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

[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

No they didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What exactly do you think prosecutors do for a living?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What exactly do you think prosecutors do for a living?

That Republican usually bays that prosecutors are not sufficiently “tough on crime.”

[Anonymous]

Prosecutor: “If he wasn’t showing you a classified document, then why did you say it was the same as the classified documents that you believe Hillary Clinton mishandled?”

[Anonymous]

[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.

Jack Smith has Trump dead to rights are withholding documents and obstruction. He doesn’t need to muddy the case a new charge that Trump may of may have not shared classified docs.

[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.

Jack Smith has Trump dead to rights are withholding documents and obstruction. He doesn’t need to muddy the case a new charge that Trump may of may have not shared classified docs.

The key part of the tape wrt the Florida case is that he knew he had secret documents and they weren’t declassified. It’s not relevant to dissemination since that took place in New Jersey.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm super skeptical about this story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm super skeptical about this story.

What aspect of that sounds unlikely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm super skeptical about this story.

What aspect of that sounds unlikely?

The first clue is that his “sources” are talking about a superseding indictment in other venues, which is not a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm super skeptical about this story.

What aspect of that sounds unlikely?

The first clue is that his “sources” are talking about a superseding indictment in other venues, which is not a thing.

This is not some RWNJ. Those guys always lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm super skeptical about this story.

What aspect of that sounds unlikely?

The first clue is that his “sources” are talking about a superseding indictment in other venues, which is not a thing.

This is not some RWNJ. Those guys always lie.

I don’t know anything about the reporter. But his story doesn’t make sense from a legal standpoint, which makes me question his story and sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm super skeptical about this story.

What aspect of that sounds unlikely?

The first clue is that his “sources” are talking about a superseding indictment in other venues, which is not a thing.

This is not some RWNJ. Those guys always lie.

I don’t know anything about the reporter. But his story doesn’t make sense from a legal standpoint, which makes me question his story and sources.

What would be the correct legal jargon for further indictments? Because we know some of his lawyers are in trouble, and we know there are charges against Trump unfolding in New Jersey.

So…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm super skeptical about this story.

What aspect of that sounds unlikely?

The first clue is that his “sources” are talking about a superseding indictment in other venues, which is not a thing.

This is not some RWNJ. Those guys always lie.

I don’t know anything about the reporter. But his story doesn’t make sense from a legal standpoint, which makes me question his story and sources.

What would be the correct legal jargon for further indictments? Because we know some of his lawyers are in trouble, and we know there are charges against Trump unfolding in New Jersey.

So…

Just new indictments. A superseding indictment is one of the same person by the same grand jury.