- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 says US Presidents HAVE NO 1st Amendment rights to allege election fraud!!
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:04 am to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:04 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:in this case the relevance is plain. When you have mirror image claims and actions but one is fraud and can be punished and the other is a constitutionally guaranteed right based on your political party we have a major issue.
What conceivable relevance do you see in this point, other than meaningless whataboutism?
quote:
(I have no idea who Stacey Abrahams might be) is not a fraudster?
And if you are pointing at my spelling as way to avoid the topic, we see you and your disingenuousness. What is this whataboutism you speak of? That isn't a real thing. I think you made that word up; it is fraudulent for you to assign something to me that you made up. You should be prosecuted and punished criminally for such.
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 11:07 am
1
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:04 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
How is that relevant to this thread?
The value of truth and facts do not stop at Jack Smith and his lawfare against OMB.
The lack of truth and facts in all of the lawfare against OMB is relevant to a fair judiciary.
Didn't you swear an oath to protect the innocent, or is that only for the accused that you support and ally with?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:06 am to SlowFlowPro
SlowFlowPrevaricator…
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:27 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
RelentlessAnalysis
So you’re telling us that you’re such a f*cking retard that you honestly believe that Beyond-F*cking-Corrupt Joe Biden got 81 million votes? Your black f*cking Jesus maxed out at 67 million votes but you sincerely believe that Dementia Joe got 81 million fricking votes while he literally slept in his basement throughout the election.
And you’d have to also believe that it was just a coincidence that put a first time in presidential election history all of those swing states in Democrat, strongholds just happened to stop counting ballots in the middle of the night and kick out Republican pole watchers - when Trump was WAY ahead - only then to find millions of votes, almost all going the way of Dementia Joe.
No one could possibly be THAT F*CKING STUPID.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:29 am to MMauler
quote:
And you’d have to also believe that it was just a coincidence that put a first time in presidential election history all of those swing states in Democrat, strongholds just happened to stop counting ballots in the middle of the night and kick out Republican pole watchers - when Trump was WAY ahead - only then to find millions of votes, almost all going the way of Dementia Joe.
The Usual Suspects will be along shortly to tell you that never happened.
“dOn’T bElIeVe YoUr LyInG eYeS.”
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:30 am to SDVTiger
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"fraud is not protected by the first amendment"
Who was convicted of fraud?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We didn't get that far in the litigation.
Question - has Jack Smith integrity or honesty ever been in question in a court before???
Also - am I the only one that think RA is another sfp alter ? Stylistically identical and back each other up in every op??
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 11:46 am
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We didn't get that far in the litigation. n.
No wonder you are so energized and motivated herein. Either you have a mouse in your pocket or you are on Team Jack Smith. If you are on Jack's team, please let him know he is a piss poor excuse for a lawyer and he knows it.
Jack Smith cases always get overturned. ALWAYS!
Posted on 1/1/26 at 11:59 am to Stealth Matrix
quote:
Like clockwork
Yes I have a think for addressing dishonest content creators.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:01 pm to dafif
quote:
another sfp alter
There are no SFP alters
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:07 pm to dafif
quote:
Also - am I the only one that think RA is another sfp alter ? Stylistically identical and back each other up in every op??
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:13 pm to Timeoday
RA has more of a aggiehank style. Though I believe SFP and Hank are brothers from another mother, cousins, butt frick buddies, etc..
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:14 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
A statement made with know falsity is not protected by the First Amendment
Oh boy. MSM about to get sued. A lot.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:17 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
So, your position is that it is perfectly acceptable for to make such knowingly-false statements?
Without admitting this is what happened. Are you stating that knowingly making false statements to the public is a crime?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:19 pm to BBONDS25
Weird a fricking alter like RA yammering about knowingly false statements.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:28 pm to I20goon
quote:Stacey versus Stacy or Staci is "spelling."quote:And if you are pointing at my spelling as way to avoid the topic, we see you and your disingenuousness.
(I have no idea who Stacey Abrahams might be) is not a fraudster?
Abrams vs Abrahams indicates that you don't even know the players' names.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:50 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
The case was about actions he may or may not have engaged in to try and prove the point.
That is not what Jack Smith said in the video. He said the statements themselves are illegal conduct when they interfere with a lawful government function. He is not talking about actions - he is talking about speech.
So, if a person writes in the New York Times "the Presidential election was rife with fraud and the President of the Senate should not approve the Electoral College results." this person does so "knowing" that there was no fraud and with the intent to influence the President of he Senate to do something in his official capacity then a Prosecutor has discretion to file charges on that quoted statement alone.
I think that is very dangerous and is a direct attack on free speech.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:54 pm to dafif
quote:
Also - am I the only one that think RA is another sfp alter ?
RelentlesslyHank is…well, Hank.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
That is what he said, slowmo. What he means, and you know this, is that smith lies when he says “fraud is not protected” because he’s implying that Trump committed fraud when there is not an ounce of proof that he did. So, using context clues you silly son of a bitch, he is implying that anything Trump says makes him liable because the left is unhinged, and by relation, so are you.
I don’t know how you don’t get tired of these silly “well actually” and refuse to use your brain. Or is it willfully ignorance because you also suffer from TDS?
Happy New Year!
I don’t know how you don’t get tired of these silly “well actually” and refuse to use your brain. Or is it willfully ignorance because you also suffer from TDS?
Happy New Year!
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 12:55 pm
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News