- 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
re: DOJ argues Comey novel shows he knew ‘86 47’ post was a threat against Trump
Posted on 8/20/26 at 3:43 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 8/20/26 at 3:43 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Just as with the perjury charge, there is ZERO chance that Comey will ultimately serve time for this
That doesn't address the truth though.
Comey clearly was trying to toe the line while trying to promote a message advocating violence.
That our legal system isn't capable of convicting him for that doesn't change the truth.
Like many lawyers, you seem to have lost sight of objective truth and replaced it with what can be proven in a court of law. Those are two very different things.
2
Posted on 8/20/26 at 4:00 pm to djsdawg
quote:
I don’t recall this being a thing like 8647 is and was. We don’t see normal people celebrating assassinations, so safe to us to assume it wasn’t a thing.
Comey’s May 2025 post was almost four months BEFORE Charlie Kirk's September 2025 assassination. What does the behavior of horrible people regarding Charlie have to do with Comey’s intent?
Below is Jack Posobiec's post of "8646." I think you want the law applied differently against our enemies...the very definition of lawfare which I had hoped we were past after the lawfare against Trump.
Maybe you think turnabout is just fair play. I understand that. I just disagree with using the judicial system that way.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. This post was edited on 8/20/26 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 8/20/26 at 4:19 pm to moneyg
quote:
That doesn't address the truth though.
Comey clearly was trying to toe the line while trying to promote a message advocating violence.
That our legal system isn't capable of convicting him for that doesn't change the truth.
Like many lawyers, you seem to have lost sight of objective truth and replaced it with what can be proven in a court of law. Those are two very different things.
I absolutely venerate objective truth. WITHIN THE CONFINES of our legal system, however, it is objectively true that Comey will not ultimately be convicted. Of course, I have no idea whether Comey really meant to threaten President Trump or to incite violence against him.
Unless Comey comes out and admits that he committed the crime, unfortunately, he will walk free. The Constitution gives defendants the presumption of innocence. The prosecution won't be able to overcome that. If you can think of a better way to decide guilt than our current system, I'm all ears.
I apologize if this sounds obnoxious, but if we had a question about flying a C-130, for instance, we would want to hear from Jbird about that. The difference is there isn't a thriving industry stirring false impressions and hopes about how to fly C-130s. Regarding legal outcomes, unfortunately, there is.
This post was edited on 8/20/26 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 8/20/26 at 5:00 pm to cajunangelle
Why are we wasting tax payers money on sea shell numbers? This isn't like trumps personal lawsuits, we actually have to pay our attorneys for their time.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 5:34 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Comey’s May 2025 post was almost four months BEFORE Charlie Kirk's September 2025 assassination. What does the behavior of horrible people regarding Charlie have to do with Comey’s intent?
This in no way disproves what everyone, outside of you, already knows about liberals embracement of assassination culture and trump hate.
This post was edited on 8/20/26 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 8/20/26 at 5:35 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
WITHIN THE CONFINES of our legal system, however, it is objectively true that Comey will not ultimately be convicted
The truth is more important.
Like I said, that our legal system cannot align with objective truth is just a shortcoming of our system.
quote:
Of course, I have no idea whether Comey really meant to threaten President Trump or to incite violence against him.
Well, that's just dishonest.
Your entire post continuously mixes objective truth with what can be proven. I don't know if it's intentional or unintentional. But, as I've said, I've seen this among attorneys a lot.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 5:38 pm to moneyg
quote:
Like many lawyers, you seem to have lost sight of objective truth and replaced it with what can be proven in a court of law. Those are two very different things.
Now it makes so much sense. The dude isn’t truly dumb, he just acts dumb like some or all lawyers do.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 6:46 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
quote:
The rotten motherfrickers know exactly what they have called for & to sit up here & defend it & make excuses is despicable
Who is making excuses? I'm just telling you why Comey won't be convicted.
The first two assassination attempts on Trump happened before Comey’s post. Are you claiming he incited them?
Why the plural? Is some other motherfricker other than Comey on trial?
This post was edited on 8/20/26 at 6:56 pm
Posted on 8/20/26 at 7:00 pm to djsdawg
Looks like you're dealing with a disciple of SFP. Poster treating every thread as a court case. Please stop responding. Everyone with a functioning brain knows what "86" means and it doesn't mean the onions from your burger.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 7:49 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Who is making excuses? I'm just telling you why Comey won't be convicted.
You are arguing with yourself.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 10:14 pm to moneyg
quote:
Well, that's just dishonest.
Your entire post continuously mixes objective truth with what can be proven. I don't know if it's intentional or unintentional. But, as I've said, I've seen this among attorneys a lot.
What was dishonest? None of us knows what Comey actually intended. He's not going to confess that "8647" was a threat against the President.
Therefore, the prosecution is going to have to prove Comey’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I have laid out how, objectively, they will not be able to do that.
This post was edited on 8/20/26 at 10:33 pm
Posted on 8/20/26 at 10:17 pm to OU81TOO
quote:
Poster treating every thread as a court case.
Lol. We're literally talking about a court case.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 10:24 pm to cajunangelle
quote:
DOJ argues Comey novel shows he knew ‘86 47’ post was a threat against Trump
1) Should they be charging this scumbag for even more serious crimes? Yes.
2) Did this POS know exactly what he was doing here? Of course he did. This was obviously meant as a dog whistle to encourage others to take Trump out.
Anybody who claims otherwise is either lying or else they're dumber than a box of rocks.
Posted on 8/20/26 at 10:31 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
it is objectively true that Comey will not ultimately be convicted.
This is obviously your ultimate conclusion and the basis upon which you build your entire argument. But I see a bit of a flaw that may well call the entire argument into serious question. My retort would be this: just as a general matter, how exactly does one produce an “objectively true” conclusion about the outcome of an event that hasn’t occurred yet?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News