- 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
0
Posted on 7/14/26 at 9:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
At least I can read
Congrats. I did not read the OP Link. I am merely going off of the last 10 years of seeing what our government, under the Deep State has become.
There are no laws if you are on their side.
Eric Holder? LOL No harm no foul.
Hunter Laptop? No harm no foul.
Russian Hoax? No harm no foul.
Ukraine phone call? No harm no foul.
J6 when PDJT requested NG and Pelosi refused? No harm no foul.
Indicting PDJT supporters while allowing leftists even more egregious actions? No harm no foul.
I could go on and on.
Keep sniffing your own farts and thinking you know it all.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 9:49 pm to ninthward
Prison is only for Conservatives/Republicans...
Posted on 7/14/26 at 9:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
No one believes anything you say.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 9:51 pm to G2160
quote:
No one believes anything you say.
They should start listening to me
quote:
In aone-sentence order, a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals turned back a request for a rehearing of a case it decided in February arguing that Mueller should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Separately, the D.C. Circuit on Monday alsodenied a petition for a rehearing before the full court.
At issue is a case challenging Mueller’s authority brought by Andrew Miller, who refused to testify before a federal grand jury under subpoena about his former employer, the longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone.
Miller’s attorneys moved to quash the subpoena by citing alleged flaws in Mueller’s appointment butlost in a unanimous opinion that found no flaw in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s May 2017 decision to put the special counsel on the job investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Posted on 7/14/26 at 9:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
Stopped reading when I saw you linked a 2019 article to make some point about a 2024 ruling on the constitutionality of Jack smith.
Going to be tough to argue how this proves you’re right, but I know this is a hill you’re prepared to die on.
Going to be tough to argue how this proves you’re right, but I know this is a hill you’re prepared to die on.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 4:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Jack Smith explicitly denied under oath during his House Judiciary deposition last December that he reviewed text messages from members of Congress:
Q: "Did the records that you requested from the Member of Congress include the content of text messages?"
Smith: "No."
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 7/15/26 at 4:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What you won't see me do is debase myself
That's gold, Jerry, gold.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 5:44 am to G2160
quote:
Stopped reading when I saw you linked a 2019 article to make some point about a 2024 ruling on the constitutionality of Jack smith.
Why?
You would learn something if you read and educated yourself
quote:
Going to be tough to argue how this proves you’re right
Wait what? It specifically proves that I'm right ;lol:
You really need to get up to speed on what's being discussed
Posted on 7/15/26 at 5:46 am to uggabugga
It appears that clip is taken out of context. Re-read the X post to which you replied. If that post is correct, it explains how this video does not show what your post says.
This post was edited on 7/15/26 at 5:47 am
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It appears that clip is taken out of context.
What is the context you feel is important. Smith answered "No" at least twice quote:
Q Did you seek a search warrant for the content of any text messages from Members?
A From Members?
Q Yes.
A No, I don't recall that.
Q Okay. It was just toll records?
A Correct.
Q Okay. But by not telling the Members, you know, by going through this NDO process, I mean, they didn't have an opportunity to litigate the Speech or Debate concerns.
A That is correct.
Q And that's unfair, in our view.
A I understand your position. And, as I said before, we respect the Speech or
Debate Clause. I'm aware of no case in the Supreme Court or the D.C. Circuit that says that getting noncontent toll records from a third party violates the Speech or Debate Clause, particularly where -- and I think an important point here is these records were not sought to use against Members of Congress who are targets.
quote:
Q Okay. Did the toll records that you requested from the Senators, did they include the content of the phone calls?
A No.
Q Did the records that you requested, the toll records from the Member of Congress, include the content of text messages?
A No.
Q Can you explain for us on the record what information generally is included in a toll-records request?
A Sure. Again, my understanding from a prosecutor's perspective is, it is non-content information. It's generally about when the call started, when the call stopped -- that would include, obviously, the duration of the call -- and who the call is to and who the call is from. That's the basic information that you want to get from a toll-records subpoenas.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:21 am to NC_Tigah
That’s an accurate transcript. The X post from Greg Price is not. He deleted the mention of toll records.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:22 am to boosiebadazz
quote:Is that relevant to the issue of Smith lying about text message capture?
He deleted the mention of toll records.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:23 am to NC_Tigah
Yes, given the nature of what toll records are and are not.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:26 am to boosiebadazz
quote:How?
Yes
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:27 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
What is the context you feel is important.
What is being specifically discussed. Your post all but confirms that X post
There are 2 sets of records being discussed
1. The toll records
2. Texts of *WH officials,* obtained via *NARA,* which happened to include exchanges w/ congresspeople.
The testimony is exclusively about toll records. Smith testified that the toll records (only) did not contain texts. Your post confirms this 100%. This part is no longer speculation.
It appears Grasserly is doing a bait and switch using information from an unrelated set of documents (the NARA texts of White House Officials) and trying to substitute that as toll records. If this is true, Jack Smith in no way lied to Congress and Grasserly is the one being dishonest.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:28 am to NC_Tigah
Toll records don’t show content. They show time of connection, time of disconnection and duration of call, along with the two numbers connecting. Same thing for text. Time sent, time received, and the numbers. No content of the message.
So his answer is technically correctly that the toll records he sought and received did not have any content of the messages or calls.
So his answer is technically correctly that the toll records he sought and received did not have any content of the messages or calls.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:31 am to uggabugga
There’s a reason all these people pile into DC and a few surrounding counties.
They know that no jury they will ever have to face would convict them for anything.
They know that no jury they will ever have to face would convict them for anything.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:31 am to boosiebadazz
We are going to be accused of "defending Jack Smith" by pointing this out 
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:33 am to SlowFlowPro
Just two slapdick pretend lawyers reading the literal words on the page 
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News