- 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 8:52 pm to Wednesday
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:52 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Lawfare: The use of prosecution to gain a
political advantage over a criminal defendant and/or to bankrupt or smear said defendant.
I’m sure you know this Wednesday but any attempt at meaningful dialogue with that POS is an exercise in utter futility. SFP’s colossal ego is only matched by his shamelessness in continuing to deflect and outright lie when repeatedly faced with irrefutable evidence that he is wrong.
It is an utter pathology with him and if he wasn’t such a colossal prick, I would genuinely feel sorry for him. Yet whenever he puts on his @sshat and starts disparaging other posters such as yourself, I must admit I relish seeing him completely exposed as the disingenuous troll that he is!
2
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
If your IQ is over 115, which I doubt
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:58 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
Toomer Deplorable
You do understand that you’re just playing chess with a pigeon, right?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:59 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
I’m sure you know this Wednesday but any attempt at meaningful dialogue with that POS is an exercise in utter futility. SFP’s colossal ego is only matched by his shamelessness in continuing to deflect and outright lie when repeatedly faced with irrefutable evidence that he is wrong.
Holy shite the projection
quote:
must admit I relish seeing him completely exposed as the disingenuous troll that he is!
And you completely failed at doing that in this very thread....again.
But you will run from answering any questions to defend your position because
quote:
any attempt at meaningful dialogue with that POS is an exercise in utter futility. SFP’s colossal ego is only matched by his shamelessness in continuing to deflect and outright lie when repeatedly faced with irrefutable evidence that he is wrong.
That's you. Has been since you embarrassed yourself in the CISA thread.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 8:59 pm to Godfather1
quote:
You do understand that you’re just playing chess with a pigeon, right?
The irony
Toomer has already shite on the board twice in this thread alone.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
You’re absolutely pathological, Jacob.
Good night.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Proving my point in real time
quote:
Cancelling a parade does not fit in, therefore, not a lockdown.
You never fail to deliver!
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
the dumber they are the less ability they possess to realize how dumb they are
you overeducated twat
you overeducated twat
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Man, this is really sad. I never thought I could ever feel sorry for you, yet here we are.
This meme that I don't project intelligence only exists on this board
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:03 pm to Toomer Deplorable
quote:
You never fail to deliver
Can you explain with details how dining out was restricted at that time?
Can you explain with details how private gatherings were restricted at that time?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 9:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Can you explain with details how dining out was restricted at that time?
Can you explain with details how private gatherings were restricted at that time?
No amount of your verbal diarrhea will change the definition of “lockdown” counselor. But please, continue on!
Posted on 11/27/24 at 4:05 am to Wednesday
quote:
Lawfare: The use of prosecution to gain a
political advantage over a criminal defendant and/or to bankrupt or smear said defendant.
I'm on board with that - I responded to an SFP post when he was talking about 'no evidence' and I asked him to define the term. many pages ago.
He responded with a barrel of legal word salad that never mentioned 'evidence'
So I reminded him I was still waiting on his definition of 'evidence.'
I wanted a definition that ordinary people could use in ordinary debate on a topic without being slammed with courtroom shenanigans.
still waiting. - So I ping him when he challenge people on their 'definitions' of word.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 4:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
For what, specifically? Which rule of professional conduct did he violate?
I knew it was this cock before I read who wrote it!! You are insufferable.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 6:26 am to Toomer Deplorable
quote:This is a fact. He asked for a link from me about a previous position of his, was given it, then called me a liar and immediately deleted the post and just moved on. He's a dishonest POS and he knows it.
his shamelessness in continuing to deflect and outright lie when repeatedly faced with irrefutable evidence that he is wrong
Posted on 11/27/24 at 6:28 am to Wednesday
Jack Smith lost so many cases and was thumped so many times by the Supreme Court that he was relegated to the Hague. (ICC) International Criminal Court, NOT recognized by the USA .
This didn't stop Biden's DOJ or Jack Smith. Andrew Weissmann has the same horrid record. Yet they are never disbarred, and certainly never blackballed like they do lawyers who Trump hires.
Thank You for explaining the intricacies of the lawyerly parts regarding Mike Davis and what should be done.
What do I know...but I don't think the punishment is harsh enough. These leftist lawyers are above it all arrogant. They are stasi workers not real lawyers.
Something has to stop them. Using Jack Smith as an example may be a small start. Can we discuss if review boards to disbar are tainted at this level?
This didn't stop Biden's DOJ or Jack Smith. Andrew Weissmann has the same horrid record. Yet they are never disbarred, and certainly never blackballed like they do lawyers who Trump hires.
Thank You for explaining the intricacies of the lawyerly parts regarding Mike Davis and what should be done.
What do I know...but I don't think the punishment is harsh enough. These leftist lawyers are above it all arrogant. They are stasi workers not real lawyers.
Something has to stop them. Using Jack Smith as an example may be a small start. Can we discuss if review boards to disbar are tainted at this level?
Posted on 11/27/24 at 6:33 am to Wednesday
quote:Agreed! but it seems the news cycle and the big wig TV lawyers like Turley, all ended up saying the voters will decide.
2) Trump's messaging on the dismissal should be that the cases were dismissed bc they had NO MERIT, as opposed to "they were dismissed bc he won the election."
NO MERIT needs to be put in the news cycles. I don't have time ATM to read the whole thread but will later.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 6:42 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:I disagree Bunky my fren. Jack Smith isn't humiliated. As you implied, they picked a rogue lawyer kicked to the ICC out of country; to do legal dirty work the mob would be ashamed of.
I would leave Smith alone. He has been humiliated. Target political corruption in the intel agencies instead.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
In the same way that Bragg pulled a misdemeanor out of the statute of limitations dust bin.
Something has to happen that this can't happen again. Or there will never be trust in the DOJ.
Garland appointed him and we all know Garland will skip into a sweet pension and lovely mansion.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 6:50 am to SlowFlowPro
I didn't read the entire thread, but enough to realize you and your white knighter---- that thinks they are super duper smarter than all of us tards----crapped out all discussion and veered off topic.
Shocking.
Have fun arguing for 7 more pages in nonsense. You thought you won (Is it really winning?) When you said Jack Smith was legit as a SC. Garland didn't illegally appoint him, yes or no?
Shocking.
Have fun arguing for 7 more pages in nonsense. You thought you won (Is it really winning?) When you said Jack Smith was legit as a SC. Garland didn't illegally appoint him, yes or no?
This post was edited on 11/27/24 at 6:53 am
Posted on 11/27/24 at 7:55 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
'evidence.'
Proof of a disputed fact, which, from a legal standpoint is admissible in court. Evidence can be testimony or documentary, and direct (eg I saw it with my own eyes) or indirect (I was in a room with no windows and people were walking in with wet umbrellas, so I concluded it was raining).
In most cases, most evidence falls into the indirect category. SFP thinks that only the direct kind counts. Because he probably just tries DWIs.
Posted on 11/27/24 at 8:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So literally any prosecution of any person ever tangentially associated with politics. Got it
No. That's not what it says.
ANY prosecution where the three conditions are met:
Gain a political advantage
Smear
Bankrupt
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News