- 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
1
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:31 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The collusion occurred months before the election while Obama was President. The only President they could have overthrown was....Obama
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're conflating specific legal terms with the actual discussion on the broader concept of Russian Collusion/muh Russia
I’m not the one conflating terms here. “Collusion” is not an appropriate way to describe this conspiracy investigation. “Collusion”‘ is legally meaningless in this context.
quote:
The report got into tons of details about potential collusion and found none, which is remarkable given how many countries (including Russia) were trying to get Trump to make a mistake
Again, Trump was not investigated under the conspiracy prong of the investigation. He obstructed that investigation and that’s why he was subsequently investigated. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can reread Part II of Mueller’s report again.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:36 am to Decatur
quote:
Trump was not investigated under the conspiracy prong of the investigation.
Conspiracy =/= collusion
You're doing the same thing OP is doing
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:41 am to SlowFlowPro
No, I’m trying to be precise with language. Using “collusion” colloquially just confuses the issues.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:44 am to Decatur
quote:
No, I’m trying to be precise with language. Using “collusion” colloquially just confuses the issues.
Naw.
Conspiracy is a specific legal term with a very narrow definition.
Just as OP is trying to tie HRC into a conspiracy, you're trying to dismiss the evidence presented in defense of Trump to decrease the impact only because it wasn't presented within the highly specific context of criminal conspiracy.
HRC pretty clearly colluded with others to create the Steele Dossier. However, there is no evidence she conspired with others to do all sorts of other alleged crimes against Trump ("overthrowing" him, sedition, deprivation of rights, RICO, or whatever NPC circus terms are being thrown around on X/Rumble)
There is no evidence Trump either colluded or conspired with Russia.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:46 am to SlowFlowPro
The Steele dossier was fake, always was and was hand delivered to the DOJ by John McCain's own personal assistant. Well before Trump won the Presidency and took office.
You can play this game on the internet, gaslight all day long, be stubborn and refuse to admit what took place, the weaponizing of a complicit DOJ to destroy a Presidency. It just shows how cowardly and shallow a human being you are in real life.
You can play this game on the internet, gaslight all day long, be stubborn and refuse to admit what took place, the weaponizing of a complicit DOJ to destroy a Presidency. It just shows how cowardly and shallow a human being you are in real life.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
HRC pretty clearly colluded with others to create the Steele Dossier.
quote:So she did it for shits and giggles!
However, there is no evidence she conspired with others to do all sorts of other alleged crimes against Trump ("overthrowing" him, sedition, deprivation of rights, RICO, or whatever NPC circus terms are being thrown around on X/Rumble)
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:47 am to SlowFlowPro
This is very odd cope. Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary, against Trump. Your sad attempt to twist the facts and convolute the story is beyond petty.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:48 am to Jbird
quote:
So she did it for shits and giggles!
No she politicked to try to win an election. That's not criminal.
Trump makes shite up on the campaign trail, too. He did in 2020 and nobody is accusing him of trying to overthrow Biden
Now the stuff the Obama admin did with it, is a completely separate discussion. The problem is that the NPCs are trying to make it into one GTOE
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:ok
No she politicked to try to win an election.
quote:orly?
That's not criminal.
quote:Did he inject a bought for dossier into the IC?
Trump makes shite up on the campaign trail, too.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You mean when Barack the Benevolent demanded a reattack to the IC because he didn't get the answer he wanted?
Now the stuff the Obama admin did with it, is a completely separate discussion.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:51 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
The Steele dossier was fake, always was and was hand delivered to the DOJ by John McCain's own personal assistant. Well before Trump won the Presidency and took office.
Yes which shows it couldn't have been created to "overthrow" Trump because, as you note, it was created/used prior to him being President.
quote:
be stubborn and refuse to admit what took place
You're the one trying to include the Mueller investigation as part of a conspiracy while ignoring it was the Trump admin who started that investigation.
This has always been one of the biggest issues with the GTOE. The Mueller investigation/report basically ended whatever began in 2016. Any subsequent potential conspiracies began anew thereafter. This is a major issue for the GTOE and the associated LARP.
quote:
the weaponizing of a complicit DOJ to destroy a Presidency
Trump's DOJ under his hand-picked AG (and one of his first allies) picked Mueller as the special prosecutor to do the investigation. There was no conspiracy or "weaponizing"
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:52 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary, against Trump.
Who was President when this happened?
quote:
Your sad attempt to twist the facts and convolute the story is beyond petty.
You can't seem to admit who was President when the above took place and you're accusing me of twisting the facts?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:52 am to Jbird
quote:
You mean when Barack the Benevolent demanded a reattack to the IC because he didn't get the answer he wanted?
Sure, but, even with that description, for purposes of this thread, it's not illegal.
You can use it against Obama if he ever runs for President again
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 8:53 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:53 am to Jbird
quote:
I always said it needed corroboration. You can go back and read my posts again if it wasn’t clear to you.
Here ya go my forgetful friend.
quote:
This should be a stand alone question. Let each poster make it official. A simple yes or no will do. My answer is no. Decatur, what is your answer?
quote:
The Orbis reports are basically raw intelligence documents. I think the reports reflect what his sources told him. A lot of it is hearsay. It's clear that the judges signing off on the warrants considered this in the case of Carter Page.
quote:
Are you asking me to agree with what you these documents should be or what I know them to be? Again, these are the kind of reports that Orbis produces. Much of it based on raw information that subsources provide. Even Steele provided caveats when he provided these reports to his client. He did provide that some the info would need to be further corroborated and verified, and in the case of Carter Page four federal judges agreed.
quote:
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "legit". I think information obtained from human sources is commonly hearsay so the usual caveats would apply.
quote:
I think the memos get some things wrong and some things right. Some things there are no way to corroborate. It was not an analyzed or otherwise finished product.
LINK
You were all up in that thread too. You been having memory problems?
Ha I forgot this post from Hail:
quote:
Guys....you do realize decatur works in the intel community, right? He is completely a conflict of interest.
Remember when you used to always accuse me of working for the NSA? Good times.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 8:54 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:54 am to SlowFlowPro
It was the "Insurance policy", numbnutz.
I know you loving playing this game of semantics, denying , deflecting and twisting the facts, but you're so wrong at every level, it's embarrassing. Sad.
But then so are you.
I know you loving playing this game of semantics, denying , deflecting and twisting the facts, but you're so wrong at every level, it's embarrassing. Sad.
But then so are you.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:55 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
but you're so wrong at every level,
Who created the Mueller investigation?
Was that person part of the Trump admin?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You can use it against Obama if he ever runs for President again
How about the IC itself?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 8:59 am to Decatur
As much cock as you strzrok'd it wouldn't have surprised me.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News