- 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 10:12 am to Flats
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:12 am to Flats
quote:
You may want to back up and see what you and I are discussing. It's the goal of Russia-gate.
But the specific actors are important.
Nobody is denying the DOJ's bad behavior pre and post election.
But the point is that Perkins Coie is not the DOJ, and their actions seem exclusively related to the campaign.
Therefore, they cannot have engaged in "overthrowing" Trump in admin 1.
2
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Irrelevant, guys with Top Secret security put forth a known bullshite classified document intended to damage, period.
In an election as campaign fodder.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:12 am to BCreed1
quote:
That was used in an attempt to remove Trump from office.
By the DOJ, not Perkins Coie
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:So merely an accomplice.
By the DOJ, not Perkins Coie
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Guys from PC with security clearances hired Fusion, put forth known bullshite classified dossier as fact.
In an election as campaign fodder.
Has literally nothing to do with the DOJ using it illegally in FISA court.
Presuming the "right" to an SC, which despite your protestations is the underpinning of your position (and the judge's), it would seem to me such glaring ignorance/naivety as to the potential misuse of their efforts is enough to lose a security clearance (see, for example, dumbasses in nuclear subs taking and posting selfies)
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:14 am to SlowFlowPro
Viewpoints my frickin arse a viewpoint really since when does a law firm deserve this shite. You frickin twirp
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:15 am to BCreed1
quote:
Oh I do. It's just you not wanting this:
To be part of the topic anymore because it kills all of your stupid takes on this.
No we're discussing that the part you keep pasting and bolding has nothing to do with the DOJ's bad behavior and RussiaGate.
You keep trying to merge Perkins Coie into that bad behavior and you keep failing. All you can cite is the bolded language, which is nothing more than campaign fodder in an election. Almost by definition, punishing Perkins Coie for only that is in violation of the 1A.
You have to show more.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:15 am to udtiger
quote:
Presuming the "right" to an SC, which despite your protestations is the underpinning of your position (and the judge's), it would seem to me such glaring ignorance/naivety as to the potential misuse of their efforts is enough to lose a security clearance (see, for example, dumbasses in nuclear subs taking and posting selfies)
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In an election as campaign fodder.
Wrong. It was used after he was elected.
quote:
Has literally nothing to do with the DOJ using it illegally in FISA court.
Has everything to do with it because that would have never happened without the work of Perkins Coie.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:15 am to Jbird
quote:
So merely an accomplice.
You can't even show that much of a connection with actual evidence.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:16 am to udtiger
quote:
Presuming the "right" to an SC
That presumption doesn't exist.
Straw man
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But the specific actors are important.
They're irrelevant to the question asked and your answer that I initially responded to. Clearly (to me and probably most people) the goal of Russia-gate was to remove Trump from office. Clearly PC was involved in that effort. If you want to claim it was at a low level and dismiss the whole thing as politics as usual, you can make that claim, but it has nothing to do with the overarching goal of all things Russia-gate.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:They paid for the Dossier, they supplied it.
You can't even show that much of a connection with actual evidence.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What's your allegations about Perkins Coie and the 2020 election?
RussiaGate was manufactured and intended to do maximum damage to the Trump administration, be it removal from office, tarnishing his reputation to lessen his political capital so he gets less done, harm his future political runs, and any other harm it could.
The specific claim about the 2020 election is just the lowest hanging fruit. Of course at least that much is true, and all the President would need to remove someone's security clearance.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:17 am to BCreed1
quote:
Wrong. It was used after he was elected.
By another party. The DOJ.
Nobody is arguing that use was proper.
So revoke THEIR security clearance.
quote:
Has everything to do with it because that would have never happened without the work of Perkins Coie.
The DOJ improperly using campaign fodder is their exclusive issue.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:18 am to LSU2ALA
You thought you woke up in America this morning, didn't ya? The First Amendment is nothing more than a guideline at this moment.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:18 am to SlowFlowPro
I supply the weapon used in a murder I have no culpability. 
This post was edited on 5/3/25 at 10:19 am
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:20 am to Flats
quote:
They're irrelevant to the question asked and your answer that I initially responded to. Clearly (to me and probably most people) the goal of Russia-gate was to remove Trump from office.
I don't know if this is specifically true.
But, even if I'm wrong, that was the goal of Russia-gate by bad actors in the DOJ, specifically.
quote:
Clearly PC was involved in that effort.
This is the problem. The evidence of this is pretty scant. The EO didn't even make this reference also, I must note. They kept it exclusive to campaign-related activities in 2016.
They didn't want that smoke
quote:
If you want to claim it was at a low level and dismiss the whole thing as politics as usual, you can make that claim, but it has nothing to do with the overarching goal of all things Russia-gate.
Again, the specific actors are important.
Nobody is arguing there was impropriety in the DOJ.
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:20 am to Jbird
quote:
They paid for the Dossier, they supplied it.
To the campaign.
Not to the FISA court.
This post was edited on 5/3/25 at 10:21 am
Posted on 5/3/25 at 10:21 am to Azkiger
quote:
RussiaGate was manufactured and intended to do maximum damage to the Trump administration, be it removal from office, tarnishing his reputation to lessen his political capital so he gets less done, harm his future political runs, and any other harm it could.
The idea that if they could have gotten to a point where they could have removed Trump, they just wouldn't, is one of the more fricking retarded things I've ever seen presented here.
And that's saying something.
Page 8 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News