- 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 12:59 pm to JimEverett
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:59 pm to JimEverett
quote:(b) here does NOT automatically follow (a), and Smith did NOT say that it does.
So, if a person (a) 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." (b)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.
He SAID that he developed evidence to the effect that Trump had ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that his statements were false. He certainly submitted an indictment to that effect, exposing himself to perjury charges if those claims were not made in a good faith belief in their accuracy.
2
Posted on 1/1/26 at 12:59 pm to Jbird
quote:
Weird a fricking alter like RA yammering about knowingly false statements.
Doesn’t seem very honest nor self-aware, does it?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:00 pm to Godfather1
quote:Good thing the alter isn't "credentialed"!
Doesn’t seem very honest nor self-aware, does it?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:02 pm to BugAC
quote:Smith does not "imply" that Trump committed fraud. As I recall, he makes that EXPLICIT charge in the sworn indictment.
What he means ... is that smith lies when he says “fraud is not protected” because he’s implying that Trump committed fraud
Now, you can disagree with the facts as he presents them and/or with his interpretation of those facts, but let's NOT pretend otherwise.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:04 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
He certainly submitted an indictment to that effect, exposing himself to perjury charges if those claims were not made in a good faith belief in their accuracy.
Hank….you are a beauty. Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:06 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Smith does not "imply" that Trump committed fraud. As I recall, he makes that EXPLICIT charge in the sworn indictment.
Irrelevant and you know it you dishonest hack. There has been no finding of fraud. Why do you insist on being such a stupid frick?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:15 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
(b) here does NOT automatically follow (a), and Smith did NOT say that it does.
He SAID that he developed evidence to the effect that Trump had ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE that his statements were false. He certainly submitted an indictment to that effect, exposing himself to perjury charges if those claims were not made in a good faith belief in their accuracy.
My example assumes that the NYT writer is aware his statement is false, so any evidence showing actual knowledge of that falsity doesn't matter to the point. It is the speech that Jack Smith says is criminal.
Do we really want/need a bunch of Jack Smith's running around investigating every op/ed piece in newspapers or opinions on social media to see if the speaker knows that what they are saying is untrue whenever they try to "interfere" with a public proceeding (like a Congressional vote)? That is the end of free speech.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:20 pm to Timeoday
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Somehow, I knew that you would be first in line to simp for the corrupt lawyer.
How did I anticipate that?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:35 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:So, to use a fact to build a case.
To "develop facts" means to systematically investigate, gather, organize, and build upon initial information to uncover deeper truths, details, and a comprehensive understanding, often moving from assumptions or simple observations to concrete evidence for planning, legal cases, or scientific inquiry
A legal case is nothing more than a narrative, guided by the law, built with facts.
I think i got it figured out.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:39 pm to Timeoday
Jack Smith isn’t very bright. This is why he’s lost many times at SCOTUS.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:48 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Of course not. Trump's election brought the prosecution to a screeching halt.
Smith does not "imply" that Trump committed fraud. As I recall, he makes that EXPLICIT charge in the sworn indictment.quote:
Irrelevant and you know it you dishonest hack. There has been no finding of fraud.
Smith was testifying as to his actions and the basis therefor. Nothing more.
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We wanted to make clear that this was not about, um, trying to interfere with anyone's first amendment rights" and "fraud is not protected by the first amendment"
Call speech fraud so you can prosecute fraud. Essentially meaning exactly what op sai.
And retard lawyers like sfp lap it up.
You're out of your depth as always
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:55 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Good ole Aggie Hank.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 1:59 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Smith: "A statement made with know falsity is not protected by the First Amendment."
If that is what he said, he's wrong.
Making a knowingly false statement in and of itself is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.
You can't make a knowingly false statement that causes harm or incites civil unrest and you can't make knowingly false statements under oath, but you can absolutely make knowingly false statements in general.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 2:06 pm to Riverside
quote:
Jack Smith isn’t very bright. This is why he’s lost many times at SCOTUS.
I don’t know how many times he’s lost in front of SCOTUS. I do know he’s a member of the “bitch-slapped and skunked 9-0” Club along with Andrew Weissman.
When you can’t at least get ideologues like Kagan and Sotomayor to go along with you, you’ve fricked up LARGE.
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 2:09 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:He was explicit that he was discussing knowingly-false statements that interfere with a lawful governmental function.
Smith: "A statement made with know falsity is not protected by the First Amendment."quote:
If that is what he said, he's wrong.
Apologies for not transcribing the entire video clip. I wrongfully thought that people commenting on the video might have actually watched the video.
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 2:15 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
He was explicit that he was discussing false statements that interfere with a lawful governmental function.
Claim that publicly making false statements is protected by the 1st amendment but then claim that publicly making “false statements” is in fact fraud. Might as well just say that he doesn’t believe in free speech because that’s what he’s saying.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 2:22 pm to thebigmuffaletta
If you call your Congressman and say "People are dying on the streets, so you need to vote for this legislation." When you know that people are not dying on the streets, is a criminal offense according to Jack Smith.
You made a knowingly false statement with an intent to interfere with a government function.
I am not sure what statute he is relying on, but as applied it sure seems unconstitutional.
You made a knowingly false statement with an intent to interfere with a government function.
I am not sure what statute he is relying on, but as applied it sure seems unconstitutional.
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 2:24 pm to JimEverett
quote:Read the indictment. I linked it above.
I am not sure what statute he is relying on, but as applied it sure seems unconstitutional.
He seems to be relying primarily upon:
18 USC 371;
18 USC 1512(k); and
18 USC 241.
Mostly Section 371
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 2:33 pm
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News