- 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 3:52 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/1/26 at 3:52 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Says the clown that tried to slide through a certain release of photos as the Rs did it
99 percentile of horseshite.
99 percentile of horseshite.
1
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:10 pm to Timeoday
quote:
And I always thought SFP was a woman.
definitely acts like a woman....but think he is a man....unless he is a dyke
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
SloAm, the dispute here is how a person defines Trump’s statements.
One side says Trump was calling out fraud, which is protected.
The other, dumb, side says there was no fraud in the election and Trump committed fraud by trying to overturn a legitimate election.
One side says Trump was calling out fraud, which is protected.
The other, dumb, side says there was no fraud in the election and Trump committed fraud by trying to overturn a legitimate election.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:18 pm to TFH
quote:
SloAm, the dispute here is how a person defines Trump’s statements.
Well yeah, that's what the trial would have been for. The government would have the burden to prove the falsity beyond a reasonable doubt. If they failed, then Trump would have won.
quote:
The other, dumb, side says there was no fraud in the election and Trump committed fraud by trying to overturn a legitimate election.
That's not even a correct summary.
Trump could not have been prosecuted solely for saying there was fraud in the election.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Trial well that's irrelevant at the point!
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
There is zero doubt in my mind you aren't ahead of me IQ wise...zero chance. An intelligent person would not get their kicks by spending time on here all day every single day talking bs. You are a narcissist addicted to the attention....but it doesn't mean you have a high IQ. You aren't a complete dumbass, but certainly not top 1%...even on this board.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
It is amazing that someone can listen to the entire video and come to the conclusion that Jack Smith said that US presidents have no 1st Amendment rights to allege election fraud.
One of the markers of the downfall of American society is the inability of the general populous to discern what is true and what is not.
One of the markers of the downfall of American society is the inability of the general populous to discern what is true and what is not.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:36 pm to nealnan8
quote:
It is amazing that someone can listen to the entire video and come to the conclusion that Jack Smith said that US presidents have no 1st Amendment rights to allege election fraud.
One of the markers of the downfall of American society is the inability of the general populous to discern what is true and what is not.
Correct.
And people are spiking the football and trying to call me out for giving an actual quote of what he said.
This thread:
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:40 pm to LakeCityTiger128
quote:
There is zero doubt in my mind you aren't ahead of me IQ wise...zero chance.
I have no idea what your IQ is (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your posts in this thread were emotional and not based in a lack of intelligence), but it's it's not at least, 130 then don't even try.
This post was edited on 1/1/26 at 4:41 pm
Posted on 1/1/26 at 4:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That is literally not what he said
He said, "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"
you lying piece of shite
Start at 0:45.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:17 pm to Jbird
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Trump could not have been prosecuted solely for saying there was fraud in the election.
Hey you’re catching on!
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:23 pm to RohanGonzales
quote:
you lying piece of shite
Start at 0:45.
He clearly discussed the implication of a specific set of behaviors by Trump, primarily involving fraud. Fraud isn't covered by the 1A and engaging in fraud is different than alleging fraud.
This isn't complicated stuff.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:24 pm to TFH
quote:
Hey you’re catching on!
Based on your previous comments you have a bit to go
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Based on your previous comments you have a bit to go
That’s it? Your pinned your hopes to a phone bill?
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:42 pm to TFH
quote:
That’s it? Your pinned your hopes to a phone bill?
Correction. You apparently have a LONG way to go
Posted on 1/1/26 at 5:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Correction. You apparently have a LONG way to go
It’s not how long the journey takes. It’s what you do when you get out of the kitchen.
Posted on 1/1/26 at 6:35 pm to TFH
SFP and Jack Smith have two things in common
no body likes them
they believe their opinion is fact, without facts to back it up
no body likes them
they believe their opinion is fact, without facts to back it up
Posted on 1/1/26 at 6:39 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
they believe their opinion is fact, without facts to back it up
This ain't the thread to say silliness like that
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News