- 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
Posted on 12/13/25 at 3:49 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Do you think an argument for the efficacy of a presidential pardon would be subject to Rule 11 here?
I'd love to see Judge John Parker or Judge Frank Polozola hear that argument.
Neither of those fine jurists suffered fools lightly.
Posted on 12/13/25 at 3:49 pm to lsuguy84
quote:
I remember when this all went down, but I don’t recall it being a “sham trial”.
This sentence contradicts itself.
quote:
Were the charges shite?
Yes. 100%
Posted on 12/13/25 at 3:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
You wouldn’t understand the meaning of innocent. It doesn’t serve your interests so she is guilty, amirite Judge Freisler? Use Google if you need to
Posted on 12/13/25 at 3:52 pm to Dex Morgan
quote:
And you are straight up delusional if you think any of us believe your account isn't an alter.
I have repeatedly been accused of being an alter.
This is my only user name.
Is there some way to demonstrate that I am not an alter, so we can move beyond this nonsense?
Posted on 12/13/25 at 3:54 pm to IvoryBillMatt
This is a message the Dems are sending to anybody speaks out
Posted on 12/13/25 at 3:58 pm to ole man
quote:
This is a message the Dems are sending to anybody speaks out
Exactly.
Either bow to the corruption and keep your mouth shut, or we will destroy you.
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:00 pm to retired_tiger
Well in their defense your opinions are so blatantly ignorant that you would have to be a trolling alter. Of course, you may just be an old, white senile liberal from the 60’s. It’s a toss up
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:06 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Do you think we'll ever get an explanation for the date of December 5 on the putative pardon?
This is so strange. The lawyers for Peters were still lobbying for a pardon after that date. Did the White House forget to tell them one had already been issued?
President Trump wrote on December 11:
“TODAY I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!”
The pardon was then posted on December 12, the NEXT day on the official DOJ website, but again with the date of December 5.
Can someone make it make sense? Did the President not know on December 11 that he had already pardoned her on December 5? Why was it not posted until December 12?

This is so strange. The lawyers for Peters were still lobbying for a pardon after that date. Did the White House forget to tell them one had already been issued?
President Trump wrote on December 11:
“TODAY I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!”
The pardon was then posted on December 12, the NEXT day on the official DOJ website, but again with the date of December 5.
Can someone make it make sense? Did the President not know on December 11 that he had already pardoned her on December 5? Why was it not posted until December 12?

Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:14 pm to retired_tiger
quote:
I'd love to see Judge John Parker or Judge Frank Polozola hear that argument.
We must have had the same experiences. Ayatollah Polozola was something.
My favorite was Judge Stagg in the Western District.
Don't let the "alter!" Lilliputians get you down. They have a hard time believing that there are many of us who can read and interpret the law objectively irrespective of partisan leanings.
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:15 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Perhaps it will go to SCOTUS?
Twitter Link
from the thread:
"Colorado has certainly met all the Prerequisites required for Corruption and Fraud"
for those that don't have X:
https://xcancel.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1999890294737674532
Twitter Link
from the thread:
"Colorado has certainly met all the Prerequisites required for Corruption and Fraud"
for those that don't have X:
https://xcancel.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1999890294737674532
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:20 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
He's obviously trying to bring attention to the situation and brew controversy.
Yep. It's a PR game.
They have her in solitary confinement. Very cruel and unusual. Jena Griswold is pure evil along with that pussy Phil Weiser. This twink Judge Matthew Barrett should burn in hell for sentencing her this harshly.

Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:23 pm to Ailsa
quote:
Perhaps it will go to SCOTUS?
Thanks Ailsa for posting. I'm reviewing the letter now.
In the meantime, I have a question for you. The date of the letter "requesting" a pardon of Tina Peters is December 12. The pardon itself is dated December 5. President Trump announced on December 11 that he was pardoning Peters "today." Do you understand the timing of all thus?
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:25 pm to IvoryBillMatt
There is no strategy. It's a state conviction. Feds can't do anything about it, and that state isn't a Republican state. The Marxist have the upper hand.
Terrible and horrible situation, but that's the reality.
Terrible and horrible situation, but that's the reality.
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:35 pm to beaux duke
quote:
sure thing. hit me up when he changes his mind
Not a history buff?
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:36 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
We must have had the same experiences. Ayatollah Polozola was something.
Although I have never been on a battleship, there were times with Judge Polozola that reminded me on being on the deck when the big guns were going off. Even when the guns were not aimed at you, it was an intimidating experience.
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:39 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:true.
There is no strategy. It's a state conviction. Feds can't do anything about it, and that state isn't a Republican state. The Marxist have the upper hand.
Terrible and horrible situation, but that's the reality.
But Peters fricked this up.
She COULD have sought whistleblower protection(s). She didn't.
The reason why is she likely was wanting to parlay her 'hero status' into something else for personal gain. I do not know if that is running for office, a podcast, simply likes on social media, or selling the info to the right people.
But because she had a self-interest secondary (maybe primary) motive she went about it in a way that made it very easy for CO to prosecute her.
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:43 pm to retired_tiger
Thats funy you are here:
Retarded tiger
Retarded tiger
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:47 pm to Ailsa
This is interesting...
The whole letter is in the link below.
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/d0b54361-40c0-43a9-9151-cd67a062cecd/downloads/c22b5ed2-cc73-4d38-9849-21251d23ad66/MH_Letter_on_behalf_of_Tina_Peters.pdf?ver=1765559790859
The whole letter is in the link below.
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/d0b54361-40c0-43a9-9151-cd67a062cecd/downloads/c22b5ed2-cc73-4d38-9849-21251d23ad66/MH_Letter_on_behalf_of_Tina_Peters.pdf?ver=1765559790859
Posted on 12/13/25 at 4:48 pm to Ailsa
Ailsa, even if she were deemed to be a federal officer, that wouldn't shield her from Colorado state charges: "...if a federal official acts unlawfully, commits unauthorized acts, or acts unreasonably, they can be prosecuted under state law."
As much as I think Tina Peters was a hero for trying to expose Dominion, the jury clearly found that she acted "unlawfully" when she committed identity theft, for instance, under state law.
Whatever the case, if she thought she had some immunity as a "federal officer," the time to assert that was before trial. I'm afraid all of this is now irrelevant to the efficacy of the Presidential pardon issue.
As much as I think Tina Peters was a hero for trying to expose Dominion, the jury clearly found that she acted "unlawfully" when she committed identity theft, for instance, under state law.
Whatever the case, if she thought she had some immunity as a "federal officer," the time to assert that was before trial. I'm afraid all of this is now irrelevant to the efficacy of the Presidential pardon issue.
Popular
Back to top



0






