Fanatical Meat
Lifer
- Feb 4, 2009
- 35,286
- 16,767
- 136
We will see….There is no way to prove he doesn't still have anything. That shit could be on thousands on USB drives or have copies of it anywhere.
He’s not going to jail IMO.
We will see….There is no way to prove he doesn't still have anything. That shit could be on thousands on USB drives or have copies of it anywhere.
Probably prudent to send Trump and everyone close to him to Gitmo for some enhanced interrogation, just to be sure.There is no way to prove he doesn't still have anything. That shit could be on thousands on USB drives or have copies of it anywhere.
Trying a case based on classified documents is done all the time. If it isn't a problem for other defendants, it won't be a problem with Trump either.
Hey we still don’t know which departments these documents are from. Let’s hope top secret military weapons. Yes he’s a civilian. But due to nature of the data, a military trial gets held so sensitive data doesn’t get revealed to the public.
Right, and the charges here are pretty straightforward. What's the issue?Look, I cannot stand Trump either.
He can be blamed for many things, including the slaughter of innocent Ukrainians by refusing to help Zelensky when he asked for aid.
But as so many have already said, I don't believe Trump will ever be sent to prison.
It's not what we scream, it's not what we want him charged with. It's what can be proven - which can then be overturned or negated by judges.
It pains me, too.
Right, and the charges here are pretty straightforward. What's the issue?
Yes, I think the proof is relatively straightforward too. What's the issue?Can it be PROVEN?
Screaming dosen't do chit! Neither does calling people names.
You cannot imprison people based on how loud you can scream - or Secretary Clinton would have been executed.
Valid poing, BUT why has two of his former lawyers homes and offices been searched by the FBI? I guess direct communication between client/lawyer would be off limits, but that doesn't change the fact that possession of Top Secret and higher docs in an insecure location won't get his ass in a real jam, and if Ghouliani's or Sydney Powell, or any of his other lawyers, prints are on them, it goes from client/lawyer to co-defendants.
It's almost a certainty they are going to fingerprint those documents, and if Ghouliani's print are found on them? We know he has been to Mar-a-Lago.
Trump will face the most hostile jury pool imaginable. I'm not super concerned.Getting a judge or a jury to agree with the charges. That is the issue. Being adamant about something does not mean you are right.
Trump will face the most hostile jury pool imaginable. I'm not super concerned.
Unless he exercises his right to relocate the trial and it ends up in a MAGA dominate area. Remember he appointed the judge overseeing this.Trump will face the most hostile jury pool imaginable. I'm not super concerned.
You don't have a right to relocate the trial unless you can show that it is not possible for you to get a fair trial where you are charged. DC having a lot of democrats is not a valid reason.Unless he exercises his right to relocate the trial and it ends up in a MAGA dominate area. Remember he appointed the judge overseeing this.
Can it be PROVEN?
Screaming dosen't do chit! Neither does calling people names.
You cannot imprison people based on how loud you can scream - or Secretary Clinton would have been executed.
I mean...the charge is that he had super secret docs he shouldnt have had. Theres evidence that they were subpoenaed, so he cant claim he didnt know they were there.Getting a judge or a jury to agree with the charges. That is the issue. Being adamant about something does not mean you are right.
The issue is the wealthy are above the law.Yes, I think the proof is relatively straightforward too. What's the issue?
If charges are not filed does that not mean the following is no longer operative?Getting a judge or a jury to agree with the charges. That is the issue. Being adamant about something does not mean you are right.
The available evidence is straight forward, but so far we've only seen what the FBI has chosen to release. We don't know anything beyond statements made by people with an agenda. There is also a vast difference between the speculation and opinion we see every day and the actual trial.Yes, I think the proof is relatively straightforward too. What's the issue?
I wouldn't be so sure. Then again, I guess you're the expert on taking politicians and presidents to trial.You don't have a right to relocate the trial unless you can show that it is not possible for you to get a fair trial where you are charged. DC having a lot of democrats is not a valid reason.
No, it doesn't.If charges are not filed does that not mean the following is no longer operative?
"No one is above the law"
