- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:25 am to 94LSU
quote:
Judge: "I see you're being charged with hiding documents" Defendant: "Yes, they couldn't find them!" Judge: "Well then, case dismissed!" Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how it's going to work.
Clearly, you are also ignorant as to which party has the burden of proof.
maybe take a break. Your legal acumen clearly isn’t the strongest. What you posted is absurd. This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 9:26 am
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:26 am to jawnybnsc
quote:
The government has to produce the document.
They absolutely 100% do not. That is absolute nonsense.
Even beyond then, this was one paragraph in a long indictment. There were many more charges about other things they do allegedly have.
I hate to keep having to clarify that Trump never should have been charged with any of this, and it certainly seems frivolous to be going this far.
I think the DOJ is a leftist thug organization.
But they do not have to have this document. Its absurd to say they do.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:28 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Clearly, you are also ignorant as to which party has the burden of proof. maybe take a break. Your legal acumen clearly isn’t the strongest. What you posted is absurd.
They have Trump on tape claiming to have it. Now Trump can explain how he was just lying to those people.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:28 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
But they do not have to have this document. It’s absurd to say they do.
Of course they do. They at least have to be able to describe, specifically, which document they are alleging he possessed in that conversation. The burden is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he possessed it. Then they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was a criminal act for him to posses it.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:28 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Evidence in 1L year. It’s been the standard for decades upon decades. Your ignorance of that fact doesn’t change the facts.
I was a 1L once upon a time and I can firmly say that you are wrong.
Having the document would certainly be helpful but they certainly don't "need" it, and we are talking about 1 paragraph in a long indictment with many many other charges.
I think they are using the audio as an attempt to frame the nature of his "crimes": that he was sloppy, that he bragged about having documents he knew he shouldn't have, and he did have documents he shouldn't have had and was required to return once requested.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:28 am to 94LSU
quote:
Judge: "I see you're being charged with hiding documents" Defendant: "Yes, they couldn't find them!"
Judge: "Well then, case dismissed!"
Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly how it's going to work.
If they can’t produce the documents he’s accused of hiding, how can they be so sure he’s hiding them?
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:29 am to 94LSU
quote:
They have Trump on tape claiming to have it. Now Trump can explain how he was just lying to those people.
Which document, specifically? And are we believing Trump now? Then I guess the case is dismissed.
prove beyond a reasonable doubt it wasn’t his usual puffery. Where did you go to law school?This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 9:31 am
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:30 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Of course they do.
No.
That's absurd. Your argument is that someone can confess to a "crime" on tape, then throw away the evidence, and they can't be prosecuted.
There are many other ways to corroborate, and again, this is not a singular charge case.
(AGAIN: I do not think Trump should be prosecuted for any of this nonsense)
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:32 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
That's absurd. Your argument is that someone can confess to a "crime" on tape, then throw away the evidence, and they can't be prosecuted.
Nonsense. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt it wasn’t his usual puffery without the document. Of course they need the document. Without it there is no way that tape rises to level of proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 9:35 am
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:32 am to Godfather1
quote:
If they can’t produce the documents he’s accused of hiding, how can they be so sure he’s hiding them?
They can't find the documents, asked Trump to return them and have him on tape claiming to have them. They also have a bunch of evidence of Trump conspiring to hide other docs they requested he return. Who knows if it's true but all that evidence exists and makes a compelling case to bring to a jury.
Why is this so hard?
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:34 am to 94LSU
quote:
have him on tape claiming to have them.
Which document specifically does he admit to having on tape?
quote:
They also have a bunch of evidence of Trump conspiring to hide other docs they requested he return. Who knows if it's true but all that evidence exists and makes a compelling case to bring to a jury.
According to whom?
quote:
Why is this so hard?
Because we arent useful idiots that believe the media narratives.
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 9:34 am
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:34 am to BBONDS25
Of course they do not.
Witnesses could testify to the nature of the documents if they actually saw them. There are a variety of other ways to corroborate, and a taped "confession" certainly rarely HELPS a defendant.
If they didn't actually see the document, yes that is an issue on this one singular count.
But again: They are almost certainly using the audio as a framing device for the rest of his "crimes", the 36 other counts he is being charged with.
Witnesses could testify to the nature of the documents if they actually saw them. There are a variety of other ways to corroborate, and a taped "confession" certainly rarely HELPS a defendant.
If they didn't actually see the document, yes that is an issue on this one singular count.
But again: They are almost certainly using the audio as a framing device for the rest of his "crimes", the 36 other counts he is being charged with.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:34 am to 94LSU
Because none of us were in the room and none of us knows what was being discussed . . . stupid arse. The other possibility is that THERE IS NO SUCH DOCUMENT.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:35 am to jawnybnsc
quote:
Because none of us were in the room and none of us knows what was being discussed .
The witnesses may. Which is why, in theory, the document wouldn't be necessary for this one singular count.
Or they may not, and then this whole account is merely a framing device for the DOJ.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:36 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Witnesses could testify to the nature of the documents if they actually saw them. There are a variety of other ways to corroborate, and a taped "confession" certainly rarely HELPS a defendant.
Never said it helped. I said if they want to meet the burden they better produce the document. Allegedly on the tape he is simply holding the document saying he can’t show it to anyone. How, then, would a witness testify to the contents?
quote:
If they didn't actually see the document, yes that is an issue on this one singular count.
According to the tape you claim is sufficient they did not. Which is why they need to produce the document.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:36 am to Fun Bunch
The witnesses may what? Have the documents/papers/whateverthefrick?
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:37 am to Fun Bunch
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:40 am to jawnybnsc
I don't think you understand the argument. I am a lawyer, simply arguing about what could be.
Calm yourself, re-read everything and try to access your rational mind, not the one emotionally invested in a political candidate.
Calm yourself, re-read everything and try to access your rational mind, not the one emotionally invested in a political candidate.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:46 am to Fun Bunch
You don't determine what I'm invested in. What I'm invested in is the Rule of Law. My government, the one that I pay through the nose for and the one that is enslaving my children with debt, is using it's power to PERSECUTE a former President. They have played fast and loose with the rules ever since the man declared he was running for office. They are defending their prerogatives to go on with such abuses against him AND against anyone that stands in their way. This isn't hard to understand.
Page 23 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News