“Mar-a-Lago Security Tapes Were NOT DELETED” – Trump Accuses Jack Smith of Prosecutorial Misconduct, Illegal Leaks

[westwall]

And it was TRUMP that told those attorneys that there were no docs marked classified.

There a as no breach of ethics other than those attorneys reporting false information

Attorneys aren't ALLOWED to tell the opposition ANYTHING, you ignorant boob.

 

[hadit]

TRUMP WANTED TO, TRUMP WAS THINKING ABOUT, TRUMP TRIED TO, TRUMP HINTED AT, TRUMP ATTEMPTED TO, TRUMP MAY HAVE, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP......

This is why we actually have trials, where rules of evidence apply and only facts are supposed to be admitted. This is also why prosecutors attempt to get around all these restrictions ahead of time to poison the well so to speak against the defendant. If they can get enough people believing lies about TRUMP!, it won't matter if those lies are all proven false, the faithful will continue to regurgitate them as if they are facts. We saw the same thing happen in the Rittenhouse case, where the talking heads on TV attempted to make him out to be a racist out hunting black people when in fact he shot at no black people at all. They said he took the gun across state lines when in fact he never did. Even after those were proven false, the usual suspects kept parroting them as if they were true.

 

[SaxonJackson]

So what if no tapes were deleted? If bank robbers get caught after they walk in the bank do they get to go free since they didn’t take any money?! These narratives yall pump out are idiotic

Ummm ... the so-called "crime" they're accusing Trump of is "obstruction." But if the tapes were NOT DELETED, then there is no obstruction. Slightly different than an attempted bank robbery.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Jack Smith has zero integrity and that is why the zero integrity AG Garland chose him.

 

[forkup]

No, why would it be?

Because a lawyer is a officer of the court. If your lies cause him to make a false statement to the court. You are in effect hiding those documents from the government. Something that is punishable under 18 usc 1503. obstruction of justice

 

[DukeU]

I don’t CARE what he said. He’s a bigger liar than Tuckems

Refute any of it.

 

[MagicMike]

the most gullible and willfully ignorant among us

A.K.A. Trumptard MAGAts

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[Lesh]

View attachment 809687

And we don't

 

[Nostra]

So what if no tapes were deleted? If bank robbers get caught after they walk in the bank do they get to go free since they didn’t take any money?! These narratives yall pump out are idiotic

If they weren't deleted how can he be charged with deleting them?

 

[Lisa558]

View attachment 809687

He needs to be impeached, and then charged. Our nation’s #1 attorney, charged with enforcing the laws, is running a major obstruction of justice scheme.

 

[Nostra]

They think Trump is an attorney. "No one knows the law better than me!"

Meanwhile, his lawyers remain on suicide watch.

Link to this "suicide watch"?

 

[Lesh]

If they weren't deleted how can he be charged with deleting them?

Attempt and conspiracy. Stop acting stupid

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

He needs to be impeached, and then charged. Our nation’s #1 attorney, charged with enforcing the laws, is running a major obstruction of justice scheme.

Biden and Garland are illegally using the DOJ as a political weapon against Trump.
It is a clear case of election interference.

 

[Lesh]

Trump illegally took docs when he left the WH

Right THERE he deserves prosecution

 

[Chillicothe]

This Smith guy is turning out to be a putz.

Actually, not.
He seems to be measured and thorough from what we can tell by reading the more responsible and credible media reports.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats cannot afford one more indictment to vaporize

Ummm? Which indictment of Trump has 'vaporized' as the good poster SSue seems to be suggesting?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Is incredibly flimsy as a "case" for obstruction of justice. An anonymous "Trump Employee 4," makes a claim of second-hand report that Trump "wanted" something?

"Anonymous Employee".....is known. His name was printed in one of the New York Times or Washington Post accounts of these latest developments. He was 'anonymous' in the filed documents, likely for several reasons. One, to reduce the chance of witness intimidation by one of Trump's sycophants, or physical harm from some MAGAzoid who thinks he is serving a righteous Godlike justice.

In my opinion, that #4 is the guy who flipped on Trump. And on Nauta. And on DeOlivia. And, I would speculate that Smith has a back-up corroborator for whatever #4 has testified to. Meaning, there is more than one 'flipper'. Don't know that for sure but in a case as big, as sensitive, as prominent as this one....well, given Smith's track-record of investigating big powerful bad guys in Serbia, in Kosovo, in Africa, etc., well, I would anticipate that he's pretty good at dotting his i's. No?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sicing the DOJ after your #1 political opponent is a ******* conspiracy!!!!

But.......if your #1 political opponent is strongly suspected of committing crimes before becoming #1, well, it seems to me that it would be irresponsible and a miscarriage of justice, not to investigate the guy (or gal). After all, we all want the ethic of ---'No Man Is Above the Law'....to prevail. No?
---------------------------------------------

He has a history of going after Republicans,

And too, a history of going after Democrats.
The guy seems to be ambidextrous in that way.
No?

----------------------------------------------------------

That's why they're trying the case in DC.

What case? Is there a DC indictment? When? For what? Which court?
--------------------------------------------

You don't seem to understand the story.

OK, if the story is not being understood by the readers here, but you understand it.....well, amiga, give us a brief 'Executive Summary' of it.
Here's your opportunity to whirl&twirl and demonstrate your homework and your erudition, your 'Star' turn.
Saddle up, Skinnyjeans.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Soros said so....

???????
Whadahell does that mean?
Explain yourself poster Pete.

They feel compelled to block information from getting to everyone else.

Whadahell does that mean?
What information?
Explain yourself poster Pete.

If the tapes were not deleted, it will be pretty tough to prove that Trump ordered them to be deleted.

I'm not at all sure that what poster Flops is asserting above is the reality that we will see in court.
I personally think that...given the prominence of this case ..... the DOJ has combed through the law and the facts and the witness testimony pretty thoroughly. That's my presumption.
And, with no disrespect intended.....I don't think you have been briefed by the DOJ on what they have and what they will present.

Or am I mistaken.....and you have seen all the testimony? Seen all the evidence developed so far?
Have you?

 

[MagicMike]

The superseded indictment from Smith's team sent to Trump lawyers, never said one way or the other whether Walt Nauta, and Carlos succeeded in erasing the security video. They attempted to do such because The Boss wanted it done, is all we know from the superseding indictment....?

The funniest thing about this fake news OP is the "Trump says" aspect of it.
As if Trump never lies to these people!
LMAO!
A good rule of thumb for them would be "if Trump said it then I know it's a LIE!"
But instead they post a thread on it like it is some breaking news headline.
But here is the thing.
It won't be hard to prove in court that Trump is lying about this too.
If there is sworn witness testimony that Trump ordered the video erased....and the video turns out to be erased... and Trump is testifying (also under oath) that it was never erased, then Trump has just perjured himself.
It will come down to whose testimony the jury believes is the most credible.
And we already know who that is going to be.

 

[Zincwarrior]

You mean like Hillary actually did? The question in this case is someone told Trumps attorneys something that may or may not be true.

Those attorneys told Smith, which is a breach of ethics. Sounds like team Trump was figuring out who was a traitor.

Which also exposed more unethical behavior on the part of Smith.

A true scumbag in every way.

Now cite a defense Trump can actually use in a court of law.

Ummm ... the so-called "crime" they're accusing Trump of is "obstruction." But if the tapes were NOT DELETED, then there is no obstruction. Slightly different than an attempted bank robbery.

Yes there can be. The act is specifically charged in the revised indictment.

 

[Marener]

He needs to be impeached, and then charged. Our nation’s #1 attorney, charged with enforcing the laws, is running a major obstruction of justice scheme.

The AG is guilty of obstructing himself?

 

[forkup]

Refute any of it.

Sure. I refute the notion that in order to be charged for corruption of justice one actually has to succeed at the scheme. That's not how the applicable law is written.

I refute that Smith is "going after the little man" he's for instance going after his lawyer who attested to have given all the documents under subpoena. A statement that he made according to the lawyer because Trump lied to him.

By the way he would have succeeded in doing so if the government didn't do the search warrant. So he DID not attempt to obstruct justice, but he actually obstructed justice. The government simply caught him doing so.

So Levin's argument is simply false.

I only watched the first few minutes of the clip by the way, so refuting not just any but the entire thing is easy.