- 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
0
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:20 am to SallysHuman
quote:And I hoped Trump would be the general contractor for that "tear down" but he doesn't seem to be too interested in that job.
Disgusting... we need a tear down.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The question is based around what criminal liability exists from that direction by the POTUS.
Obama ordering this may insulate the people under him from criminal liability.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:21 am to sidewalkside
quote:
And I hoped Trump would be the general contractor for that "tear down" but he doesn't seem to be too interested in that job.
Meh... I'm giving it at least a couple years before I start crying about it.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:22 am to cajunangelle
quote:
It's taken weeks for the fricker to admit Obama ordered it.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:24 am to Houag80
quote:
and "I never said that 5-6 years ago".
I always argued against the muh Russia stuff, specifically Trump's collusion with Russia.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:24 am to Jbird
Durham's work has ended up being very helpful. And, this way he was able to stay alive.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obama ordering this may insulate the people under him from criminal liability.
Hahahaha
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Pointing out flaws in an argument that you perceived to be on your side in no way means I'm supporting the other side. It's just a weak argument.
That would be a fair retort IF you applied the same criteria to statements from the left.
I don't recall your spending reams of line-count pointing out all the flaws in the logic of the "Russia Russia Russia" pandemonium back in the day.
Most of us knew it was pure bunk - but hell, even *I* assumed they had SOMETHING = off-the-cuff rally line? (like 'dictator for a day' - or - 'tell the Russians to let us know') that would semi-support their claims.
But HELL - they had nothing but a 3rd hand report of what someone had overheard in a bar in London. == And they used THAT for dragging the nation thru agony for over a decade - and YOU never saw any 'problem' with it???? === 'everything 'by the book'
You were acting like their defense atty. (I hope they hire you for their trial)
edit
quote:
I always argued against the muh Russia stuff, specifically Trump's collusion with Russia.
OK - I'll take your word for it - I sure do not recall any significant input in that regard - compared to your reams of output on anti-trump commentary.
But - if so -
This post was edited on 8/8/25 at 10:32 am
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If it's not a crime for the President to do this, then how could criminal liability flow to those following those non-illegal orders?
Lololoollolooolloooolool
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Effectively. If it's not a crime for the President to do this, then how could criminal liability flow to those following those non-illegal orders?
What sort of so-called “lawyer” thinks it legal for the president to order the FBI and intelligence community to fabricate false intel in order to target the president’s political rival who is the incoming next president and undermine his presidency, up to and including impeachment and criminal prosecution?
Walk me though what lead you to believe how any of this is remotely legal.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The question is based around what criminal liability exists from that direction by the POTUS.
Obama ordering this may insulate the people under him from criminal liability.
"Just following orders" is not a legal defense, even if those orders came from the President.
ODNI documents state that before November 2016, the IC assessed Russia was “probably not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means” (read: "hacking" or whatever). On December 7, 2016, a talking point for then-DNI head James Clapper noted, “(f)oreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. Presidential election outcome.” It was also around this time that the White House sidelined and then buried a PDB (President's daily brief) concluding there has been no Russian hacking of election infrastructure.
House Intelligence Committee transcripts from 2017 (which were classified until 2020) show Obama officials (Clapper, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch and Samantha Power) admitting no “empirical evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion, yet they publicly supported the narrative.
That's still hard to legally and directly tie the issue to Obama without someone being willing to throw themselves on their sword (which isn't going to happen) but it's definitely enough to show a concerted, specific effort to push the narrative in an attempt to derail (or at least hamper) Trump's presidency on behalf of many members of the Obama administration.
All that said, we have (depending on the person in question) at least the level of 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally and possibly 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States with a remote possibility for 18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy (but that would be dependent on even stronger evidence coming to light).
This post was edited on 8/8/25 at 10:31 am
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:30 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
What sort of so-called “lawyer” thinks it legal for the president to order the FBI and intelligence community to fabricate false intel in order to target the president’s political rival who is the incoming next president and undermine his presidency
It’s pretty obvious that SFP is paid per post
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:31 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
That would be a fair retort IF you applied the same criteria to statements from the left.
That's an issue with volume. There are almost no people from the Left to respond to. I did used to do this with people like BamaAtl, but she's nowhere to be seen.
quote:
I don't recall your spending reams of line-count pointing out all the flaws in the logic of the "Russia Russia Russia" pandemonium back in the day.
Then you didn't pay attention
Ask TigerDoc and Decatur about that. Or BamaAtl, but RIP.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:31 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
What sort of so-called “lawyer” thinks it legal for the president to order the FBI and intelligence community to fabricate false intel
That's a framing that I did not use.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:34 am to GumboPot
quote:
Not complaining but we knew this like 6 years ago.
Especially if you've been listening to Bongino.
It blows my mind that people don't know this kind of information already.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then you didn't pay attention
= oh I PAID attention.
my memory is failing badly so I never claim to have perfect - or even adequate recollection.
I do usually respect my long-held opinions - don't recall having to backtrack on any of that.
But the RUSSIA crap was so momentous and so OBVIOUSLY insignificant that I trusted myself to recall more of the discussion.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:37 am to SlowFlowPro
Yeah, it is nothing like your example. Government agencies cannot be used for political uses. By anyone.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:39 am to Bard
quote:
House Intelligence Committee transcripts from 2017 (which were classified until 2020) show Obama officials (Clapper, Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch and Samantha Power) admitting no “empirical evidence” of Trump-Russia collusion, yet they publicly supported the narrative.
That's still hard to legally and directly tie the issue to Obama without someone being willing to throw themselves on their sword (which isn't going to happen) but it's definitely enough to show a concerted, specific effort to push the narrative in an attempt to derail (or at least hamper) Trump's presidency on behalf of many members of the Obama administration.
Again, as the head of these agencies, Obama's opinion-based guidance is the stance of the agency.
I'll put this another way. When all of those underlings can present their subjective, opinion-based analysis 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, it's their job to do this, correct?
quote:
18 U.S. Code § 1001
This is about facts, not opinions.
quote:
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2)makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3)makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
quote:
18 U.S. Code § 371
quote:
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
People keep posting this, but the cases I've found don't seem to interpret this in a way that would apply here. This is for like filing fake PPP documnets.
quote:
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy (but that would be dependent on even stronger evidence coming to light).
Correct.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 10:43 am to Lou the Jew from LSU
quote:
Government agencies cannot be used for political uses. By anyone.
With the recent rulings since last year, this doesn't seem to be true for the President.
But, ignoring that, you'll need a mind reader or "smoking gun" to prove this for Obama. And you can't make him testify (executive privilege) and likely can't prosecute him (due to the aforementioned immunity)
Page 3 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News