- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: It’s always the same players- Boasberg signed off on Jack Smith subpoena of Ted Cruz cell
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:39 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:39 am to SlowFlowPro
Even before this, I think it came out a year or two ago from google that DOJ was spying on congressional staffers. And it had nothing to do with J6.
LINK
I get what you are saying about holding Congress accountable, but I feel like we have a completely out of control security apparatus. It appears Tulsi, Kash, and Bongino are having a tough time reeling it in.
LINK
I get what you are saying about holding Congress accountable, but I feel like we have a completely out of control security apparatus. It appears Tulsi, Kash, and Bongino are having a tough time reeling it in.
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 7:40 am
2
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:40 am to Placekicker
Sounds like a coup to me….
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:43 am to Oswald
quote:
"Who is choosing which judge gets which case?"
My understanding is that the judges are selected at random, but if they can get around that by making the request after hours. If they do that, they will get whoever is on call that night/weekend. They wait to ask for a subpoena based on who is on call, so it would be interesting to see if they did that in this particular case. Did they request the subpoena at an odd hour when Judge Boasberg was on call?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But, within our current system, why would legislators be above the law, exactly?
They should not be above the law if a specific crime is suspected to have occurred.
What perceived violation of the law would warrant the blanket surveillance of hundreds of people all affiliated with the opposition party, specifically?
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 7:47 am
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
feigned obtuseness
leftist 101
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:46 am to Placekicker
They call'um Activist Judges. I call'um crooks dressed in black robes.
Yep, the crooks have invaded our Justice System.
President Trump is right about.........everything.
Yep, the crooks have invaded our Justice System.
President Trump is right about.........everything.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:49 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:51 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
, but I feel like we have a completely out of control security apparatus.
Again, this is the same as the policing power needing to be decreased argument. Same thing applies there and it's very intertwined.
However, we can't even have that discussion because of all the dishonesty and partisanship and hypocrisy involved. That's the actual larger point. It's a diversion to keep tribalism the focus so that people don't ask the right questions.
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 7:52 am
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:51 am to Bunk Moreland
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. so who wasn't being spied on by jack smith.Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:52 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
They should not be above the law if a specific crime is suspected to have occurred.
That's quite a gray area within our current system so you are kind of trying to straddle both sides.
Normal people get subpoenas against them like this everyday for even less articulated criminal behavior.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Wait, what the hell did I miss?
But, within our current system, why would legislators be above the law, exactly?
What did these people do to be wiretapped?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Hahahah.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:55 am to ReauxlTide222
I wondered about that -- my guess is J6 BS.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So now "lawfare" includes all government-prosecution subpoenas?
STFU on this one please?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:57 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
What did these people do to be wiretapped?
I'm quite positive they were not wiretapped
Records were subpoenaed
There is a much lower bar for subpoenas
Also, I fully expect people who were duped by dishonesty who think things like wiretapping happened are going to respond like I'm being pedantic for explaining the dishonesty even though it's a perfect example of how it corrupts the thought process of casual observers
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:57 am to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
STFU on this one please?
What? Why?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:57 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
even less articulated criminal behavior.
and what did Cruz do exactly.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What? Why?
Your voice is whiny and your avatar sucks.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:59 am to SlowFlowPro
What other term covers a subpoena of a sitting senator's phone records, along with an unveiled threat of retaliation?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 7:59 am to FightinTigersDammit
Right. It's a fishing expedition.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News