- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
3
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
I like the laugh, but all we have to go on is your posting, which to be honest, looks like that of a person under 110.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is what he claimed
I didn’t claim that. I asked a question question about whether there was complete immunity and used those as examples.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:41 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
Retesting IQ tests is a sign of insecurity
When you take multiple IQ tests the valid way if evaluating would be to take the lowest score.
He does the opposite. He discards every score except the highest and claims his IQ. It’s 100% based on insecurity.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:53 pm to moneyg
quote:
I didn’t claim that. I asked a question question about whether there was complete immunity and used those as examples.
Fair. I was responding to a digression on that about the evidence. I just quoted your examples (not claims) to be detailed in my response to the digression.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:53 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
but all we have to go on is your posting, which to be honest, looks like that of a person under 110.
This is only a thing (1) on this board (2) post mid-2019.
This was certainly not the commonly-held belief back in the golden age of this board, or IRL.
This post was edited on 11/26/24 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:01 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Discuss please.
I would prefer Jack be struck by lightening the next time he goes outside.
A blast so powerful it turns him into a pink mist. So bright it burns his shadow into the concrete.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Adams must be rolling over in his grav
#facts
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:16 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Uses you can find demonstrable examples of him engaging in unethical behavior such as hiding or discarding exculpatory evidence for example, you probably cannot get him disbarred.
He extorted witnesses- he threatened one of the attys involved that he wouldn’t be considered for a federal judgeship.
There are other examples, such as the destruction of evidence (he spoliaited and got busted withholding evidence in the classified documents case). God only knows what he did in the DC case bc there was basically no judicial oversight. Now that Pam Bondi has a security clearance and access to his files, God knows what she’ll find.
Again, he needs to be disbarred, at the least at the federal level, by motions to disqualify submitted by DOJ, and reports by DOJ to whatever states hold his license(s).
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
There needs to be a forensic audit of the 50 million Smith and his cronies spent. If they cannot give a legitimate accounting of every cent spent, they need to be charged with fraud. Also, he and the rest of the rogue prosecutors need to be charged with election interference.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 2:48 pm to Wednesday
quote:
1) I usually agree with Mike Davis. He thinks that Jack Smith should be prosecuted under the theory "conspiracy to violate rights" statute, bc that was the statute used against Trump in some of Smith's election cases.
I disagree. For two reasons: (a) prosecutors (like presidents) have immunity from prosecution;
There is a reason Davi and others point to the Deprivation of Rights statute - prosecutors do not have immunity. Still very difficult to prosecute due the willful requirement, but prosecutors have been tried for violating that statute
Posted on 11/26/24 at 3:34 pm to Wednesday
I’m afraid Smith MUST go to prison. There must be real, visible consequences for the unlawful acts of these Dem criminals. Without it he’ll just run back to Den Hague and laugh with all his Soros buddies. The public must see punishment meted out or the DemCommies will keep it up with the cheating and lawfare.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 3:44 pm to Goforit
quote:
There needs to be a forensic audit of the 50 million Smith and his cronies spent. If they cannot give a legitimate accounting of every cent spent, they need to be charged with fraud
This is viable (and could get him disbarred) IF it exists
quote:
Also, he and the rest of the rogue prosecutors need to be charged with election interference.
This is not
The indictments were filed LONG before Trump qualified for the primary, let alone him being the Republican nominee.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 3:47 pm to Wednesday
2 options: Give him the opportunity to either personally pay back the US Gov for every dollar he wasted on this sham investigation or go to jail for 5 years.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 3:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
The "golden age". In your view I suppose that was when the board worshipped every utterance from your piehole and you farted gold from your a$$?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 3:59 pm to Houag80
quote:
The "golden age". In your view I suppose that was when the board worshipped every utterance from your piehole and you farted gold from your a$$?
No
It just had not been flooded by so many idiots and lots of posters had not yet devolved into emotional reactionaries. The level of discourse is laughable compared to the past.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 4:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
For clarity, I was more broadly speaking to going after Jack Smith in an overall sense for all his cases against Trump, not specifically to the document case Judge Cannon tossed or the case Judge Chutkan just dismissed.
So, this pertains to the document case and I wasn't wrong about the photo op being, in essence, dubious at best, though in hindsight, I should've come on less strong and went with "possible spoliation" vs "dead to rights on...".
I read about this in more than one place, but here is one reference which cites court papers directly. The gist is that FBI agents showed up with classified cover sheets in hand, affixed them to the front of some documents, strewed them haphazardly across the floor of Mar-a-Lago, then took the widely distributed photo that attempted to publicly paint Trump as a reckless custodian ignoring the glaring red cover sheets on front of everything (despite those cover sheets not being there).
TD
Given the admission that FBI agents planted the cover sheets, then took photos to publicly disseminate, I see issues. Assuming the FBI agents are not idiots, then staging the evidence of a supposed crime scene into a purported state in which it did not originally exist, then publicly distributing these images is unethical and is illegal if done with libelous intent.
I am not an attorney by trade, but between my modest requirement of a semester of naval law at Annapolis, being the legal officer of my ship on one tour and holding a secret clearance (as officers generally do) and having to handle and know how to handle classified materials, as well as my civilian life in which I’ve been proximate enough to legal cases to become familiar with concepts like chain of custody for evidence and the importance of producing files in a defensible manner, my opinion is better informed than average on here. And the photo op appears irresponsible-- a sensational and intentionally sloppy display of documents on the floor with bright red warnings-- to the point of being indefensible. It was not necessary to create this falsified image to document the scene and process of collecting the evidence. It wasn't good evidence handling to remove a bunch of files and throw them on the floor and introduce any degree of difficulty in returning them to their original location.
Notwithstanding the differences in the alleged underlying crimes, the photo op is not that dissimilar to... say... one of the policemen at the George Floyd crime scene digging into Floyd's car to find a baggie of drugs, then sprinkling the drugs on Floyd's dead face after the fact to tie in the fact that drugs were at the scene, then taking photos to influence opinion. I don't think that would have gone over very well. Physical manipulation of documents with unvalidated cover sheets being made public to sway public opinion is not that different in principle. It is a misrepresentation of what was found in its natural state and thus veers towards being libelous, even if the burden of proof due to being a public figure makes the burden of proof more difficult.
I would want to know who the specific FBI agents on scene were, who made the decision to mark a document on-site as classified, what was their training and authority to view and decide. Some random agent showing up with top secret cover sheets and a list of keywords or just working on the classification markings on the documents is a first step, but doesn't cut it overall when it comes to a decision to publicize what was found. Security designations can be fluid and change to become more or less sensitive over time. Just because an agent sees reference to a potentially classified topic, how would he have the insight and experience to know if this one is still classified on the spot? It's not impossible that they had one or more subject matter experts on hand, but given that there were multiple subjects contained in 20 or 30 file boxes (somewhere between 40,000 and 90,000+ pages, I'd guess), it is not reasonable to assume they had a defensible review system in place with people that had the right security clearances in to review and flag the right documents and validate the clearances of individual documents accurately. It was a same day raid and removal. That wouldn't be possible until they got it back to the office, thoroughly indexed everything and verified classifications with the appropriate parties. I don't see how the photo op with files on the floor at Mar-a-Lago with cover sheets slapped on by some Feds isn't more highly scrutinized... except that Garland won't question Smith or his motives and purposefully gave him autonomy to cover his tracks. I'd imagine anything incriminating will be summarily destroyed the same way Mueller had his team turn in / destroy their phones at the end of that probe.
Combine the irresponsible and dubious handling of evidence at the scene, which introduced the possibility of compromising the integrity of the files, with the subsequent mishandling of the files after the fact, and there is evidence that the whole chain of custody may be compromised.
If you conveniently don't remember that either, here are a couple of links to old TD threads with relevant news and/or social media links to refresh your memory. Trump's team did raise concerns about this, to which Smith and crew more or less said... gosh, it's still kinda close and just because we can't reconcile all the placeholders we inserted with the classified documents we pulled doesn’t mean much. ... So much for laws being made to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. And for those capable of reading between the lines, the missing documents gives credence to the idea that the raid was a pretext of taking incriminating Crossfire Hurricane and similar documents away from Trump.
LINK
LINK
Back to the point of this thread, which is to discuss how and to what extent the DOJ should go after Smith, there is also the angle of Smith allegedly ignoring exculpatory evidence. There is more than one instance, but for the purposes of this thread, I'll just post one example in an old thread here.
Old TD thread
Unlike some on here who mindlessly bash you for presumed stupidity, I know you're not stupid and I recognize your tendency to frame things into narrow legalistic frameworks as a matter of convenience to your arguments and to deflate poorly supported arguments from others. With that in mind, I don't think you would honestly disagree with me that you yourself could probably take some of the points that I've made to build a stronger case against Smith than he was able to build against Trump. I know you wouldn't... just saying you and I both know you probably could.
quote:
I think they have Smith (and/or parts of his team) dead to rights on spoliation of evidence for the purposeful mishandling of seized documents and putting false classified cover sheets on them to stage a photo op.
Wait, what?
So, this pertains to the document case and I wasn't wrong about the photo op being, in essence, dubious at best, though in hindsight, I should've come on less strong and went with "possible spoliation" vs "dead to rights on...".
I read about this in more than one place, but here is one reference which cites court papers directly. The gist is that FBI agents showed up with classified cover sheets in hand, affixed them to the front of some documents, strewed them haphazardly across the floor of Mar-a-Lago, then took the widely distributed photo that attempted to publicly paint Trump as a reckless custodian ignoring the glaring red cover sheets on front of everything (despite those cover sheets not being there).
TD
Given the admission that FBI agents planted the cover sheets, then took photos to publicly disseminate, I see issues. Assuming the FBI agents are not idiots, then staging the evidence of a supposed crime scene into a purported state in which it did not originally exist, then publicly distributing these images is unethical and is illegal if done with libelous intent.
I am not an attorney by trade, but between my modest requirement of a semester of naval law at Annapolis, being the legal officer of my ship on one tour and holding a secret clearance (as officers generally do) and having to handle and know how to handle classified materials, as well as my civilian life in which I’ve been proximate enough to legal cases to become familiar with concepts like chain of custody for evidence and the importance of producing files in a defensible manner, my opinion is better informed than average on here. And the photo op appears irresponsible-- a sensational and intentionally sloppy display of documents on the floor with bright red warnings-- to the point of being indefensible. It was not necessary to create this falsified image to document the scene and process of collecting the evidence. It wasn't good evidence handling to remove a bunch of files and throw them on the floor and introduce any degree of difficulty in returning them to their original location.
Notwithstanding the differences in the alleged underlying crimes, the photo op is not that dissimilar to... say... one of the policemen at the George Floyd crime scene digging into Floyd's car to find a baggie of drugs, then sprinkling the drugs on Floyd's dead face after the fact to tie in the fact that drugs were at the scene, then taking photos to influence opinion. I don't think that would have gone over very well. Physical manipulation of documents with unvalidated cover sheets being made public to sway public opinion is not that different in principle. It is a misrepresentation of what was found in its natural state and thus veers towards being libelous, even if the burden of proof due to being a public figure makes the burden of proof more difficult.
I would want to know who the specific FBI agents on scene were, who made the decision to mark a document on-site as classified, what was their training and authority to view and decide. Some random agent showing up with top secret cover sheets and a list of keywords or just working on the classification markings on the documents is a first step, but doesn't cut it overall when it comes to a decision to publicize what was found. Security designations can be fluid and change to become more or less sensitive over time. Just because an agent sees reference to a potentially classified topic, how would he have the insight and experience to know if this one is still classified on the spot? It's not impossible that they had one or more subject matter experts on hand, but given that there were multiple subjects contained in 20 or 30 file boxes (somewhere between 40,000 and 90,000+ pages, I'd guess), it is not reasonable to assume they had a defensible review system in place with people that had the right security clearances in to review and flag the right documents and validate the clearances of individual documents accurately. It was a same day raid and removal. That wouldn't be possible until they got it back to the office, thoroughly indexed everything and verified classifications with the appropriate parties. I don't see how the photo op with files on the floor at Mar-a-Lago with cover sheets slapped on by some Feds isn't more highly scrutinized... except that Garland won't question Smith or his motives and purposefully gave him autonomy to cover his tracks. I'd imagine anything incriminating will be summarily destroyed the same way Mueller had his team turn in / destroy their phones at the end of that probe.
Combine the irresponsible and dubious handling of evidence at the scene, which introduced the possibility of compromising the integrity of the files, with the subsequent mishandling of the files after the fact, and there is evidence that the whole chain of custody may be compromised.
If you conveniently don't remember that either, here are a couple of links to old TD threads with relevant news and/or social media links to refresh your memory. Trump's team did raise concerns about this, to which Smith and crew more or less said... gosh, it's still kinda close and just because we can't reconcile all the placeholders we inserted with the classified documents we pulled doesn’t mean much. ... So much for laws being made to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. And for those capable of reading between the lines, the missing documents gives credence to the idea that the raid was a pretext of taking incriminating Crossfire Hurricane and similar documents away from Trump.
LINK
LINK
Back to the point of this thread, which is to discuss how and to what extent the DOJ should go after Smith, there is also the angle of Smith allegedly ignoring exculpatory evidence. There is more than one instance, but for the purposes of this thread, I'll just post one example in an old thread here.
Old TD thread
Unlike some on here who mindlessly bash you for presumed stupidity, I know you're not stupid and I recognize your tendency to frame things into narrow legalistic frameworks as a matter of convenience to your arguments and to deflate poorly supported arguments from others. With that in mind, I don't think you would honestly disagree with me that you yourself could probably take some of the points that I've made to build a stronger case against Smith than he was able to build against Trump. I know you wouldn't... just saying you and I both know you probably could.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 4:18 pm to Wednesday
quote:
What should happen to Smith? He needs to be disbarred and unemployable. His license should be gone in any state he currently holds it, and he should be disbarred from litigating in Federal Court in all fifty states. Any accrued federal retirement should be revoked, any pay he earned from participating in this miscarriage of justice should be disgorged. His security clearance should also be revoked, permanently. His name and reputation should be ruined.
They should check his stock transactions and nail him on insider trading.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 4:29 pm to epbart
quote:
Old TD thread
Great link to an old thread. So many hardons in that thread gone flaccid today.
Was really funny to see Slowdumfuk admit the docs case was a partisan prosecution but still can't define lawfare 1.5 years later
This post was edited on 11/26/24 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 11/26/24 at 4:32 pm to epbart
quote:
TD
Oh. Julie Kelly. I thought it was TGP but it's worse.
quote:
Given the admission that FBI agents planted the cover sheets, then took photos to publicly disseminate, I see issues. Assuming the FBI agents are not idiots, then staging the evidence of a supposed crime scene into a purported state in which it did not originally exist, then publicly distributing these images is unethical and is illegal if done with libelous intent.
You're stretching.
There's a reason why she only posted a portion of one page.
quote:
Notwithstanding the differences in the alleged underlying crimes, the photo op is not that dissimilar to... say... one of the policemen at the George Floyd crime scene digging into Floyd's car to find a baggie of drugs, then sprinkling the drugs on Floyd's dead face after the fact to tie in the fact that drugs were at the scene, then taking photos to influence opinion.
It's more like putting the little markers for bullet casings found on the ground and taking a picture of that crime scene.
Like this.
quote:
to become familiar with concepts like chain of custody
why would you think chain of custody would be an issue?
Even Julie Kelly's curated portion shows they went to great length to identify the documents (look above the highlighted part).
quote:
I would want to know who the specific FBI agents on scene were, who made the decision to mark a document on-site as classified, what was their training and authority to view and decide. Some random agent showing up with top secret cover sheets and a list of keywords or just working on the classification markings on the documents is a first step, but doesn't cut it overall when it comes to a decision to publicize what was found.
I bet a lot of these questions are answered if you read the government's response and not just the curated portion of what Julie Kelly posted.
quote:
Just because an agent sees reference to a potentially classified topic, how would he have the insight and experience to know if this one is still classified on the spot?
That's likely a big part of why they had the cover sheets
It permitted them to identify documents that may be at issue, in order to keep them organized, create a chain of custody, and permit review/analysis that can be replicated by the defense.
quote:
it is not reasonable to assume they had a defensible review system in place with people that had the right security clearances in to review and flag the right documents and validate the clearances of individual documents accurately
The search was done August 8, 2022
The indictment wasn't filed until June 8, 2023
What you're discussing happened in that 10-month gap. It didn't have to happen on the day of the raid.
quote:
If you conveniently don't remember that either, here are a couple of links to old TD threads with relevant news and/or social media links to refresh your memory. Trump's team did raise concerns about this, to which Smith and crew more or less said... gosh, it's still kinda close and just because we can't reconcile all the placeholders we inserted with the classified documents we pulled doesn’t mean much. ... So much for laws being made to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. And for those capable of reading between the lines, the missing documents gives credence to the idea that the raid was a pretext of taking incriminating Crossfire Hurricane and similar documents away from Trump.
LINK
LINK
As I expected, echo chamber sourcing. Julie Kelly and Tom Fitton are hardly objective analysts
quote:
Back to the point of this thread, which is to discuss how and to what extent the DOJ should go after Smith, there is also the angle of Smith allegedly ignoring exculpatory evidence. There is more than one instance, but for the purposes of this thread, I'll just post one example in an old thread here.
Old TD thread
quote:
"They bear directly on the essential element of whether Rudy Giuliani, and therefore Donald Trump, knew that their claims of election fraud were false," Parlatore said. "
I don't know if that's as strong of an argument as you think. Rudy? Really?
He's lost a lawsuit or 2 and his license because his lies about "knowing" this never had any evidence/proof behind them.
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News