Jack Smith — Special Counsel for Jan 6 and Mar-a-Lago inquiries

[Anonymous]

Hmmm I wonder who could possibly have this now. Maybe someone who has a lot of money and hates Iran? Who could it be….

“The sources say prosecutors made clear to Trump's attorneys after issuing the subpoena that they specifically wanted the Iran document he talked about on tape as well as any material referencing classified information -- like meeting notes, audio recordings or copies of the document -- that may still be Trump's possession.
The fact that Trump's team was unable to produce the document underscores the challenges the government has faced in trying to recover classified material that Trump took when he left the White House and in understanding the movement of government records that Trump kept.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm I wonder who could possibly have this now. Maybe someone who has a lot of money and hates Iran? Who could it be….

“The sources say prosecutors made clear to Trump's attorneys after issuing the subpoena that they specifically wanted the Iran document he talked about on tape as well as any material referencing classified information -- like meeting notes, audio recordings or copies of the document -- that may still be Trump's possession.
The fact that Trump's team was unable to produce the document underscores the challenges the government has faced in trying to recover classified material that Trump took when he left the White House and in understanding the movement of government records that Trump kept.”

Ironically, whoever has it, let’s say, hypothetically, maybe it’s in Saudi Arabia, but whoever has it now is probably handling it with the gravity with which traitor Trump should have handled it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm I wonder who could possibly have this now. Maybe someone who has a lot of money and hates Iran? Who could it be….

“The sources say prosecutors made clear to Trump's attorneys after issuing the subpoena that they specifically wanted the Iran document he talked about on tape as well as any material referencing classified information -- like meeting notes, audio recordings or copies of the document -- that may still be Trump's possession.
The fact that Trump's team was unable to produce the document underscores the challenges the government has faced in trying to recover classified material that Trump took when he left the White House and in understanding the movement of government records that Trump kept.”

Ironically, whoever has it, let’s say, hypothetically, maybe it’s in Saudi Arabia, but whoever has it now is probably handling it with the gravity with which traitor Trump should have handled it.

I’m sure he sold it to the highest bidder because we all know how he rolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does any of this matter? If he wins, all of this disappears. He just has to stretch things out until election day. If he loses, then he becomes irrelevant regardless.

Do you think that one of the candidates under federal indictment for violation of the Espionage Act might sway a few swing voters?

The question is will it sway enough of them and enough of them in the right places to make it count in the Electoral College. I'm not convinced it will.

I mean, it kind of did in the midterms, though the Electoral College obviously didn’t come into play there. It also appears that enough Republicans died of covid that it may have changed the outcomes of several elections across the country and I don’t think long covid is going to stop slowly and quietly picking off people.

And I don’t think people enjoy dead women and fascism with a side of treachery and sedition.

I don't think most of the electorate processes it this way. But we'll see.

[Anonymous]

Trump lawyers seen going into DOJ this morning to meet with special counsel. GJ reconvenes on Thursday. Indictment very likely this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does any of this matter? If he wins, all of this disappears. He just has to stretch things out until election day. If he loses, then he becomes irrelevant regardless.

Do you think that one of the candidates under federal indictment for violation of the Espionage Act might sway a few swing voters?

The question is will it sway enough of them and enough of them in the right places to make it count in the Electoral College. I'm not convinced it will.

I mean, it kind of did in the midterms, though the Electoral College obviously didn’t come into play there. It also appears that enough Republicans died of covid that it may have changed the outcomes of several elections across the country and I don’t think long covid is going to stop slowly and quietly picking off people.

And I don’t think people enjoy dead women and fascism with a side of treachery and sedition.

I don't think most of the electorate processes it this way. But we'll see.

Women abort unhealthy fetuses to be able to have healthy children thereafter. If they die or are permanently injured by forced birth, their existing children don't do well, and there are no future children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump lawyers seen going into DOJ this morning to meet with special counsel. GJ reconvenes on Thursday. Indictment very likely this week.

Yep, Jack told his lawyers he’s going to the pokey:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump lawyers seen going into DOJ this morning to meet with special counsel. GJ reconvenes on Thursday. Indictment very likely this week.

Yep, Jack told his lawyers he’s going to the pokey:

I look forward to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump lawyers seen going into DOJ this morning to meet with special counsel. GJ reconvenes on Thursday. Indictment very likely this week.

Yep, Jack told his lawyers he’s going to the pokey:

This is your guy, GOP? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump lawyers seen going into DOJ this morning to meet with special counsel. GJ reconvenes on Thursday. Indictment very likely this week.

Yep, Jack told his lawyers he’s going to the pokey:

Omg still going on about the emails. 🙄

[Anonymous]

In 2001 Judicial Watch asked for the tapes Clinton had in his home recorded during his 8 years in office. The Bush DOJ refused to enforce the PRA and these tapes were never released nor are they in his library. Why thy double standards for Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2001 Judicial Watch asked for the tapes Clinton had in his home recorded during his 8 years in office. The Bush DOJ refused to enforce the PRA and these tapes were never released nor are they in his library. Why thy double standards for Trump?

Read:

https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/03/judge-wont-seize-bill-clinton-taylor-branch-audiotapes-116074

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2001 Judicial Watch asked for the tapes Clinton had in his home recorded during his 8 years in office. The Bush DOJ refused to enforce the PRA and these tapes were never released nor are they in his library. Why thy double standards for Trump?

"But he did it too!" is not a defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In 2001 Judicial Watch asked for the tapes Clinton had in his home recorded during his 8 years in office. The Bush DOJ refused to enforce the PRA and these tapes were never released nor are they in his library. Why thy double standards for Trump?

This has nothing to do with the PRA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 2001 Judicial Watch asked for the tapes Clinton had in his home recorded during his 8 years in office. The Bush DOJ refused to enforce the PRA and these tapes were never released nor are they in his library. Why thy double standards for Trump?

This has nothing to do with the PRA.

Wrong