- 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: Judge Beryl Howell goes all in blocks another Trump EO - Perkins Coie
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Don't be retarded
We assume you’re speaking into a mirror?
0
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:34 pm to Azkiger
In that town I'm willing to bet she is besties with many Perkins Coie attorneys and routinely attends dinner parties with them.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:35 pm to VOR
quote:
So , some of you are fine with a president targeting private law firms
When those private law firms are full of establishment operatives who have been targeting Trump for the last several years and making up bullshite hoaxes to wage lawfare against him, literally trying to subvert democracy racy and punish their sides political enemies… No, I have no fricking problem with Trump revoking a security clearance of any of those douche bags at all. They’re lucky if that’s the worst that happens to them.
F UCK YOU.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:38 pm to Trevaylin
SFP with his terminal TDS doesn’t care,, just muh Trump!!! OMB!!! Then he simps relentlessly for f@g libs daily on this board while claiming hems a conservative/libertarian. It’s hilarious… and sad.
This post was edited on 5/3/25 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is a very bad argument to use the L-word,
No. Really, it’s not a bad argument.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 3:47 pm to BTROleMisser
Who wants to talk viewpoint discrimination?
Many attorneys and firms representing J6 defendants or challenging the 2020 election were harassed and some disbarred.
Joseph McBride: Represented defendants like Richard Barnett (the "QAnon Shaman"). McBride faced online harassment and was accused of promoting conspiracy theories about J6. He argued on X in 2022 that the criticism was an attempt to "destroy" lawyers defending constitutional rights.
John Pierce: Represented high-profile defendants like Kyle Fitzsimons. Pierce was criticized for his media appearances defending J6 defendants and faced scrutiny over his health and reliability, with some courts questioning his fitness to practice (e.g., a 2021 court hearing where he was reportedly hospitalized).
Sidney Powell: Though more known for election fraud lawsuits, Powell’s brief involvement in J6-related defense work drew intense criticism, including disbarment threats and public shaming. The 65 Project filed complaints against her in 2022, citing her broader role in post-election litigation.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 4:09 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
Absolutely. This EO is clearly viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment.
And we have another who actually flunked 9th grade civics, or went to school in the Louisiana school system
Posted on 5/3/25 at 5:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
What was the purpose of Russia-Gate?
I don't know. I wasn't part of the DOJ.
I don't think there was one goal and it changed over time. Clearly the goals were to be negative towards Trump, but there is a huge chasm between that and "overthrowing" Trump.
Beyond hilarious. Posted on 5/3/25 at 5:58 pm to 2020_reVISION
Lying about their goals is leftism 101 because their goals are repulsive to normal people.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 6:14 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
What did I even attack?
I just tried to boil it down in simple terms without providing any judgement call.
You included things I never said nor argued. That's the issue.
quote:
If none of my synopsis is accurate, then you indeed have done a very poor job of explaining your position
Or you did a bad job reading
I don't even say that in a condescending way. You are concluding with a one way assumption.and ignoring another obvious option.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 6:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Y'all are really bad at analogies. The histrionics are consistent. i will give y'all that.
The analogy fits but you do not like it.
quote:
It is painfully obvious that PC acted in bad faith For a campaign? No.
So it is legal to make up anything and not be accountable for it?
quote:
The problem is that y'all are trying to expand their role beyond the campaign, specifically into behavior by the DOJ. That's where your arguments fail.
Well yes, campaigns are under the same scrutiny as anyone else. I mean it is illegal to spread lies that they their selves know is a lie. Hell they created the lie (pc was paid by Clinton and the dnc to have it created. PC sub contracted it out to fusion).
quote:
For effectively representing his campaign opponent? That sounds like textbook viewpoint discrimination.
They not only represented the opponent but they created a false dossier while knowing it was created by their sub-contractor. On top of that they used security clearances to validate the Russia hoax even though they knew that is was all crap. That is not only illegal but reprehensible. Viewpoint discrimination, as the judge ruled is ludicrous, and you know it. The judge had no way of shooting this down other than spot picking points of the argument to fit here narrative. Anyone with an ounce of sincerity knows this. You on the other hand will defend it. I respect your knowledge of the law but consider you scum of the earth to try and legitimize this ridiculous judgement. Finally, screw your strawman and pivoting.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 6:18 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:
Lying about their goals is leftism 101 because their goals are repulsive to normal people.
You seem confused.
I always called out Russiagate in real time for years.
However, I'm not a mind-reader and don't know the specific goals of each person involved. What evidence we do have doesn't implicate an attempt to 'overthrow" Trump but rather to oppose him and the art implementation of his policies. Good? No,.but nowhere close to a coup. They could not even impeach him.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 6:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Nobody asked for the explanation.
This is a discussion board and many people need it.
The great educator..
Posted on 5/3/25 at 6:25 pm to Warboo
quote:
So it is legal to make up anything and not be accountable for it?
In a campaign the 1A gives an incredible amount of leeway.
quote:
Well yes, campaigns are under the same scrutiny as anyone else.
Sure, but there is a lack of causation for the FISA stuff.
The rational scrutiny of PC and all the evidence of any involvement seems to end at the campaign.
quote:
I mean it is illegal to spread lies that they their selves know is a lie. Hell they created the lie (pc was paid by Clinton and the dnc to have it created. PC sub contracted it out to fusion).
Well we can call it a lie, but it's a "lie" like the "50 intelligence agents say Hunter Biden's laptop has all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation" story. Steele had enough plausible deniability for the dossier to protect himself from those specific allegations.
Again, this gets into the division of labor, so to speak. This was NOT an adequate standard for the DOJ to swear to in affidavits for FISA warrants. This just shows the clear distinction in the actions (and potential association/culpability) of the various actors. Perkins Coie would be on the other end of the spectrum from the DOJ actions. All they did was facilitate payment, basically. I don't think the dossier even existed at the time of payment.
quote:
They not only represented the opponent but they created a false dossier
They did not. Christopher Steele did, for Fusion GPS.
quote:
On top of that they used security clearances to validate the Russia hoax even though they knew that is was all crap.
Perkins Coie or the DOJ?
When did Perkins Coie do this, specifically?
Posted on 5/3/25 at 6:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They did not. Christopher Steele did, for Fusion GPS.
They paid fusion and thus Steele. This is where it gets interesting, the results that returned from their sub-contractor were known to be false by PC but still were given to the DNC, Hillary, and the DOJ.
Now trump is revoking their security clearance and they have a judge who has the audacity to use a crap judgement like this. I know the black robe has this right but it does not change the fact that it is laughable.
This post was edited on 5/3/25 at 7:06 pm
Posted on 5/3/25 at 7:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but there is a huge chasm between that and "overthrowing" Trump.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 7:02 pm to tigersbh
quote:
but there is a huge chasm between that and "overthrowing" Trump.
Well anyone with a pulse knew or knows that was the end goal but as SFP puts it….you have to prove it. The evil bastards are protected by the laws that they created.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 7:03 pm to Warboo
quote:
They paid fusion and thus Steele.
Facilitating the money transfer has nothing to do with all the impropriety thereafter. That's the illogical leap y'all keep making here.
quote:
the results that returned from their sub-contractor were known to be false by PC but still were given to the DOJ, Hillary, and the DOJ.
As stated earlier, Steele himself gave the memos/report to the DOJ
And as stated earlier, the DOJ is the actor who truly acted improperly. This argument really argues the DOJ should lose its security clearances, not PC
No need for this tenuous connection when Steele himself was the transferor.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 7:05 pm to Warboo
quote:
Well anyone with a pulse knew or knows that was the end goal
I've been asking for direct evidence of this since page 2 or so and nobody has done anything except make dismissive responses with "Trust me bro" evidence like this one.
quote:
The evil bastards are protected by the laws that they created.
We're not even on that standard ITT. We're just talking about logic and basic evidence to support arguments.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 7:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We're not even on that standard ITT. We're just talking about logic and basic evidence to support arguments.
Though not the law, common sense is a cornerstone. They worked the system. I do not dislike you SFP but I dislike you not saying “yeah this is obvious as a citizen” but as a lawyer I must say the law disagrees. Most on here like a lawyer like Wednesday that has big time common sense but will also provide why in certain instances the law, as written, will not necessarily coincide with common sense. There seems to be a big disconnect for you on this. Maybe you like it that way…who knows.
Page 18 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News