- 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: Jack Smith lied to Congress under oath
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:39 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If he legitimately broke the law, prosecute him.
Imagine having your stance reduced to this
There goes my herooo
Hahahhaha
1
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:41 am to texag7
quote:
Imagine having your stance reduced to this
What's wrong with that stance?
You think we should prosecute people who didn't legitimately break the law?
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:43 am to SlowFlowPro
You strike me as a Jeff Mateer
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:46 am to texag7
I notice you didn't even try to attempt to answer the question 
Also you apparently missed how it doesn't appear Jack Smith broke the law in the clip posted in OP, mind you.
Also you apparently missed how it doesn't appear Jack Smith broke the law in the clip posted in OP, mind you.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:53 am to SlowFlowPro
Yep. A Cajun Jeff Mateer
Posted on 7/15/26 at 6:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I see what you guys are saying. I didn't know about the NARA component.
It appears Grasserly is doing a bait and switch using information from an unrelated set of documents (the NARA texts of White House Officials)
So Smith can skate perjury by claiming a narrow understanding of the question being asked about captured text messages as pertinent only to the toll records.
The remaining issue is that Smith’s team accessed Congressional texts at all. They reviewed the NARA content without proper filter review. With a team of highly trained lawyers, how could this possibly not comprise willful intent to violate rights?
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:01 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
They reviewed the NARA content without proper filter review. With a team of highly trained lawyers, how could this possibly not comprise willful intent to violate rights?
I had the same thought about a filter team. I saw an X post yesterday showing statistics from a filter team about docs reviewed, filtered and submitted, but I can’t find it today. And I don’t even know if it was the Jack Smith stuff although the commenter, I think Margot Cleveland(?) was talking about the Jack Smith revelations.
I’d like to learn more about the specifics of if he used a filter team and what they did, if anything.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:09 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So Smith can skate perjury by claiming a narrow understanding of the question being asked about captured text messages as pertinent only to the toll records.
He was asked a specific question about a specific type of documents and his response was correct and truthful within the framing of the question.
Grasserly is trying to be dishonest by using a completely separate group of documents, that have no relationship to the framing of the question asked to Smith, to allege Smith was the dishonest one.
It's not "skating perjury" at all given the totality of the information (specifically the framing of the questions he was asked). He was given specific questions in a specific framing. Any documents, questions, answers, etc. outside of that specific framing aren't relevant and hold no rhetorical value.
quote:
They reviewed the NARA content without proper filter review.
Potentially, but that's outside the specific framing/allegations of OP.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:15 am to uggabugga
Something is going to happen. We all were told he spied on 44 Congress critters.
From Grassley to influencers this story is being whipped into the media again.
It ended with them getting caught getting $500k per line that they were spied on written into the fund that J6thers deserve.
From Grassley to influencers this story is being whipped into the media again.
It ended with them getting caught getting $500k per line that they were spied on written into the fund that J6thers deserve.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Now you're being silly.
It's not "skating perjury" at all given the totality of the information
Smith damn well knew where the concerns about Congressional text access were emanating. He damn well knew that access was unauthorized.
Did he tell the "whole truth"? In principle? Of course not!
Legally? Yeah, he'd skate by in that construct, and he knew it.
Which is the kind of awareness making it implausible that this could possibly not be willful intent to violate rights.
This post was edited on 7/15/26 at 7:29 am
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:27 am to uggabugga
As is always the case…….
NOTHING….WILL….HAPPEN
NOTHING….WILL….HAPPEN
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:28 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Smith damn well knew where the concerns about Congressional text access was concerned.
But that wasn't the question he was asked, in that clip.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:34 am to SlowFlowPro
List in detail everything about 18 USC § 1001
This post was edited on 7/15/26 at 7:36 am
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:35 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Smith damn well knew where the concerns about Congressional text access were emanating. He damn well knew that access was unauthorized.
Did he tell the "whole truth"? In principle? Of course not!
Legally? Yeah, he'd skate by in that construct, and he knew it.
Which is the kind of awareness making it implausible that this could possibly not be willful intent to violate rights.
Now we’re imputing intent on “yeah, but” and wanting to prosecute on thoughts and feels because you don’t like the guy?
That’s now how this works. The committee members should have asked better questions if they wanted to pin him down on specific answers.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
18 USC § 1001 SOL The statute of limitations (SOL) for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (making false statements to the federal government) is five years.
This time limit is governed by the general federal statute of limitations for non-capital offenses, outlined in 18 USC 3282.The clock begins ticking on the exact date the false statement was made, not when it was discovered by authorities.
During this five-year window, federal prosecutors must formally file an indictment or an information. If this period expires without formal charges, the defendant has an absolute legal bar against prosecution for that specific offense.However, the five-year timeframe can be extended or suspended ("tolled") if certain legal circumstances apply, such as the defendant fleeing the jurisdiction, becoming a fugitive, or if critical evidence must be obtained from a foreign country.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:40 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
The committee members should have asked better questions if they wanted to pin him down on specific answers.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:42 am to boosiebadazz
quote:Negative. As I've said, the POS skates on a perjury charge. There is no "yeah, but" from a legal angle.
Now we’re imputing intent on “yeah, but” and wanting to prosecute on thoughts and feels because you don’t like the guy?
My question regards the access itself and the subsequent deliberate decision not to inform Congress. How could that not constitute willful intent to violate rights?
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:43 am to uggabugga
So did Fauci. Who cares? There's no justice in MAGAn America.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith has testified before Congress only in the House of Representatives, and has not appeared before the Senate. His congressional testimony dates are as follows:January 22, 2026: Testified publicly in a hearing titled "Oversight of the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith" before the House Judiciary Committee.December 17, 2025: Testified during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 8:52 am to uggabugga
Jack Smith is probably due for the death penalty
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News