Started By
Message

re: Unsealed FBI agent testimony in the documents case paints picture of Trump being set up

Posted on 4/29/24 at 3:49 pm to
Posted by UncleFestersLegs
Member since Nov 2010
11946 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 3:49 pm to
Yeah those redactions are pretty bad for smiff
Posted by cadillacattack
the ATL
Member since May 2020
5663 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:30 pm to

Posted by deeprig9
2023/24 B2B GSB Riboff Champ
Member since Sep 2012
67051 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:37 pm to
Why did Jack Smith redact this in the first place, if it's so harmless and normal and standard operating procedure?
Posted by trinidadtiger
Member since Jun 2017
14705 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:53 pm to
quote:

That doesn't answer my question.


One of his lawyers at the time stated they had sent documents requested back and they had "descriptions" of requests for other items. Which is bullshite they are all numbered.

For those, Trump's lawyer said we need specifics, the last thing we want is to send the wrong thing from their "description" and be charged with non compliance. Because of the delay.......they charged them with non compliance.

Its a mute point, they were declassified and there is no retro active DOD "super duper classified", nor can you take the presidents clearance after the fact and make it retroactive.

All nonsense just like the rest, but lets get past the fact and start to argue minutia.

I, like justice Thomas, want to know how a "special counsel" can be set up without congress voting on it? And with good reason, it can result in exactly what is happening a witch hunt by the person in office against an opponent. He is right to ask that question, very right.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
435758 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:55 pm to
quote:

I, like justice Thomas, want to know how a "special counsel" can be set up without congress voting on it?

This has been litigated pretty extensively, IIRC. I vaguely remember getting an answer via Google the last time I saw this "clever" theory.
Posted by trinidadtiger
Member since Jun 2017
14705 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:57 pm to
quote:

Why did Jack Smith redact this in the first place, if it's so harmless and normal and standard operating procedure?


Well it certainly piqued the interest of the judge didnt it
Posted by deeprig9
2023/24 B2B GSB Riboff Champ
Member since Sep 2012
67051 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:05 pm to
When does this trial reconvene? The judge should throw out this case with prejudice.
Posted by deeprig9
2023/24 B2B GSB Riboff Champ
Member since Sep 2012
67051 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:07 pm to
SFP- legal expert- serious question-

What happens in a non-sensational trial when a prosecutor gets caught redacting exculpatory evidence?
Posted by UncleFestersLegs
Member since Nov 2010
11946 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:34 pm to
quote:

Why did Jack Smith redact this in the first place, if it's so harmless and normal and standard operating procedure?

Posted by UncleFestersLegs
Member since Nov 2010
11946 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:36 pm to
quote:

they were declassified and there is no retro active DOD "super duper classified", nor can you take the presidents clearance after the fact and make it retroactive.
and yet they did exactly that and Jack Smith tried to hide that from scrutiny. Maybe SFP can tell us why?
Posted by UncleFestersLegs
Member since Nov 2010
11946 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:38 pm to
quote:

What happens in a non-sensational trial when a prosecutor gets caught redacting exculpatory evidence?
is the defendant someone SFP agrees with politically or not?
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
32159 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:42 pm to
“Show me in the constitution where it specifically prohibits redactions by prosecutors.”

Posted by Robin Masters
Birmingham
Member since Jul 2010
31767 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:45 pm to
Yet another reason the founders intended for presidents to have immunity.
Posted by LSUGrrrl
Frisco, TX
Member since Jul 2007
35864 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:51 pm to
quote:

I don't even understand the conspiracy theory. This CT requires that there was no opportunity for Trump to identify and return the documents.

I'm not an expert on this portion of the case, but wasn't he given opportunities to return the documents prior to the indictment?


The issue is the disparate treatment of this case. Presidents normally negotiate with the Archives for up to 2 years on which documents they keep and which they must return. There are examples from nearly every recent president where they’ve kept such documents and none have been prosecuted.

So to set up a trap where they ship the documents to him then A) Don’t process the negotiations in an equal and timely way and B) prosecute him for doing something that no previous president has been held criminally responsible for is the issue.
Posted by Townedrunkard
Member since Jan 2019
9967 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:55 pm to
You have to be an on the knees cock gobbler for the Dems if you don’t know this. Biden gets caught doing the same thing but did not have Presidential clearance and nothing happens. Actually they come out and say he’s not competent to even know what he did was wrong.

Total fricking joke.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 5:56 pm
Posted by GusMcRae
Deep in the heart...
Member since Oct 2008
3414 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 6:08 pm to
quote:

The judge should throw out this case with prejudice.


No… she should do exactly what she is doing. Little by little… drip, drip, drip. Let Smith twist in the wind.
Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
65323 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 6:11 pm to
quote:

I don't even understand the conspiracy theory.

It's not a conspiracy theory, jackwad.

It's new evidence coming to light about the order of operations that's been conveniently left out of the prosecution's accounting of what happened when, and equally absent from any legacy media coverage of the case.
Posted by Toomer Deplorable
Team Bitter Clinger
Member since May 2020
19297 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 6:13 pm to
quote:

The issue is the disparate treatment of this case.


Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
65323 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 6:18 pm to
quote:

Let Smith twist in the wind.


Homeboy is no stranger to getting blanked by the Supremes.
Posted by Rebel
Graceland
Member since Jan 2005
134425 posts
Posted on 4/29/24 at 6:38 pm to
I usually ask Hank legal questions but he hasn't been around lately.

Do any of Jack's redactions violate Brady?
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram