Lying Jack's Classified Docs Case Goes Buns Up - Postponed Indefinitely.

I no longer do other people's homework for free.

 

She quoted Jay Bratt. That's called "primary source documentation". Feel free to debunk it.

 

What about the crimes committed by the FBI and the prosecution team? Should they be half accountable?

 

Ready to engage?


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/22/trump-special-master-fbi-documents-mar-a-lago

 

Lol, dude, you've proven you didn't even read your own link. Try again.

 

Smart judges will stay away from actions that could be blamed from effecting the presidential election. First, the decent judges know that it is beyond the function of the judicial branch of government. Second, judges know that if you try to keep a candidate out of office who wins, it will affect your career. You could get the ax, but, more likely, you will be off the promotion list.

If Biden wins, look for Judge Bozo in New York (I refuse to remember that low life’s name.) to get an appointment to the federal bench. He’s thrown his ethics in the trash can for the sake of his financial, family and political affiliations. He doesn’t need a conviction. All he needs to do is keep Trump off the campaign trail for as long as possible. The judge and his cohorts on the prosecution team have already probably found a way to extend the trial for another week.

 

"A US judge reviewing records seized from Donald Trump’s Florida home asked the former president’s lawyers on Thursday to provide any evidence casting doubt on the integrity of the documents. Trump has previously made unsubstantiated claims the documents were planted by FBI agents."

The claims have just been substantiated.

Judge Raymond Dearie looks like a dumbass, right about now. To be fair, I doubt he knew the FBI lied to him and other judges.

 

Trump has admitted he had the docs and has demanded their return. But thank you for admitting that the "planting" claims are unsubstantiated garbage.

 

Hmmm.

It seems to me that Trump has admitted to having some docs, but that doesn't mean he has admitted having every doc that could possibly now be put into evidence.

Im not saying docs were or were not planted, but just because he has admitted to having some docs does not mean that therefore no doc can be planted. You are trying to make an if/then connection that does not exist.

 

Which of the docs has he denied? Be specific.

 

Link?

Well, not anymore...lol

 

Oh Look....a STRAWMAN!

If I had said (or even implied) that he denied specific documents, your question would be legitimate.

Since I said no such thing, it is yet ANOTHER strawman that has NOTHING to do with the topic which is whether his acknowledgment of any documents existing means that therefore no documents could have been planted.

Acknowledging the existence of some documents does not mean he acknowledges all documents no matter what is introduced. There is nothing here to legitimately argue, although history tells me that will not stop you from trying.

 

The documents case should have been dismissed within a week. The DOJ needs to be examined carefully if it has this much money to burn playing partisan political tag.

 

Which of the docs has he denied? Be specific

 

Did you not see my reply?

Oh Look....a STRAWMAN!...

If I had said he denied specific documents, your question would be legitimate.

Since I said no such thing, it is yet ANOTHER strawman that has NOTHING to do with the topic which is whether his acknowledgment of any documents existing means that therefore no documents could have been planted.

 

So now you are claiming he is saying that all of the docs were planted? Odd. Citation needed.

 

I guess you are employing the old appear to be insane and they will leave you alone tactic.

I will leave you alone, but make no mistake, my point has been made. Acknowledging the existence of some documents does not mean he acknowledges all documents no matter what is eventually introduced into evidence.

 

He never said it.

 

So now you and FAW admit Trump had these documents? Make up your ****ing minds.

 

Had what documents?

There is no doubt he possessed some documents. Nobody is trying to say he did not possess any documents. That does not mean that therefore he has admitted to possessing any and all documents that could be entered into evidence.

What are you even trying to argue here? Your position does not make any sense. This is the very definition of aimless bickering.

 

Haskell Law #27: Republicans will ALWAYS defend criminals as long as they share the same ideology.

Even Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose a single supporter because he knows this very well.

 

You know that the Biden WH packed up these boxes, salted them with docs with classified markings, and then they may have sat unopened until the FBI retrieved them. Then the FBI and Lying Jack misrepresented to the Court that the evidence was still in the same condition as it was when they retrieved it, even though they removed documents, shuffled contents, combined and recombined boxes?

This destroyed Trump's ability to demonstrate that they never even went through boxes and that the boxes were in the same condition as they were when they were when sent to him by the Biden WH. Bribed Joe can't say that about the classified information he had, it clearly had been gone though.

If you aren't familiar with the legal doctrine of spoliation; in a nutshell the Court assumes that had the person who spoiled the evidence, not spoiled the evidence, that it would cut against their position if it could be evaluated in an unspoiled condition.

Whatever part of this case is based on what was in those boxes, that they cannot independently prove was removed by Trump, may not be able to be able to be used as evidence.

They also have a motion on the table to evaluate what the FBI retrieved that was privileged.

Fetterman, a Democrat, honestly sums up all 4 lawfare cases Dems are trying to bring to rig the election:

Sen. Fetterman: I'm A Senator And I'm Not Exactly Sure What Trump's Trials Are About.

 

It's not lawfare, and Biden had nothing to do with it beyond not stopping it from happening. No, they were NOT salted, they became disorganized. Embarassing? Yes. Causing a delay? Understandable. Destroys the case? No. The fact of what was there isn't changed, so it makes no difference on the charges. Claiming he didn't know they were there is not going to fly given attempts to hide their presence and not turn them over.

 

Should the FBI agents that planted evidence be charged and indicted?

 

The evidence was planted. That isn't just embarrassing, it's a felony.

You people love defending criminal behavior by the government.