Trump indicted in documents case

when hannity's only defense for trump's tape is maybe he was lying i don't think this bodes well for t

hannity with fox contributor ari fleischer

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p&cvid=58f8c3d4c5984021ae8398f89026213a&ei=36

ari fleischer said he couldn't condone trump's taking of, and refusing to return, documents that should never have been out of a SCIF, even as he mealy-louthed about 'government overreach' when it came to indictments

Hannity responded by saying “I don’t disagree.” However, the host said there appears to be no clear process for declassifying documents (as Trump claims to have done with the aforementioned material). He also reiterated that it is possible Trump was not showing the document he says he is showing in the audio.
“Was that actually the real document or was it a story that he was telling?” Hannity inquired. “And my understanding is that that particular document was never found by the special counsel or by, you know, the raid at Mar-a-Lago. But I might be mistaken on that.”
 
when hannity's only defense for trump's tape is maybe he was lying i don't think this bodes well for t

hannity with fox contributor ari fleischer

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p&cvid=58f8c3d4c5984021ae8398f89026213a&ei=36

ari fleischer said he couldn't condone trump's taking of, and refusing to return, documents that should never have been out of a SCIF, even as he mealy-louthed about 'government overreach' when it came to indictments
He can testify under oath whether he was lying. There are witnesses who can corroborate or refute under oath.
 
dragging feet? Nauta's arraignment postponed until July 6.

Nauta was scheduled to plead not guilty in a Miami court Tuesday, but his attorney, Stanley Woodward, told a judge that his client has not yet hired a local lawyer.

He also said bad weather prevented Nauta from traveling to Miami from New Jersey, where he works for Trump during the former president's summer residence at his Bedminster golf club in New Jersey.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p&cvid=05c2106a18694675fe2f1405b8fdfbc1&ei=37
 
A Question: Is a defendant such as Trump required to give evidence on his own behalf under US Federal law? I know that in UK and OZ they frequently do not in order to avoid examination; am I correct in assuming the same would apply in the US?

It occurred to me that even the thought Of Trump testifying would give his own defence lawyers nightmares
 
However those that choose not to testify are more likely to be convicted. Not testifying is almost seen as a surrender, implying the case is so good, they simply have no defense to offer.
 
But one should know...the Feds have a 98+% conviction rate. They don’t indict if they can't get a conviction.
 
when hannity's only defense for trump's tape is maybe he was lying i don't think this bodes well for t

hannity with fox contributor ari fleischer

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p&cvid=58f8c3d4c5984021ae8398f89026213a&ei=36

ari fleischer said he couldn't condone trump's taking of, and refusing to return, documents that should never have been out of a SCIF, even as he mealy-louthed about 'government overreach' when it came to indictments
Curious, isn’t it? Since the indictment dropped, that has been presented as the most damning evidence against him, yet he wasn’t charged for it.

It should come as no surprise that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment for the story.

As for all of those who insisted the audio recording was a “smoking gun,” well, how can it be when he wasn’t even charged over that document?
 
Curious, isn’t it? Since the indictment dropped, that has been presented as the most damning evidence against him, yet he wasn’t charged for it.

It should come as no surprise that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment for the story.

As for all of those who insisted the audio recording was a “smoking gun,” well, how can it be when he wasn’t even charged over that document?
The recording does a good job proving intent. He knew he had docs that he didn't declassify.
 
Curious, isn’t it? Since the indictment dropped, that has been presented as the most damning evidence against him, yet he wasn’t charged for it.

It should come as no surprise that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office declined to comment for the story.

As for all of those who insisted the audio recording was a “smoking gun,” well, how can it be when he wasn’t even charged over that document?
I too am very frustrated when ever a police department, an investigative body, a politician or individual declines to comment on a pending case. But you do understand why, correct? The orange one would probably be in a better situation if he had followed that legal precedent. But he can’t! Much to my enjoyment!
I have no legal knowledge, but I try to listen to people who are reputable. This audio was released to blow a hole in all the excuses that Trump has been giving and it would seem that there could be possible charges coming from this audiotape in the state of New Jersey for disseminating classified documents.

Hope this helps.
 

Someone (BB) doesn’t understand that the recording PROVES the rapey, corrupt orange traitor KNEW the documents that WERE recovered were NOT declassified, and that FORMER “presidents” can’t declassify them. (And that there is a declassification procedure.)

The tape speaks to the rapey, corrupt orange traitor’s “thinking” and “understanding” regarding possession of the classified documents that WERE recovered.

Hope that ^ helps.

👍

🇺🇸
 
The DOJ has made preparations for a “superseding indictment,” which are additional charges that may include allegations of more serious crimes against a defendant, according to the report, which cites sources familiar with the matter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/author/andrew-feinberg
Andrew Feinberg writes for The Independent that "Prosecutors are now prepared to 'stack' an 'additional 30 to 45 charges' on top of the 37-count indictment brought against Mr Trump on 8 June. They would do so using evidence against the ex-president that has not yet been publicly acknowledged by the department, including other recordings prosecutors have obtained which reveal Mr Trump making incriminating statements."
he just cannot keep his big mouth shut.
Feinberg writes, “Additionally, it is understood that special counsel Jack Smith’s team is ready to bring charges against several of the attorneys who have worked for Mr. Trump, including those who aided the ex-president in his push to ignore the will of voters and remain in the White House despite having lost the 2020 election.”
and that includes giuliani...no wonder he's in there being interviewed under that 'proffered agreement', lol

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p&cvid=9ed36cc24ed5428aacce45b80fce9de8&ei=26
 
Poor Deplorables are gonna find all sorts of ways to imagine him getting off for this...and their god is just gonna keep talking and fuck up their dreams. 😁
 
coinkidentally:

Donald Trump Aide Who Allegedly Was Shown Classified Map Has Top Post Working for China Lobbying Firm​


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...p&cvid=00ec30f7e91b45fc8b1906d77b393632&ei=25

The New York Post reported she is the co-chair of the lobbying firm Mercury Public Affairs, which has taken millions of dollars over the years from China-based companies, including Yealink, Hikvision, and Alibaba. It was noted the firm serves entities that could pose a national security threat and help Beijing commit human rights abuses.
 
Sounds like Jack might have something in his back pocket if that judge tries to fuck with the case...

Special counsel Jack Smith could hit Trump with up to 45 more charges in classified documents case, report says​

https://news.yahoo.com/special-counsel-jack-smith-could-005200793.html
Yesterday I was hearing speculation that this news is the result of there being a June 30th deadline for people to make a deal for a reduced sentence in return for testifying against Trump. Smith might not have had them in his back pocket, but received a slew of new evidence of additional crimes.
 
Back
Top