Supreme Court on Jack Smith: A threat to separation of powers.

[struth]

Charges are accusations. Recordings are evidence. Documents are evidence. Transcripts are evidence. Testimony is evidence.

And Jack has shared plenty of each in the indictment.

You simply refuse to look at it. Good luck with the willful ignorance. It won't change any legal outcome.

and indictment is the charging document...it's not evidence...it's an accusation. It outline what the Govt intends to prove....but they have to use evidence to do that...they haven't presented any yet, and won't until court

 

[Skylar]

and indictment is the charging document...it's not evidence...it's an accusation. It outline what the Govt intends to prove....but they have to use evidence to do that...they haven't presented any yet, and won't until court

The document outlines the evidence it will present to prove the charges.

And you ignore it all. You refuse to look at any testimony, you've starkly refused to even open any of the indictments, you refused to listen to the recording of Trump admitting he didn't declassify, he refused to read the transcript of the other recording where Trump admits he didn't declassify, you refused to look at any of the pictures, you refused to look at any of the testimony, you refused to look at any of the text messages.

Willful ignorance isn't going to help you. Or Trump.

Good luck with that.

 

[struth]

The document outlines the evidence it will present to prove the charges.

And you ignore it all. You refuse to look at any testimony, you've starkly refused to even open any of the indictments, you refused to listen to the recording of Trump admitting he didn't declassify, he refused to read the transcript of the other recording where Trump admits he didn't declassify, you refused to look at any of the pictures, you refused to look at any of the testimony, you refused to look at any of the text messages.

Willful ignorance isn't going to help you. Or Trump.

Good luck with that.

An indictment is not evidence…it’s a charging document that makes accusations

Just stop you look foolish

 

[Nostra]

The evidence that Jack has presented is pretty damning.

Trump ordering that evidence be destroyed within hours of being notified about the tapes? Recordings of Trump admitting that he was showing secret documents that hadn't been declassified.

Twice.

Text messages about hiding evidence. Hell, even Trump's own lawyers admitted that Trump tried to convince them to break the law and hide evidence.

You ignore all that. The grand jury didn't.

Link us up to this “evidence”, Simp

 

[Nostra]

Charges are accusations. Recordings are evidence. Documents are evidence. Transcripts are evidence. Testimony is evidence.

And Jack has shared plenty of each in the indictment.

You simply refuse to look at it. Good luck with the willful ignorance. It won't change any legal outcome.

Cool. List all this evidence.

 

[Nostra]

The document outlines the evidence it will present to prove the charges.

And you ignore it all. You refuse to look at any testimony, you've starkly refused to even open any of the indictments, you refused to listen to the recording of Trump admitting he didn't declassify, he refused to read the transcript of the other recording where Trump admits he didn't declassify, you refused to look at any of the pictures, you refused to look at any of the testimony, you refused to look at any of the text messages.

Willful ignorance isn't going to help you. Or Trump.

Good luck with that.

Wait. What?
You said there was evidence already.
Now you claim the hack Smith just presented an outline.

 

[Skylar]

Link us up to this “evidence”, Simp

Laughing.....you've already committed to ignoring every indictment. You've refused to look at any of them, refused to look at the transcripts of recordings, refused to listen to the recording of Trump admitting he didn't classify, refused to look at any testimony, any text message, anything.

Keep those eyes screwed shut, cuck.

It won't matter.

 

[Skylar]

Wait. What?
You said there was evidence already.
Now you claim the hack Smith just presented an outline.

Laughing.... I know cuck. Head down, ass up. Keep your face in the dirt and refuse to look at the pages and pages of transcripts, photos, testimony, text messages, even the audio recording of Trump admitting he didn't declassify.

You just keep rocking back and forth gibbering 'there is no evidence. There is no evidence'.

All while another indictment lands. And another. And another.

 

[FA_Q2]

The evidence that Jack has presented is pretty damning.

Trump ordering that evidence be destroyed within hours of being notified about the tapes? Recordings of Trump admitting that he was showing secret documents that hadn't been declassified.

Twice.

Text messages about hiding evidence. Hell, even Trump's own lawyers admitted that Trump tried to convince them to break the law and hide evidence.

You ignore all that. The grand jury didn't.

This.

The prosucuter may well be a political hack. He might be a clown. He may even be dishonest and politically motivated.

And none of that would change the facts that we already know. The transcripts alone are damning enough that I cannot put them in a context that would make Trump innocent. It is flatly impossible to frame it in a manner that is both reasonable and legal to take those actions and make those statements. We know this as well since NO ONE ANYWHERE on the right has even tried. They have to do as you say, close their eyes and pretend it does not exist.

 

[Skylar]

This.

The prosucuter may well be a political hack. He might be a clown. He may even be dishonest and politically motivated.

And none of that would change the facts that we already know. The transcripts alone are damning enough that I cannot put them in a context that would make Trump innocent. It is flatly impossible to frame it in a manner that is both reasonable and legal to take those actions and make those statements. We know this as well since NO ONE ANYWHERE on the right has even tried. They have to do as you say, close their eyes and pretend it does not exist.

Which is why MAGA won't touch the evidence with a 10 foot pole. They just straight up ignore it and play pretend......trying to draw attention away to a Barbie movie. Or ET. Anything to ignore.

Marjorie Taylor Greene summed up the MAGA perspective on Trump's indictment nicely when asked:

"It’s important that we put full faith and hope in God and not anything that we see in the headlines and not anything that we see happening in the news.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene: You Can Ignore Trump News, God Has A Plan

Greene said conservatives should put their "full faith and hope in God" and disregard "anything that we see happening in the news" following the latest indictment.

news.yahoo.com

Ignore all the evidence. Don't look at the indictments. Don't look at the news. Because God and....reasons.

You can't teach that kind of stupid.

 

[Nostra]

Laughing.....you've already committed to ignoring every indictment. You've refused to look at any of them, refused to look at the transcripts of recordings, refused to listen to the recording of Trump admitting he didn't classify, refused to look at any testimony, any text message, anything.

Keep those eyes screwed shut, cuck.

It won't matter.

So you have nothing.


Got it.

 

[Nostra]

Laughing.... I know cuck. Head down, ass up. Keep your face in the dirt and refuse to look at the pages and pages of transcripts, photos, testimony, text messages, even the audio recording of Trump admitting he didn't declassify.

You just keep rocking back and forth gibbering 'there is no evidence. There is no evidence'.

All while another indictment lands. And another. And another.

: yawn,:

 

[Skylar]

So you have nothing.


Got it.

Laughing...the grand juries thought otherwise. As demonstrated by the 70 plus felony charges.

How many indictments is Joe Biden under again? Round up.

 

[OKTexas]

Laughing...the grand juries thought otherwise. As demonstrated by the 70 plus felony charges.

How many indictments is Joe Biden under again? Round up.

Grand juries only hear one side, fantasies and all.

.

 

[Skylar]

Grand juries only hear one side, fantasies and all.

.

Even William Barr, who saw what the prosecution was presenting, said that it was damning.

"“If even half of it is true, then he’s toast,” Barr told “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s a very detailed indictment, and it’s very, very damning. And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous.”

Trump indictment is 'very, very damning,' his former attorney general says

Donald Trump's former Attorney General Bill Barr said Trump is "toast" after a 37-count criminal indictment against him was unsealed Friday.

www.cnbc.com

Ignoring the indictment isn't going to change any of Trump's legal jeopardy. And ignoring the pictures, the transcripts, the text messages, the testimony, the document list.......is a meaningless rhetorical delaying tactic at best. There's even a recording of Trump admitting that he didn't declassify that you can listen to right now.

The prevalence of conservatives straight up ignoring the indictments and everything its present is a grim portent of Trump's legal future.

So much for 'LOCK HER UP!', eh?

 

[OKTexas]

Even William Barr, who saw what the prosecution was presenting, said that it was damning.

"“If even half of it is true, then he’s toast,” Barr told “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s a very detailed indictment, and it’s very, very damning. And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous.”

Trump indictment is 'very, very damning,' his former attorney general says

Donald Trump's former Attorney General Bill Barr said Trump is "toast" after a 37-count criminal indictment against him was unsealed Friday.

www.cnbc.com

Ignoring the indictment isn't going to change any of Trump's legal jeopardy. And ignoring the pictures, the transcripts, the text messages, the testimony, the document list.......is a meaningless rhetorical delaying tactic at best. There's even a recording of Trump admitting that he didn't declassify that you can listen to right now.

The prevalence of conservatives straight up ignoring the indictments and everything its present is a grim portent of Trump's legal future.

So much for 'LOCK HER UP!', eh?

I guess we're going to be more specific on what indictment we're talking about, I think you're on one page and I'm on another.

.

 

[Skylar]

I guess we're going to be more specific on what indictment we're talking about, I think you're on one page and I'm on another.

.

Fair. There are quite a lot of them at this point. In as little as a few days, there may even be another. Plus, are we talking the original indictments, or the superseding indictments with even more charges?

I'll be more specific.

 

[OKTexas]

Fair. There are quite a lot of them at this point. In as little as a few days, there may even be another. Plus, are we talking the original indictments, or the superseding indictments with even more charges?

I'll be more specific.

I don't really consider 3 to be "a lot".

.

 

[Skylar]

I don't really consider 3 to be "a lot".

.

Felony indictments?

That's a lot. As demonstrated elegantly by Trump's increasing use of all caps the more indictments he's subject to.

 

[OKTexas]

Felony indictments?

That's a lot. As demonstrated elegantly by Trump's increasing use of all caps the more indictments he's subject to.

Wouldn't know, I don't do social media.

.