- 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
re: Wednesday's thoughts on Tuesday regarding Jack Smith.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 4:37 pm to Wednesday
Posted on 11/26/24 at 4:37 pm to Wednesday
quote:
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.
And a big thank you to Wednesday, who as an attorney, gives legit credence to the idea there was probably spoliation, which was my initial point. And to which SFP gave a snide two word reply-- probably attempting to dismiss it assuming I couldnt back it up-- instead of allowing that the idea might have merit.
I think the only question is to what extent, beyond disbarring Smith, intentionally tampering with evidence might be leveraged against Smith without Trump's DOJ becoming unethical itself, which is Wednesday's point.
1
Posted on 11/26/24 at 4:37 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
but still can't define lawfare 1.5 years later
It's not me who can't define it, bub.
I've been asking.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 4:40 pm to epbart
quote:
And a big thank you to Wednesday, who as an attorney, gives legit credence to the idea there was probably spoliation,
She's repeating the same echo chamber content creators you are
quote:
And to which SFP gave a snide two word reply-- probably attempting to dismiss it assuming I couldnt back it up-- instead of allowing that the idea might have merit.
Based on what you posted, it doesn't have merit.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 4:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
She's repeating the same echo chamber content creators you are
WTAF there were literal motions filed before Judge Cannon discussing this issue. So far as I know, it was never resolved.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 5:15 pm to Wednesday
quote:
WTAF there were literal motions filed before Judge Cannon discussing this issue.
That were laughed at by pretty much every legal analyst.
You know just because a lawyer makes an off the wall argument doesn't mean that argument has any validity. And you also know that selectively curating a brief only to show a few sentences shows nothing of the full argument at hand.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 5:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You know just because a lawyer makes an off the wall argument doesn't mean that argument has any validity.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 5:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not me who can't define it, bub. I've been asking.Show me t
I
Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.
Stop being dramatic. They tried to railroad Trump and it backfired
and got him elected.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 5:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
what cha been askin
Posted on 11/26/24 at 5:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That were laughed at by pretty much every legal analyst.
The same legal analysts who said the 14th amendment would prevent Trump from being on the ballot?
Did Judge Cannon decide that the motions had no merits? Or did the MSNBC analysts say that?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 5:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
merit??????? I thought you were one of those DEI posters
Posted on 11/26/24 at 5:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
curating a brief...........is that a slur about female underpants????????
Posted on 11/26/24 at 5:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
the golden age of the board.........Predates sfp
Posted on 11/26/24 at 5:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
I do laugh at sfp a lot
Posted on 11/26/24 at 5:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
need to organize your thought a bit. this comment was not comprehensible
Posted on 11/26/24 at 7:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Uhm, what?
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.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 7:53 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
what cha been askin
Definitions of various terms. In this specific instance, "lawfare".
Typically the definition is extremely malleable and boils down to in/out group biases/preferences.
Globalism is another one.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 7:55 pm to Wednesday
quote:
The same legal analysts who said the 14th amendment would prevent Trump from being on the ballot?
No.
quote:
Did Judge Cannon decide that the motions had no merits?
She was saved her 2nd (and possibly 3rd) major embarrassment of that case.
The 11th already made her look like an idiot once. The appointments case was likely going to be another.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 7:55 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
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,
3 more posts of quantifying or as common sense says
rationalizing and you will bring it home.
Keep it up Brother.
The view is fantastic.
This post was edited on 11/26/24 at 7:57 pm
Posted on 11/26/24 at 7:55 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
the golden age of the board.........Predates sfp
I don't think the existence of this board predates me
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News