Quote:

---

I don't need to waste my time reading a "gag order" when enforcement of it explicitly violates Trump's first amendment rights.

---

It wont take much time, because one doesn't exist!

Let us know when you get that motion filed for Trump's lawyers. The Republic is counting on you!

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't need to waste my time reading a "gag order" when enforcement of it explicitly violates Trump's first amendment rights.

---

It wont take much time, because one doesn't exist!

Let us know when you get that motion filed for Trump's lawyers. The Republic is counting on you!

---

Then makes sense I have not read it. What's your point?

You are making fun at me not reading a gag order that does not exist?

Tell me how you enforce a gag order on Trump, a declared candidate for POTUS. Go on, lay out your legal theory.

Quote:

---

Of course, I'm Gipper is now somehow saying he explained this to me which is sort of funny.

---

You didn't know what the counts were! That is okay, but don't try to change this history!

You said the bolded part. That was wrong.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i

---

Im Gipper said:
Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?

---

fka ftc said:
6 a and b.

---

Then I explained what a "count" was.

Quote:

---

Those are not counts.

Counts start at paragraph 76.

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3382073/replies/65033671

Quote:

---

Are you saying that if "off the record" it leans towards Trump kidding around? I could see that.

---

Just asking the question but sort of yes.Something not intended for publication, for whatever reason given, it was a joke, etc. is part of the context that is missing with just this truncated clip.

And if Smith does not have the exact document they claim Trump was holding, the tape could be excluded at trial. (Assuming it ever reaches trial, that is.)

Rapier108 said:

---

Since CNN got the tape, that means it came from the FBI.

CNN is their go to media outlet when they want to "leak" something.

---

The FBI has had that tape for a long time but the second trump gets ahold of it, it suddenly leaks.

Quote:

---

You are making fun at me not reading a gag order that does not exist?

Tell me how you enforce a gag order on Trump, a declared candidate for POTUS. Go on, lay out your legal theory.

---

Stat Monitor claimed Trump violated a gag order. I asked for an example of how. He has not provided any example.

You then jumped into the discussion.

If a gag order said "Trump cannot talk to defend himself" that would clearly be improper. Such an order does to exits. Trump's lawyer's AGREED to the protective order, but you are so sure its unconstitutional.

You spend a ton of time on this thread, at least take time to read the documents!

boboguitar said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Since CNN got the tape, that means it came from the FBI.

CNN is their go to media outlet when they want to "leak" something.

---

The FBI has had that tape for a long time but the second trump gets ahold of it, it suddenly leaks.

---

Trump has access to this tape long before the FBI did. Take your conspiracy theory elsewhere.

Is it a good idea to ****can the entire constitution in pursuit of a single man?

Im Gipper said:

---

boboguitar said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Since CNN got the tape, that means it came from the FBI.

CNN is their go to media outlet when they want to "leak" something.

---

The FBI has had that tape for a long time but the second trump gets ahold of it, it suddenly leaks.

---

Trump has access to this tape long before the FBI did. Take your conspiracy theory elsewhere.

---

Weird how you didn't say that to the conspiracy theory I was replying too.

Quote:

---

And if Smith does not have the exact document they claim Trump was holding, the tape could be excluded at trial. (Assuming it ever reaches trial, that is.)

---

Agree on all! It will be extremely hard to get that tape in if the document isn't one of the ones Smith lists in the indictment.


On a side note, always enjoy discussing cases with you because I know you have read the source documents. Seems many Internet Super Lawyers (one from each side on this page) know everything but don't bother to read anything!

Fact 1: this audio recording was made in Bedminster, NJ. It was not made in Mar-A-Lago, FL

Fact 2: Nowhere in the indictment does Special Counsel Jack Smith discuss classified documents at Trump's Bedminster, NJ resort

Fact 3: This was never going to be Trump's word vs. whoever…

— Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit (@drawandstrike) June 27, 2023

Did the DOJ choose to prosecute a case against a former president and current presidential candidate during the run up to the 2024 presidential election?

From what I've seen so far this case may actually go to trial in the fall of 2024.

So we got a situation where a presidential candidate is involved in a federal criminal trial during the election which includes a gag order limiting what he can talk about with regard to the case.

So Trump is under threat of imprisonment from the case itself. He's also under threat of imprisonment before the case is decided by talking about the case and the evidence to be presented against him.

So you got the executive branch and the judicial branch, each with a thumb on trump's throat.

Is it possible for congress to get involved so that we have all three branches of government unified in pursuit of a single man?

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

And if Smith does not have the exact document they claim Trump was holding, the tape could be excluded at trial. (Assuming it ever reaches trial, that is.)

---

Agree on all! It will be extremely hard to get that tape in if the document isn't one of the ones Smith lists in the indictment.


On a side note, always enjoy discussing cases with you because I know you have read the source documents. Seems many Internet Super Lawyers (one from each side on this page) know everything but don't bother to read anything!

---

You are making yourself look incredibly juvenile, but that is expected.

I have read the indictment. I did not read a gag order that does not exist.

I did respond as you pointed out, to paragraphs 6a and 6b before I had gone through the indictment more thoroughly.

I was under the general impression that our justice system prevented the prosecutor from including information the have manipulated, mischaracterized, or that is unrelated to the actual charges they are bringing. I think most Americans, including many very smart ones, would not expect the prosecutor to be this inappropriate in their charging document, but it appears they simply do not care.

The indictment was more of a press release than a legal document. That is not supposed to be how it works.

After listening to the tape and rereading the indictment, I imagine the DOJ is going to try and tie the tape to one or more of the counts listed. Sounds like DJT is referring to either a daily briefing or a specific military foreign intelligence briefing where he was provided a copy to look at and may have taken notes on.

His retention of that document violates no law. His showing the document without divulging the contents violates no law. Any dispute over his continued retention of the document is government by the PRA and the Espionage Act does not apply. With no underlying "crime", then the search warrant was done under false pretenses and any subsequent obstruction claims are hose*****

The problem with lawyers is they think like... lawyers. And this "case" is not about the law. Its about how to abuse the law and how the US Constitution was written to protect against such abuses. The sooner you realize that, the better your case discussion will be.

I don't need to pay money to a fancy law school to understand the Constitution and its protections are being ignored and that Trump is being persecuted for political reasons only.

That makes me something better than a lawyer. It makes me a wise person who understands the situation.

Will the pending January 6th indictments be used as a fallback plan in case this presidential records case dematerializes before the election?

will25u said:

---

Fact 1: this audio recording was made in Bedminster, NJ. It was not made in Mar-A-Lago, FL

Fact 2: Nowhere in the indictment does Special Counsel Jack Smith discuss classified documents at Trump's Bedminster, NJ resort

Fact 3: This was never going to be Trump's word vs. whoever…

— Brian Cates - Political Columnist & Pundit (@drawandstrike) June 27, 2023

---

Yup. Which, if you read earlier in the thread, was discussed. There might likely be additional charges coming up in New Jersey as a result of what was heard in this tape.

Also, there are many more recordings, if you can trust Fox and other media outlets.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Will the pending January 6th indictments be used as a fallback plan in case this presidential records case dematerializes before the election?

---

In my view, yes. But Smith will have to get very creative to put much meat on charges solely related to Jan 6th.

Quote:

---

Also, there are many more recordings, if you can trust Fox and other media outlets.

---

A filing in the case from Smith says there are additional recordings also. These have been turned over to Trump's lawyers.

Do you think there are more indictments to come?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, there are many more recordings, if you can trust Fox and other media outlets.

---

A filing in the case from Smith says there are additional recordings also. These have been turned over to Trump's lawyers.

---

From the same interviewers for the Meadows' book?

Must have missed that memo.

agz win said:

---

CNN reporting they have the (2021) tape of donald's conversation about classified documents. Grab your popcorn!

---

Selective leaking by the prosecution?

How Soviet of them.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

agz win said:

---

CNN reporting they have the (2021) tape of donald's conversation about classified documents. Grab your popcorn!

---

Selective leaking by the prosecution?

How Soviet of them.

---

Smith, Garland and the Biden DOJ have done nothing but selectively leak, both in the timing and the content.

The damn indictment might as well have been draft by Biden re-election committee.

At least the Soviets had more class and competence when taking out political foes. Another area where Putin gets it done and Deep State / Biden fail.

Has the full power the federal government been unleashed in pursuit of a single man?

The walls are closing in on Trump and it's no-holds-barred from a constitutional perspective.

Reminds me of that time Jake the Snake brought a live cobra into the ring and had it bite macho man randy savage during the match.

We've crossed the rubicon with this.

We off the rails. Fully in WWF territory.

It's laughable at this point to try and subject this case to any sort of constitutional scrutiny.

The constitutional chicken has flown the coop, and there's been no attempt so far to reign it back in.

This entire case is so incredulous that we may be looking at some sort of theatrical performance reminiscent of covid.

from doc. # 30.

Quote:

---

A. 1. Production 1 includes a copy of any written or recorded statements made by the defendants. These statements include the following:
Interviews of Defendant Trump conducted by non-government entities, which were recorded with his consent and obtained by the Special Counsel's Office during the investigation of this case, including the July 21, 2021 recorded interview Defendant Trump provided to a publisher and writer quoted in part in the Indictment

---

interviews plural indicates there is more than one, and "including" seems to suggest its from a different time

233-years of the US constitution and we are seeing it come unraveled in pursuit of a single man.

Historians will one day conclude that the reaction to Donald Trump broke America.

Thanks. Not the most clearly worded as it starts by referring to both defendants as having written and recorded statements.

Dems theory of the case: throw enough **** on the wall and some of it will stick.

The disconnect with some of you people is that your TDS is so strong you cannot see the big picture implications of what is happening in this case.

The blinders of TDS are so strong that it compels irrational arguments.

TDS is the serpent at the tree of knowledge.

TDS folks got an irresistible compulsion to take a bite. Long term consequences be damned.

It list out the additional statements and recordings, but that was the only one relevant to what we were talking about.

The other documents are public statements by Trump, the Nauta FBI interview, and Nauta grand jury testimony

Quote:

---

The blinders of TDS are so strong that it compels irrational arguments.

---

True.

And an old Alannis morrisette song comes to mind

Bryanisbest said:

---

Dems theory of the case: throw enough **** on the wall and some of it will stick.

---

It's a lazy way of doing things, for sure; but thanks to Trump being the way he is, he does make it easier than most for there to be something that will stick on the wall.

Quote:

---

he does make it easier than most for there to be something that will stick on the wall.

---

Try again! Nothing has stuck. Everything starts loud, then whimpers away.


(Only later to find out Biden did it(

It was the moment he came down the escalator in Trump Tower. At that precise moment, all his NBC, D.C., and real estate/corporate friends withdrew any affiliation with the guy. He was on the wrong side and not a career politician.

You gotta admit; it's pretty creepy to have this line of thinking.

At this point it's not even about Trump.

We are looking at the systematic dismantling of the constitution from the inside out.

Do the courts have the fortitude to reign this all back in?

I think the answer is no.

Not on the basis of anything we've seen so far.

Anything to do with Trump has become so toxic and politically charged that it has superseded the judicial system.

Like I said before. This is uncharted waters. Unprecedented. Absolutely anything could happen here.