- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Wednesday's thoughts on Tuesday regarding Jack Smith.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:20 am to epbart
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:20 am to epbart
quote:
I think they have Smith (and/or parts of his team) dead to rights on spoliation of evidence for the purposeful mishandling of seized documents and putting false classified cover sheets on them to stage a photo op.
Wait, what?
3
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but there is no evidence
PLEASE - give a workable definition of the word 'evidence' when you are using it to either bolster or debunk an argument.
I think this is another of those words that have dual meanings - one in regular citizen to citizen talk regarding some situation - and another that is reserved for application to a legal filing.
Because surely you cannot state that there was "no evidence" of something having happened just because no legal prosecution ever resulted.
MY OPINION - the democrats and their propaganda cohorts continue to declare that there was "NO EVIDENCE" of voter fraud in 2020 because "NO COURT CONVICTED ANYONE"
However, they cannot shut up about all the EVIDENCE wrt Trump colluding with RUSSIA in 2016.
SO - for plain ol' citizens outside of the witness chair --> what is "evidence" and how should it be constrained in casual conversation about some political topic.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:27 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
PLEASE - give a workable definition of the word 'evidence' when you are using it to either bolster or debunk an argument.
I think this is another of those words that have dual meanings - one in regular citizen to citizen talk regarding some situation - and another that is reserved for application to a legal filing.
This is what he claimed
quote:
illegally frames a defendant, colludes with a judge, falsifies evidence, etc
1. Illegally framing a defendant. This is probably going to depend on how you want to use the word "framing".
2. Colluding with a judge. Literally no evidence of this.
3. Falsifying evidence? Which evidence? How was it falsified?
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
- thanks for you response
Perhaps my question was not clear -
let me give you an example -
Suppose you find a woman dead on the street with what appears to be a knife wound bleeding from her back.
Would you say there is "no evidence" that this was a murder?
OR would you say that nobody has yet found the EVIDENCE that would substantiate a murder charge against someone.
WE are saying - the 2020 election was fraudulent.
DEMs say = there is NO EVIDENCE that it happened.
Now - in my 'murder' example, it is entirely possible that the lady had some internal dysfunction going on that caused her to spontaneously eject some blood out of her back thru some coincidental hole in her shirt.
I feel safe in saying that the woman died from murder - just as I feel safe saying the 2020 election was fraudulent.
NOW - there are MANY sources of 'evidence' for fraud - it is just that nobody can seem to attain that elevated status of "standing" to cause anyone to do anything about it.
EDIT
what I am saying is this:
someone should initiate an INVEStIGAtiON to see if EVIDENCE could be found to substantiate a PROSECUTION of someone - rather than saying to the public - FIRST you have to PROVE a murder was committed before we try to find out who did it??
This post was edited on 11/26/24 at 11:48 am
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Wait, what?
Going off memory. I could be mistaken, but recall seeing news / stories to this end. Will try to find if I bookmarked them since I suspect Google won't work well on this query.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
Retesting IQ tests is a sign of insecurity.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:45 am to Wednesday
quote:Except we know legal communities have been, and are, woefully complicit in supporting leftist actions. So, what "should be" won't be. Bar associations' behavior has been appalling of late.
He needs to be disbarred and unemployable. His license should be gone in any state he currently holds it, and he should be disbarred from litigating in Federal Court in all fifty states.
E.g., In 2020 radical left lawyers and firms used blackballing and bar threats to dissuade lawyers from aiding Trump, denying him the essence of Constitutional assurances, the right to counsel. Far from shutting those efforts down, bar associations abetted them.
Adams must be rolling over in his grave.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:46 am to tigerpimpbot
quote:
I agree with you. Unfortunately I think the slimy cocksucker will slither away unscathed.
Like Comey, Clinton, Clapper, Brennan, Biden... and all the others.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:49 am to NC_Tigah
just put smith on the no fly list, disbarred and fired for being a creep
Posted on 11/26/24 at 11:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think they have Smith (and/or parts of his team) dead to rights on spoliation of evidence for the purposeful mishandling of seized documents and putting false classified cover sheets on them to stage a photo op.
I saw that report.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 12:08 pm to Wednesday
Jack is probably researching non-extradition countries as I type this. Disbarment is the least of his worries.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 12:14 pm to Wednesday
The thought of "Special Forces" being applied to not only gather information about others involved as well as end of life probably appeals to most people.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 12:23 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
But who does all that you suggest? Is it at the state bar level or is it some federal entity that would exercise all you that stuff?
To lose his license in the state court system, a state bar association would review. For example, the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse case was disbarred. He can’t get admitted in any federal court if he has no state license.
Someone can lose their ability to practice law in the federal system independently. If I’m Trump I move to disqualify him before Judge Cannon, and SCOTUS, and request that the order apply to all federal courts.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 12:33 pm to Trevaylin
quote:... or the Tulsi terrorist list ...
just put smith on the no fly list
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:09 pm to Wednesday
quote:What would be the basis, and why wouldn't be something he should be prosecuted for?
He needs to be disbarred and unemployable. His license should be gone in any state he currently holds it, and he should be disbarred from litigating in Federal Court in all fifty states. Any accrued federal retirement should be revoked, any pay he earned from participating in this miscarriage of justice should be disgorged.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:11 pm to Wednesday
Ask SlowFlowPro, his opinion is the only one that matters…..to him.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
85-IQ discussion
You should feel right at home
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
If your IQ is over 115, which I doubt, then you are possibly the most intellectually dishonest person I have ever encountered.
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:24 pm to Wednesday
Malicious prosecution suit
Posted on 11/26/24 at 1:26 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Wednesday's thoughts on Tuesday regarding Jack Smith.
Good summary with reasoned Justice. Far from letting off the hook yet stopping short of acting like the enemy. I approve, now let's start pulling those law licenses!
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News