- 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 10/2/25 at 9:48 am to ole man
quote:
If you’re a Democrat
I'm not
Posted on 10/2/25 at 9:51 am to moneyg
quote:
It's quite amazing to see someone look at this situation as a whole, and justify a 9 year sentence
As I said, I'm not discussing her sentence only the conviction
quote:
Essentially, she hired someone to take a backup of the system
Holy shite
1. She had no right to do so
2. She had to rely on fraud to access the system
quote:
Clearly, the state wanted to destroy records
There is nothing clear about this, actually
quote:
Clearly, Peters wanted to preserve them
Why did she take the next step of illegally transferring this private data to a third party?
Posted on 10/2/25 at 9:52 am to loogaroo
It’s so weird to me that prisoners have access to social media.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 9:54 am to BTROleMisser
quote:
So, she "broke the law" to expose egregious highly illegal violations of federal election law and to expose widespread election fraud by the state?
No
None of this was established with the data that was posted publicly.
That's the sad part. She did all of this nonsense and it didn't even do what she was told it would by the QAnon bullshite
Posted on 10/2/25 at 9:55 am to thejuiceisloose
quote:
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, Tina
What did she do?
Posted on 10/2/25 at 9:58 am to Snipe
quote:
What did she do?
We can start with fraudulently using the identity of a third party to access a secure computer system.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
As I said, I'm not discussing her sentence only the conviction
That’s meaningless.
You can’t ignore the sentence when evaluating the situation.
quote:
Holy shite
1. She had no right to do so
2. She had to rely on fraud to access the system
I literally premised my statement by saying assume there were laws broken. You are arguing with yourself.
The point is that she don’t do it in some sort of financial scheme or other illegal enterprise. Her objective was to preserve the digital environment before the SOS blew it away.
And as it relates to a penalty for her crimes, it’s relevant.
quote:
Why did she take the next step of illegally transferring this private data to a third party?
You know the answer to that. She was attempting to get it in the public domain so that whatever she thought was being done would be revealed.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:01 am to idlewatcher
quote:
Democrats hate it when the truth has a light on it. So they imprison you instead.
To be fair, sometimes they shoot you in the neck.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We can start with fraudulently using the identity of a third party to access a secure computer system.
Damn, Who's name and Who's computer?
What is this all about? Really. I haven't followed any to it. only vaguely know the name. Isn't she the one whose son was a SEAL, iirc I saw her wearing that Trident on TV and had to look up WTF she was and how she came to posses a Trident. I stopped caring after that.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:07 am to GumboPot
quote:
Ten years in prison seems excessive for using a fake ID.
She was caught in the act of revealing dem election crimes that could get them jailed so they had to persecute her.
The DOJ can likely file civil and constitutional right violations against the officials, prosecutors and judges involved.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:07 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Falling back on "the law" to justify corruption is something for people unable to think for themselves
Man, that's a great post and you addressed to SFP which is hugely appropriate.
In this thread, he wants to ignore the big picture, ignore the sentence, and focus on the individual crimes that technically occurred.
Keep in mind, this is the same guy that denied lawfare existed.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:13 am to moneyg
quote:
The point is that she don’t do it in some sort of financial scheme or other illegal enterprise. Her objective was to preserve the digital environment before the SOS blew it away.
And as it relates to a penalty for her crimes, it’s relevant.
the reason why she said she did it is irrelevant, just what she did matters on the conviction
the reason she states for why she did it is a consideration for her sentencing, clearly why she did it was used against her with a much longer sentence than she deserved
if I rob a bank to get money to pay for my kid’s cancer treatment I still robbed a bank. In sentencing, the judge can consider my desperation because of my sick child
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:14 am to moneyg
quote:
Clearly, the state wanted to destroy records. Clearly, Peters wanted to preserve them. Clearly. she was prosecuted for that stance.
The Colorado dem officials wanted to destroy evidence to cover up their election crimes. Part of those elections were federal so that is worth a DOJ investigation.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:like Biden and Hillary? That sort of sensitive data? Or a different kind of sensitive data?
all sorts of sensitive data
Remind me, did Hillary or Biden go to jail?
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You're the LAST person on the board who should be saying that about anybody, 14th amendment expert
She's a person who is a terrible example of having her brain rotted by QAnon bullshite
"It's IMPLIED"
lol
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:23 am to 56lsu
quote:You can't be a serious person. The left is literally brainwashed. Maybe you missed the Pew poll showing half of democrats self admitted they have been diagnosed with mental illness
you can't show these brainwashed maga's facts and expect them to listen
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:25 am to moneyg
quote:
That’s meaningless.
Not in terms of the OP of this thread.
quote:
You can’t ignore the sentence when evaluating the situation.
Sure you can, when the conviction itself is being attacked. Then we can logically focus on that actual discussion of the conviction itself.
The sentence is largely unrelated to that discussion of legitimacy of the conviction.
quote:
The point is that she don’t do it in some sort of financial scheme or other illegal enterprise. Her objective was to preserve the digital environment before the SOS blew it away.
And that thought process was lunacy that did not reflect reality. Crazy people commit crimes all the time for similar circumstances and I doubt you claim their crazy exonerates them.
quote:
You know the answer to that. She was attempting to get it in the public domain so that whatever she thought was being done would be revealed.
That is well beyond "preserving them".
Especially who she gave them to, when she had much more apolitical and legitimate outlets.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:25 am to supatigah
quote:
the reason why she said she did it is irrelevant
quote:
the reason she states for why she did it is a consideration for her sentencing
make up your mind. Is it relevant or is it irrelevant?
quote:
if I rob a bank to get money to pay for my kid’s cancer treatment I still robbed a bank. In sentencing, the judge can consider my desperation because of my sick child
A better example would be comparing a person breaking into a bank building in an attempt to rob it...with a person breaking into a bank building in an attempt to prevent a rape that the person thought was happening.
If, for example, Tina Peters had done what she did to sell the data for financial gain then you'd have a punishment that made some sense. Instead, you have someone trying to preserve what she thought was a crime scene. And her punishment is directly related to the political interests of those the party she thought was guilty.
Posted on 10/2/25 at 10:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Are you familiar with the trolley problem?
In what world is it legal to fraudulently use another's ID to access a computer database
quote:BWAHAHA. Like when you made up crap about the 14th amendment?
You're just ignoring facts and reality, at this point
Page 5 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News