- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: What Crime did Tulsi accuse Obama of committing?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:45 am to Wednesday
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:45 am to Wednesday
Making up falsehoods and empowering our intelligence agencies to make the whole investigation look legitimate is a high crime against a sitting president
Add in a complicit media and we got a pile of manure that must flushed into the department of justice
Add in a complicit media and we got a pile of manure that must flushed into the department of justice
1
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:45 am to cajunangelle
quote:
You were 100% w r o n g regarding your premise that Judge Cannon could not throw out the case against Trump.
Strawman.
I never said she lacked the power to rule incorrectly.
I said it was the incorrect ruling, and we didn't get to see the appeals court smack her down for the third time during that case b/c the Trump admin dismissed the case prior to the embarrassment happening.
There is some irony within the Russiagate discussion is now people want a SC, and want one out of Florida (where in DC it's settled law the SC is legal and they, like you, supported Cannon's decision).
quote:
As she essentially properly rendered Jack Smith null and void-t
And yet he could still act on the DC case. Why?
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:46 am to ApexTiger
quote:
Making up falsehoods and empowering our intelligence agencies to make the whole investigation look legitimate is a high crime against a sitting president
Trump wasn't even a "sitting President" when Russiagate occurred, as Obama was the sitting President at the time.
quote:
Add in a complicit media and we got a pile of manure that must flushed into the department of justice
Now the retardation has reached peak status.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 7:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Trump wasn't even a "sitting President" when Russiagate occurred, as Obama was the sitting President at the time.
The investigation lasted 22 months during the Trump administration
The media clips posted here in the last 24 hours prove they were complicit is pushing this BS narrative
Add in Clapper , Comey, McCabe and the like on CNN the last number of years
Complicit!!!
Your insult of me is overlooked because you need grace
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:01 am to ApexTiger
quote:
The investigation lasted 22 months during the Trump administration
And? That investigation was by the Trump admin, not Obama admin.
quote:
The media clips posted here in the last 24 hours prove they were complicit is pushing this BS narrative
Irrelevant to a discussion of crimes
quote:
Add in Clapper , Comey, McCabe and the like on CNN the last number of years
Again, irrelevant to a discussion of crimes
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:07 am to SlowFlowPro
It is quite possible that a 10 year long seditious conspiracy encompasses Obama, Biden and the Pentagon Intel along with the 17 IC submenus Obama ordered created in govt agencies.
The Pentagon and JCS was surely involved in the 51 that made a public declaration to shape their polirical ideologues and beliefs.
Go ask AI @grok how many generals Obama fired as proof the Pentagon shifted full blown left.
Crossfire hurricane and Comey's fake mid year exam could not have been the well-oiled machine without the DoD assisting.
Kelly alone was a mole for the DoD as Trumps COS.
We cannot fault Trump for trusting the walking full honors medal fakes of not America, but the MIC.
Milley using his retirement speech to disparage his CIC alone: He is a shameful coward, standing there at a DoD podium all. political. While not having the guts to use Trumps exact name outright.
I mean...if you are going to actionably show seditious insurrection, calling your CIC a dictator. Be a fricking man and say his name. What a shameful POS.
Did he escape a long list of UCMJ charges because he didn't say Trump? What a dishonorable coward.
/end Millley is a complete coward POS scum rant
The Pentagon and JCS was surely involved in the 51 that made a public declaration to shape their polirical ideologues and beliefs.
Go ask AI @grok how many generals Obama fired as proof the Pentagon shifted full blown left.
Crossfire hurricane and Comey's fake mid year exam could not have been the well-oiled machine without the DoD assisting.
Kelly alone was a mole for the DoD as Trumps COS.
We cannot fault Trump for trusting the walking full honors medal fakes of not America, but the MIC.
Milley using his retirement speech to disparage his CIC alone: He is a shameful coward, standing there at a DoD podium all. political. While not having the guts to use Trumps exact name outright.
I mean...if you are going to actionably show seditious insurrection, calling your CIC a dictator. Be a fricking man and say his name. What a shameful POS.
Did he escape a long list of UCMJ charges because he didn't say Trump? What a dishonorable coward.
/end Millley is a complete coward POS scum rant
This post was edited on 7/26/25 at 8:10 am
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:08 am to cajunangelle
quote:
It is quite possible that a 10 year long seditious conspiracy
Oh
You're not being serious. Got it.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:22 am to SlowFlowPro
She did not rule incorrectly.
Show that she did.
Regarding Jack Smith "allowed" to act on the DC case.
It is so simple inyourface you can't admit.
He was at the Hague because SCOTUS thumped his arse in overturning him so many times,...He was rendered to take his ball and run to the Hague (ICC) NOT recognized by the USA.
Logic prevails, he was brought in to commit lawfare against Trump because he is a rogue corrupt POS.
Just because the legacy media built him up as a apolitical law God like honest Bob, does not mean he was.
Show that she did.
Regarding Jack Smith "allowed" to act on the DC case.
It is so simple inyourface you can't admit.
He was at the Hague because SCOTUS thumped his arse in overturning him so many times,...He was rendered to take his ball and run to the Hague (ICC) NOT recognized by the USA.
Logic prevails, he was brought in to commit lawfare against Trump because he is a rogue corrupt POS.
Just because the legacy media built him up as a apolitical law God like honest Bob, does not mean he was.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:25 am to Wednesday
Conspiracy will be the charge based on a slew of underlying crimes.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:26 am to Strannix
quote:
based on a slew of underlying crimes.
Which ones, exactly? That's the point of OP. There isn't a good fit.
And that's ignoring the immunity issues and SOL.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:26 am to cajunangelle
quote:
Show that she did.
I've posted the DC Court of Appeals ruling like 100x on here
quote:
He was at the Hague because SCOTUS thumped his arse in overturning him so many times,...He was rendered to take his ball and run to the Hague (ICC) NOT recognized by the USA.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
Thank you for cheering me up. If you are steadfast against something..it forced me to dig deep and see seditious conspiracy isn't as ludicrous as once thought.
Obama the long legged mack daddy is safe, but Clapper may have already sold them all out. So Brennan and Comey are finally forced to at minimum, lawyer up.
Obama the long legged mack daddy is safe, but Clapper may have already sold them all out. So Brennan and Comey are finally forced to at minimum, lawyer up.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:29 am to Wednesday
I dont think she has. She admits shes not a lawyer.
I believe she has referred it to DOJ to make that determination.
She has called it a treasonous conspiracy, which it absolutely is.
But, muh Epstein...
I believe she has referred it to DOJ to make that determination.
She has called it a treasonous conspiracy, which it absolutely is.
But, muh Epstein...
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:32 am to udtiger
quote:
She has called it a treasonous conspiracy, which it absolutely is.
As Wednesday points out, it in no way falls under the statute for treason
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
She has called it a treasonous conspiracy, which it absolutely is.
As Wednesday points out, it in no way falls under the statute for treason
I understand the difference between the criminal statute and the common sense understanding of what treason is.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:43 am to Wednesday
You can't be serious. WTF
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:52 am to TIGERVATO
quote:
You can't be serious. WTF
She is and she is correct.
Some of you really should check into the standard of proof required in our legal system.
1. Obama could have told everyone in his Intel community to redo the intelligence. Where is the crime here? Asking for a re-evaluation isn't illegal. You can scream all you want about Obama's intent, but how do you prove it?
2. The Intel community redid the intel assessment and concluded that Russia hacked the election. Where's the crime? Intel assessments are often wrong and full of errors. This wouldn't hold up in a courtroom. Again, where is the PROOF of intent to harm Trump?
3. Everything that follows, Media attacks, intel interviews where they accuse Trump, are all covered by the 1st amendment. It's not illegal to speculate on crimes based on Intel reports whether right or wrong. You can't hold the media accountable for this.
I don't like the Obama administration. I would argue that it certainly appears that all of this was crafted to harm Trump's presidency. But, if you are going to throw around charges like "Seditious conspiracy" or "Treasonous conspiracy" you better come with the god damn goods.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 8:56 am to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Obama could have told everyone in his Intel community to redo the intelligence. Where is the crime here? Asking for a re-evaluation isn't illegal. You can scream all you want about Obama's intent, but how do you prove it?
He's the head of these agencies. I've still yet to hear how bending his agencies to his will is even illegal.
This is where the subjectivity and opinion that forms the basis of intelligence comes into play. Lots of leeway for all involved, following the direction of the head of the agency.
Just as a corollary. Is it illegal (in the criminal sense) for Trump to seek a clearly illegal EO regarding birthright citizenship, based on faulty logic and ignoring Supreme Court precedent? Of course not. But that's the policy he wanted implemented. Even if this policy fails in the courts, nobody would ever think it was criminal. Same with the AEA stuff.
quote:
Everything that follows, Media attacks, intel interviews where they accuse Trump, are all covered by the 1st amendment. It's not illegal to speculate on crimes based on Intel reports whether right or wrong. You can't hold the media accountable for this.
Same with the leaks. The media reports the leaks. That's their sourcing.
Posted on 7/26/25 at 9:01 am to Wednesday
Posted on 7/26/25 at 9:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Which ones, exactly? That's the point of OP. There isn't a good fit.
The ultimate crime is not obeying Trump. The other crime, which is just as heinous, is saying or suggesting something bad about Trump.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News