Lock him up indictment FL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The indictment is online at NYtimes and it’s nuts. This mofo kept these secrets in a shower and on stage at Maralgo.

This photo is even worse than the shower and ballroom ones IMO.

Jesus; what a dump.

I agree

The people here are too evil and crooked to even care.

Even you guys aren’t stupid enough to think the cases are similar.

They aren't. Biden should never have removed classified documents, given he never had to power to declassify - ever. So finding them in his garage is worse. Removing the photo from this thread is an admission of that.

I'd really encourage you to read the full indictment. The Biden "case" and this one aren't remotely similar. In fact, none of the Trump charges involve the initial removal of the classified info. They only charged what he did after the subpoena.

They never are. Again, because you seem to be too dumb to understand. Biden should NEVER have had classified documents ANYWHERE in his home. EVER.

But Trump should have? The documents were taken to his home after he was no longer president. That was okay?

He had the power to declassify. Biden never had that power as VP or as a Senator.

But he didn’t declassify. He’s on tape saying that he didn’t.

According to a transcript that CNN exclusively obtained (LOL to that) THIS is what he said:

“ As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript.”

That’s not “I didn’t declassify documents”

You can read the indictment and the transcript of the audio tape. He is, post presidency, referring to a document in his possession that is classified, and because of that he cannot hand it over to the journalist even though he wants to.

CNN’s exclusive transcript? How about I hear the actual audio tape. Notice how they did not produce that. Just the transcript.

Can you link to the audio tape please?

The transcript is in the indictment. A legal filing.

Oh, and still waiting for you to share “the record” of Trump’s standing declassification order.

I asked for the actual recording, not the CNN version of it. Again, law means nothing with this crew. They falsified information to get a FISA for God’s sake. When on earth has the law mattered lately?

I was not the person talking about Trump’s standard declassification order. Sorry. But I did post the link to the letter. I mean, you are fine with a CNN transcript (exclusive!!) so that letter should suit you fine.

As if you'd trust or believe a link to an audio recording anyway.

The verbatim transcript of the recording is publicly available in the indictment, which anyone can download. This has been submitted to the court, so the special prosecutor has signed his name to this.

No one needs to trust CNN.

It’s a transcript. Now that we know the truth about Russiagate, there is nothing that can be trusted. Sorry.

Got it. The transcript is made up… because you say so. Great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The indictment is online at NYtimes and it’s nuts. This mofo kept these secrets in a shower and on stage at Maralgo.

This photo is even worse than the shower and ballroom ones IMO.

OMG - photos and newspapers. Hang him high

The indictment says the classified information in the photo has been removed. Perhaps it's the paper with the black bar across it.

The black bar!! That tells me EVERYTHING. Dear LORD, you people are completely gullible.

Again, so are you saying Trump didn’t have classified documents even though he turned some over later? Just trying to understand your thought process here.

My thought process, again, is that Obama, Biden, Pence and Clinton had them too. But somehow that’s “OK” and “Different”

Why were you insinuating that the boxes in the pictures didn’t have classified documents then? You seemed pretty focused on that.

Not focused, laughing at those who see closed boxes and a black bar and scream AHA! Please tell me how it was legal for Biden to have classified documents in his garage.

Okay, then why were you talking about the boxes so much and saying people were “gullible” for thinking there were classified documents in them? Do you agree that Trump had classified documents in his home?

Yep. The question is whether or not it was constitutional. If not, then he should share a cell with Biden, Clinton, Obama and Pence. You seem to be unconcerned about those individuals having classified documents in their homes as well.

Trump wasn’t indicted for accidentally having classified documents. He was indicted for refusing to return them, making other people hide them and lie about them, showing them to random people, and other insanely idiotic behavior. None of the other guys did stupid shit like Trump. Seek help. Walk away from the computer, phone, and TV for a while. You are completely losing your mind.

I see what you did there: “accidentally having them” So Biden ‘accidentally had’ classified documents relating to Ukraine/Burisma in his garage and at the Penn-Biden center, when he should never have been able to remove classified documents at all? And SO specific. Amazing how these documents were the ones that happened to be ‘accidentally’ in his possession.

Still not sure how this relates to your original insinuation that those pictures in Trump’s house weren’t boxes with classified documents in them.

I don’t have x-ray glasses to see what’s in the boxes. All I have is people, who have lied in the past, telling me that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The indictment is online at NYtimes and it’s nuts. This mofo kept these secrets in a shower and on stage at Maralgo.

This photo is even worse than the shower and ballroom ones IMO.

OMG - photos and newspapers. Hang him high

The indictment says the classified information in the photo has been removed. Perhaps it's the paper with the black bar across it.

The black bar!! That tells me EVERYTHING. Dear LORD, you people are completely gullible.

Again, so are you saying Trump didn’t have classified documents even though he turned some over later? Just trying to understand your thought process here.

My thought process, again, is that Obama, Biden, Pence and Clinton had them too. But somehow that’s “OK” and “Different”

Why were you insinuating that the boxes in the pictures didn’t have classified documents then? You seemed pretty focused on that.

Not focused, laughing at those who see closed boxes and a black bar and scream AHA! Please tell me how it was legal for Biden to have classified documents in his garage.

Okay, then why were you talking about the boxes so much and saying people were “gullible” for thinking there were classified documents in them? Do you agree that Trump had classified documents in his home?

Yep. The question is whether or not it was constitutional. If not, then he should share a cell with Biden, Clinton, Obama and Pence. You seem to be unconcerned about those individuals having classified documents in their homes as well.

Trump wasn’t indicted for accidentally having classified documents. He was indicted for refusing to return them, making other people hide them and lie about them, showing them to random people, and other insanely idiotic behavior. None of the other guys did stupid shit like Trump. Seek help. Walk away from the computer, phone, and TV for a while. You are completely losing your mind.

I see what you did there: “accidentally having them” So Biden ‘accidentally had’ classified documents relating to Ukraine/Burisma in his garage and at the Penn-Biden center, when he should never have been able to remove classified documents at all? And SO specific. Amazing how these documents were the ones that happened to be ‘accidentally’ in his possession.

Still not sure how this relates to your original insinuation that those pictures in Trump’s house weren’t boxes with classified documents in them.

I don’t have x-ray glasses to see what’s in the boxes. All I have is people, who have lied in the past, telling me that.

Okay, so you think they lied in a court filing? And to a grand jury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The left always has a plan

OMFG are you seriously trying to distract from Donald Trump’s crimes by reminding us of Clarence Thomas’s unethical behavior and crimes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The indictment is online at NYtimes and it’s nuts. This mofo kept these secrets in a shower and on stage at Maralgo.

This photo is even worse than the shower and ballroom ones IMO.

Jesus; what a dump.

I agree

The people here are too evil and crooked to even care.

Even you guys aren’t stupid enough to think the cases are similar.

They aren't. Biden should never have removed classified documents, given he never had to power to declassify - ever. So finding them in his garage is worse. Removing the photo from this thread is an admission of that.

I'd really encourage you to read the full indictment. The Biden "case" and this one aren't remotely similar. In fact, none of the Trump charges involve the initial removal of the classified info. They only charged what he did after the subpoena.

They never are. Again, because you seem to be too dumb to understand. Biden should NEVER have had classified documents ANYWHERE in his home. EVER.

But Trump should have? The documents were taken to his home after he was no longer president. That was okay?

He had the power to declassify. Biden never had that power as VP or as a Senator.

But he didn’t declassify. He’s on tape saying that he didn’t.

According to a transcript that CNN exclusively obtained (LOL to that) THIS is what he said:

“ As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript.”

That’s not “I didn’t declassify documents”

You can read the indictment and the transcript of the audio tape. He is, post presidency, referring to a document in his possession that is classified, and because of that he cannot hand it over to the journalist even though he wants to.

CNN’s exclusive transcript? How about I hear the actual audio tape. Notice how they did not produce that. Just the transcript.

Can you link to the audio tape please?

The transcript is in the indictment. A legal filing.

Oh, and still waiting for you to share “the record” of Trump’s standing declassification order.

I asked for the actual recording, not the CNN version of it. Again, law means nothing with this crew. They falsified information to get a FISA for God’s sake. When on earth has the law mattered lately?

I was not the person talking about Trump’s standard declassification order. Sorry. But I did post the link to the letter. I mean, you are fine with a CNN transcript (exclusive!!) so that letter should suit you fine.

As if you'd trust or believe a link to an audio recording anyway.

The verbatim transcript of the recording is publicly available in the indictment, which anyone can download. This has been submitted to the court, so the special prosecutor has signed his name to this.

No one needs to trust CNN.

It’s a transcript. Now that we know the truth about Russiagate, there is nothing that can be trusted. Sorry.

Got it. The transcript is made up… because you say so. Great!

If they can’t produce the actual tape as evidence, instead of a transcript, then I have to believe there’s something amiss. Because a tape that good? You use THAT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The indictment is online at NYtimes and it’s nuts. This mofo kept these secrets in a shower and on stage at Maralgo.

This photo is even worse than the shower and ballroom ones IMO.

OMG - photos and newspapers. Hang him high

The indictment says the classified information in the photo has been removed. Perhaps it's the paper with the black bar across it.

The black bar!! That tells me EVERYTHING. Dear LORD, you people are completely gullible.

Again, so are you saying Trump didn’t have classified documents even though he turned some over later? Just trying to understand your thought process here.

My thought process, again, is that Obama, Biden, Pence and Clinton had them too. But somehow that’s “OK” and “Different”

Why were you insinuating that the boxes in the pictures didn’t have classified documents then? You seemed pretty focused on that.

Not focused, laughing at those who see closed boxes and a black bar and scream AHA! Please tell me how it was legal for Biden to have classified documents in his garage.

Okay, then why were you talking about the boxes so much and saying people were “gullible” for thinking there were classified documents in them? Do you agree that Trump had classified documents in his home?

Yep. The question is whether or not it was constitutional. If not, then he should share a cell with Biden, Clinton, Obama and Pence. You seem to be unconcerned about those individuals having classified documents in their homes as well.

Trump wasn’t indicted for accidentally having classified documents. He was indicted for refusing to return them, making other people hide them and lie about them, showing them to random people, and other insanely idiotic behavior. None of the other guys did stupid shit like Trump. Seek help. Walk away from the computer, phone, and TV for a while. You are completely losing your mind.

I see what you did there: “accidentally having them” So Biden ‘accidentally had’ classified documents relating to Ukraine/Burisma in his garage and at the Penn-Biden center, when he should never have been able to remove classified documents at all? And SO specific. Amazing how these documents were the ones that happened to be ‘accidentally’ in his possession.

Still not sure how this relates to your original insinuation that those pictures in Trump’s house weren’t boxes with classified documents in them.

I don’t have x-ray glasses to see what’s in the boxes. All I have is people, who have lied in the past, telling me that.

Okay, so you think they lied in a court filing? And to a grand jury?

And you think the grand jury, who saw a lot more evidence than you did, believed them, even though the lie is so very obvious. Is that what happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The indictment is online at NYtimes and it’s nuts. This mofo kept these secrets in a shower and on stage at Maralgo.

This photo is even worse than the shower and ballroom ones IMO.

Jesus; what a dump.

I agree

The people here are too evil and crooked to even care.

Even you guys aren’t stupid enough to think the cases are similar.

They aren't. Biden should never have removed classified documents, given he never had to power to declassify - ever. So finding them in his garage is worse. Removing the photo from this thread is an admission of that.

I'd really encourage you to read the full indictment. The Biden "case" and this one aren't remotely similar. In fact, none of the Trump charges involve the initial removal of the classified info. They only charged what he did after the subpoena.

They never are. Again, because you seem to be too dumb to understand. Biden should NEVER have had classified documents ANYWHERE in his home. EVER.

But Trump should have? The documents were taken to his home after he was no longer president. That was okay?

He had the power to declassify. Biden never had that power as VP or as a Senator.

But he didn’t declassify. He’s on tape saying that he didn’t.

According to a transcript that CNN exclusively obtained (LOL to that) THIS is what he said:

“ As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript.”

That’s not “I didn’t declassify documents”

You can read the indictment and the transcript of the audio tape. He is, post presidency, referring to a document in his possession that is classified, and because of that he cannot hand it over to the journalist even though he wants to.

CNN’s exclusive transcript? How about I hear the actual audio tape. Notice how they did not produce that. Just the transcript.

Can you link to the audio tape please?

The transcript is in the indictment. A legal filing.

Oh, and still waiting for you to share “the record” of Trump’s standing declassification order.

I asked for the actual recording, not the CNN version of it. Again, law means nothing with this crew. They falsified information to get a FISA for God’s sake. When on earth has the law mattered lately?

I was not the person talking about Trump’s standard declassification order. Sorry. But I did post the link to the letter. I mean, you are fine with a CNN transcript (exclusive!!) so that letter should suit you fine.

As if you'd trust or believe a link to an audio recording anyway.

The verbatim transcript of the recording is publicly available in the indictment, which anyone can download. This has been submitted to the court, so the special prosecutor has signed his name to this.

No one needs to trust CNN.

It’s a transcript. Now that we know the truth about Russiagate, there is nothing that can be trusted. Sorry.

Got it. The transcript is made up… because you say so. Great!

If they can’t produce the actual tape as evidence, instead of a transcript, then I have to believe there’s something amiss. Because a tape that good? You use THAT

How do you put a tape in a printed court filing? Indictments don’t have tapes attached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The indictment is online at NYtimes and it’s nuts. This mofo kept these secrets in a shower and on stage at Maralgo.

This photo is even worse than the shower and ballroom ones IMO.

Jesus; what a dump.

I agree

The people here are too evil and crooked to even care.

Even you guys aren’t stupid enough to think the cases are similar.

They aren't. Biden should never have removed classified documents, given he never had to power to declassify - ever. So finding them in his garage is worse. Removing the photo from this thread is an admission of that.

I'd really encourage you to read the full indictment. The Biden "case" and this one aren't remotely similar. In fact, none of the Trump charges involve the initial removal of the classified info. They only charged what he did after the subpoena.

They never are. Again, because you seem to be too dumb to understand. Biden should NEVER have had classified documents ANYWHERE in his home. EVER.

But Trump should have? The documents were taken to his home after he was no longer president. That was okay?

He had the power to declassify. Biden never had that power as VP or as a Senator.

But he didn’t declassify. He’s on tape saying that he didn’t.

According to a transcript that CNN exclusively obtained (LOL to that) THIS is what he said:

“ As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript.”

That’s not “I didn’t declassify documents”

You can read the indictment and the transcript of the audio tape. He is, post presidency, referring to a document in his possession that is classified, and because of that he cannot hand it over to the journalist even though he wants to.

CNN’s exclusive transcript? How about I hear the actual audio tape. Notice how they did not produce that. Just the transcript.

Can you link to the audio tape please?

The transcript is in the indictment. A legal filing.

Oh, and still waiting for you to share “the record” of Trump’s standing declassification order.

I asked for the actual recording, not the CNN version of it. Again, law means nothing with this crew. They falsified information to get a FISA for God’s sake. When on earth has the law mattered lately?

I was not the person talking about Trump’s standard declassification order. Sorry. But I did post the link to the letter. I mean, you are fine with a CNN transcript (exclusive!!) so that letter should suit you fine.

As if you'd trust or believe a link to an audio recording anyway.

The verbatim transcript of the recording is publicly available in the indictment, which anyone can download. This has been submitted to the court, so the special prosecutor has signed his name to this.

No one needs to trust CNN.

It’s a transcript. Now that we know the truth about Russiagate, there is nothing that can be trusted. Sorry.

Got it. The transcript is made up… because you say so. Great!

If they can’t produce the actual tape as evidence, instead of a transcript, then I have to believe there’s something amiss. Because a tape that good? You use THAT

Holy crap. The ignorance.

I’m sure the prosecution will have the jury hear the tapes. The grand jury probably already heard them. And the people he was talking to on the tapes probably provided testimony verifying the tapes were real.

But keep dreaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The indictment is online at NYtimes and it’s nuts. This mofo kept these secrets in a shower and on stage at Maralgo.

This photo is even worse than the shower and ballroom ones IMO.

Jesus; what a dump.

I agree

The people here are too evil and crooked to even care.

Even you guys aren’t stupid enough to think the cases are similar.

They aren't. Biden should never have removed classified documents, given he never had to power to declassify - ever. So finding them in his garage is worse. Removing the photo from this thread is an admission of that.

I'd really encourage you to read the full indictment. The Biden "case" and this one aren't remotely similar. In fact, none of the Trump charges involve the initial removal of the classified info. They only charged what he did after the subpoena.

They never are. Again, because you seem to be too dumb to understand. Biden should NEVER have had classified documents ANYWHERE in his home. EVER.

But Trump should have? The documents were taken to his home after he was no longer president. That was okay?

He had the power to declassify. Biden never had that power as VP or as a Senator.

But he didn’t declassify. He’s on tape saying that he didn’t.

According to a transcript that CNN exclusively obtained (LOL to that) THIS is what he said:

“ As president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t,” Trump says, according to the transcript.”

That’s not “I didn’t declassify documents”

You can read the indictment and the transcript of the audio tape. He is, post presidency, referring to a document in his possession that is classified, and because of that he cannot hand it over to the journalist even though he wants to.

CNN’s exclusive transcript? How about I hear the actual audio tape. Notice how they did not produce that. Just the transcript.

Can you link to the audio tape please?

The transcript is in the indictment. A legal filing.

Oh, and still waiting for you to share “the record” of Trump’s standing declassification order.

I asked for the actual recording, not the CNN version of it. Again, law means nothing with this crew. They falsified information to get a FISA for God’s sake. When on earth has the law mattered lately?

I was not the person talking about Trump’s standard declassification order. Sorry. But I did post the link to the letter. I mean, you are fine with a CNN transcript (exclusive!!) so that letter should suit you fine.

As if you'd trust or believe a link to an audio recording anyway.

The verbatim transcript of the recording is publicly available in the indictment, which anyone can download. This has been submitted to the court, so the special prosecutor has signed his name to this.

No one needs to trust CNN.

It’s a transcript. Now that we know the truth about Russiagate, there is nothing that can be trusted. Sorry.

Got it. The transcript is made up… because you say so. Great!

If they can’t produce the actual tape as evidence, instead of a transcript, then I have to believe there’s something amiss. Because a tape that good? You use THAT

How do you put a tape in a printed court filing? Indictments don’t have tapes attached.

I suspect they will play the recording in court, right? Because they have it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

I was asking about Trump’s DOJ. Did they break the law when they lost SCOTUS cases? That’s what you said Jack Smith did. Can you distinguish the two situations for me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

I was asking about Trump’s DOJ. Did they break the law when they lost SCOTUS cases? That’s what you said Jack Smith did. Can you distinguish the two situations for me?

Just to add, Trump specifically lost SCOTUS cases on constitutional grounds. I want to know how those situations were different. Did the lawyers who tried/argued those cases “break the law”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

I was asking about Trump’s DOJ. Did they break the law when they lost SCOTUS cases? That’s what you said Jack Smith did. Can you distinguish the two situations for me?

It’s not about losing cases It’s about why the cases were lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omfg please read the indictment. When you can tell me what the charges are, come back. Otherwise stop repeating nonsense you heard from Mark Levin.

Again, the indictment is from the same person who had a guilty verdict overturned unanimously by the SC. Not so good a track record there. Seems he breaks the law to prosecute.

Losing a case isn’t breaking the law

When the SC overturns your verdict because you prosecuted unconstitutionally, you broke the law.

That case wasn’t decided on constitutional grounds though.

Constitution is law. Do you deny that?

Not all laws are the Constitution. Please tell me, according to the Supreme Court, which portion of the Constitution was violated in that case?

“ “There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns,” Roberts wrote. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

“ In writing the court’s unanimous ruling, Roberts agreed that the government and the lower courts took too broad a view of when a politician’s actions can be considered nefarious.”

Which part of that mentions the constitution?

The ‘boundless interpretation’ and ‘broad view’ part.

In what way does that implicate the constitution? Can you tell me which clause or amendment? Thx.

I’m completely wrong. There is no reference to the Constitution. The unanimous decision should be immediately overturned. Please petition the SC to have this corrected because there’s NO WAY this ruling is correct without a clause or amendment.

“ What are the limits of a government official’s conduct being considered an “official action,” and what implications do these limits have on jury instruction and the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute?”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/15-474

So, you agree then that Jack Smith didn’t “commit a crime” by losing before the Supreme Court? Good! Then that eliminates your reason for not trusting the indictment. Great! Will you go read it it now?

I just gave you the Cornell interpretation speaking of the constitutionality of the Hobbs act. Fail on your part. So now you are switching by claiming I said that Smith “committed a crime”. I didn’t say that. I said he broke the law (which he clearly did if the case was unanimously overturned) by too liberally interpreting the federal bribery statute. And that’s what he is also doing in this indictment. Repeating the same ‘mistake’.

Trump’s DOJ lost some SCOTUS cases too. Did they “break the law” by doing that?? Should they be in jail???

Poor dear. Admit defeat

I’m serious. Did they “break the law” by losing those cases? Answer the question.

I already did. I stated that if they hadn’t broken constitutional law by broadly and boundlessly interpreting the federal bribery statute. Read the Cornell interpretation. The SC overturned the conviction because (wait for it) they broke the law. You are trying to compare every case lost in the SC court to this one. They are all different, every case, so your question is not relevant. Smith’s prior case being overturned because he played fast and loose with the law is relevant because he’s again, playing fast and loose with the law.

I was asking about Trump’s DOJ. Did they break the law when they lost SCOTUS cases? That’s what you said Jack Smith did. Can you distinguish the two situations for me?

Just to add, Trump specifically lost SCOTUS cases on constitutional grounds. I want to know how those situations were different. Did the lawyers who tried/argued those cases “break the law”?

Please give me a case