Quote:

---

If Trump had returned the documents when asked, would any of this be happening?

---

This case wouldn't be happening, but they'd find something else to go after him for. See Bragg in NY as an example

Ags77 said:

---

If he is indicted, and it sounds like its imminent, I predict a conviction in Georgia. Will that help Governor DeSantis ?

DeSantis 2024

---

if he is indicted for January 6 crimes in the District of Columbia

it's 100% that Trump is going to be a convicted Felon.

likely if he is indicted in Atlanta as well.

let's put a twice impeached felon as our nominee against a billion dollars from the left.

of course we will win!

Quote:

---

If Trump had returned the documents when asked, would any of this be happening?

---

No, as evidenced by the fact that he hasn't been charged with possessing documents that he previously turned over.

Correction said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Funny that the indictment only says that there was an "attempted deletion" and point to a change in travel plans as... evidence. Strong case, would convict.

---

This is now multiple threads where you're obfuscating what's in the actual indictment and trying to play it off as "their only evidence is that Nauta changed his travel plans" or, later down this very thread where you are wishcasting "I think at worst Trump was just asking his lawyers how much video footage he needed to turn over."

Either:

1. You haven't read the indictment; or

2. You have, but hope no one else has.

For anyone that doesn't want to rely on FTC's attempts to "hey look over there" this away, the actual narrative in support of the new charges comes in paragraphs 74-84 on pages 27-29 of the indictment, found here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.85.0_4.pdf

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing:

1. Morning after Trump's attorneys are notified that DOJ will be requesting a subpoena for security camera footage from MAL, Trump calls De Oliveira (head maintenance guy) at MAL for 24 minutes.

2. The following day, the actual subpoena is delivered. Trump's co-indicted gopher, Walt Nauta, is informed that Trump needs to speak with him. He cancels plans to travel to Illinois and heads to MAL instead and meets with De Oliveira. In texts with "Trump Employee #3" he says he's not going to Illinois b/c a "family emergency" has come up, adding a shush emoji.

3. Before arriving, De Oliveira tells another "Trump Employee #5" that Nauta is coming down, but it needs to remain a secret, per Trump, and that he's coming down to speak with the IT guy ("Trump Employee #4") at MAL about the security cameras. After arriving, De Oliveira and Nauta head to the security room at MAL that shows all the camera feeds and then proceed to walk the grounds of MAL, making note of where all cameras are located.

4. The next day, De Oliveira meets with IT guy, insisting that the conversation remain private. He asks about how long security footage stays on the server and tells IT guy that "the boss" needs the footage deleted. IT Guy says he wouldn't know how to do so and doesn't think he could legally do so even if he did know how.

Seems highly likely to me that all this is on video and/or recorded in text messages and phone records Moreover, I'd be surprised if Items 2-4 above didn't come directly from sworn testimony by Trump Employees 3-5, smartly doing their best to avoid getting swept up in an indictment.

---

Thanks, I posted the tl;dr version before your lengthy diatribe of "facts" that are more suggestive than objective.

This is the problem with some of you folk. You take words from an indictment, drafted by a KNOWN Trump hater and crooked DOJ guy, knowing full well at this point that the DOJ is completely corrupt and biased / two-tiered. Further, an indictment is widely considered to include the prosecutions "best case / evidence" when presented as from there the defense will begin to pull it apart.

Yet there is supposition in your reply and posts by others that the DOJ and Smith are sitting on "better" more solid evidence that they just have not shared yet. Sorry, but that is bull**** and not how things work.

I did not need to read the updated indictment to know that I described as occurring is what Smith developed into another of his "theories". Are you seriously going to support Trump being convicted based on change of travel plans, an inquiry on security footage, review of camera location and storage details, and a "shush" emoji? Seems like something from a bad Perry Mason knock off.

Don't try and use some fake nonsense about what you imagine and think to try and undercut my posts. If you and the haterz have the goods, then Trump goes to jail over moving boxes and the civil law Presidential Record's Act, meanwhile Biden is selling our Country out to the Chinese and globalists. Congrats on trying to distract, sorry your distraction failed.

Quote:

---

Not when there is no underlying crime. And I do not subscribe to the nonsense of obstruction of justice involving something that is not a crime to begin with, that is purely unconstitutional.

Regardless, there is no evidence to date that there was an attempt. Only vague allegations regardless.

I imagine at WORST Trump may have asked about what cctv footage there was, how is it stored, and what, if any of it, needed to be turned over. Believe he even asked one of his lawyers this.

And Head Witch Hunter Smith takes that and issues an "indictment" making up more stories about what he claims Trump did regarding personal records stored at M-A-L that are under the purview of the Presidential Records Act.

This is all widely known. There was no crime by Trump. Its time people moved on nearly a year later.

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3382073/replies/65281973

LMCane said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

If he is indicted, and it sounds like its imminent, I predict a conviction in Georgia. Will that help Governor DeSantis ?

DeSantis 2024

---

if he is indicted for January 6 crimes in the District of Columbia

it's 100% that Trump is going to be a convicted Felon.

likely if he is indicted in Atlanta as well.

let's put a twice impeached felon as our nominee against a billion dollars from the left.

of course we will win!

---

So in LM Cane world, actual law, facts and justice do not apply. All that matters is corrupt DOJ and DemLib minions get a conviction in a DC court full of jaded liberal ******s who cannot even understand the laws and facts much less come to an actual carriage of justice.

Solid bro. Solid. We need more like you if we are truly going to become a banana republic.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If Trump had returned the documents when asked, would any of this be happening?

---

This case wouldn't be happening, but they'd find something else to go after him for. See Bragg in NY as an example

---

Truth. And people remain obliquely naive to think the same shenanigans will not be pulled on DeSantis.

Facts do not matter. What matters is what lie they come up with that the White House repeats, MSM spreads and corrupt DOJ / judiciary does in the kangaroo court system.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If Trump had returned the documents when asked, would any of this be happening?

---

This case wouldn't be happening, but they'd find something else to go after him for. See Bragg in NY as an example

---

The problem with that is that there are so many investigations already in progress, why would they need to find something else?

Filing a superceding indictment in this case just shows Smith is still trying to make a case. Adding a new defendant? That just draws out and delays things for months. New counsel has to get security clearances and time to review the evidence, etc. so trial gets pushed back even more.

My question is why? Why would Smith want to cause a delay by doing this? There is no pressing SOL question. If the new defendant was going to turn on Trump, he would have done it by now, right? Indicting him turns up the heat, sure. But just as easy to offer him immunity before the indictment.

aggiehawg said:

---

Filing a superceding indictment in this case just shows Smith is still trying to make a case. Adding a new defendant? That just draws out and delays things for months. New counsel has to get security clearances and time to review the evidence, etc. so trial gets pushed back even more.

My question is why? Why would Smith want to cause a delay by doing this? There is no pressing SOL question. If the new defendant was going to turn on Trump, he would have done it by now, right? Indicting him turns up the heat, sure. But just as easy to offer him immunity before the indictment.

---

Not a lawyer by any means so potentially way out of my depth, but what major nationwide upcoming event in the next year and a half could possibly be affected by drawing this thing out?

LMCane said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

If he is indicted, and it sounds like its imminent, I predict a conviction in Georgia. Will that help Governor DeSantis ?

DeSantis 2024

---

if he is indicted for January 6 crimes in the District of Columbia

it's 100% that Trump is going to be a convicted Felon.

likely if he is indicted in Atlanta as well.

let's put a twice impeached felon as our nominee against a billion dollars from the left.

of course we will win!

---

Let's cave and let prevail the leftist strategy of weaponizing the justice system to take out righteous opposition. Makes a lot of sense to those whose minds have been broken by fraud, deceit and anti American traitor tactics of impeachment, lying on affidavits, illegal searches at dawn, ballot harvesting and stuffing.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Filing a superceding indictment in this case just shows Smith is still trying to make a case. Adding a new defendant? That just draws out and delays things for months. New counsel has to get security clearances and time to review the evidence, etc. so trial gets pushed back even more.

My question is why? Why would Smith want to cause a delay by doing this? There is no pressing SOL question. If the new defendant was going to turn on Trump, he would have done it by now, right? Indicting him turns up the heat, sure. But just as easy to offer him immunity before the indictment.

---

Not a lawyer by any means so potentially way out of my depth, but what major nationwide upcoming event in the next year and a half could possibly be affected by drawing this thing out?

---

The answer lies in the above words, though I believe your question was rhetorical to begin with.

No better evidence that Smith has no case and this was all political theater than what Hawg points out.

If they had something, anything, they would be fully tilting at Trumpist windmills. So like with Schiff and Russia, they draw the charade out as long as the possibly can.

I feel bad for people that thought Trump actually did something wrong and there was going to be a trial. Gullible does not even begin to describe their depths of despair and disillusionment.

Quote:

---

Not a lawyer by any means so potentially way out of my depth, but what major nationwide upcoming event in the next year and a half could possibly be affected by drawing this thing out?

---

Why not wait until the primaries to indict Trump in the first place?

Again, I go back to wondering if this is designed to keep Trump off of certain state's primary ballots? Seems to me Smith isn't itching to try his case. Not on this, at least.

Bryanisbest said:

---

LMCane said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

If he is indicted, and it sounds like its imminent, I predict a conviction in Georgia. Will that help Governor DeSantis ?

DeSantis 2024

---

if he is indicted for January 6 crimes in the District of Columbia

it's 100% that Trump is going to be a convicted Felon.

likely if he is indicted in Atlanta as well.

let's put a twice impeached felon as our nominee against a billion dollars from the left.

of course we will win!

---

Let's cave and let prevail the leftist strategy of weaponizing the justice system to take out righteous opposition. Makes a lot of sense to those who minds have been broken by fraud, deceit and anti American traitors.

---

LMCane I believe has a military background, but must have trained with the French. Never seen someone ready to wave their white rag of "victory" more than they do. Actually may be the most impressive part of their posts.

Note - This is directed at their posts, I have no idea if LMCane is a real person or if they were trained by the French.

Deafening silence from constitutional scholars while the nation throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Weaponization the political process is like an arrow; once released you can't take it back.

This is Heart of Darkness level **** and we keep going up river.

We may live to regret the normalization of imprisoning ones political opponents.

This issue supersedes party lines. The issue has serious and long term constitutional implications that few have the capability to understand. It's not just about Donald Trump. It's about a complete breakdown of the political process.

Therefore, I renew my position that this case should be immediately stayed and sent to a higher court for full and final resolution.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Not a lawyer by any means so potentially way out of my depth, but what major nationwide upcoming event in the next year and a half could possibly be affected by drawing this thing out?

---

Why not wait until the primaries to indict Trump in the first place?

Again, I go back to wondering if this is designed to keep Trump off of certain state's primary ballots? Seems to me Smith isn't itching to try his case. Not on this, at least.

---

It won't keep off any ballots for the primary. It just makes his base more determined to vote for him, which is what the Democrats want.

Some states would likely try to keep him off the general election ballot, especially if he is in prison by then, but those would be Democrat states no Republican would win so it would be irrelevant.

However, if Trump is in prison, the GOP would likely replace him with someone else; thus ensuring an even bigger loss in the general as MAGA throws another temper tantrum and stays home, or votes Democrat for "revenge."

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Not a lawyer by any means so potentially way out of my depth, but what major nationwide upcoming event in the next year and a half could possibly be affected by drawing this thing out?

---

Why not wait until the primaries to indict Trump in the first place?

Again, I go back to wondering if this is designed to keep Trump off of certain state's primary ballots? Seems to me Smith isn't itching to try his case. Not on this, at least.

---

It won't keep off any ballots for the primary. It just makes his base more determined to vote for him, which is what the Democrats want.

Some states would likely try to keep him off the general election ballot, especially if he is in prison by then, but those would be Democrat states no Republican would win so it would be irrelevant.

However, if Trump is in prison, the GOP would likely replace him with someone else; thus ensuring an even bigger lose in the general as MAGA throws another temper tantrum and stays home, or votes Democrat for "revenge."

---

Do you seriously, no matter how remote, think Trump is going to prison? For what would he go to prison for?

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If Trump had returned the documents when asked, would any of this be happening?

---

This case wouldn't be happening, but they'd find something else to go after him for. See Bragg in NY as an example

---

Couple of questions for you.

Do you think Smith wants any of these cases to go to trial? I'm asking because for those who've read it (I haven't), I understand most, of not all, are REALLY weak cases, no matter how dumb some of the moves by Trump were. Although, it's hard to argue with his actions since so many of the actions by the Dems in the last ten years were all accepted and not acted on.

Secondly, I don't pay too much attention to the daily goings on and additional indictments because so much is going to change, for better or worse, from now until next April when things really heat up and it will be time to pay attention. I'm sure there are additional indictments coming from all sides. Do you ever listen to Julie Kelly? And do you think she's a good lawyer. I'm attempting to discern who's a good listen/read and who isn't.

I know they're still arresting J6 participants and are gunning for Guiliani,several Rep congressmen, and many, many others. How in the hell do we respond to this? It's getting REALLY ridiculous.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Not a lawyer by any means so potentially way out of my depth, but what major nationwide upcoming event in the next year and a half could possibly be affected by drawing this thing out?

---

Why not wait until the primaries to indict Trump in the first place?

Again, I go back to wondering if this is designed to keep Trump off of certain state's primary ballots? Seems to me Smith isn't itching to try his case. Not on this, at least.

---

IMO, which isn't worth much, but it does seem to me the goal is, in addition to incarceration, to remove him from the ballot.

Americans are very forgiving and elastic, but when you taken away so many things from them, the very last thing they have it the ballot. IF the Left is successful, there will be some kind of consequence. I know the Dems are desperately hoping for violence and civic strife, which is obvious, but Trump's fans are absolutely passionate.

We'll see, and we've got a long way to go, in addition to hundreds of more indictments (just kidding--kinda).

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Not a lawyer by any means so potentially way out of my depth, but what major nationwide upcoming event in the next year and a half could possibly be affected by drawing this thing out?

---

Why not wait until the primaries to indict Trump in the first place?

Again, I go back to wondering if this is designed to keep Trump off of certain state's primary ballots? Seems to me Smith isn't itching to try his case. Not on this, at least.

---

i don't think the intention is to keep Trump off the primary ticket. To the contrary, I think the game plan is:

1) continually screw with Trump's image for the year leading up to the primaries. That riles up his base and otherwise non-commital Republicans to put him on the ticket as a show of defiance against the charges. That also continues to damage his name with CMs and otherwise non-commital Dems who are not enthusiastic about this election (thanks to Biden)

2) hope Trump gets named the Rep nominee, THEN get him taken off the ticket

3) cause such extreme havok to the Rep ticket that CMs and independents will either vote Dem or stay home, and the diehard Trump base will attempt another Jan 6th so the Dems can claim election integrity is compromised and extreme measures are needed to monitor the vote (i.e. Dems win in a 3 a.m. landslide)

fka ftc said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Not a lawyer by any means so potentially way out of my depth, but what major nationwide upcoming event in the next year and a half could possibly be affected by drawing this thing out?

---

Why not wait until the primaries to indict Trump in the first place?

Again, I go back to wondering if this is designed to keep Trump off of certain state's primary ballots? Seems to me Smith isn't itching to try his case. Not on this, at least.

---

It won't keep off any ballots for the primary. It just makes his base more determined to vote for him, which is what the Democrats want.

Some states would likely try to keep him off the general election ballot, especially if he is in prison by then, but those would be Democrat states no Republican would win so it would be irrelevant.

However, if Trump is in prison, the GOP would likely replace him with someone else; thus ensuring an even bigger lose in the general as MAGA throws another temper tantrum and stays home, or votes Democrat for "revenge."

---

Do you seriously, no matter how remote, think Trump is going to prison? For what would he go to prison for?

---

Do you think no matter how much evidence their is or how apparent it is he could be found guilty he's going to plead out? If not what do you believe will happen if convicted of multiple felonies across multiple jurisdictions? Based on those scenarios it's very low probability he wouldn't do any time. Doesn't mean he's getting life or anything of that nature but the felonies are adding up. It's either beat all of them of very strong likelihood he does some time.

TheTruthsLastHope said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Not a lawyer by any means so potentially way out of my depth, but what major nationwide upcoming event in the next year and a half could possibly be affected by drawing this thing out?

---

Why not wait until the primaries to indict Trump in the first place?

Again, I go back to wondering if this is designed to keep Trump off of certain state's primary ballots? Seems to me Smith isn't itching to try his case. Not on this, at least.

---

It won't keep off any ballots for the primary. It just makes his base more determined to vote for him, which is what the Democrats want.

Some states would likely try to keep him off the general election ballot, especially if he is in prison by then, but those would be Democrat states no Republican would win so it would be irrelevant.

However, if Trump is in prison, the GOP would likely replace him with someone else; thus ensuring an even bigger lose in the general as MAGA throws another temper tantrum and stays home, or votes Democrat for "revenge."

---

Do you seriously, no matter how remote, think Trump is going to prison? For what would he go to prison for?

---

Do you think no matter how much evidence their is or how apparent it is he could be found guilty he's going to plead out? If not what do you believe will happen if convicted of multiple felonies across multiple jurisdictions? Based on those scenarios it's very low probability he wouldn't do any time. Doesn't mean he's getting life or anything of that nature but the felonies are adding up. It's either beat all of them of very strong likelihood he does some time.

---

Zero evidence he committed any felonies, even with the corrupt DOJs "best case" in their vague, poorly constructed, mostly false indictments.

Zero. When you keep adding up zeros you still get zero. So are you suggesting an innocent person should be imprisoned because they had the gall to challenge the deep state?

If the deep state has its way, trump will die in prison. All these charges piling up are pointing right to it.

Member where you were when me and others were saying that trump would be indicted? The responses were "got em", "cm" and "ok" or some other nonsense legal argument circulating on Twitter.

My only response here to him is my signature, because it applies to so many!

I'm not saying "should"…I'm saying "will".


Those are two totally different things

aggiehawg said:

---

Filing a superceding indictment in this case just shows Smith is still trying to make a case. Adding a new defendant? That just draws out and delays things for months. New counsel has to get security clearances and time to review the evidence, etc. so trial gets pushed back even more.

My question is why? Why would Smith want to cause a delay by doing this? There is no pressing SOL question. If the new defendant was going to turn on Trump, he would have done it by now, right? Indicting him turns up the heat, sure. But just as easy to offer him immunity before the indictment.

---

I think that it behooves Jack Smith to make the case as strong as possible before going to court.

For one thing, it puts more pressure on Trump to plea bargain. I don't think that is going to happen, but it has to be a factor.

More importantly, Jack Smith probably gets only one chance here. If he goes into court with a less than stellar case and Trump walks, then it is over. They surely don't want to skip anything that strengthens their case.

The real political show would be if they rushed through everything. If they did that, then it would mean that they weren't serious about convicting Trump, only about putting on a show for everyone to watch.

The real political show was the two impeachments. The way they hurried through those clearly showed that they never expected to convict Trump of the impeachment. As I said repeatedly during the first, the investigation would take a year or more if they were actually serious. That they hardly investigated anything and didn't even talk to all of the main witnesses clearly showed that it was all politics.

Jack Smith isn't there to twiddle his thumbs. It seems far more likely that he is aggressively pursuing the case regardless of politics rather than pushing some political agenda.

Quote:

---

it puts more pressure on Trump to plea bargain.

---

That's a good point and another issue.

With what we saw go down with Hunter Biden, what kind of conditions and contingencies would the prosecution try to put in any plea deal involving Trump, and would those contingencies be constitutional under the circumstances given the political implications of all this.

I'll go ahead and chalk that up in my already seven deep list of constitutional issues already baked into this case.

Would the man who sold 1.1 million copies of a book entitled the Art of the Deal try and cut a plea deal?

A legitimate question indeed.

Quote:

---

Jack Smith isn't there to twiddle his thumbs. It seems far more likely that he is aggressively pursuing the case regardless of politics rather than pushing some political agenda.

---

So wrong. Jack Smith received a smackdown from SCOTUS for doing precisely that. Why he left DOJ and was exiled to the Netherlands.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Jack Smith isn't there to twiddle his thumbs. It seems far more likely that he is aggressively pursuing the case regardless of politics rather than pushing some political agenda.

---

So wrong. Jack Smith received a smackdown from SCOTUS for doing precisely that. Why he left DOJ and was exiled to the Netherlands.

---

Wouldn't having a conviction overturned by the Supreme Court be likely to make him want to nail everything down this time around?

By the way, there is one thing that really confuses me. What would the surveillance tapes of a search by agents based on the issuance of a search warrant be expected to show? The FBI was there conducting the search and so have first hand knowledge about what they find. Are the surveillance tapes really all that important? Is it possibly something along the line of something that they have to preserve just in case it is demanded at some point in the future?

Quote:

---

Wouldn't having a conviction overturned by the Supreme Court be likely to make him want to nail everything down this time around?

---

No. Leopards do not change their spots. Once a corrupt prosecutor, always a corrupt one.

Even in exile, he did not learn that.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

it puts more pressure on Trump to plea bargain.

---

That's a good point and another issue.

With what we saw go down with Hunter Biden, what kind of conditions and contingencies would the prosecution try to put in any plea deal involving Trump, and would those contingencies be constitutional under the circumstances given the political implications of all this.

I'll go ahead and chalk that up in my already seven deep list of constitutional issues already baked into this case.

Would the man who sold 1.1 million copies of a book entitled the Art of the Deal try and cut a plea deal?

A legitimate question indeed.

---

Nope, because in his mind it is all a political witch hunt (it is) and he did absolutely nothing wrong (he did, but again he is being prosecuted for purely political reasons and any other former President would be given the benefit of the doubt).

And before someone brings it up, the NYC case is just garbage through and through. The ones which will get him though will be in DC and Atlanta because those juries will be fully stacked with dedicated leftists and both of those are purely political.

Quote:

---

The ones which will get him though will be in DC and Atlanta because those juries will be fully stacked with dedicated leftists.

---

Voir dire will be a nightmare for counsel. Both sides. Strategy. And does the judge actually control the courtroom?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Wouldn't having a conviction overturned by the Supreme Court be likely to make him want to nail everything down this time around?

---

No. Leopards do not change their spots. Once a corrupt prosecutor, always a corrupt one.

Even in exile, he did not learn that.

---

Once trash, always trash.

Quote:

---

Once trash, always trash.

---

They never learn because they keep getting away with it.

Man, if I had tried that crap in the 80s, would have lost my license in federal courts if not state courts, too.