Trump charged with trying to delete Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage in new indictment

Prove it.... you have no proof or evidence. An indictment is just allegations.... show us Smith's evidence or proof or please stop posting Smith's lies and misinformation... you seem to be blind to bank records and emails that meet the low standard of "reasonable suspicion" to start DOJ investigations, but Smith and you provide us with no proof or evidence...

"no way in hell is Jack Smith going to do anything without evidence" I hope you didn't choke on that statement... we just had Russiagate with manufactured pee pee tapes and illegal fraudulent warrants...

Tell me..... what do you think would happen if Smith DIDN'T have evidence... the same thing that happened to the people in the fake Russiagate and Mueller stuff....
nuttin' honey...

 

You haven't been following. And I notice you couldn't answer the question you were asked. Of course you can't. Two things you need to learn:

1) You are literally demanding a two-tiered justice system. The DOJ had to weigh the fact that no one else had been charged with for this crime, absent mens rea and/or obstruction. Yes. That matters. In court. The DOJ would have to go to court and explain why this should be the ONLY time it was charged this way.
2) Previous court rulings indicated that it was likely UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do so.

But I look forward to your next excuse for why you can't bring yourself to talk about the actual topic.

 

I think it’s applied consistently, still waiting for you to show otherwise

 

Everyone they took to trial in the Russia investigation was convicted.

 

Reread my comment until an epiphany is achieved.

 

Still waiting on you to quote the statute and tell us the mens rea called for in 18 USC 793(f).

 

You keep making the claim and I keep calling BS.
Who was charged without obstruction, intent or lying to agents? I’ve asked 3-4 times now.

 

Speed limit laws dont say 2mph over is ok, but it’s still not enforced that way

 

Someone has never been through a speed trap town in BFE I see. How droll.

 

Trump can’t control them entire govt complex when most of it is fighting against him. Again, it’s hilarious. Everyone called Trump Hitler and a tyrant for hinting at imprisoning his political adversaries and LOOK LOOK, Democrats are actually doing what they accuse others of. Time and time again like a broken record.

 

Find any of those examples you claim to know about?

 

Read that statute yet?

Gonna say people don't get pulled over for going 2 over then ignore that people do?

 

Who would you like to see testify in defense of Trump?

 

"Donald Trump and two aides face new obstruction counts based on allegations that they instructed an unnamed, fourth worker to delete surveillance video footage at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence last summer "to prevent the footage from being provided to a federal grand jury."
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/28/1190...ty-footage-deleted-doj-alleges-in-new-charges
Unnamed worker, and what was on that video recording that wasn't deleted?
All of these questions will be answered in court and I'm sure the identity of the 'unnamed worker' will have to be made public as the 6th Amendment confrontation clause gives criminal defendants the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
Going to get interesting

 

Yes. If the POTUS suspects a US government officer has acted corruptly, or acted as an agent of a foreign government, or both, and since the POTUS has the sole duty to uphold the "law of nations" through international treaties and agreements, then the POTUS has absolute discretion to investigate that.

I thought for sure this was the route they would go since 2016. I thought that by using the full force of the US law, intelligence apparatus, politically motivated journalists, and political influence against Trump, they would find what we have discovered about the Bidens, except I thought it would be related to the ME, or maybe even China. But judging from the absolute lunacy of these indictments, they couldn't find that stuff on Trump.

 

And Trump didn't delete anything like Hillary.

 

Show the conviction of ANYONE for colluding with the Russian GOVERNMENT to interfere in the 2020 election (psssst ...Konstantin Kilimnik was a "sensitive" intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters. Not a Russian spy.) (Rosenstein thinks collusion is a legal term)

 

That's funny, eve

Indictments are far more than "just allegations"

They are allegations that have been looked at by a prosecutor and investigated by investigators who have come to the conclusion that a crime has been committed.

They are allegations that a crime that has been committed coupled with the evidence of that crime and presented to a Grand Jury, who agreed that the evidence shows that a crime was committed and that the indicted person committed that crime.

We are now at the stage of taking that evidence that investigators, prosecutors and an independent Grand Jury have all agreed shows that a crime was committed and that the indicted person committed that crime and presenting that to a judge and a jury to see if they agree. If that jury agrees then that means the indicted person is guilty.

It's a process to prevent "mere allegations" from resulting in a conviction. It is a process that has RARELY been proven to be corrupt and, in this particular case, no sign of corruption is anywhere near it.

 

Under executive privilege, TSSCI documents can be personal. During the planning of certain operations or contingencies, the POTUS must not be inhibited in what he or she says by the knowledge that others will be scrutinizing the discussion at a later date. The only time a POTUS should be worried about that is if the planning itself was in furtherance of a crime.

Trump, and every other POTUS, cart out pallets of documents when they leave office. NARA cannot possibly just assume possession of those documents as you say. The PRA says there will be negotiations on what is personal or presidential. It says NARA has no veto power over the former POTUS's disposal decision What do you think Congress means by disposal decision?

 

So do you apparently

 

@Nwolfe35

Yes... indictments are just allegations... and one sided allegations by one side with no representation or cross examination..
unless you have the evidence or proof of the allegation then you have nothing to offer here... you have just that.... allegations..

 

Michael Flynn
Paul Manafort

 

Please provide the evidence or proof that Jack Smith has in these cases or stop presenting anything else as fact...

 

Everything in the indictment is evidence. You don't GET an indictment without evidence.

But I can guaran-damn-tee you that isn't ALL the evidence.