- 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: Tina Peters data- 29k election records deleted or altered…
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There is nefarious intent from Peters, too.
nope
quote:
Instead of destroying the records she did an equally illegal act by giving the data to an unauthorized third party.
with the intent of exposing it to the public.
quote:
So both intentionally violated the law and then intentionally violated it again.
One was attempting to expose the government's fraud (even if she was dead wrong as you have suggested).
The other was attempting to hide the activity of the government, her own activity, as she operated in government. She exposed classified information (some say intentionally). And, she destroyed evidence when caught.
The former is serving 9 years.
The latter is not serving any time and wasn't even prosecuted ("No reasonable prosecutor")
That you equate these two situations is meaningful and insightful.
Emotional opinions often end here. Instead of acknowledging the difference, you decided to try and equate them. Most logical people can easily see the difference.
1
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Trying to differentiate them by ignoring the facts about one is more revealing
I didn't ignore the facts, nor did I deny them. Instead, I drew a distinction about the intent.
Your need to put words in my mouth is revealing.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which is literal evidence of why she was convicted
Didn't you indicate that she did not do this and should have?
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:12 am to moneyg
quote:
nope
She did all sorts of things to steal the data, including turning off the cameras and using the ID of an outside party for a third party to illegal access the data. Then she gave the data to another unauthorized third party. Tons of nefarious intent shown.
quote:
with the intent of exposing it to the public.
This doesn't invalidate her criminal intent
Nor does it make her a "whistleblower"
Also, I don't blame Peters. She was manipulated by Mike Lindell's agent. They took advantage of an unsophisticated woman grieving the loss of her child. Pure evil.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:13 am to Louisianalabguy
quote:
Didn't you indicate that she did not do this and should have?
I said she should have KEPT the data, as in possessed the drive holding the illegally stolen data.
She doubled down on her criminality by engaging in another crime, the one you just described.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Pure evil.
“Pure evil” is locking away a sick, elderly woman for exposing your election fraud.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:18 am to Placekicker
quote:
“Pure evil” is locking away a sick, elderly woman
That blood is on the hands of the evil people I referenced.
They used her up and sacrificed her like an insignificant pawn
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That blood is on the hands of the evil people I referenced.
You are did. The DA, the SOS and the rest of those involved in the corruption.
“By any means necessary”, right???
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
She did all sorts of things to steal the data,
We are discussing her intentions...not whether she met the legal standard of intent. These are two different things.
But, I'm not suggesting her actions don't meet the legal definition of intent. I'm suggesting that her ultimate objective was to get supposed evidence of a crime into the public view.
And, I'm drawing a distinction between her and Clinton...who clearly had nefarious objectives but whose "prosecution" was shut down because of a subjective review of the situation.
Using the legal definition of intent so that you can equate her and Clinton's actions is nonsensical.
quote:
This doesn't invalidate her criminal intent
I didn't say it did. It's sad that you need to put words in my mouth.
quote:
Nor does it make her a "whistleblower"
I didn't say it did. It's sad that you need to put words in my mouth.
quote:
Also, I don't blame Peters. She was manipulated by Mike Lindell's agent. They took advantage of an unsophisticated woman grieving the loss of her child. Pure evil.
Now you are pivoting again and trying to change the subject. It's noted. Turn and run if you want. I won't chase you.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:23 am to BigPerm30
quote:
It’s their own fault at this point.
It's not their fault. It's their plan.
It's of the utmost importance to recognize the distinction between accident and intent.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:26 am to moneyg
quote:
We are discussing her intentions...not whether she met the legal standard of intent. These are two different things.
That's a major pivot from "nefarious intent"
quote:
And, I'm drawing a distinction between her and Clinton...who clearly had nefarious objectives but whose "prosecution" was shut down because of a subjective review of the situation.
Based on your pivot, what are the specific intentions of Clinton, and what evidence are you using to claim them?
If we are changing what we are discussing then it isn't as clean cut with Clinton either
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:31 am to Placekicker
TDSFP - "NUH UH!!!!! 
"
"Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:32 am to Thoresten
quote:
I’m a lazy stupid a-hole like Roger the shrubber “im disabled” aka low iq. So I’m going to go far left cause I need government assistance.
Ouch.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
"Clerical errors" cannot stand when they change the outcome of an election.
The 315k clerical error did nothing to change the outcome of the election, though.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:34 am to dgnx6
quote:
quote:
Why not keep the data herself? Follow the whistleblower statute requirements?
Democrats throw whistle blowers in jail unless they say something about Trump.
Facts.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:35 am to BTROleMisser
quote:
Facts.
Except no example of that could be found..
Only people who weren't actual whistleblowers because they didn't follow proper procedures
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:35 am to Placekicker
quote:
quote:
Pure evil.
“Pure evil” is locking away a sick, elderly woman for exposing your election fraud.
This.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:43 am to 10thyrsr
Don’t you people know anything? Georgia board of elections runs everything through SFP before making any decisions on what’s correct and incorrect.
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:43 am to riccoar
quote:
The point is she proved there was fraud
except she didn't
i'll never understand why maga struggles with words so mightily. you clearly don't understand what "proved" or "fraud" mean
Posted on 12/23/25 at 10:56 am to beaux duke
quote:
i'll never understand why maga struggles with words so mightily.
I can summarize in picture form:
Page 11 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News