- 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 8/8/25 at 1:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
-known
+suspected
Obama is the one who told them to make it up. How the hell can they “suspect” it’s made up when they were flat out TOLD TO MAKE IT UP??
1
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:11 pm to BugAC
quote:
Never change, SFP.
When predicting the future, you don't think of it in terms of chance?
quote:
Well no shite, sherlock.
Thank you.
quote:
Now tell me, was it your focus on family law, insurance law, criminal law, constitutional law, maritime law, or bird law that has made you so wise as to know the workings of this particular case?
Damn ad homs. Your admission that I was right above must have really hurt.
quote:
i am able to use context clues and logic to interpret what has happened.
This is fine for a message board discussion.
For actual criminal prosecutions? You'll need more than the implication.
This is what I keep telling y'all.
The other major issue is tying this all together, especially if it expands beyond that July 2016 - January 2017 window (which many want to do for SOL, Obama, and venue purposes). You'll need a LOT more than just the implication for that Grand Conspiracy of Everything.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:13 pm to the808bass
quote:
Why would I answer a bad faith question?
It's not a bad faith question.
Especially when people keep trying to irrationally expand the purported conspiracy.
quote:
If you’re not arguing for something you believe to be right, why would I try to convince you it’s wrong?
The important distinction for this conversation is being correct. You don't believe there is any value in being correct about something, even if the standard upon which you're discussing isn't your preferred standard?
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:14 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Obama is the one who told them to make it up
quote:
TOLD TO MAKE IT UP??
Bad framing is bad.
This is your 2nd time doing this ITT.
Perhaps you should sit this one out. It's clearly above your abilities.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Feel free. If they get the shot to prosecute Obama for his behavior from July 2016 until Trump's inauguration, it will be in about 2028-30
That doesn’t bother me. I think it would be great for this to be in the public eye for that long. The masses will accept it as truth easier.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:18 pm to the808bass
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
Hes going to regret taking that position.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:20 pm to moneyg
quote:
Hes going to regret taking that position.
No he won’t.
It’s playing chess with a pigeon.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Damn ad homs. Your admission that I was right above must have really hurt.
It's not ad hom when you are hiding behind it so as not to make any statements for or against. You see, your posting pattern is telling. You're either a coward or a narcissist. And you know which one you are, and if you don't, then you are a narcissist. But, you make these "legal" arguments always in opposition to the majority if the majority doesn't support your political beliefs. When asked for your opinions, you give none. You do this because you either a) are a coward and afraid of facing the fact that you may be wrong about something or b) you are a narcissist and can't comprehend the fact that you are ever wrong about anything. And hey, it's ok to be wrong. It doesn't matter. In fact, being wrong and acknowledging that is healthy. But you're on the internet. You are mostly anonymous. You aren't representing anyone here on a legal capacity. Therefore there is no reason for you to hide from actual human opinions, even if they aren't popular.
quote:
This is fine for a message board discussion.
If only we were on a message board.......
quote:
For actual criminal prosecutions? You'll need more than the implication
Well, i'm not prosecuting or investigating anyone. However, there are people that are. We are giving our opinions (you included) of what we think will happen and using evidence to support that. Ultimately, neither you or I or anyone on this board has any actual real working knowledge. Pretending to do so in the guise of "but i'm a lawyer" is dishonest.
quote:
The other major issue is tying this all together, especially if it expands beyond that July 2016 - January 2017 window (which many want to do for SOL, Obama, and venue purposes). You'll need a LOT more than just the implication for that Grand Conspiracy of Everything.
Well, using context clues, i believe that is what we are pointing to. Now proving intent isn't easy, but you'll have to bring ole Barry in for questioning to determine the intent, or let that come out at trial or deposition.
Overall, ignoring your legal shield you are want to hide behind, what is your opinion of what actually happened. A human response would be appreciated.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:23 pm to Godfather1
quote:
It’s playing chess with a pigeon.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:23 pm to moneyg
quote:
Hes going to regret taking that position.
It was a question...
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
Yeah
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Perhaps you should sit this one out. It's clearly above your abilities.
You realize you invite ad hominem attacks with your condescension right? And there is no reason for YOU to be condescending to anyone. You know that, right?
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
none of what you just said surprises me. It fits the narrative you want to sell here.
What you're doing is the same rationalization that many OMB people who just aren't as militant as you are doing. Minimizing anything that doesn't support your continued position. In your case you do it no matter how absurd your position becomes in the face of "facts" (and you call that being a "political junky").
There are others who aren't as lunatic about it. They will use this issue and what is revealed as a result as justification to change outwardly the position they most likely have already changed inwardly. (as evidenced by the popular vote in 2024 and the continued decline of approval in the Dem party).
This post was edited on 8/8/25 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:29 pm to BugAC
quote:
so as not to make any statements for or against.
That's not necessary.
I'm discussing the potential criminal liability.
My own personal opinion about the propriety of the underlying behavior is irrelevant.
People act in ways that I consider abhorrent, while failing to be criminal, all the time. That doesn't change the potential criminal liability.
quote:
But, you make these "legal" arguments always in opposition to the majority if the majority doesn't support your political beliefs.
Naw. And sometimes, those just picking their perceived-partisan "side" change positions.
See: The special prosecutor thread for that, in real time.
quote:
When asked for your opinions, you give none.
I do in discussions where they are warranted.
People on here just confuse their perceived partisan side with points made in conversations having nothing to do with that sort of analysis, so I'm usually careful to keep the two separate.
quote:
but you'll have to bring ole Barry in for questioning to determine the intent, or let that come out at trial or deposition.
Federal criminal cases don't have depositions, just FYI
And he will never have to testify, either via executive privilege or the 5th amendment.
And no, relying on either does not invalidate his immunity. I know that's become a popular meme in the echo chamber, but it conflates concepts.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:30 pm to BugAC
quote:
You realize you invite ad hominem attacks with your condescension right?
He has a terrible rep for being an idiot, and I gave him one honest reply. He relied on dishonesty and bad framing again, so, I'm guilty, at that point.
But it's Darth. Watching him melt because he realizes he is in fact, out of his league, has always been the real joy of him posting.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But, it doesn't. That's the point.
It does by fiat of the administration's purposefully hiding contradictory information. This is underscored by the initial story of collusion being crafted from the HRC campaign in order to attempt to distract from her email server issue. This plan, per Brennan's own notes, was mentioned in a meeting with Obama just days before Crossfire Hurricane started (CH was predicated on an alleged conversation between George Papadopoulos and Alexander Downer about Russian hackers having hacked Hillary's email account).
So before CH they knew Hillary's campaign was working to make some sort of Trump-Russia collusion story. Everything which came after was a fulfillment of that campaign work but was handled as if its origination from the campaign never existed. That's intent, especially considering the administration was of the same party as the campaign which created the narrative.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The important distinction for this conversation is being correct.
Agreed.
This really highlights the pointlessness of arguing with you, however. Because, you’re not interested in finding what’s correct. You’re only interested in bending words to make it appear you’re correct.
Finally - I don’t give a shite if the actions involved in trumping up Russiagate were covered with a thin cloak of legality. It was morally indefensible behavior.
And no one is buying the “people can do illegal shite if the president tells them to” argument. Sell it somewhere else. Or pretend that’s not what you said (when it is exactly what you said).
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
Pepsi's CEO ordering a report modified about Coke doesn't subject Coke to removal from the marketplace nor Coke's chief executive to prison. But you knew your gotcha scenario was leaking water before you hit Submit.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:38 pm to jammajin
quote:
What you're doing is the same rationalization that many OMB people who just aren't as militant as you are doing.
I just don't think there is any evidence of this.
Obama is still a thing with MAGA b/c he became the symbol of everything bad in the world. Most of the country hast moved on, and I'm saying that more than a majority of this country, has moved on. Trump also takes up so much oxygen in political discussions with these people that I just don't see why they'd have this big flip.
I see the hopium angle, but regular people just don't give a shite.
Posted on 8/8/25 at 1:39 pm to the808bass
quote:
This really highlights the pointlessness of arguing with you, however. Because, you’re not interested in finding what’s correct. You’re only interested in bending words to make it appear you’re correct.
This is just your irrational hatred of legal discussions, but you always seem to come in to repeat your same feelings on legal systems.
quote:
And no one is buying the “people can do illegal shite if the president tells them to” argument. S
The important variable that you get wrong is that it wouldn't be illegal. It would be (legal) shite.
Page 9 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News