- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
0
Posted on 10/2/25 at 3:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It doesn't fit the statute at all
Of course it doesn't..in your mind. Why it is obvious to so many, but yet blind to you tells me all I need to know. You epitomize everything about lawyers I can't stand, straining a gnat while swallowing a camel. Let me guess, watergate is still the worst politcal situation you've ever seen, right? Your talking points are synonymous with the DNC, and the reason you can't see it is because you refuse to see it through any other lens.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 3:22 am to Placekicker
As they all laugh as this was a decade ago.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 4:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This place has ramped up the insanity and emotional levels since then
What's so "insane" about this whole Charlie Kirk situation?
Posted on 10/2/25 at 6:46 am to prattalumni
quote:
Your talking points are synonymous with the DNC
This is the treason statute
quote:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
LINK
As I said, this scenario doesn't fit. There are no external "enemies" that are being aided. In this particular instance, it was the government itself doing the purported illegality.
This would be like saying a cop who lies on a normal warrant commits treason. See how absurd that sounds?
Posted on 10/2/25 at 6:46 am to Bigg A
quote:
What's so "insane" about this whole Charlie Kirk situation?
The response, you mean?
Posted on 10/2/25 at 6:59 am to SlowFlowPro
It isnt treason. Its sedition.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 7:03 am to Bourre
quote:Didn’t even take an hour.
SFP will be around shortly to explain to everyone why this is common and a nothing burger
Posted on 10/2/25 at 7:04 am to antibarner
quote:
It isnt treason. Its sedition.
I asked this earlier so I'll repost
quote:
How can any act purportedly against Trump be sedition prior to him being sworn in as President?
Until that point he's not, "the Government of the United States", or in any way part of it.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 7:04 am to Barneyrb
quote:
Give everyone involved just what the most severe of the Jan 6 punishments were.
The two aren't even comparable. This is worthy of the Death Penalty in my opinion and Jan. 6th was an entrapment trap that a few nitwits took the bait on. (Edit: talking about the few arrestees from 1/6 that actually damaged property or laid hands on a cop - not all the bogus prosecutions)
This post was edited on 10/2/25 at 8:09 am
Posted on 10/2/25 at 7:41 am to SlowFlowPro
Post 100X less.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How can any act purportedly against Trump be sedition prior to him being sworn in as President?
Until that point he's not, "the Government of the United States", or in any way part of it.
Couldn't the argument be made that the people of the untied states are the government and subverting the will of the voter is against the constitution/government? Or do you only see the government as the top powers voted in and not include the ones who voted?
This post was edited on 10/2/25 at 8:04 am
Posted on 10/2/25 at 8:03 am to LSUwag
quote:
I know one of those four Judges. I was never impressed.
AGAIN- IMPEACH in the house and watch them scatter like the roaches they are
Posted on 10/2/25 at 8:03 am to prattalumni
quote:
Subverting the will of the voter is against the constitution.
2 issues. First, that doesn't fit the statute, either
quote:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof,
Second, these acts were done months prior to the election. You're going to need much more of a direct causation to make that argument (under whichever statute you'd try).
Posted on 10/2/25 at 8:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
As I said, this scenario doesn't fit.
Serious question: in your opinion what crimes were committed?
Posted on 10/2/25 at 8:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Second, these acts were done months prior to the election. You're going to need much more of a direct causation to make that argument (under whichever statute you'd try).
I honestly don't care how smart you think you are, there is interpretation in these quoted statements. You clearly dont want to or are unable to see it. What you quoted I believe backs my view perfectly and perhaps you are too jaded from experience to see it plainly.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 8:08 am to Bourre
quote:Is working his knees to the bone under Judge Mathis' desk.
SFP
Posted on 10/2/25 at 8:08 am to Placekicker
Can we please start arresting a shite ton of people? It’s ridiculous.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 8:09 am to dafif
There are possibly some fraud-based crimes, which is usually taken up with wire fraud statutes federally. That SOL ran a long time ago, though. Klinesmith was prosecuted, also.
There are lots of issues with immunity, though. From the origination of the intelligence. There is a way that since this intelligence opinion originated with the POTUS, none of its fraud (especially with the Executive-expansion we've seen since January 2025).
If the POTUS, who is the executive head of the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. and CIC of the military, has the opinion on a certain piece of intelligence, wouldn't it make sense that this opinion covers anyone acting under that executive authority? Isn't that the basic function of the Executive and the definition of the relationship with the Executive and his/her subordinates?
THAT is an interesting discussion this board is not capable of having anymore.
There are lots of issues with immunity, though. From the origination of the intelligence. There is a way that since this intelligence opinion originated with the POTUS, none of its fraud (especially with the Executive-expansion we've seen since January 2025).
If the POTUS, who is the executive head of the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. and CIC of the military, has the opinion on a certain piece of intelligence, wouldn't it make sense that this opinion covers anyone acting under that executive authority? Isn't that the basic function of the Executive and the definition of the relationship with the Executive and his/her subordinates?
THAT is an interesting discussion this board is not capable of having anymore.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 8:10 am to RollTide4547
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News