Frisco Chronicles Response – April 2026

There’s an old saying: if you don’t have the timeline on your side, you better have a good story. And if you don’t have either… well, you write a blog post like the one we just read. Let’s walk through what’s being sold versus what actually holds water.

The Timeline Problem They Hope You Ignore

A recent post by a lame blog, leans heavily on the idea that a so-called “bombshell” text ties the Colberg’s to some grand political scheme involving secret recordings used to influence the May 2025 election.

Sounds dramatic. There’s just one problem—it doesn’t line up with reality.

The recordings in question (the now-infamous “Tammy Tapes”) were released on May 3, 2025.

The “smoking gun” text? Dated June 2–4, 2025.

That’s not a minor detail. That’s the entire case falling apart.

You can’t “weaponize” something a month after it’s already been released to the public. That’s not strategy—that’s hindsight dressed up as conspiracy. So right out of the gate, the central premise collapses under its own timeline.

The “Colbergs” Narrative – Built on Sand

The blog tries to create intrigue by emphasizing the message came from “The Colbergs”—plural. A household. A unit. A dramatic flourish meant to imply coordinated action.

But here’s what gets conveniently glossed over: Even by their own referenced commentary, the message traces back to Erich Colberg, not Brittany. No joint plotting. No evidence of collaboration. Just a stretch—one of those reach-across-the-table, nearly-fall-out-of-your-chair stretches—to tie a candidate into something for maximum political effect.

And let’s be honest: if the evidence were that strong, there wouldn’t be a need to play grammatical gymnastics with the word “Colbergs.”

The Court Filing Argument – A Leap Too Far

Another pillar of the dog’s argument is that legal filings to suppress the text somehow equal guilt.

That’s a bold claim—and a dangerous one.

By that logic, anyone who files a motion to limit or challenge evidence in court is automatically admitting wrongdoing. That’s not how the legal system works. Not in Texas. Not anywhere. People file motions for all kinds of reasons: privacy concerns, relevance disputes, procedural issues. It’s called due process, not confession.

Turning routine legal maneuvering into a smoking gun isn’t analysis—it’s narrative-building.

The Missing Connection No One Can Find

Let’s address the elephant in the room: Frisco Chronicles.

Despite the repeated attempts to connect dots, draw lines, and build a web of intrigue, here are the facts:

• Frisco Chronicles has never met the Colbergs.
• Frisco Chronicles has never communicated with the Colbergs.
• The Colbergs had no involvement in the recordings.
• Frisco Chronicles operates independently—period.

No shadow network. No backroom coordination. No secret alliance. Just a stubborn refusal to fit into someone else’s storyline.

What This Really Looks Like

When you strip away the dramatic tone, the selective framing, and the carefully chosen wording, what’s left? A post built on:

• A timeline that doesn’t work
• An association that isn’t proven
• A legal argument that overreaches
• And a narrative that fills in gaps with assumption

In other words, not a revelation—an attempt.

The Real “Big Truth”

The blog titled their piece “A Little Lie Reveals a Big Truth.” On that, we actually agree—just not in the way they intended.

The “big truth” isn’t about a coordinated political scheme. It’s about how quickly speculation can be dressed up as certainty when there’s an election around the corner. It’s about how a single text—taken out of context, stripped of timing, and stretched to its limits—can be turned into a headline. And maybe most importantly, it’s about relevance.

Because when you can’t match the impact, the reach, or the receipts… sometimes the next best move is to manufacture a moment.

Final Thought

If this is what passes for a “bombshell,” then the bar has dropped somewhere near the basement. Frisco voters deserve facts, not stitched-together narratives that fall apart under basic scrutiny. And if this is the best attempt at keeping up? Well… let’s just say the gap isn’t closing anytime soon.

Lastly, we are still shocked how the dog’s side is more concerned about the exposure of wrongdoing versus if Tammy Meinershagen had done nothing – nothing would have been revealed. She is directly responsible for her actions.