- 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: How the Biden Admin ran over FBI to get Trump
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
You either don’t know a thing about how the Feds operate in real life when it comes to effecting an arrest or executing a warrant or are purposefully being obtuse. They don’t go in guns drawn , let alone with an ante discussion about using force while discussions are ongoing or the alleged offense is white collar in nature. They don’t purposefully solicit force unless they KNOW force is needed to effect the warrant. This is 101 Fed LEO operations
1
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You are, no doubt, referring to "obstruction in a legal sense. Is "obstruction" of illegitimate, lawless actions actually obstruction in the legal sense?
There were concerns over obstruction.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:51 pm to michael corleone
quote:
They don’t go in guns drawn
Can you like a legitimate source that claims this? That agents drew their guns?
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:52 pm to NC_Tigah
He might be referring to those stupid planted toilet stories from the dem loyalist media. Using bullshite media stories to get warrants is pretty on-brand for his party mates.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:55 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Is "obstruction" of illegitimate, lawless actions actually obstruction in the legal sense?
Each criminal allegation is separate. Even assuming your slanted framing (that this was illegitimate or lawless, which is not supported by evidence), if Trump subsequently committed obstruction he could be convicted of that even if the possession-related charges failed at trial.
Martha Stewart didn't go to jail for insider trading. The government lost on that charge at trial.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:57 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
He might be referring to those stupid planted toilet stories from the dem loyalist media. Using bullshite media stories to get warrants is pretty on-brand for his party mates.
No. I'm referencing the allegations in the indictment.
It involves, funny enough, a concealing claim very similar to what the judge in Minnesota was just convicted for. Just documents, not people.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:If you assume what you (incorrectly) ascribe as my "slanted framing," Trump did not subsequently commit obstruction.
Even assuming your slanted framing (that this was illegitimate or lawless, which is not supported by evidence), if Trump subsequently committed obstruction he could be convicted of that even if the possession-related charges failed at trial.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 5:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why do you think it was not?
Because the emails were just produced genius.
And the Judge’s ruling references an affidavit not this tranche of newly released emails.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
Tell me what you consider to be a credible source. Happy to track it down for you since you need “proof” that he Feds don’t do this sort of thing under these circumstances. You must not be as informed and experienced in these aspects of federal law enforcement and prosecution as you suggest.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:One in the same, my friend. They are one in the same.
He might be referring to those stupid planted toilet stories from the dem loyalist media. Using bullshite media stories to get warrants is pretty on-brand for his party mates.
---
No. I'm referencing the allegations in the indictment.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:01 pm to Riverside
quote:
Because the emails were just produced genius.
To the public, my good man.
Why do you think they weren't in discovery in the criminal case?
quote:
And the Judge’s ruling references an affidavit not this tranche of newly released emails.
It specifically references both of the oppositions found in the emails recently released to the public
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:04 pm to michael corleone
quote:
You must not be as informed and experienced in these aspects of federal law enforcement and prosecution as you suggest.
Did you forget the standards you yourself posted already?
Do you finally realize the government DID prosecute him for obstruction and other obstruction-related crimes? Is that why you dropped that argument and are pivoting now?
quote:
Tell me what you consider to be a credible source.
Actual media outlet with sourcing that is cited (so we can judge it). Not a social media content creator or aggregator site.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
They weren’t disclosed in discovery. That’s the entire reason WSJ published this article.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:06 pm to michael corleone
quote:
You must not be as informed and experienced in these aspects of federal law enforcement and prosecution as you suggest.
Don’t insult SFP. He’s certified in family law!
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
My initial post questioned the need for force and discussion of it. Go read it.
“Actual” media. Again—who do YOU consider “actual”. Happy to track it down as it’s easy to find.
“Actual” media. Again—who do YOU consider “actual”. Happy to track it down as it’s easy to find.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:09 pm to michael corleone
You are wasting your time friend.
He has nothing better to do.
He has nothing better to do.
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:11 pm to Riverside
quote:
They weren’t disclosed in discovery. That’s the entire reason WSJ published this article.
I don't have the WSJ. Where does the author state this?
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:14 pm to michael corleone
quote:
My initial post questioned the need for force
"Force" as in a search?
Your initial post says this
quote:
Nothing indicates force in any way was needed or necessary
And then you clarified this later
quote:
The emails clearly reflect dialogue and negotiations over a non violent “alleged crime”. You well know the feds NEVER go in with guns drawn under these circumstances, let alone with an ok to use deadly force. Their 100% policy is to negotiate as long as there is communication and no concerns of obstruction. Where is the the obstruction prosecution if there was a good faith concern of same?
You ran once I had to inform you that there were concerns and an indictment for obstruction and other alleged obstruction-related behavior by Trump and his co-Defendants.
What happens IF THERE IS concerns of obstruction? They use "force" correct?
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:19 pm to Vacherie Saint
It was an understatement 
Posted on 12/21/25 at 6:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:An indictment is little more than conjectured accusation. What was the outcome in this instance?
Incorrect.
Read the indictment.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News