- 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 1:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/30/25 at 1:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How can you "overthrow" a person who isn't even in government?
Huh? You can't.
You can conspire to do all kinds of illegal things to a guy who is running for office. Attempting to manufacture evidence in order to threaten/blackmail/overthrow said person is highly illegal. Seeing that plan put into action when the victim is in office reaches an entirely new level of illegal. The victim being the President is even another level of illegal.
I have no idea why you think this is meaningful.
quote:
Sure, and nothing has been alleged with any credibility to show participation thereafter, either by her or her campaign
You mean besides handing it over to others to implement a plan of action?
quote:
You acknowledge that she colluded with Obama.
I never did this.
Let me remind you...
quote:
the collusion between her and the Obama administration to try and overthrow a duly elected President
you replied:
The collusion occurred months before the election while Obama was President
SFP acknowledging collusion with the Obama admin
quote:
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.
Are you trying to distinguish between turning this over to the President and his administration? If so, that's a distinction without a difference in my opinion. But, you can explain why it matters.
Suggesting that there is no logical connection between a person manufacturing evidence against a victim during an election cycle and then enacting a plan to harm the same victim after election using the same manufactured evidence is humorous. The motive is clear.
2
Posted on 12/30/25 at 1:26 pm to moneyg
SFP is a standard stooge who defends democrats with every ounce of his soul
Seeing a lawyer admit that destroying evidence is fine is all you need to know.
Seeing a lawyer admit that destroying evidence is fine is all you need to know.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 1:31 pm to moneyg
quote:
Huh? You can't.
That was the point
quote:
You mean besides handing it over to others to implement a plan of action?
I thought John McCain is the one who handed it out like candy, specifically to Comey.
Once it was created, it's not like HRC or her campaign held the only copy.
quote:
SFP acknowledging collusion with the Obama admin
No. That's misreading my post. It should be clear to any reasonable person that Obama wouldn't "overthrow" himself, so he was not included in the referenced collusion.
Next time don't create an 85-IQ straw man.
quote:
Are you trying to distinguish between turning this over to the President and his administration? If so, that's a distinction without a difference in my opinion.
Of course, because it hurts your argument.
quote:
But, you can explain why it matters.
You want me top explain how connectivity matters to a claim of a conspiracy? I hope you can figure that one out based on the question alone.
quote:
Suggesting that there is no logical connection between a person manufacturing evidence against a victim during an election cycle and then enacting a plan to harm the same victim after election using the same manufactured evidence is humorous.
Again, the evidence of connectivity is the problem, as is the problem with most of the GTOE. Dot connecting randomoness won't do it, either.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 1:31 pm to DawgCountry
quote:
who defends democrats with every ounce of his soul
This idiocy will never not be funny to me, I guess.
quote:
Seeing a lawyer admit that destroying evidence is fine
wut
I specifically called it a crime.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 1:33 pm
Posted on 12/30/25 at 1:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're describing MAGA dot-connecting, actually
Your projection is noted. Another classic Liberal tactic.
quote:
Only retards believe this
So, you’re referring to the majority of people on this Board as “retards”? Because you are a well known Liberal defender. You’ve been doing it for nine pages in this thread alone. I’m actually surprised that you haven’t been hit by lightning for telling such lies.
So, are you excited that the good Democrats in Washington state are reducing sentences for pedophiles? Or that the 19 blue states are suing to be able to mutilate children? You haven’t weighed in on these topics to tell us why it’s a good thing.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 1:49 pm to Placekicker
quote:
Your projection is noted.
quote:
Because you are a well known Liberal defender. You’ve been doing it for nine pages in this thread alone. I’m actually surprised that you haven’t been hit by lightning for telling such lies.
So, are you excited that the good Democrats in Washington state are reducing sentences for pedophiles? Or that the 19 blue states are suing to be able to mutilate children? You haven’t weighed in on these topics to tell us why it’s a good thing.
quote:
muddies the waters, obfuscates the conversation
Posted on 12/30/25 at 1:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No. That's misreading my post. It should be clear to any reasonable person that Obama wouldn't "overthrow" himself, so he was not included in the referenced collusion.
I'm guessing you think you are making sense?
You replied to a post that said Hillary colluded with the Obama admin. Your reply quoted the "colluded with Obama" sentence. Your reply said "The collusion occurred months before the election.
Explain what you meant. Did you just do a poor job of communicating?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That was the point
It's a meaningless point...or you are just doing another very, very bad job of communicating. As I said:
quote:
You can conspire to do all kinds of illegal things to a guy who is running for office. Attempting to manufacture evidence in order to threaten/blackmail/overthrow said person is highly illegal. Seeing that plan put into action when the victim is in office reaches an entirely new level of illegal. The victim being the President is even another level of illegal.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Once it was created, it's not like HRC or her campaign held the only copy.
They distributed it or gave orders to distribute it or authorized it for distribution, obviously.
It was a fabricated dossier that was created for money at the request of Clinton and her campaign.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Are you trying to distinguish between turning this over to the President and his administration? If so, that's a distinction without a difference in my opinion.
Of course, because it hurts your argument.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. So, is it fair to say you acknowledge that she turned it over to the Obama administration and not Obama himself. Is that what you acknowledge happened?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:42 pm to moneyg
quote:
I'm guessing you think you are making sense?
To reasonable people, yes.
quote:
Your reply quoted the "colluded with Obama" sentence. Your reply said "The collusion occurred months before the election.
Yes, the collusion with HRC, the campaign, Fusion GPS, etc.
Then I clearly made a comment distinguishing the Obama and Trump Presidencies and how they weren't "overthrowing" Obama.
How could Obama overthrow himself? That reading makes no sense.
quote:
Did you just do a poor job of communicating?
No. You did a bad job of interpreting.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:45 pm to moneyg
quote:
It's a meaningless point.
No. Go back to the original post of mine (which you quoted and then misread)
The collusion occurred months before the election while Obama was President. The only President they could have overthrown was....Obama
As you said, you can't "overthrow" a person who isn't even in government (in this example, that would be Trump)
Then go back to the language in OP that I quoted in the initial response above
quote:
the collusion between her and the Obama administration to try and overthrow a duly elected President.
HRC and the people who colluded in making the dossier could not have "overthrown" Trump, because as you put it, you can't do that (as he was not in office in July 2016).
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:47 pm to moneyg
quote:
They distributed it or gave orders to distribute it or authorized it for distribution, obviously.
And their role basically ended at that point.
If they don't coordinate, say, directly with McCain to distribute it to Comey, McCain's independent behavior does not create a conspiracy with the prior behavior.
quote:
It was a fabricated dossier that was created for money at the request of Clinton and her campaign.
For election purposes, yes.
Which means prior to the election, let alone Trump being President.
Their actions only have impact for Trump the candidate, not Trump the President. The distinction is very important when wide-ranging conspiracies are being alleged.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 2:55 pm to moneyg
quote:
So, is it fair to say you acknowledge that she turned it over to the Obama administration
No. What credible evidence is there of this? I don't know of any direct transmission to the Obama admin by HRC or her campaign.
Senators were already making public allegations in September 2016
It was already in the ether by that point at least.
John McCain, an opponent of HRC, gave it to Comey in December 2016. That's probably when the "admin" (if we expand the term that broadly) got the report.
I don't think it's been established that Obama was briefed on the actual dossier until the Jan 5, 2017 meeting, but feel free to post a source reporting otherwise.
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 12/30/25 at 3:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:When he demanded a rewrite!
I don't think it's been established that Obama was briefed on the actual dossier until the Jan 5, 2017 meeting, but feel free to post a source reporting otherwise.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 3:08 pm to Jbird
quote:
When he demanded a rewrite!
Sure. That started a new "conspiracy" with an uncertain set of overt acts from that group after Trump took office. And whatever THAT was, died with the Mueller investigation.
Whatever came post-Mueller report was, also, something else new entirely.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 3:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
Why did Barack want a rewrite?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 3:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The collusion occurred months before the election while Obama was President. The only President they could have overthrown was....Obama
As you said, you can't "overthrow" a person who isn't even in government (in this example, that would be Trump)
Then go back to the language in OP that I quoted in the initial response above
Seeing you get tied in knots and unable to understand the basics of the conversation is quite astonishing.
I don't think anyone suggested that the "attempt to overthrow" Trump happened at the moment the "collusion with the Obama admin" happened.
That seems to be something you invented. It's nonsensical.
quote:
the collusion between her and the Obama administration to try and overthrow a duly elected President.
HRC and the people who colluded in making the dossier could not have "overthrown" Trump, because as you put it, you can't do that (as he was not in office in July 2016).
HRC engaged in creating the fake dossier. HRC is also accused in this thread of colluding with the Obama admin to initiate a plan to use the Dossier in the event Trump won the election (after Obama's term).
The argument is not and has never been that the attempt to overthrow Trump was done by people in the Obama admin purely during Obama's admin.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 3:56 pm to moneyg
quote:
Seeing you get tied in knots
wut?
I'm having to break it down in simple terms for you based on your issues shown previously.
quote:
I don't think anyone suggested that the "attempt to overthrow" Trump happened at the moment the "collusion with the Obama admin" happened.
Then why reference HRC at all?
Or are they being dishonest/irrational?
quote:
That seems to be something you invented. It's nonsensical.
The literal tweet in OP starts with:
quote:
Hillary Clinton spent $10 million to engineer fictitious documentation that Barack Obama could then use to overthrow the United States government.
quote:
HRC engaged in creating the fake dossier.
This is true
quote:
HRC is also accused in this thread of colluding with the Obama admin to initiate a plan to use the Dossier in the event Trump won the election (after Obama's term).
Accused with no credible evidence.
quote:
The argument is not and has never been that the attempt to overthrow Trump was done by people in the Obama admin purely during Obama's admin.
And the extrapolated argument is retarded, as I've shown ITT. It's the seeds of the GTOE, which is one of the more extremely irrational MAGA memes.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 4:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And their role basically ended at that point.
Their role in what?
quote:
If they don't coordinate, say, directly with McCain to distribute it to Comey, McCain's independent behavior does not create a conspiracy with the prior behavior
That's a leap. You already admitted that it was fake. You already admitted that HRC paid to create it. It was done with a purpose. That work product was in the control of HRC and her campaign. The idea that they absolve themselves of anything because they put it in the hands of someone on the outside is humorous. That's just shows another event meant to hide what they did.
quote:
For election purposes, yes.
...but not only for election purposes.
quote:
Which means prior to the election, let alone Trump being President.
You seem to struggle with multiple events occurring at once. quote:
Their actions only have impact for Trump the candidate, not Trump the President. The distinction is very important when wide-ranging conspiracies are being alleged.
This is false. Are you denying that the dossier was used in an official capacity anywhere?
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News