1
- 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 Tracked Trump's Lawyers' Phone Calls
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:47 am to themunch
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:47 am to themunch
quote:
Backdooring his spying on the president should give all concern.
Backdoor spying by...dismissing the case?
Also, Smith could have waited until Trump was inaugurated if h wanted to be evil, but he did it not long after the election to avoid the scenario you just posted about
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:47 am to SlowFlowPro
It was dismissed before inauguration. So again explain the plethora of legal evidence documented in vol 2…
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:47 am to DeBoar
quote:
They know it isn’t legal aka dismissed without prejudice.
Literally has nothing to do with it.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:47 am to DeBoar
quote:
It was dismissed before inauguration.
Yes which isn't good for the arguments of OP
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:48 am to SlowFlowPro
Yet vol 2 was never released but 1 and 3 were. Why release anything but the evidence?
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:49 am to DeBoar
quote:
Yet vol 2 was never released
Um, do you know why?
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:49 am to DeBoar
quote:
So why did they dismiss it without prejudice with all the “evidence”
I was asking about why Jack Smith hasn't been prosecuted, despite Trump’s DOJ having all this evidence of what looks to be criminal activity by Smith.
It's a genuine question. It SEEMS like there are so many deep state activity (Seth Rich, Russiagate Hoax, Lawfare against Trump) potential cases that aren't being investigated despite 19 months of the Trump DOJ.
It would be nice to at least get an explanation for the lack of apparent action. They didn't have any problems releasing evidence against Jack Smith. Update us on other, similar, issues.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:50 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
It's a genuine question. It SEEMS like there are so many deep state activity (Seth Rich, Russiagate Hoax, Lawfare against Trump) potential cases that aren't being investigated despite 19 months of the Trump DOJ.
Because most of it is likely fan fiction with no basis in reality.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:51 am to SlowFlowPro
If there was anything of legitimate evidence that wasn’t illegal it would be dismissed with prejudice due to winning an election. Again you’re dancing around a specific word. Hence why a court order prevents it from being released. Again that order doesn’t change the reason why it was dismissed without prejudice.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:53 am to DeBoar
quote:
If there was anything of legitimate evidence that wasn’t illegal it would be dismissed with prejudice
In a normal dismissal.
This wasn't dismissed based on the evaluation of the evidence. It was dismissed via DOJ policy.
You're conflating those things even after it's been explained to you multiple times. You're using a standard of litigation when the dismissal was not via litigation. The dismissal was via DOJ policy, which doesn't require a dismissal with prejudice (for obvious reasons)
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:54 am to SlowFlowPro
Who’s DOJ was it dismissed under? 
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:54 am to DeBoar
quote:
Who’s DOJ was it dismissed under?
Biden. Not that it's relevant to a DOJ policy that was put in place decades prior to his admin.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:55 am to DeBoar
He always makes excuses for tleft
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Biden. Not that it's relevant to a DOJ policy that was put in place decades prior to his admin.
Ya just like jack smiths hiring was completely legal within those same policies too, right?
This post was edited on 10/5/26 at 10:57 am
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:58 am to BoarEd
Over the weekend it was all praise for Jack Smith on X... Today not one post.. They run like rats when the truth comes out...
Posted on 10/5/26 at 10:59 am to DeBoar
quote:
Ya just like jack smiths hiring was completely legal within those same policies too, right?
The only appellate decisions on that appointment process were from about 10 years prior and approved the process. That's why the legality of Smith's DC prosecution was never in doubt (The DC Court of Appeals has already ruled in this issue with Meuller, based on the same arguments from the same law professors). So yes, legal within the same policies that existed long prior to Biden's admin.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 11:02 am to Wednesday
Posted on 10/5/26 at 11:04 am to BeeFense5
quote:
Because most of it is likely fan fiction with no basis in reality.
I absolutely believe there's a Deep State that runs things for its own behalf at the expense of the American people.
My chief reason for supporting Trump is that he appeared to be a change agent...someone who would blow up the Deep State. His nuking of USAID was a great accomplishment towards that end...so he gets highest marks for that.
As to everything else, at this point I have to ask, is the Deep State not really a big deal or is Trump not interested (for whatever reason) in fighting it?
Take the Seth Rich case. Like the Epstein Files, Kash Patel made a big deal about this BEFORE he became FBI Director. Since he became FBI Director and had access to all the Seth Rich files...NOTHING, despite being asked in writing by Congress about the case.
It would be reassuring to see Patel say, "We examined the Seth Rich case thoroughly. We didn't find anything out of the ordinary."
Posted on 10/5/26 at 11:04 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's why the legality of Smith's DC prosecution was never in doubt
Posted on 10/5/26 at 11:08 am to Wednesday
It is old news Jack Smith tapped Trump, his cabinet, Congress, news reporters and their mothers...
Why has this been slow walked out? "Oh look we found a new batch of burn bag documents," every 2 to 3 weeks? "Oh look Smith committed perjury again" as he trolls at a commie Springsteen concert.,
Why has this been slow walked out? "Oh look we found a new batch of burn bag documents," every 2 to 3 weeks? "Oh look Smith committed perjury again" as he trolls at a commie Springsteen concert.,
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. 
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News