is my understanding that usually, the evidence is presented during trial.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:16 pm to Jauquismos
I think the entire point of this thread is that that is getting closer to happening
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:17 pm to Floating Change Up
He wants it litigated right here and right now on this website so he can look himself in the mirror and say, "see, I really could be an actual lawyer. Those fools on the internet are no match for me."
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
Your hanging your hat on a declassified appendix, when there was another 99% of the declass you don't address.
Durham and the senate did not have even the slightest clue that a lot of info wasn't available to them.
Some declassified since then, others still highly classified.
Durham and the senate did not have even the slightest clue that a lot of info wasn't available to them.
Some declassified since then, others still highly classified.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:26 pm to Bronco11
quote:
Your hanging your hat on a declassified appendix, when there was another 99% of the declass you don't address.
Most of that declass had no real weight.
Having Obama, as the Executive, order subordinates to do something isn't illegal and if it is, is absolutely immune (as it's a chief executive function). So whatever "gotcha" you think was in those documents, died with the Trump immunity ruling.
This is before we get into how much of intelligence is based in opinion, and all the other issues that likely don't even get this into the "immunity" discussion b/c proving its criminal will be hard enough.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Having Obama, as the Executive, order subordinates to do something isn't illegal and if it is, is absolutely immune (as it's a chief executive function). So whatever "gotcha" you think was in those documents, died with the Trump immunity ruling.
This is before we get into how much of intelligence is based in opinion, and all the other issues that likely don't even get this into the "immunity" discussion b/c proving its criminal will be hard enough.
Ok, ok, ok counselor.
Let's presume, for argument's sake, that there is NO legal standing. NO Case, as you keep stating over and over (in various ways using different wording) again due to the immunity ruling and "because it will be hard to prove".
Ok. So, legally, it goes no where.
But, for the record, let's assume that Obama did order Brennan, Clapper, and others to push for the known fictitious stories to be used in manufacturing an FBI investigation. And in doing so, the group conspired to stain Trump's reputation leading up to the election and to cause undo-stress on his Administration, all for the purpose of making Obama get his kicks.
Hard to prove? yeah, probably.
Prosecutorial? No, probably not (based off of your "immunity ruling" argument)
So, all that said -- are you okay with the knowledge it was done at all? IF the Obama gang did do those things, just for the purpose of tarnishing the Trump Administration, are you ok with it?
And if you are NOT ok with it, would you not want the truth to be put on record?
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:55 pm to BoarEd
Posted on 9/21/26 at 4:57 pm to Floating Change Up
He can't answer that because it would put his ActBlue funding in jeopardy to speak negative towards the agenda/narrative in any way.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 5:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
I never said anything about Obama.
Brennan, "yes, but doesn't it ring true?". Addressing a subordinate who said they shouldn't use info he wanted because it wasn't true.
He knowingly fabricated evidence to specifically target an individual. He had been briefed on it previously.
Conspiracy against rights? That'll be up to the prosecution and the jury.
And before you go into your typical, DC or Virginia court argument. Which is tired, you don't know what else they have.
Like it's been pointed out multiple times.
Digenova specifically said they had more than enough evidence to prosecute.
But you know better.
Now, awaiting your florida jury BS response.
Brennan, "yes, but doesn't it ring true?". Addressing a subordinate who said they shouldn't use info he wanted because it wasn't true.
He knowingly fabricated evidence to specifically target an individual. He had been briefed on it previously.
Conspiracy against rights? That'll be up to the prosecution and the jury.
And before you go into your typical, DC or Virginia court argument. Which is tired, you don't know what else they have.
Like it's been pointed out multiple times.
Digenova specifically said they had more than enough evidence to prosecute.
But you know better.
Now, awaiting your florida jury BS response.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 5:23 pm to Floating Change Up
quote:
Ok, ok, ok counselor. Let's presume, for argument's sake, that there is NO legal standing. NO Case, as you keep stating over and over (in various ways using different wording) again due to the immunity ruling and "because it will be hard to prove". Ok. So, legally, it goes no where. But, for the record, let's assume that Obama did order Brennan, Clapper, and others to push for the known fictitious stories to be used in manufacturing an FBI investigation. And in doing so, the group conspired to stain Trump's reputation leading up to the election and to cause undo-stress on his Administration, all for the purpose of making Obama get his kicks. Hard to prove? yeah, probably. Prosecutorial? No, probably not (based off of your "immunity ruling" argument) So, all that said -- are you okay with the knowledge it was done at all? IF the Obama gang did do those things, just for the purpose of tarnishing the Trump Administration, are you ok with it? And if you are NOT ok with it, would you not want the truth to be put on record?
Excellent reply. SFP will reply with legal word salad and that he is all about the truth. The problem is he knows the truth about this but will pursue the narrative that the proof cannot be provided and therefore is a nothing burger. The thing you, I nor he knows is what evidence they have. The argument for either side of this is ridiculous without knowing. Carry on with your battle with the contrarian if you wish though.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 5:25 pm to Floating Change Up
quote:
And if you are NOT ok with it, would you not want the truth to be put on record?
I think he’s saying that truth will go on the historical record, not the legal record at this point.
Posted on 9/21/26 at 5:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
Hey SFP, as a lurker I wanted to thank you for taking the time to actually challenge the absolute absurd bullshite that gets posted on here. There are more of us out here with some common sense that see you.
This post was edited on 9/21/26 at 5:48 pm
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News