You knew it was going to happen....

[SqueakyClean]

Well, isn't that interesting. So Trump is allegedly showing a classified document to his friends and he's not even being charged with having the document?

Oh, and all those boxes that were shown in the bathroom and other places? Well, there were less than 100 classified docs. So, once again, the prosecutor is telling a false story with his leaks and pictures.

How many classified documents did the FBI seize from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago?

A breakdown of the documents contained in boxes seized by the FBI during the search of Mar-a-Lago on 8 August

www.independent.co.uk

If I understand the timeline correctly, the meeting on the audio tape occurred in July of 2021. In January of 2022, Trump sent back some of his boxes (which included 197 classified documents). It is very possible that the classified document that Trump was showing off in the meeting was included in the material that was sent back. That doesn't mean that it was not illegal to show them to random reporters.

Again, my understanding is that Trump is only being charged for 31 counts of document retention, which is specific to some of the documents that were found in the raid. If he had turned everything over in June of 2022 (when he had been issued a subpoena for them), he probably would not have been charged with anything.

 

[Ohio Guy]

I have absolutely no interest in defending Hunter Biden.

No one does. It's such a weird counter "argument" to keep bringing up Hunter Biden in threads here. Everytime his name is brought up, literally everyone who replies says that if Hunter is guilty of something, he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. No one cries about a political targeting, unfairly being singled out or even that he's remotely innocent. The first person who dies on the hill saying Hunter Biden shouldn't be prosecuted for legit crimes he may have committed will be the first. At least as far as I've seen.

It's almost like being on the basketball forum and talking about something like IU not being a good three point shooting team and saying Woodson should recruit more three point shooters. Then you scratch your head when someone's counter argument is that Fran McCaffery broke some NCAA rule and must be punished.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It's hard to watch, and it underscores my post 27.

You are hilarious. You write a post saying things like "bravado" defense; orange enemy of American democracy; blueprint now for gaslighting; this asshole; autocrat wannabes; tens of millions of really stupid people in this country; fvcking frightening; and want to be taken seriously? In your dreams.

 

[Bowlmania]

You are hilarious. You write a post saying things like "bravado" defense; orange enemy of American democracy; blueprint now for gaslighting; this asshole; autocrat wannabes; tens of millions of really stupid people in this country; fvcking frightening; and want to be taken seriously? In your dreams.

I honestly feel sorry for you. I hope this doesn't happen to me when I get old.

 

[SqueakyClean]

If I understand the timeline correctly, the meeting on the audio tape occurred in July of 2021. In January of 2022, Trump sent back some of his boxes (which included 197 classified documents). It is very possible that the classified document that Trump was showing off in the meeting was included in the material that was sent back. That doesn't mean that it was not illegal to show them to random reporters.

Again, my understanding is that Trump is only being charged for 31 counts of document retention, which is specific to some of the documents that were found in the raid. If he had turned everything over in June of 2022 (when he had been issued a subpoena for them), he probably would not have been charged with anything.

And in addition:
I'm not really sure that the audio tape is being used as evidence of a particular crime (or if it is, only one of the 37 counts). I believe it is being used as more of evidence of Trumps mind-set. For the last 10 months since the raid, Trump has been throwing every excuse he can think of against the wall to see if anything sticks.

I've seen various versions of (paraphrasing):

"The documents were not classified, I declassified them before I left."
"I just have to think it and they are declassified"
"The documents were secure behind a locked door"
"Nobody knew they were there"

The audio tape refutes all of that. It is a tape of him admitting that A) The documents were still classified, B) He no longer had the ability to declassify them, C) He is presenting them in a non-secured location, and D) Is literally telling REPORTERS that he had them.

 

[DANC]

If I understand the timeline correctly, the meeting on the audio tape occurred in July of 2021. In January of 2022, Trump sent back some of his boxes (which included 197 classified documents). It is very possible that the classified document that Trump was showing off in the meeting was included in the material that was sent back. That doesn't mean that it was not illegal to show them to random reporters.

Again, my understanding is that Trump is only being charged for 31 counts of document retention, which is specific to some of the documents that were found in the raid. If he had turned everything over in June of 2022 (when he had been issued a subpoena for them), he probably would not have been charged with anything.

Could be. It also shows that Trump was working with the National Archives to turn over classified documents at the time the subpoena was issued. The FBI was there previously and told them to put another lock on the door, which was done.

This entire situation is sparked by the coming election in 2022 and the heat being turned up on Hunter as more evidence is exposed. And why wasn't Trump's lawyer allowed to accompany the FBI during their raid. Were they scared the woman would overpower them and make off with documents?

The entire thing stinks to high heaven and, with the lack of interesting in Hillary, Joe, and Mike having classified docs illegally shows what a joke it is.

 

[DANC]

And in addition:
I'm not really sure that the audio tape is being used as evidence of a particular crime (or if it is, only one of the 37 counts). I believe it is being used as more of evidence of Trumps mind-set. For the last 10 months since the raid, Trump has been throwing every excuse he can think of against the wall to see if anything sticks.

I've seen various versions of (paraphrasing):

"The documents were not classified, I declassified them before I left."
"I just have to think it and they are declassified"
"The documents were secure behind a locked door"
"Nobody knew they were there"

The audio tape refutes all of that. It is a tape of him admitting that A) The documents were still classified, B) He no longer had the ability to declassify them, C) He is presenting them in a non-secured location, and D) Is literally telling REPORTERS that he had them.

It's being used for public opinion. That's all.

In a trial, it's his word - and evidently a witness that was present - against the government's as far as was what he said is credible evidence or not.

 

[Ohio Guy]

And in addition:
I'm not really sure that the audio tape is being used as evidence of a particular crime (or if it is, only one of the 37 counts). I believe it is being used as more of evidence of Trumps mind-set. For the last 10 months since the raid, Trump has been throwing every excuse he can think of against the wall to see if anything sticks.

I've seen various versions of (paraphrasing):

"The documents were not classified, I declassified them before I left."
"I just have to think it and they are declassified"
"The documents were secure behind a locked door"
"Nobody knew they were there"

The audio tape refutes all of that. It is a tape of him admitting that A) The documents were still classified, B) He no longer had the ability to declassify them, C) He is presenting them in a non-secured location, and D) Is literally telling REPORTERS that he had them.

Through this lens, it would almost be helpful in the court of public opinion. You're never going to convince the most ardent, moronic Trump supporters that he's guilty of anything, but maybe some of them with some sense left will hear Trump in his own words and at least come to the conclusion that, 'wow, he 'effed up here.'

 

[SqueakyClean]

Could be. It also shows that Trump was working the the National Archives to turn over classified documents at the time the subpoena was issued. The FBI was there previously and told them to put another lock on the door, which was done.

The problem comes in the fact that Trump was concealing things from his lawyer. He is going to have to come up with a really good excuse for why he moved boxes out of the locked location (without his lawyers knowledge) and moved them to a different location.

This entire situation is sparked by the coming election in 2022 and the heat being turned up on Hunter as more evidence is exposed.

Possible, but extremely tough to prove.

And why wasn't Trump's lawyer allowed to accompany the FBI during their raid. Were they scared the woman would overpower them and make off with documents?

Because those same lawyers had just signed a document saying that all of the documents had been returned, which the FBI knew was a lie. In fairness, I'm pretty sure that some of the lawyers didn't know they were lying, but regardless of whether they knew the truth or not, the FBI can't trust them.

Also, I'm pretty sure that it is standard procedure to not allow witnesses to accompany a raid. They have to prevent raid-ees from having the ability to hide / destroy / steal any possible evidence. Sure, they could prevent her from running out the door with a box of documents, but would they be fast enough to keep her from grabbing a file folder and flushing it / shredding it? Could she swipe a thumb drive when they aren't looking? It's standard procedure so they don't even have to worry about any of those possibilities.

The entire thing stinks to high heaven and, with the lack of interesting in Hillary, Joe, and Mike having classified docs illegally shows what a joke it is.

As noted many times, it all comes down to the obstruction. If Trump can come up with good reasons as to why he was trying to keep people from getting access to the extra boxes that were recovered in the raid, he could potentially beat this. It's going to have to be pretty good though, because the timing of everything looks very bad.

 

[DANC]

The problem comes in the fact that Trump was concealing things from his lawyer. He is going to have to come up with a really good excuse for why he moved boxes out of the locked location (without his lawyers knowledge) and moved them to a different location.

According to his lawyers...... they wouldn't be covering their asses, would they?

Possible, but extremely tough to prove.


Because those same lawyers had just signed a document saying that all of the documents had been returned, which the FBI knew was a lie. In fairness, I'm pretty sure that some of the lawyers didn't know they were lying, but regardless of whether they knew the truth or not, the FBI can't trust them.

Also, I'm pretty sure that it is standard procedure to not allow witnesses to accompany a raid. They have to prevent raid-ees from having the ability to hide / destroy / steal any possible evidence. Sure, they could prevent her from running out the door with a box of documents, but would they be fast enough to keep her from grabbing a file folder and flushing it / shredding it? Could she swipe a thumb drive when they aren't looking? It's standard procedure so they don't even have to worry about any of those possibilities.

I hope you're not being serious. If they make her stand at the door, is she going to be quick enough to do any of that? Ridiculous. You're really reaching with this.

As noted many times, it all comes down to the obstruction. If Trump can come up with good reasons as to why he was trying to keep people from getting access to the extra boxes that were recovered in the raid, he could potentially beat this. It's going to have to be pretty good though, because the timing of everything looks very bad.

There's no evidence those documents were anywhere other than in the locked room. Hell, there were more boxes than there were classified documents.

 

[82hoosier]

The problem comes in the fact that Trump was concealing things from his lawyer. He is going to have to come up with a really good excuse for why he moved boxes out of the locked location (without his lawyers knowledge) and moved them to a different location.


Possible, but extremely tough to prove.


Because those same lawyers had just signed a document saying that all of the documents had been returned, which the FBI knew was a lie. In fairness, I'm pretty sure that some of the lawyers didn't know they were lying, but regardless of whether they knew the truth or not, the FBI can't trust them.

Also, I'm pretty sure that it is standard procedure to not allow witnesses to accompany a raid. They have to prevent raid-ees from having the ability to hide / destroy / steal any possible evidence. Sure, they could prevent her from running out the door with a box of documents, but would they be fast enough to keep her from grabbing a file folder and flushing it / shredding it? Could she swipe a thumb drive when they aren't looking? It's standard procedure so they don't even have to worry about any of those possibilities.



As noted many times, it all comes down to the obstruction. If Trump can come up with good reasons as to why he was trying to keep people from getting access to the extra boxes that were recovered in the raid, he could potentially beat this. It's going to have to be pretty good though, because the timing of everything looks very bad.

He did much more than conceal things from some of his lawyers. He asked his lawyers if they could just claim they had returned everything. And then he asked one of his lawyers if he would take the boxes and hide them in his hotel room.

 

[DANC]

He did much more than conceal things from some of his lawyers. He asked his lawyers if they could just claim they had returned everything. And then he asked one of his lawyers if he would take the boxes and hide them in his hotel room.

So is it a crime to ask your lawyer if you're doing something illegal now?

 

[Bowlmania]

In a trial, it's his word - and evidently a witness that was present - against the government's as far as was what he said is credible evidence or not.

This word salad makes no sense, and it's clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Trump's voice is on an audio recording. Once a proper foundation is laid and the recording is authenticated, it will be admissible as evidence - - credible evidence - - as it directly portrays what happened. "What happened" is Trump disclosed classified national defense information to people who were not authorized to receive it.

If it's not used in a separate indictment against Trump for illegal disclosure, it will be proffered by the prosecution in the Florida case as pertaining to Trump's state of mind.

To quote Trump's former Attorney General, "Trump is toast."

 

[SqueakyClean]

According to his lawyers...... they wouldn't be covering their asses, would they?

I hope you're not being serious. If they make her stand at the door, is she going to be quick enough to do any of that? Ridiculous. You're really reaching with this.

There's no evidence those documents were anywhere other than in the locked room. Hell, there were more boxes than there were classified documents.

1) They filed a document saying that the documents were returned. I guess you could make the argument that they did know that the classified documents still existed, knew that they had been moved / removed, created the document to the National Archives anyways, and now that they have been caught, are throwing Donald under the bus (and Donald did not have any knowledge of the boxes and didn't order Nauto to move them). That's ALOT to prove considering you've got witness testimony and the lawyers notes that indicate otherwise.

2) Why take the chance? The search team is going to be going through dozens of boxes, opening each file folder (it was noted that in the documents that were returned in January that some of the classified documents were interspersed with regular documents, haphazardly). They would not be able to watch her the entire time. Their noses are going to be buried in papers. Remember, we're talking about national security level information here. They are absolutely not going to leave any possibility of someone tampering with the evidence gathering process.

3) There are witness statements that the boxes were moved. Is that not evidence?

Something to bear in mind is that everything Trump says to the media will be used in the trial. Trump has a ...less than stellar reputation with regards to telling the truth, even if specifically limited to statements made about this case alone. His word alone is not going to be sufficient to prove that he was not trying to obstruct the process. He is going to need witnesses and documents that counter the narrative that has been set in the indictment.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Oh my God. This is a new low, even for you.

The "context" doesn't mean shit. The reason doesn't matter. He disclosed classified national defense information. That's a crime, ace.

Trump is referring to a document which he calls "highly confidential." He adds, "See as president I could have declassified it. Now I can't, you know, but this is still a secret."

This is a slam-dunk conviction.

CBS reported that document is not part of the charge . . . Ace.

 

[SqueakyClean]

CBS reported that document is not part of the charge . . . Ace.

See post #41.

 

[Bill4411]

See post #41.

I believe he was referring to Bowlmania.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I honestly feel sorry for you. I hope this doesn't happen to me when I get old.

Don’t worry. You’ll never be as smart as me even if you live to be 110.

 

[Bowlmania]

CBS reported that document is not part of the charge . . . Ace.

You need CBS to tell you that? Clear evidence that you didn't read the indictment, yet you're pontificating about the case. Too funny, ace.

No, Trump hasn't been charged with illegally disclosing the document. Not yet anyway. The facts support an indictment in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the statute hasn't run. It's also possible this is the feds' ace in the hole in the event that the Florida case goes bad (unlikely). Finally, it can serve as important "state of mind" evidence in the Florida case.

 

[Bowlmania]

Don’t worry. You’ll never be as smart as me even if you live to be 110.

Aren't you older than that?

 

[SqueakyClean]

I believe he was referring to Bowlmania.

Gotcha. And yes, I checked the indictment, he is not being charged for showing the documents. All 37 counts cover obstruction / retention.

Bowl is right that it is a crime, but Trump is not being charged for it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You need CBS to tell you that? Clear evidence that you didn't read the indictment, yet you're pontificating about the case. Too funny, ace.

No, Trump hasn't been charged with illegally disclosing the document. Not yet anyway. The facts support an indictment in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the statute hasn't run. It's also possible this is the feds' ace in the hole in the event that the Florida case goes bad (unlikely). Finally, it can serve as important "state of mind" evidence in the Florida case.

All of which makes the leak even more egregious.

Funny how only left wing media had access to this.

 

[Bowlmania]

All of which makes the leak even more egregious.

Funny how only left wing media had access to this.

I'd bet the farm that Trump is the "leaker." After all, he insists the recording exonerates him.

He leaked the news of his first indictment.

Maybe he leaked this as "John Miller" or "John Barron."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'd bet the farm that Trump is the "leaker." After all, he insists the recording exonerates him.

He leaked the news of his first indictment.

Maybe he leaked this as "John Miller" or "John Barron."

Yeah. We all know how tight Trump and CNN are.

 

[Bowlmania]

Yeah. We all know how tight Trump and CNN are.

But that's exactly it, CoH. It would throw everybody off. No one would suspect Trump. Pure genius!

And, of course, he would never do this as Donald Trump. He'd recycle an old alias or create a new one. More likely, he'd use a third party.

Let's remember too the transcript was already out there. We haven't learned anything new. We simply now have Trump's voice linked to the recording.

But wait. There may be a new defense coming. Maybe he'll claim it's not really his voice. Maybe it's James Austin Johnson of SNL or some other impersonator! Or AI!!! Yeah, AI!! Of course, it's likely that the staffer, writer and publisher have already been interviewed by the feds, so that defense will be tough.

What else you got, CoH? This is fun!

 

[DrHoops]

That's not the point. The government leaks like a sieve when they want to hang someone. And that's what's happening here.

It's all an attempt to sway a jury, and make it hard to find an objective one.

Well, when someone is showing random people plans for American military operations, you may be onto something. Former US Generals say this is incredibly serious. But what do you care? American generals are morons compared to Donald J. Trump.

 

[Bowlmania]

Well, when someone is showing random people plans of American military operations, you may be onto something. Former US Generals say this is incredibly serious. But what do you care. American generals are morons compared to Donald J. Trump.

View embedded media

You know what's amazing? CoH and the other like-minded guys here, almost to a man, insist that they really don't care much for Trump. Yet they come here every day tying themselves in knots in attempting to defend him, even when his conduct is indefensible.

There's already a crowded field for the Republican nomination, and I thought the Trump adoration might lessen as other options emerged. But clearly that's not the case.

It's a cult. No other explanation.

 

[DrHoops]

You know what's amazing? CoH and the other like-minded guys here, almost to a man, insist that they really don't care much for Trump. Yet they come here every day tying themselves in knots in attempting to defend him, even when his conduct is indefensible.

There's already a crowded field for the Republican nomination, and I thought the Trump adoration might lessen as other options emerged. But clearly that's not the case.

It's a cult. No other explanation.

Without question. It's like their pride is too hurt to admit that Trump is, and has always been a criminal and unfit for office.

When I see the loons interviewed at Trump rallies, I still can't see CO there, but I'm starting to think I may be wrong.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You know what's amazing? CoH and the other like-minded guys here, almost to a man, insist that they really don't care much for Trump. Yet they come here every day tying themselves in knots in attempting to defend him, even when his conduct is indefensible.

There's already a crowded field for the Republican nomination, and I thought the Trump adoration might lessen as other options emerged. But clearly that's not the case.

It's a cult. No other explanation.

It’s not amazing at all. I don’t care if trump is prosecuted or found guilty. But I do care a lot about how that is done. The Democrats turned the impeachment process into a sham. The intelligence officials disgraced themselves with that laptop letter. The media trashed itself with its Trump coverage and Biden coverups. TheFBI lied to theFISA court to get Trump. Comey broke the law and protocol with his nonsense. Now it appears the DOJ is highly selective with Trump prosecutions

In summary, all the institutions that should be national and world gold standards have tarnished themselves just for Trump. Maybe you think that is okay. But not me. And you disgrace yourself by thinking me pointing this out is defending Trump

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

It figures you wouldn't have a problem with leaks if it's Trump. But leaking is a bad thing otherwise, for you.

Why should I take a tape recording seriously when you don't take a Hunter transcript seriously?

Why not?

You take hellogoodbye seriously, don't you?

Or do you?

I don't

 

[DrHoops]

Why not?

You take hellogoodbye seriously, don't you?

Or do you?

I don't

Mas, do you still think Russia is winning when they're invading themselves?

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

You evidently have had your head in the sand. According to the transcripts, Hunter said Joe was sitting beside him when he was shaking down his Chinese contact for $5 million.

It does concern our national security and you couldn't care less. That's sad.

Think 'paycheck'.

 

[cosmickid]

It figures you wouldn't have a problem with leaks if it's Trump. But leaking is a bad thing otherwise, for you.

Why should I take a tape recording seriously when you don't take a Hunter transcript seriously?

Shall we address the hypocrisy inherent in this post?

The ultimate person who "leaked" this recording, and even brought it to the DOJ in the first place likely had first hand notice of it's existence and may have actually recorded it themself. Since it's audio it could easily have been recorded on a cell phone...That is something you have a problem with...

But on the other hand you have NO PROBLEM with the whole "Ashley Biden diary" episode... I'll refresh your memory... The daughter of a Presidential candidate is staying with a friend possibly renting a room which may have happened prior to her Dad even announcing a run for office.

At some point the daughter moves out and apparently leaves a few personal items with her friend for storage or whatever. Tax records,luggage,clothes and the diary- all clearly personal property. A new renter finds the items, peruses property that isn't hers,and contacts her boyfriend after examining the diary, which again is someone else's property...

They hatch a scheme to "sell" what does not belong to them, originally approach the Trump campaign who advise them to seek out an alternative route to release the info.

"Prosecutors said Harris then moved into the same room, found the items and got in touch with Kurlander, who enthused in a text message that he would help her make a “ton of money” from selling it, adding an expletive before “ton.”

2 plead guilty in scheme to sell Biden's daughter's diary

Two Florida residents have pleaded guilty in a scheme to peddle a diary and other items stolen from President Joe Biden’s daughter to the conservative group Project Veritas.

apnews.com

Conspiring to sell someone else's property after stealing it is a crime... Yet MAGA types from this board have continually referred to the supposed contents as "evidence"...

Harris and Kurlander proceed to transport the stolen property to NYC, and meet with Project Veritas. They sell the items to Project Veritas for $40,000, but PV asks for more verification, which means more rummaging by the two thru stolen property. decides not to publish the diary, because it can't be authenticated. Project Veritas ultimately is not satisfied that the diary is legitimate, but a sleazy PV employee passes the contents on to a wing nut site with less ethical qualms. And details obtained from stolen property become a topic of posts among various wingnuts, including members of this site...

And you have no problem with any of that. These two clowns plead guilty to Federal charges of transporing stolen property across state lines, as Project Veritas met with them in New York,after they travelled from the locaztion in FL. So either you support criminal activity or you want to maintain that the two idiots in question plead guilty when they had committed no crime?

Nothing at all like the OWNER of the Trump tape willingly making it known to the Govt, or to someone else who in turn informed the Govt...

Who else had it? It's common knowledge it was a government leak.

Talk about bad faith posting.

Common Knowledge? The Govt didn't make the recording, it was likely made by the author/reporter that was interviewing Trump for info for a biography of Meadows. How in the world do you think the Govt leaked it when they submitted it as evidence as part of the indictment? It occurred at Bedminster, and they likely used it at the Grand Jury as proof of Trump's willingness to retain and disclose classified information...

The Govt wasn't at the meeting in 2021 at Bedminster. Somebody that was either recorded the converstaion or knew it existed. Someone tipped off the Government to it's existence, probably alarmed by what they witnessed/heard.

 

[DrHoops]

Think 'paycheck'.

 

[cosmickid]

You evidently have had your head in the sand. According to the transcripts, Hunter said Joe was sitting beside him when he was shaking down his Chinese contact for $5 million.

It does concern our national security and you couldn't care less. That's sad.

Dude the supposed conversation occurred in fall 2017. If Joe Biden was there, he was a private citizen. In fact IIRC most of his activity at the time centered around his lecturing at the Penn Biden Center, essentially being a college professor.

How in the world is any of that criminal, much less a threat to national security as you maintained with your usual hyperbole?

 

[cosmickid]

Think 'paycheck'.

What Govt job did Biden hold in 2017? I'll hang up and wait for an answer...

 

[Bowlmania]

It’s not amazing at all. I don’t care if trump is prosecuted or found guilty. But I do care a lot about how that is done. The Democrats turned the impeachment process into a sham. The intelligence officials disgraced themselves with that laptop letter. The media trashed itself with its Trump coverage and Biden coverups. TheFBI lied to theFISA court to get Trump. Comey broke the law and protocol with his nonsense. Now it appears the DOJ is highly selective with Trump prosecutions

In summary, all the institutions that should be national and world gold standards have tarnished themselves just for Trump. Maybe you think that is okay. But not me. And you disgrace yourself by thinking me pointing this out is defending Trump

No. You've got it backwards. The institutions haven't "tarnished themselves for Trump." You and the other Trump sycophants have. You're disgracefully smearing, slamming and slandering federal law enforcement which is exactly what Trump wants you to do. He'll tear the whole thing down, with the help of people like you, in an effort to save his sorry, fat ass.

Comey was a terrible leader. He's gone and his successor, hand-picked by Trump (one of his few good hires who actually stuck around) has restored integrity to the Bureau.

The DOJ is "highly selective" with Trump prosecutions? I'm not sure what that means other than a recognition that Trump's conduct has been so egregious and he's broken so many laws that it's probably a challenge for Justice in determining what to charge him with next, and where.

 

[Bowlmania]

What Govt job did Biden hold in 2017? I'll hang up and wait for an answer...

But everyone knew in 2017 that Biden was going to be president in 2021.

TIC.

 

[MrBing]

You’re full of it.

Hunter is guilty of some bings already. He pled guilty. Frankly, I care little about him unless Joe Biden is actually involved. Then I’ll be wanting him impeached and convicted. We aren’t there yet.

Bings? LOL!

 

[cosmickid]

Well, isn't that interesting. So Trump is allegedly showing a classified document to his friends and he's not even being charged with having the document?

Oh, and all those boxes that were shown in the bathroom and other places? Well, there were less than 100 classified docs. So, once again, the prosecutor is telling a false story with his leaks and pictures.

How many classified documents did the FBI seize from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago?

A breakdown of the documents contained in boxes seized by the FBI during the search of Mar-a-Lago on 8 August

www.independent.co.uk

Most rational people understand that a document Trump was waving around at his club in NJ, would not be part of the cache of documents the FBI/DOJ seized in Florida. IIRC there were some confiscations at Bedminster as well, but this indictment only deals with documents obtained from MAL.

Smith likely has the relevant info related to that incident, but chose to hold it in reserve for the possibility of seeking a seperate indictment in NJ if the situation warrants. Again the key takeaway here,and in MAL as well, is that people within Trump's inner circle (or at least relatively close) have provided the FBI/DOJ with evidence. IIRC, the toilet shot from MAL was not from the raid itself, but rather a pic a Trump staffer took and turned over to the Govt...

Not all MAGA types are ultra cultists who will tolerate any abuse of the system by Trump. He lost a ton of true believers like Barr, Mulvaney, Betsy Devoss and others because of Jan 6. Clearly not everyone at MAL was on board with him hoarding classified documents...