- 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: Hillary Clinton spent $10 million dollars for Obama to approve fake Russia investigation
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In all of this melting you failed to include anything else HRC did.
You haven't explained why you think there needs to be an "else". Elaborate.
She paid to create a false dossier and then passed it on to powerful allies (the most powerful) in the federal government (you referred to this as collusion in this thread) .
There's a lot more "else" potentially that she did like communicating on a hidden / email server that she setup up to hide her communications. She also destroyed the evidence of her involvement when she "wiped" the server. But, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the "else".
1
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Conspiracy is a specific legal term with a very narrow definition.
Right. And the flip side of that is the term “collusion” is legally meaningless. There’s no legal standard tied to it. It can mean what anyone wants it to mean and that’s a problem when people attempt to discuss it.
quote:
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
LINK
quote:
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.
I’m not getting your point here. Again, he wasn’t investigated for conspiracy. So the Feds would not use legal process to gather evidence to support such a charge. It just was not within the scope of the investigation.
quote:
HRC pretty clearly colluded with others to create the Steele Dossier.
Reiterating my view of that word here.
quote:
There is no evidence Trump … conspired with Russia.
He wasn’t a subject of the conspiracy investigation though. Mueller simply did not investigate him for that.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 9:26 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:25 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
No idea what you mean by GTOE,
Grand
Theory
Of
Everything
quote:
Hillary wasn't a part of government in Jan 5, 2017, so her attendance to the Oval Office meeting would have been meaningless as well as a massive red flag.
So she had no part in the meeting. What does the meeting have to do with her, then, exactly?
quote:
The meeting was set up to sabotage the incoming admin. using the FBI under the delusional lie of Trump + Russia collusion to fix the 2016 election.
Even accepting this as true for purposes of this thread, you've failed at linking HRC to this meeting and are still only using evidence of what she did when Obama was President, pre-election when she was running as a candidate opposed to Trump.
quote:
You keep trying to toss out there red herring deflections because you internally can't face the facts.
That's you, bud. See: Strozk!
quote:
No time travel was required.
So the Jan 5 meeting had no impact on the election that happened 2 months prior, correct?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:28 am to Decatur
Shocker. TDSFP's liberal buds are here to back him up. 
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
By Betsy Woodruff Swan
05/19/2020 03:04 PM EDT
Updated: 05/19/2020 07:41 PM EDT
On the day of President Donald Trump’s inauguration, outgoing national security adviser Susan Rice sent herself an email that has since drawn intense scrutiny from Republicans.
Now the full text of the email has been declassified, and POLITICO reviewed it. It says that then-FBI Director James Comey worried about sharing classified information with the Trump team because of incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn’s frequent conversations with the Russian ambassador but that Comey had no knowledge of Flynn sharing classified information with the envoy.
Republicans have seized on the document as potential evidence that the outgoing president had ordered the FBI to spy on the new administration, as Trump has alleged. And they have raised questions about the “unusual” nature of Rice memorializing the conversation in an email to herself, suggesting that in warning Comey to proceed “by the book,” Obama was implying that top law enforcement officials had done the opposite. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Rice said it shows the Obama administration handled the Flynn situation appropriately.
The email, most of which was already declassified, describes a Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting that followed up on an intelligence briefing about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Attendees included then-President Barack Obama; Comey; Sally Yates, who was the acting attorney general; Vice President Joe Biden; and Rice, who was Flynn’s predecessor in the job.
The email, which memorialized the meeting two weeks after it happened, said Obama wanted to be sure “every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’”
“The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective,” the email continued. “He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”
The Trump Russia collusion story was pure fiction. Assisted by Hillary's payment of the Steele dossier and its delivery to the DOJ in the summer of 2016.
you have no case.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 9:30 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:30 am to moneyg
quote:
You haven't explained why you think there needs to be an "else". Elaborate.
Just look at what he quoted to post that melt
quote:
There is basically no evidence HRC did anything outside of helping create the dossier. Any collusion by HRC ends there.
It's very clear.
quote:
She paid to create a false dossier and then passed it on to powerful allies
While in a campaign against Trump, prior to his election as President.
As stated above, any collusion ends there. Specifically, she cannot be linked, logically or factually, to any attempt to "overthrow" Trump half a year later by completely different people (to bring this back full circle).
quote:
(you referred to this as collusion in this thread
That ended July of 2016 or so.
quote:
There's a lot more "else" potentially that she did like communicating on a hidden / email server that she setup up to hide her communications.
Andy credible evidence to support this claim?
It's theoretically possible, but she could have also been communicating with aliens and/or demons as well. Or perhaps she was acting as an agent of God. Without credible evidence you can make up anything, which is why credible evidence is so important to support arguments.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:31 am to SouthEasternKaiju
Nothing matters anymore because these crooked arse MF'ers are all protected.
Everyone is on the take.
Everyone is on the take.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:33 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
The Trump Russia collusion story was pure fiction.
Sure
quote:
Assisted by Hillary's payment of the Steele dossier and its delivery to the DOJ in the summer of 2016.
And her role ended in the summer of 2016. You're proving my point
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And her role ended in the summer of 2016.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:41 am to SlowFlowPro
False.
Hillary and her dog washers in Media and government have been perpetuating the lie SHE INVENTED that Trump was somehow Putin's paid for, blackmailed puppet for nearly 10 years.
I've planted your point into the cement and buried it 6' under.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Just look at what he quoted to post that melt
There is basically no evidence HRC did anything outside of helping create
the dossier. Any collusion by HRC ends there.
It's very clear.
There's nothing clear. Why do you think there needs to be anything outside of actually creating for fake evidence and then turning it over to be used? Why is that significant in your mind (you seem to have drawn that line in the sand.)
quote:
While in a campaign against Trump, prior to his election as President.
Yes. You've admitted this multiple times. She attempted to illegally disrupt his candidacy and to also take him down if he actually won.
quote:
That ended July of 2016 or so.
I don't know if that's true or not. It seems highly unlikely to any reasonable person. But, I also don't know what the significance of this is. Framing a candidate for president so that it can be used against said President in some manner after election is highly illegal.
quote:
Andy credible evidence to support this claim?
She admitted to wiping the server and destroying evidence.
quote:
It's theoretically possible, but she could have also been communicating with aliens and/or demons as well
That's the problem with destroying evidence. the presumption of innocence goes away.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 9:43 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:55 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Hillary and her dog washers in Media and government
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:57 am to SlowFlowPro
SlowRodhamPro gonna go 2-300 today!
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:57 am to SouthEasternKaiju
Nothing will happen.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 9:59 am to moneyg
quote:
There's nothing clear.
Well I used "clear" to mean "lack of credible evidence" but if you have some to establish her continued role, feel free.
quote:
. Why do you think there needs to be anything outside of actually creating for fake evidence and then turning it over to be used?
Because he said she tried to "overthrow" Trump. Any action in 2016 cannot "overthrow" Trump as he wasn't President until 2017.
quote:
(you seem to have drawn that line in the sand.)
No. He drew the "line" with his initial language.
quote:
She attempted to illegally disrupt his candidacy
Illegally how? By not claiming it properly as a campaign expense or something with substance?
quote:
She admitted to wiping the server and destroying evidence.
So is that an admission you have none?
quote:
That's the problem with destroying evidence. the presumption of innocence goes away.
This is factually, logically, and legally incorrect.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:12 am to SlowFlowPro
Also let's revisit my initial response to your post on page 1
quote:
Don't try to manufacture a conspiracy and tie it to the purported dossier collusion
That's dishonest conflation at it's finest
There is basically no evidence HRC did anything outside of helping create the dossier. Any collusion by HRC ends there.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are kind of a big loser. Sorry how your life turned out
SlowFlowPro
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 10:17 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:18 am to SouthEasternKaiju
…and as usual, nothing will be done about it.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:35 am to Prominentwon
Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or was treasonous AF.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:37 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
or was treasonous AF.
Again, treasonous against...Obama?
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News