Started By
Message

re: Jack Smith and His DOJ Comrades are Staring at and Accused of Evidence Tampering

Posted on 5/4/24 at 11:46 am to
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
28051 posts
Posted on 5/4/24 at 11:46 am to
It kind of is. It's one thing to have uncovered documents in your possession and alerting the DoJ to the fact. It's another thing to ostensibly comply with a subpoena, say you have turned over documents and then have it uncovered that you knew you did not turn them all over and then by omitting that force another person , namely your lawyer to then attest to something that you know to be mostly to patently untrue. .

You do realize , of course you do, that Sandy Berger was prosecuted for docs in the socks and worked out a plea deal with the Bush DoJ.....or did you plan to omit that from your argument?

We're down to one, Bandit, and we largely agree about the abuse and FISA

But that does not mean that Trump should be considered lily white clean in this matter. He fricked around with a legit federal subpoena that his own lawyers told him that if you do not turn in everything and you certify that you did, it could be considered a crime.
Posted by dgnx6
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2006
69361 posts
Posted on 5/4/24 at 11:58 am to
quote:

But that does not mean that Trump should be considered lily white clean in this matter. He fricked around with a legit federal subpoena that his own lawyers told him that if you do not turn in everything and you certify that you did, it could be considered a crime.


The current president took classified documents and put them in his fricking garage when he wasn’t even president.



Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124663 posts
Posted on 5/7/24 at 6:00 am to
quote:

It's one thing to have uncovered documents in your possession and alerting the DoJ to the fact. It's another thing to ostensibly comply with a subpoena, say you have turned over documents and then have it uncovered that you knew you did not turn them all over and then by omitting that force another person , namely your lawyer to then attest to something that you know to be mostly to patently untrue. .
You take multiple liberties with assumptions there, none of which may be true
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

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