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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reported last night that a witness in the Trump tape (one of the people in the room) stated under oath that Trump did not show classified documents to them.

Citation?

It was in a news report and similar news reports are now stating that the tape probably won’t be played for a jury. Why not? I mean it’s bombshell evidence sure to take Trump down, right? Am I going to spend hours (due to heavily biased search algorithms looking for that same article where the line was buried way down in paragraphs? No. But you can certainly do so.

They know if the jury hears that tape, the defense will call the witness who testified under oath. So they leaked it instead.

Well, if some article you can't find from some source you can't remember said it, it must be true.

Why not play the bombshell tape for the jury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reported last night that a witness in the Trump tape (one of the people in the room) stated under oath that Trump did not show classified documents to them.

Citation?

It was in a news report and similar news reports are now stating that the tape probably won’t be played for a jury. Why not? I mean it’s bombshell evidence sure to take Trump down, right? Am I going to spend hours (due to heavily biased search algorithms looking for that same article where the line was buried way down in paragraphs? No. But you can certainly do so.

They know if the jury hears that tape, the defense will call the witness who testified under oath. So they leaked it instead.

It was a CBS article, I remember that much

Find it and post it, or it never happened, except in your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reported last night that a witness in the Trump tape (one of the people in the room) stated under oath that Trump did not show classified documents to them.

Citation?

It was in a news report and similar news reports are now stating that the tape probably won’t be played for a jury. Why not? I mean it’s bombshell evidence sure to take Trump down, right? Am I going to spend hours (due to heavily biased search algorithms looking for that same article where the line was buried way down in paragraphs? No. But you can certainly do so.

They know if the jury hears that tape, the defense will call the witness who testified under oath. So they leaked it instead.

It was a CBS article, I remember that much

It’s probably Catherine Herridge’s stupid ish. Already being discussed in the Florida indictment thread here: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1350/1137419.page This thread is for the rest of the investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reported last night that a witness in the Trump tape (one of the people in the room) stated under oath that Trump did not show classified documents to them.

Citation?

It was in a news report and similar news reports are now stating that the tape probably won’t be played for a jury. Why not? I mean it’s bombshell evidence sure to take Trump down, right? Am I going to spend hours (due to heavily biased search algorithms looking for that same article where the line was buried way down in paragraphs? No. But you can certainly do so.

They know if the jury hears that tape, the defense will call the witness who testified under oath. So they leaked it instead.

It was a CBS article, I remember that much

Find it and post it, or it never happened, except in your mind.

Fair enough. Why not play the tape for the jury?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reported last night that a witness in the Trump tape (one of the people in the room) stated under oath that Trump did not show classified documents to them.

Citation?

It was in a news report and similar news reports are now stating that the tape probably won’t be played for a jury. Why not? I mean it’s bombshell evidence sure to take Trump down, right? Am I going to spend hours (due to heavily biased search algorithms looking for that same article where the line was buried way down in paragraphs? No. But you can certainly do so.

They know if the jury hears that tape, the defense will call the witness who testified under oath. So they leaked it instead.

It was a CBS article, I remember that much

Find it and post it, or it never happened, except in your mind.

Fair enough. Why not play the tape for the jury?

Why do you think they won't?

[Anonymous]

Is this set in stone, that the tape won't be played for the jury?

I thought they could decide that later, as events unfold. I am sure there is more than one witness to this tape investigation, and maybe they didn't all agree... I suppose it will come down to the definition of "showed". Trump probably waived the papers about at the table, and from where they were sitting, maybe the witnesses couldn't read the text. But maybe one witness did notice that it had classified markings. Or not. We'll know more later, I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Is this set in stone, that the tape won't be played for the jury?

I thought they could decide that later, as events unfold. I am sure there is more than one witness to this tape investigation, and maybe they didn't all agree... I suppose it will come down to the definition of "showed". Trump probably waived the papers about at the table, and from where they were sitting, maybe the witnesses couldn't read the text. But maybe one witness did notice that it had classified markings. Or not. We'll know more later, I suppose.

Even if the witness says "I was not shown a classified doc", that can mean a number of things. That the doc was not classified, even though it was not supposed to be shown to the witness, or that it was, but the witness was not aware of it. Or that the witness is lying, or that the witness has a particular definition of the word "showed".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Is this set in stone, that the tape won't be played for the jury?

I thought they could decide that later, as events unfold. I am sure there is more than one witness to this tape investigation, and maybe they didn't all agree... I suppose it will come down to the definition of "showed". Trump probably waived the papers about at the table, and from where they were sitting, maybe the witnesses couldn't read the text. But maybe one witness did notice that it had classified markings. Or not. We'll know more later, I suppose.

In the tape there was something like Trump saying "here, see?" and then some rustling... and after a moment, someone says something like "wow."

That, to me, conveys that Trump actually showed the document. How do you say "see" and then not show? How do you reply "wow" in confirmation to something that was not shown and not otherwise verbally conveyed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is this set in stone, that the tape won't be played for the jury?

I thought they could decide that later, as events unfold. I am sure there is more than one witness to this tape investigation, and maybe they didn't all agree... I suppose it will come down to the definition of "showed". Trump probably waived the papers about at the table, and from where they were sitting, maybe the witnesses couldn't read the text. But maybe one witness did notice that it had classified markings. Or not. We'll know more later, I suppose.

Even if the witness says "I was not shown a classified doc", that can mean a number of things. That the doc was not classified, even though it was not supposed to be shown to the witness, or that it was, but the witness was not aware of it. Or that the witness is lying, or that the witness has a particular definition of the word "showed".

Wasn't it theoretically a conceptual battle plan for Iran if something triggered a war? How would that not be classified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course he is. He’s being paid to jail Trump for the rest of his life

He is being paid to prosecute crimes. If Trump is found guilty of said crimes and he spends the rest of his life in jail, then justice is a b***h.

Are you suggesting he is above the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is this set in stone, that the tape won't be played for the jury?

I thought they could decide that later, as events unfold. I am sure there is more than one witness to this tape investigation, and maybe they didn't all agree... I suppose it will come down to the definition of "showed". Trump probably waived the papers about at the table, and from where they were sitting, maybe the witnesses couldn't read the text. But maybe one witness did notice that it had classified markings. Or not. We'll know more later, I suppose.

Even if the witness says "I was not shown a classified doc", that can mean a number of things. That the doc was not classified, even though it was not supposed to be shown to the witness, or that it was, but the witness was not aware of it. Or that the witness is lying, or that the witness has a particular definition of the word "showed".

Wasn't it theoretically a conceptual battle plan for Iran if something triggered a war? How would that not be classified?

It was, and two sources confirm its significance: Trump's own words, and Meadows' own book, recounting the exact same scene.
This makes Trump defense stuck between a rock and a hard place, because either they argue Trump lied about what he was holding in his hand, Trump was confused, or Trump did share a national defense doc, which is illegal. NONE of these three scenarios make him electable.

Also, while Trump is not currently charged with holding this particular document, I have no doubt that he will be shortly. Everything points to Jack Smith preparing an indictment for the New Jersey Bedminster stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reported last night that a witness in the Trump tape (one of the people in the room) stated under oath that Trump did not show classified documents to them.

Citation?

It was in a news report and similar news reports are now stating that the tape probably won’t be played for a jury. Why not? I mean it’s bombshell evidence sure to take Trump down, right? Am I going to spend hours (due to heavily biased search algorithms looking for that same article where the line was buried way down in paragraphs? No. But you can certainly do so.

They know if the jury hears that tape, the defense will call the witness who testified under oath. So they leaked it instead.

So prosecutors had that tape for months and there was no leak. Trump’s team is given the evidence last week and it’s leaked and you think prosecutors leaked it? Who benefited? Trump is claiming the tape proves his case. And your conclusion is that prosecutors leaked it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reported last night that a witness in the Trump tape (one of the people in the room) stated under oath that Trump did not show classified documents to them.

Citation?

It was in a news report and similar news reports are now stating that the tape probably won’t be played for a jury. Why not? I mean it’s bombshell evidence sure to take Trump down, right? Am I going to spend hours (due to heavily biased search algorithms looking for that same article where the line was buried way down in paragraphs? No. But you can certainly do so.

They know if the jury hears that tape, the defense will call the witness who testified under oath. So they leaked it instead.

It was a CBS article, I remember that much

Find it and post it, or it never happened, except in your mind.

Fair enough. Why not play the tape for the jury?

Why do you think they won't?

Because they said they won’t

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reported last night that a witness in the Trump tape (one of the people in the room) stated under oath that Trump did not show classified documents to them.

Citation?

It was in a news report and similar news reports are now stating that the tape probably won’t be played for a jury. Why not? I mean it’s bombshell evidence sure to take Trump down, right? Am I going to spend hours (due to heavily biased search algorithms looking for that same article where the line was buried way down in paragraphs? No. But you can certainly do so.

They know if the jury hears that tape, the defense will call the witness who testified under oath. So they leaked it instead.

It was a CBS article, I remember that much

Find it and post it, or it never happened, except in your mind.

Fair enough. Why not play the tape for the jury?

Why do you think they won't?

Because they said they won’t

Who said they wouldn’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reported last night that a witness in the Trump tape (one of the people in the room) stated under oath that Trump did not show classified documents to them.

Citation?

It was in a news report and similar news reports are now stating that the tape probably won’t be played for a jury. Why not? I mean it’s bombshell evidence sure to take Trump down, right? Am I going to spend hours (due to heavily biased search algorithms looking for that same article where the line was buried way down in paragraphs? No. But you can certainly do so.

They know if the jury hears that tape, the defense will call the witness who testified under oath. So they leaked it instead.

It was a CBS article, I remember that much

Find it and post it, or it never happened, except in your mind.

Fair enough. Why not play the tape for the jury?

Why do you think they won't?

Because they said they won’t

Who, where and when?