- 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: Judge Beryl Howell goes all in blocks another Trump EO - Perkins Coie
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Requiring law firms to support your political stances in order to get security clearances would 100% violate the 1A
Then it's a good thing thats not what I'm doing.
1
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:05 am to Azkiger
Why did you ask if they spoke out, then?
What's the specific relevance?
What's the specific relevance?
This post was edited on 5/3/25 at 11:05 am
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I did. You're changing what's being argued to create a straw man.
You need to stop using this term until you realize you are guilty of it in nearly every thread you participate in.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:08 am to OceanMan
quote:
You need to stop using this term until you realize you are guilty of it in nearly every thread you participate in.
Rejecting/laughing at fantasies is not creating a straw man
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:09 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why did you ask if they spoke out, then?
Because they knowingly provided a false report and, quite quickly, the usage of said report became public knowledge.
In short they knew the false report they had a hand in was being used improperly and didn't say anything.
If I sell someone a gun, then I find out they're in the process of planning a school shooting, it's my responsibility to step forward.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:12 am to Azkiger
quote:
Because they knowingly provided
Not really.
Again, y'all are confusing Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS
quote:
and, quite quickly, the usage of said report became public knowledge.
As a campaign tool for their client. No reason to think they had to speak up.
That's how campaigns operate. They're dirty, dirty things.
quote:
In short they knew the false report they had a hand
I don't think PC ever had it "in hand"
quote:
was being used improperly
During the campaign? C'mon.
quote:
If I sell someone a gun, then I find out they're in the process of planning a school shooting
What if you make a dishonest meme about a political opponent during a campaign? Should you go to jail?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No. You're trying to conflate things. It's been an issue in this thread.
Why can’t you be bothered to explain yourself? What role does “funneling money” play?
Whenever you inevitably get trapped in your own ramblings, it’s always someone else conflating things or creating a strawman. If you type more words than everyone else, be responsible for them.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:18 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
LSU2ALA
Hey moron ....1st amendment covers all of us. So does that mean we all get security clearance?
You know, since you're stupid enough to claim the 1st amendment gives the right
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What if you make a dishonest meme about a political opponent during a campaign? Should you go to jail?
1.) This was never used as a political ad or anything similar.
2.) It was being used in courts/investigations.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:25 am to SlowFlowPro
I guess viewpoint discrimination now includes compiling a false dossier using CIA counterintelligence sources.
GFY dude..
GFY dude..
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:26 am to OceanMan
quote:
Why can’t you be bothered to explain yourself?
I have. In detail.
quote:
What role does “funneling money” play?
I literally described it with a link to actual, disconnected liability, ITT.
quote:
Whenever you inevitably get trapped in your own ramblings
Naw
quote:
it’s always someone else conflating things or creating a strawman.
No people just argue poorly.
He asked a framed question that conflated the comment of mine he quoted. He tried to dishonestly expand what I said into a larger conspiracy that in no way was stated by my actual words.
I don't understand why you have issues with me calling these out in real time to keep the discussion focused on reality and what people are actually arguing.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Rejecting/laughing at fantasies is not creating a straw man
You treat every discussion like you are trying to be the king of the hill. Not only do you have to be right, everyone else is wrong or not having the right conversation or creating a strawman.
Logical fallacy is your MO. People might take you seriously if you own it once in a while, or exhibited some level of self awareness.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:28 am to Azkiger
quote:
1.) This was never used as a political ad or anything similar.
It was. i think you meant to include the "by a campaign" language and forgot.
I did think about a better analogy while showring just now.
The proper question given your framing is if an employer should be liable for an employee engaging in a mass shooting, because the employer provided the salary used to buy the guns.
That more properly describes PC's role
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:28 am to Jimmy Russel
quote:
I guess viewpoint discrimination now includes compiling a false dossier using CIA counterintelligence sources.
If the founding fathers didn't intend the First Amendment to cover this, then it does cover anything at all.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:29 am to SlowFlowPro
Does the chief executive need a reason to remove someone’s security clearance? The answer is no he does not so the entire discussion is a moot point
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:29 am to OceanMan
quote:
Not only do you have to be right, everyone else is wrong
Wrong.
quote:
or not having the right conversation or creating a strawman.
People argue poorly, yes.
The level of rhetoric on this board cratered in 2019 but was on the decline as early as 2016.
I've never been quiet about my desire for the board to return to its roots and elevated discussion.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because they knowingly provided Not really. Again, y'all are confusing Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS
PC hired Fusion GPS to create the Russia hoax. So you are saying that if I hire someone to kill someone I am in the clear because I physically did not kill said person. It is painfully obvious that PC acted in bad faith and trump has every right to cancel their security clearance. The judge is grasping at straws.
This post was edited on 5/3/25 at 11:31 am
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Without Perkins Coie's actions to stop Trump in a co-ordinated effort with HRC and the DNC, the DOJ would have had nothing to go get their warrants from.
This is not true.
The most egregious FISA application was for Carter Page
That's from the Dossier dumbass!
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:30 am to Rip Torn
quote:
Does the chief executive need a reason to remove someone’s security clearance?
The question is if there is a reason, can it be based in viewpoint discrimination? The answer is No.
quote:
The answer is no he does not so the entire discussion is a moot point
The problem is the chief executive DID give a reason.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 11:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It was.
Nope.
quote:
The proper question given your framing is if an employer should be liable for an employee engaging in a mass shooting, because the employer provided the salary used to buy the guns.
If the employeer knows what the money is being used for...
Page 11 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News