- 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 10:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Why do you keep insisting on playing these red herring games? It’s clearly Trump. It always was Trump. The oval office meeting was focused on Trump, the Steele dossier being used to illegally justify 4 FISA warrants was aimed at Trump - you are at fetish levels of cope now.
1
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:50 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Why do you keep insisting on playing these red herring games?
How is applying facts to the timelines and actions involved a "red herring"?
Separating who did what, when, is incredibly important for your assertions.
quote:
It’s clearly Trump. It always was Trump.
How can treason be committed against Trump (or the government under Trump) prior to him being President?
Don't dot connect. Try to answer these questions for once.
quote:
The oval office meeting was focused on Trump,
Was Trump President on January 5, 2017?
quote:
the Steele dossier being used to illegally justify 4 FISA warrants was aimed at Trump
Were these warrants issued before or after Trump was sworn in as President?
quote:
you are at fetish levels of cope now.
Naw. I'm living in reality. You are the one who refuses to answer simple questions about reality without pivoting to random dot-connecting.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Spell it any way you want, it was illegal AF, and parties involved need to face criminal penalties.
quote:
ETA: I await for you to pivot from your own words, specifically "overthrow"
celebrating L's is so 2025
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because he said she tried to "overthrow" Trump. Any action in 2016 cannot "overthrow" Trump as he wasn't President until 2017.
That certainly isn't the case.
If Hillary paid to create an AI generated video of Trump peeing on Russian prostitutes with Putin sitting in a chair in the corner smiling and writing off existing Russian debt that Trump had, and then turns it over to people within the government for use against Trump if he wins, you think that she's off the hook because it happened before the election occurred?
That's absurd.
quote:
No. He drew the "line" with his initial language.
meh
You acknowledge that Hillary paid to have it created. You seem to acknowledge that she intended to use the fake information to disrupt the election. You acknowledge that she colluded with Obama. I think we agree the Dossier was fake. Feel free to clarify.
You just seem to be drawing a line in the sand because of the timing of the event and you haven't really made your case for why.
quote:
Illegally how? By not claiming it properly as a campaign expense or something with substance?
Election interference by attempting to manufacture false evidence against a candidate. You acknowledged that she attempted to hide it by hiding it from her campaign expenses. That certainly is meaningful. It is an "else".
quote:
So is that an admission you have none?
You have yet to explain why it's important or needed. Attempting to hide a crime is clearly illegal, but I don't know why you think it is needed.
quote:
This is factually, logically, and legally incorrect.
Your ability to separate these 3 things is highly suspect. Nevertheless, you are wrong in all 3 to some degree.
Logically, is the easiest to point out. If you destroy evidence, it's logical to question that there is a reason.
Factually stands on its own. It is objective.
Legally, if you destroy evidence after a subpoena (she did), there are obviously potential legal implications. I'm not suggesting that the jury will be instructed to assume that there's evidence that cannot be produced. But, the illegal act of obstruction is enough to be an "else".
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:58 am to Jbird
quote:he's putting in serious work on NYEE
SlowRodhamPro gonna go 2-300 today!
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:07 am to moneyg
quote:
If Hillary paid to create an AI generated video of Trump peeing on Russian prostitutes with Putin sitting in a chair in the corner smiling and writing off existing Russian debt that Trump had, and then turns it over to people within the government for use against Trump if he wins, you think that she's off the hook because it happened before the election occurred?
How can you "overthrow" a person who isn't even in government?
quote:
You acknowledge that Hillary paid to have it created.
Sure, and nothing has been alleged with any credibility to show participation thereafter, either by her or her campaign. As has been established, neither HRC or the campaign had, for instance, any involvement in the January 5 meeting.
The Obama admin choosing to use her false campaign dirt on Trump is a completely separate set of behaviors than creating the false dirt itself.
quote:
You acknowledge that she colluded with Obama.
I never did this.
I said she colluded, but not with Obama. Steele, Fusion GPS, etc. were all in on the collusion to create the BS dossier. Obama wasn't involved.
quote:
. I think we agree the Dossier was fake.
It was fake. Created by her campaign as campaign fodder to hurt Trump.
quote:
You just seem to be drawing a line in the sand because of the timing of the event and you haven't really made your case for why.
The lack of any factual or logical connectivity. I think you're relying on the falsehood above (that I said she colluded with Obama) to make that connection.
quote:
Election interference by attempting to manufacture false evidence against a candidate. Y
That's silliness. Post the federal statute you're relying on.
quote:
Attempting to hide a crime is clearly illegal
Sure, but it doesn't create other presumptions or assumptions without further evidence. It's only evidence of that specific crime.
Like, for instance, Trump's obstruction-related charges in Florida don't have an impact on whether or not he could legally possess the documents at issue. He could be convicted of either crime independently as they're not directly related.
quote:
If you destroy evidence, it's logical to question that there is a reason.
That is a pivot from the quoted language
quote:
Factually stands on its own. It is objective.
Objective only of the separate behavior. It has no factual overlap with other behavior.
See: Trump example above.
quote:
Legally, if you destroy evidence after a subpoena (she did), there are obviously potential legal implications.
That is a pivot from the quoted language
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:18 am to SlowFlowPro
What I find fascinating is that SFP will live in threads like this, vehemently arguing, defending the Liberal perspective, regardless of the facts presented. He plays word games, muddies the waters, obfuscates the conversation, classic liberal tactics.
But, he’s conspicuously absent from threads like this-
Dem senators in Washington State sponsor Bill to reduce penalties for child sex crimes
Why aren’t you in here defending these Liberals? Like it or not, by your own post content, you are standing up to be counted amongst these people.
But, he’s conspicuously absent from threads like this-
Dem senators in Washington State sponsor Bill to reduce penalties for child sex crimes
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Why aren’t you in here defending these Liberals? Like it or not, by your own post content, you are standing up to be counted amongst these people.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:20 am to Placekicker
19 Blue States Sue Trump Admin to Preserve Right to Perform Child Sex Changes
Or this one. Come on, SFP, these are your people.
A total of nineteen blue states are suing the Trump administration in a bid to protect the right to perform child sex changes.
Last week, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to any provider that offers so-called gender-affirming treatment to minors.
“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said at the time.
The Oregon-led lawsuit claims that the decision “exceeds the Secretary’s authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare and Medicaid statutes.”
Oregon Attorney General Dayfield argued that child sex changes are an essential form of healthcare.
Or this one. Come on, SFP, these are your people.
A total of nineteen blue states are suing the Trump administration in a bid to protect the right to perform child sex changes.
Last week, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would cut off Medicare and Medicaid funding to any provider that offers so-called gender-affirming treatment to minors.
“Under my leadership, and answering President Trump’s call to action, the federal government will do everything in its power to stop unsafe, irreversible practices that put our children at risk,” Kennedy said at the time.
The Oregon-led lawsuit claims that the decision “exceeds the Secretary’s authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Medicare and Medicaid statutes.”
Oregon Attorney General Dayfield argued that child sex changes are an essential form of healthcare.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:31 am to Placekicker
quote:
He plays word games, muddies the waters, obfuscates the conversation, classic liberal tactics.
You're describing MAGA dot-connecting, actually
quote:
Why aren’t you in here defending these Liberals? Like it or not, by your own post content, you are standing up to be counted amongst these people.
Only retards believe this
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:32 am to Placekicker
quote:
Or this one. Come on, SFP, these are your people.
quote:
muddies the waters, obfuscates the conversation
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Does the term for the fake "the Steele dossier" (aka the Hildebeast financed Trump-Russia dossier) ring bell?
How corrupt is Hillary? She was fired from the Nixon Watergate Investigation.
How corrupt is Hillary? She was fired from the Nixon Watergate Investigation.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 11:49 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:42 am to SlowFlowPro
You are the simple part of that equation, the questions themselves are not relevant to the issue. Obama was president in January 5, 2017. After Trump had won the election. It was seditious on Obama‘s part to tie up the incoming Trump administration with a fake and possibly illegal investigation which had no merit in truth and was using government agencies , weaponized in a political matter.
Now go wrap yourself in the tortured, autistic definitions of sedition, collusion, treason, or whatever the hell you want to deflect with, the fact of the matter is Obama issued orders to the DOJ and heads of agencies to attack Trump politically by weaponizing government .
Now go wrap yourself in the tortured, autistic definitions of sedition, collusion, treason, or whatever the hell you want to deflect with, the fact of the matter is Obama issued orders to the DOJ and heads of agencies to attack Trump politically by weaponizing government .
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:44 am to GeorgePaton
quote:
Does the term for the fake "the Steele dossier" (aka the Hildebeast financed Trump-Russia dossier) ring bell?
How was this used against Obama?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:49 am to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
the questions themselves are not relevant to the issue.
Who did what, and when, are extremely relevant to the issue.
quote:
After Trump had won the election. It was seditious on Obama‘s part to tie up the incoming Trump administration with a fake and possibly illegal investigation which had no merit in truth and was using government agencies , weaponized in a political matter.
This is simply not true. You're ignoring the actual law and projecting.
Sedition statute
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,
The "Government of the United States" was still under Obama until Trump's inauguration. Again, when is incredibly important to this discussion. You can't allege sedition, treason, etc. against Trump until Trump is the actual President.
quote:
Now go wrap yourself in the tortured, autistic definitions of sedition
AKA, the actual definition of sedition in reality? And not your imaginary version?
quote:
the fact of the matter is Obama issued orders to the DOJ and heads of agencies to attack Trump politically by weaponizing government .
Feel free to use this against him next time he runs for office.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 11:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You can't allege sedition, treason, etc. against Trump until Trump is the actual President.
Your brain is clearly fried, as I’ve never done any such thing. I have painstakingly laid out what is commonly known, that Barack Hussein Obama, willfully and unlawfully tried to set Trump up by using government law-enforcement agencies in a political maneuver to undercut his Trump‘s incoming administration.
Holy fricking shite, you are a fricking retard.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 12:05 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Your brain is clearly fried, as I’ve never done any such thing.
You doing a "I never said overthrow" move again? Really? REALLY?
quote:
I have painstakingly laid out what is commonly known, that Barack Hussein Obama, willfully and unlawfully tried to set Trump up by using government law-enforcement agencies in a political maneuver to undercut his Trump‘s incoming administration.
See now you're playing word games, by pretending you didn't say sedition/treason(ous), and you're slipping in "unlawful" into the word salad.
Your entire argument is saying something, pretending you didn't say it, then when it's pointed out you did say it, trying to pivot to your own esoteric definitions of the words you claimed you didn't use, and wrapping it all together with dot connecting irrelevancies with no credible evidence or factual support.
You're putting on a literal master class of MAGA anti-rhetoric and obfuscation. I'm going to bookmark this thread as a learning tool to show others when they're doing it.
*ETA: the truly sad part is that lots of people who don't understand logic or stating/defending actual arguments will read your posts and think you're doing well.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 12/30/25 at 12:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
See now you're playing word games, by pretending you didn't say sedition/treason(ous), and you're slipping in "unlawful" into the word salad.
Your entire argument is saying something, pretending you didn't say it, then when it's pointed out you did say it, trying to pivot to your own esoteric definitions of the words you claimed you didn't use, and wrapping it all together with dot connecting irrelevancies with no credible evidence or factual support.
To sum up, you are a bit jealous that he is using your schtick?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 12:19 pm to SlowFlowPro
Let me help you clear this up. The fake Steele dossier was not used against Obama. It used by your pal Hildabeast to obtain a FISA Warrant so her campaign could spy on the Trump campaign.
An illegal action that I would argue qualifies as "Seditious Conspiracy".
President Trump is right about........everything.
An illegal action that I would argue qualifies as "Seditious Conspiracy".
President Trump is right about........everything.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 12/30/25 at 12:20 pm to LCA131
quote:
To sum up, you are a bit jealous that he is using your schtick?
The thing is, I don't do that.
People who engage in the same dishonesty create strawmen and I have to explain how those strawmen are wrong.
What SEK is doing is no strawman. Last night I had to literally post a screen shot of his post after he denied saying exactly what I quoted him saying
This is no straw man situation and I have receipts for everything.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 12:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Really? REALLY?
Nope, never did. That's your head canon.
quote:
Your entire argument
No it isn't. Never was. My ARGUMENT is that Obama, Hillary and others who were complicit in this scandal need to be in jail. THAT'S MY POINT.
quote:
is saying something, pretending you didn't say it, then when it's pointed out you did say it, trying to pivot to your own esoteric definitions of the words you claimed you didn't use, and wrapping it all together with dot connecting irrelevancies with no credible evidence or factual support.
Your focus on minutia is beyond tedious. You distract with irrelevant nonsense, and when I do erroneously overlook a inane remark that you bring up, I admit it, and move on. You're so hell bent on derailing the real conversation that you'll try any distraction, any word game, double speak and twisted logic tactic to pad your post count and avoid admitting the basic truth. Trump was unfairly attacked by members of our gov, and is deserving of satisfaction.
That's the conclusion you absolutely are TDSing over, and it's obvious.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News