- 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 11:52 am to SquatchDawg
Posted on 8/9/25 at 11:52 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
Nothing from Obama personally as you know
That makes it VERY difficult for us to "know" then.
quote:
Are you claiming Obama didn’t know this?
No, but it's still somewhat irrelevant to establishing what his opinion and subjective analysis of the intelligence reports are, and his opinion and subjective analysis on what the intelligence strategy/actions should be.
quote:
but I am refuting your position that there’s no evidence
I'm not saying there is no evidence.
I'm saying there is not nearly enough to impute knowledge and mind reading. There's still a LOT of grey area/leeway for the admin.
3
Posted on 8/9/25 at 1:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
The data is bullshite.
Obama yeah redo that
New data it's real!
Lol
Gets leaked
Obama spoke about the data before the rewrite was finished.
Slow Brennan pro says unhuh not enough.
Obama yeah redo that
New data it's real!
Lol
Gets leaked
Obama spoke about the data before the rewrite was finished.
Slow Brennan pro says unhuh not enough.
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 8/9/25 at 3:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obama ordering this may insulate the people under him from criminal liability.
Then that's something Trump should remember.
He can order people to perform absolutely illegal criminal activity and, since he's immune to it, it also makes them immune to it.
Can you not see the slippery slope here? Do you only want it changed now because Trump is the one in charge?
If my boss orders me to do something illegal, it will cost me my job for sure but I will turn his arse in. If I go along with it, fully knowing it is unlawful, I would expect to face legal ramifications if caught.
For all the bullshite talk about Trump and how he's such a terrible person and has done such terrible things, he appears to be the only Senior Leader in US government this century to have even a fricking shred of morality.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 3:41 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:
He can order people to perform absolutely illegal criminal activity
This was not baked into my comment.
quote:
and, since he's immune to it, it also makes them immune to it.
My comment wasn't based in Presidential immunity, either.
quote:
Can you not see the slippery slope here?
Did you miss all the discussions on the Aliens and Enemies Act and other super-aggro moves Trump did earlier this year? This slippery slope was told to y'all many times over.
quote:
Do you only want it changed now because Trump is the one in charge?
Most of this is based in court cases/arguments supporting Trump's behaviors.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 3:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm saying there is not nearly enough to impute knowledge and mind reading. There's still a LOT of grey area/leeway for the admin.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, even though Mr Capone was told by his accountant that his underlings were illegally selling liquor, bribing police and supporting prostitution to generate income we really can’t prove that he knew this was going on or directed them to do so as we can’t read his mind and he didn’t explicitly provide direction to them in writing. Therefore you must acquit.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 3:47 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
even though Mr Capone was told by his accountant that his underlings were illegally selling liquor, bribing police and supporting prostitution to generate income we really can’t prove that he knew this was going on or directed them to do so
Again those are facts you can prove.
These assessments are not. They're based in subjectivity and opinions.
The assessments of the assessments criticizing them, also rely on subjectivity and opinions.
Y'all are having a very hard time responding properly to this paradigm.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Y'all are having a very hard time responding properly to this paradigm.
Because it a shitty defense…albeit the only one you have to argue when faced with multiple sources of evidence…including from those involved…that this whole thing was based on a lie and false allegations produced by the HRC campaign … just as Brennan explained to the brain trust and they signed off on and used as the basis to start Crossfire hurricane.
For your argument to hold water, Obama et al would have had to thought there was a possibility that Trump was colluding with Russia to interfere in the election yet every document and investigation product clearly points that they all knew this was a political strategy proposed by HRC’s team.
Where in any of the released footnote, reports, testimony, etc is ther any indication that anyone in power thought this might actually be true and warranted an investigation on those merits?
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:07 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
Because it a shitty defense
If it's such a shitty defense, why can't anyone address it directly? Why do they have to interject assumptions to re-frame the discussion instead?
The reliance on assuming facts that have not been proven (and may not be able to be proven) is a weakness in your argument. I keep pointing this out and you have to keep going back to that rhetorical safe space.
quote:
Where in any of the released footnote, reports, testimony, etc is ther any indication that anyone in power thought this might actually be true and warranted an investigation on those merits?
When executive officers present their subjective, opinion-based analyses to POTUS, what commits him to adopting that as his subjective, opinion-based analysis?
...and here are the follow ups:
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?
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:33 pm to SquatchDawg
I’ve stopped counting the pages and pages of SFP’s rapid fire responses. Someone posts a valid response to his bullshite and it shakes him to his core, so he posts 3, 4, 5 times almost all on top of each other. While he claims legal, moral, and political superiority, it clearly eats a hole in his gut to have his narrative countered.
Thank God for the bright orange avatar, I know which replies to skip using peripheral vision.
He truly is the pigeon that plays chess.
Thank God for the bright orange avatar, I know which replies to skip using peripheral vision.
He truly is the pigeon that plays chess.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
Clinging to Barack actually stating he disagreed cracks me up
He wanted a different result.
He got it it was leaked and he spoke about it before it was even completed.
He wanted a different result.
He got it it was leaked and he spoke about it before it was even completed.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:48 pm to Jbird
quote:
He wanted a different result
Also spun as he had a different subjective assessment and wanted the investigation along those lines.
The question is if he has this power as the chief executive. Is it your claim that he doesn't have the power to make his own assessments and command his agencies accordingly?
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
Spin on slow Brennan pro.
Lol cling to he had an assessment.
Lol cling to he had an assessment.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:51 pm to TD422
quote:
Someone posts a valid response to his bullshite and it shakes him to his core, so he posts 3, 4, 5 times almost all on top of each other.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:52 pm to Jbird
quote:
Lol cling to he had an assessment.
Where is the evidence that it wasn't?
What testimony or documents show Obama's thoughts on the matter in real time?
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
457245
300 plus posts in less than three days.
Amazing
300 plus posts in less than three days.
Amazing
Posted on 8/9/25 at 4:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
The document he rejected out of hand would lead you to believe he didn't get the answer he wanted.
Then he did.
Then he did.
This post was edited on 8/9/25 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:01 pm to Jbird
quote:
The document he rejected out of hand would lead you to believe he didn't get the answer he wanted.
When executive officers present their subjective, opinion-based analyses to POTUS, what commits him to adopting that as his subjective, opinion-based analysis?
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
What about the rapid fire posts is inaccurate, Counselor?
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
Strzok guaranteed his Ho (Lisa Paige) that Trump would not be president.
Posted on 8/9/25 at 5:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Page 15 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News