- 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: Newly Released Peter Strzok Doc
Posted on 8/9/25 at 7:25 am to jimmy the leg
Posted on 8/9/25 at 7:25 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Yet, you act as though every outgoing administration has worked with a foreign government’s to undermine (overthrow?) their duly elected opposition.
What a strawman
quote:
Since you seem to think that this is the norm,
And now we have the argument against the strawman
quote:
I would like to see you give a detailed response illustrating when this occurred previously.
I'll be able to answer this when you point out where I specifically stated that this behavior is the "norm".
0
Posted on 8/9/25 at 7:28 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Wait, so you are saying that Bush’s decision to invade was worse than the actions of President OJ and his band of traitorous shitbags?
One cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands (millions, per some sources) of lives and destabilized the ME for decades, leading to later events like Libya's unraveling and ISIS.
The other got public opinion a bit swayed against a President and a special counsel investigation that ultimately exonerated that President from wrongdoing.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 7:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
One cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands (millions, per some sources) of lives and destabilized the ME for decades, leading to later events like Libya's unraveling and ISIS.
Your ignorance concerning geo-politics is stunning. One event doesn’t necessarily lead to another (causation). It is hardly surprising that you would ignore Obama’s role in what you listed (ACTUAL causation).
Nonetheless, I was not viewed kindly when I said that the justification to invade by GW was flimsy (at best).
Still, you are comparing something ANY administration could have legally done (Bush), to what no president would want to be associated with (sedition and / or treason).
Again, your take is truly moronic.
Let’s see you defend Obama some more in this thread.
In the very least, it will be entertaining.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 7:54 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Your ignorance concerning geo-politics is stunning.
quote:
One event doesn’t necessarily lead to another (causation).
What I said is generally accepted, but we can go with your silliness.
Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives for the Iraq invasion. To accomplish nothing.
That's worse than Russiagate.
quote:
It is hardly surprising that you would ignore Obama’s role in what you listed (ACTUAL causation).
No. In this thread I presumed that he directed them to follow the subjective belief and opinions of the head executive. That's a defined role.
quote:
(sedition and / or treason).
Russiagate is not treason in any way, shape or form.
Sedition is a huge reach, but if you allow yourself to allow one event to lead to another cause and you get to define the causation, maybe. However, I thought we weren't doing that?
quote:
Let’s see you defend Obama some more in this thread.
I haven't defended him once.
I've just pointed out the case that what he did was illegal is tough.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 8:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the case that what he did was illegal is tough.
This is where dyed-in-the-wool attorneys may have a disadvantage - IF you are talking about how a case would be decided in a court of law, then you have a point.
BUT - most of us here live in the real world - rarely, if ever, see the inside of a courtroom.
Most of us talk about things as if we were parents looking out for the good influences on our children and grandchildren. So 'guilt' and 'innocence' are not entirely relevant to these type of discussions. I try hard to put myself in the position of a defense atty in these discussions - but since I definitely and NOT a defense atty - nor would want to be - I fail miserably at times.
What I do know is that what Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and all the other DEMs who have wielded the most power and influence for the past half century are bad people - people who I would not let be within a mile of any of my children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren. (all that goes for many GOPers too - but they are more the exception than the rule)
We live in the real world where decisions have to be made with imperfect data and insufficient education to actually analyze in perfect legalese. But there are many of these 'insufficient' people on here who I would allow to take care of my loved ones far in preference to almost any "lawyer" (unless I had some personal knowledge of the lawyer)
FOR INSTANCE - I have stated often here that I do not like Donald Trump - his persona is one that I would not allow my kids to emulate. I do not like braggarts and 'look at what I did' experts at all. However, I literally HATE the vast majority of his attackers. They to me personify the purest of evil aside from actual murder.
SO - I join ranks to DEFEND him against ANY of the attacks that have been launched at him since he first came down that elevator in 2015. The overwhelming majority of the attacks on him are pure bullshite - all cloaked in trappings of 'legality' and defended here as if they were in a courtroom.
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 8:44 am
Posted on 8/9/25 at 8:42 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
IF you are talking about how a case would be decided in a court of law, then you have a point.
That is exactly and exclusively what I'm talking about.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 8:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It is hardly surprising that you would ignore Obama’s role in what you listed (ACTUAL causation).
quote:
No. In this thread I presumed that he directed them to follow the subjective belief and opinions of the head executive. That's a defined role.
Haha.
Thanks for illustrating your ignorance concerning geo-politics.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 8:56 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Thanks for illustrating your ignorance concerning geo-politics.
That craziness isn't even responsive to what you quoted
The discussion is the nexus of the Constitutional authority of the President and potential criminal liability (both for the President and executive officers under his specific direction). I'm not even sure if "geo-politics" is applicable (as "geo" denotes an international focus).
This discussion can be focused on these 3 questions:
When executive officers present their subjective, opinion-based analyses to POTUS, what commits him to adopting that as his subjective, opinion-based analysis?
And when his subjective, opinion-based analysis differs and he orders them to craft that analysis, as head of the agency, isn't their Constitutional role to follow the direction of the head executive?
If that direction/order is not unlawful, how can an executive officer acting in their Constitutional role be unlawful?
*ETA: then it goes back to the nexus of Constitutional powers and criminal liability of the President, which isn't as easy of a case as people presume within this opinion-based, subjective analytical paradigm of intel assessments.
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 9:07 am
Posted on 8/9/25 at 9:07 am to SlowFlowPro
Shill for me harder, baby
Posted on 8/9/25 at 9:09 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Shill for me harder, baby
Well we are culling the herd of those who want to have an actual discussion about the actual issues. At least you identified which group you're in early.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What you "know" and what you can prove (via evidence) are two different things.
The former is important.
Obviously, the system has severe shortcomings and corrupt actors.
If you acknowledged in any of these discussions what the truth was...before you expressed your concern over whether or not it could be successfully prosecuted, these threads would go very, very different.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
Why is this being downvoted. It is a solid read on the situation. It isn't attacking MAG or defending Obama
Posted on 8/9/25 at 10:39 am to moneyg
He doesn’t want them to go differently.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 10:41 am to the808bass
quote:
He doesn’t want them to go differently.
That's true.
But, it's more. He believes the cases are what are important. The truth isn't important to him.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:08 am to moneyg
quote:
He doesn’t want them to go differently.
That's true.
But, it's more. He believes the cases are what are important. The truth isn't important to him.
That is a typical attorney, especially if it is a trial defense attorney.
Hence the constant obfuscation and skating around the edges of the real meaning of any particular issue.
Trying to make a point with him based on logic and common sense is a waste of time because he only sees things based on his view through legalese goggles. I stopped wasting my time with it.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:11 am to Roaad
quote:
Why is this being downvoted. It is a solid read on the situation. It isn't attacking MAG or defending Obama
There is a team-centric message and anything not promoting it must be attacked
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:12 am to moneyg
quote:
If you acknowledged in any of these discussions what the truth was
I don't know, at this point, what the truth is/was, and neither do you.
Why would you ever start the discussion there?
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:14 am to moneyg
quote:
. The truth isn't important to him.
It is important in discussions where it matters.
I'm discussing something where that isn't really relevant.
There is a chance that you could get to the point of knowing the truth, and its the worst version of the truth, and that fact pattern still fails to establish criminal liability.
But, as for the truth, we lack the information, at this point, to really have that discussion. Right now we have implications, assumptions, and educated guesses.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:14 am to tiggerfan02 2021
quote:
Trying to make a point with him based on logic and common sense is a waste of time
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:48 am to SlowFlowPro
Nothing from Obama personally as you know….but Brennan own notes state clearly that he informed Obama and team HRC was planning on creating a Russia collusion story to distract from her own email problems. Note NOT that there was a chance of actual collusion.
Are you claiming Obama didn’t know this?
And to be clear, I’m not saying that Obama is going to be prosecuted…but I am refuting your position that there’s no evidence he knew the whole story was fabricated when he green lighted the investigation.
Are you claiming Obama didn’t know this?
And to be clear, I’m not saying that Obama is going to be prosecuted…but I am refuting your position that there’s no evidence he knew the whole story was fabricated when he green lighted the investigation.
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 11:51 am
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News