will25u said:

---

HOUSE DEMOCRATS SEEK TO HAVE DONALD TRUMP’S JANUARY 6TH TRIAL TELEVISED TO THE PUBLIC

— The Bias (@thebias_news) August 4, 2023

---

It's a win-win-win for them.

Makes Trump's base dig in even more.

Stirs up their base because no one turns out Democrats voters and donors more than Trump.

Makes Trump even more unpalatable to the middle than he already is.

FTA 2001 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Jack Smith lied...again.

---

The indictment makes clear that Trump is being indicted for his actions not his speech.

---

As Turley, McCarthy, Hewitt, and Levin have said in several ways recently, this is all about Trump's speech.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal-experts-slam-jack-smith-lousy-case-trump-disinformation-indictment

McCarthy...

Quote:

---

McCarthy said that one "significant problem" is the fraud that Smith has alleged.

"It is not actionable fraud as the Supreme Court has described fraud as recently as May," McCarthy said. "The Supreme Court made very clear that fraud in federal law is a scheme to swindle someone out of money or physical property."

McCarthy added that this is "exactly the kind of case" the court was telling prosecutors not to bring, "and he brought it anyway."

McCarthy also dismissed the "conspiracy against rights" charge that Smith brought against Trump.

"Smith is using a statute enacted right after the Civil War, which was actually directed at violent intimidation by the Ku Klux Klan against Black voters in the South which doesn't have any connection to what we're talking about here," McCarthy explained. "They applied that law to ballot box stuffing, so what Smith is trying to tease out of that case is what then-Justice Thurgood Marshall said in the 1960s: You don't have to have violence. You just have to have activity that functionally cancels out people's votes."

---

Levin...

Quote:

---

He pivoted to Trump's latest indictment, saying something of the sort has not happened since 1776, while adding all of the prosecutors charging or potentially preparing to charge Trump are politically opposed to him.

"They will use any tool they can. They don't care about free speech. They don't care about the Bill of Rights. They don't care about attorney-client privilege… This is a Democrat Party that is power-hungry, and they see an opportunity right now to monopolize the government and politics forevermore."

---

Turley...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/08/02/trump-indictment-2020-election-jan-6-not-legally-sound/70509753007/

Quote:

---

No, Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration for a politician on false claims made during and after an election.

The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment. This complaint is based largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment. It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.

---

Dershowitz, in response to Bill Barr...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-dershowitz-pushes-back-bill-barr-defense-trump-indictment-dead-wrong

Quote:

---

I like Bill Barr. He's a good man, but I think he's just dead wrong about that. Of course, this is a free speech case. Everything involves his exercise of free speech and not only First Amendment free speech, but also the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The way you protest an election is to come up with an alternate slate of electors. That was done in 1960. That was the Tilden Hayes election. That's been done throughout history. And a court in Hawaii said that's the right way to do it. You know, it's interesting that the indictment is based on lies, and the indictment itself contains a blatant lie by Jack Smith. He describes the speech of January 6, a speech that I think was terrible, never should have been made. But he describes the speech in the indictment and deliberately and willfully leaves out the keywords of the speech, namely that the president told his people to protest peacefully and patriotically. By leaving out those words, it's a lie by omission.

---

Four Constitutional scholars who disagree with your weak analysis of what is in the indictment.

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

will25u said:

---

I am sure you know this, but PopeHat is pretty biased toward democrats. And is a big hater of Donald Trump.

---

I figured that he was.

That's why I said that I would like to see a completely unbiased analysis of the statutes and case law. I doubt that we get this, though.

So instead, we get a lot of blathering by people who might as well be trying to read tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. The best we can do is see what claims are being made by those on each side of the issue.

Remember the words by Carl Sandburg: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell"

It seems to me that Trump and his glee club are doing little more than pounding the table and yelling like hell. Does that mean that both the law and the facts are against them?

---

I've heard reasoned analysis by Turley, Dersh, Levin and others that are driving Mack Trucks through that indictment. From what I'm gathering, there is no case law, due to the "creative" nature of this indictment. In fact, all three have stated that the indictment bears similarities to the one that Smith was reversed on 9-0 by SCOTUS.

Furthermore, Turley and Dersh are far from Trump's glee club. They both lean left.

Nice try, though.

---

Cites?

---

Really? Take 2 seconds and Google "Turley & Indictment". Multiple articles. If you like, search "Turley & Haiku" as well.
If you can stomach it, listen to Glenn Beck's yesterday podcast (on Pandora, or wherever else you get your podcasts) where he interviews Dersh.
And Levin has hours of discussion on it as he has a daily show available by podcast as well.

This isn't hard.

---

It's not hard to find them making public pronouncements. Where is this analysis of the statutory and case law?

---

Sorry, Eric. I've been down this road with you before. Not going there again. Draw your own conclusions. We're done.

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

will25u said:

---

I am sure you know this, but PopeHat is pretty biased toward democrats. And is a big hater of Donald Trump.

---

I figured that he was.

That's why I said that I would like to see a completely unbiased analysis of the statutes and case law. I doubt that we get this, though.

So instead, we get a lot of blathering by people who might as well be trying to read tea leaves in the bottom of a cup. The best we can do is see what claims are being made by those on each side of the issue.

Remember the words by Carl Sandburg: "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell"

It seems to me that Trump and his glee club are doing little more than pounding the table and yelling like hell. Does that mean that both the law and the facts are against them?

---

I've heard reasoned analysis by Turley, Dersh, Levin and others that are driving Mack Trucks through that indictment. From what I'm gathering, there is no case law, due to the "creative" nature of this indictment. In fact, all three have stated that the indictment bears similarities to the one that Smith was reversed on 9-0 by SCOTUS.

Furthermore, Turley and Dersh are far from Trump's glee club. They both lean left.

Nice try, though.

---

Cites?

---

Really? Take 2 seconds and Google "Turley & Indictment". Multiple articles. If you like, search "Turley & Haiku" as well.
If you can stomach it, listen to Glenn Beck's yesterday podcast (on Pandora, or wherever else you get your podcasts) where he interviews Dersh.
And Levin has hours of discussion on it as he has a daily show available by podcast as well.

This isn't hard.

---

It's not hard to find them making public pronouncements. Where is this analysis of the statutory and case law?

---

Sorry, Eric. I've been down this road with you before. Not going there again. Draw your own conclusions. We're done.

---

Nearly all that we are seeing is nothing but rhetoric.

Rhetoric may be good for rousing the base, bit it provides nothing about actual facts. Anyone who bases their views on rhetoric is destined to be misinformed.

for all who think the cases against Trump are just made up and won't actually convict him of felonies:

Ex-Trump lawyer Ty Cobb says former President 'is toast'
Ken Dilanian and Summer Concepcion

Ty Cobb, who represented then-President Trump in former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 election, said in response to the former president's third indictment that he thinks Trump is "toast."

"[O]n the state of mind issues above, there will be evidence from more than one or two witnesses that Trump acknowledged that he lost," Cobb wrote in a Facebook post yesterday, referring to Trump's third indictment.

"That is just the cherry on top of a mountain of evidence that would satisfy the 'reckless disregard' or 'should have known' standards that are alternatives to proving actual knowledge," he added. "He knew. He is toast. DC jury: He is done."

Cobb served in the Trump White House in 2017 and 2018, where he led the internal response to the Mueller probe. Mueller ended his investigation without charging Trump with obstruction of justice, saying that was because of Justice Department guidelines barring a sitting president from being indicted.

Asked by NBC News last year about the prospect of another Trump presidential bid, months before the former president officially announced his campaign, Cobb said he "is a disaster for the Republican Party" and that "the Big Lie has been good only for Trump," referring to the former president's baseless claims of election fraud.

"It should be disqualifying for Trump and his political acolytes, and would have been at any other time in our history. To modify a well known Seinfeld quote SANITY NOW!," he said.

Even Trump Lawyers think he is Guilty

aggiehawg said:

---

Jack Smith lied...again.

---

Amazing. You only have to listen to a few minutes to see how slanted the indictment is.

oh no said:

---

yeah; the idea of alternate electors was only cool all the times democrats did it before.

---

When you have an orchestrated plan to have fake electors in 7 swing states to get the election results you want, that's a crime. I don't know how you can defend that. Does anyone recall democrats actually doing that? If so, please post some evidence.

LMCane said:

---

for all who think the cases against Trump are just made up and won't actually convict him of felonies:

Ex-Trump lawyer Ty Cobb says former President 'is toast'
Ken Dilanian and Summer Concepcion

Ty Cobb, who represented then-President Trump in former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 election, said in response to the former president's third indictment that he thinks Trump is "toast."

"[O]n the state of mind issues above, there will be evidence from more than one or two witnesses that Trump acknowledged that he lost," Cobb wrote in a Facebook post yesterday, referring to Trump's third indictment.

"That is just the cherry on top of a mountain of evidence that would satisfy the 'reckless disregard' or 'should have known' standards that are alternatives to proving actual knowledge," he added. "He knew. He is toast. DC jury: He is done."

Cobb served in the Trump White House in 2017 and 2018, where he led the internal response to the Mueller probe. Mueller ended his investigation without charging Trump with obstruction of justice, saying that was because of Justice Department guidelines barring a sitting president from being indicted.

Asked by NBC News last year about the prospect of another Trump presidential bid, months before the former president officially announced his campaign, Cobb said he "is a disaster for the Republican Party" and that "the Big Lie has been good only for Trump," referring to the former president's baseless claims of election fraud.

"It should be disqualifying for Trump and his political acolytes, and would have been at any other time in our history. To modify a well known Seinfeld quote SANITY NOW!," he said.

Even Trump Lawyers think he is Guilty

---

Trump's lawyer got on Laura Ingraham's show and admitted exactly what's on page 34 of the indictment. "The indictment alleges there that during a Jan. 4 meeting, "The Defendant and Co-Conspirator 2 then asked the Vice President to either unilaterally reject the legitimate electors from the seven targeted states, or send the question of which slate was legitimate to the targeted states' legislatures." Trump hires the "best people".

Gigem314 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Quote:

---

Sounds like he'll need it at the rate he's digging into PAC funds to pay his legal bills. I'm just surprised he's paying his bills

---

It's the Biden family that doesn't pay their bills...or taxes.

---

Okay, I agree. But neither does Trump. Its really funny that the immediate response for any dig at Trump is 'But Biden'. We all are well aware of Bidens faults. Isn't it a given on here? Who has ever actually defended Biden in F16?

---

If Trump or his family didn't pay their taxes, it would have been front page news over the past 6 years. Why does every criticism of Biden to be followed up with "But but but...Trump does it too!!!"? It's just lazy. Biden has actually done many of the things Trump has been accused of...like colluding with a foreign govt, taking bribes, spying on political opponents, prosecuting political opponents, etc.

GeorgiAg has been all over this board defending Biden and downplaying the Archer testimony, among others. You must not look very closely. There are plenty of Biden goal tenders on here.

---

Isn't that exactly what the indictment in NY is about?....tax fraud by undervaluing Trump's real estate, but over valuing it for leveraged loans on it.

Gigem314 said:

---

Quote:

---

If a Democratic president conspired to retain the presidency against the results of the election, you guys that are giving a complete pass to Trump would be calling for the Democrat's head.

---

Trump never conspired to stay in office, he complained very publicly about the results and sued.

But ironically, you and other Dem goalies give Obama a pass for allowing the spying on the Trump campaign in 2016 and Biden for using his DOJ to prosecute his top political opponent for the 2024 election.

---

This is where you guys go off the rails, but that's what your right wing media has drilled into your heads. Unlike Trump, Biden keeps his distance from the DOJ. Deny it all you want, it's a fact. And he is consistent with the Fed as well. Biden keeps a wall between those. Garland appointed Jack Smith, and then a grand jury decides if there was evidence for an indictment. Biden is so far removed from the indictment, it's ridiculous to say otherwise. But that's your talking point to defend the indictment, so have at it. Doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you buy into it via right wing talking heads.

No doubt, dershowitz is a constitutional expert. incredibly smart man that can cite precedent easily on a multitude of issues in 1st, 5rh and 6th amendment. but he's also advocating a position here, not being asked to adjudicate the law. and nothing wrong with that. that is how you make money on tv/internet.

here, he is also playing fast and loose with the facts

Quote:

---

The way you protest an election is to come up with an alternate slate of electors. That was done in 1960. That was the Tilden Hayes election

---

there was no "alternate" slate of electors in 2020. alternate slates were put forward by the Hawaii government in 1960. alternate slates were put forward by southern states in the tilden-hayes election. in 2020, not a single state put forward alternate electors. you don't protest an election by having people sign false certifications that they are the real electors.

Quote:

---

Biden keeps his distance from the DOJ

---

not by choice. because his brain is close to mush. if he were lucid, he'd be very involved. instead, he has his people involved.

Opalka said:

---

oh no said:

---

yeah; the idea of alternate electors was only cool all the times democrats did it before.

---

When you have an orchestrated plan to have fake electors in 7 swing states to get the election results you want, that's a crime. I don't know how you can defend that. Does anyone recall democrats actually doing that? If so, please post some evidence.

---

Rapier108 said:

---

will25u said:

---

HOUSE DEMOCRATS SEEK TO HAVE DONALD TRUMP’S JANUARY 6TH TRIAL TELEVISED TO THE PUBLIC

— The Bias (@thebias_news) August 4, 2023

---

It's a win-win-win for them.

Makes Trump's base dig in even more.

Stirs up their base because no one turns out Democrats voters and donors more than Trump.

Makes Trump even more unpalatable to the middle than he already is.

---

Knowing how much Donald's ego loves the theatrics of the spotlight, I wouldn't be surprised if he pushes for this as well. After all, he'd get to say he got the greatest ratings of all time.

will25u said:

---

HOUSE DEMOCRATS SEEK TO HAVE DONALD TRUMP’S JANUARY 6TH TRIAL TELEVISED TO THE PUBLIC

— The Bias (@thebias_news) August 4, 2023

---

And there it is.

"Will justice be served? Find out after our next commercial break! And now a message from our sponsors: please donate to the DNC today! We can't finish the job against Trump without your $upport!"

It's all a grift.

Trump's attorney has already said he believes the trial should be televised

I hope it's televised, also. It's a historic trial and I would like to watch it.

DeSantis 2024

RafterAg223 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

RafterAg223 said:

---

I don't care who you are. Dem, leftist, MAGA, CM, republican, liberterian etc... If these types of charges aren't very alarming to any sane individual, we are far more lost as a society than I already thought. This is straight up trash and laughable.

---

We already have two leftists on this thread who are fully supporting it.

Probably have the rest show up through the rest of the day to drop a pile and disappear again.

---

They can go ahead and support it. Anyone with a brain will see them as just as big a clown as this Jack Smith character. All the indictments are BS. These rise to a level that I don't even have a description for at this point in time. If you support these in any way, you absolutely do not support the rule of law and fair and equal justice in this country. You support structures like those in Venezuela.

---

The rule of law is exactly why these indictments are happening. If you favor a former president over the Constitution, then that is like Venezuela. Trump's innocent until proven guilty, that's how this country works. But to say that we shouldn't even go to a court of law is exactly what a banana republic is.

And that's how trump supporters are acting....against the former Vice President, Pence. They are once again calling for his head and calling him a traitor. Talk about a cult!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-extremists-calls-hang-mike-193103222.html

🚨 Holy Smokes! Listen to this! 👀

Jan Halper-Hayes, who sits on a TaskForce for the Department of Defense Talks Trumps Subpoena Power and EO 13848- How the DoD & Trump Has All the Goods on the 2020 Election… The US is a BANKRUPT CORPORATION - SPACE FORCE

“They’ve made a HUGE… pic.twitter.com/T3jAFQGibl

— UltraMJTruth (@MJTruthUltra) August 4, 2023

Who can forget the "Executive Order Trap"! Execute Order 13848

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3157974/1#discussion

Sources: Special Counsel Jack Smith has no direct evidence Trump ordered security video footage deleted at Mar-a-Lago. His conspiracy-to-obstruct case is based entirely on hearsay and supposition

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 4, 2023

Stlkofta said:

---

FTA 2001 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Jack Smith lied...again.

---

The indictment makes clear that Trump is being indicted for his actions not his speech.

---

As Turley, McCarthy, Hewitt, and Levin have said in several ways recently, this is all about Trump's speech.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/legal-experts-slam-jack-smith-lousy-case-trump-disinformation-indictment

McCarthy...

Quote:

---

McCarthy said that one "significant problem" is the fraud that Smith has alleged.

"It is not actionable fraud as the Supreme Court has described fraud as recently as May," McCarthy said. "The Supreme Court made very clear that fraud in federal law is a scheme to swindle someone out of money or physical property."

McCarthy added that this is "exactly the kind of case" the court was telling prosecutors not to bring, "and he brought it anyway."

McCarthy also dismissed the "conspiracy against rights" charge that Smith brought against Trump.

"Smith is using a statute enacted right after the Civil War, which was actually directed at violent intimidation by the Ku Klux Klan against Black voters in the South which doesn't have any connection to what we're talking about here," McCarthy explained. "They applied that law to ballot box stuffing, so what Smith is trying to tease out of that case is what then-Justice Thurgood Marshall said in the 1960s: You don't have to have violence. You just have to have activity that functionally cancels out people's votes."

---

Levin...

Quote:

---

He pivoted to Trump's latest indictment, saying something of the sort has not happened since 1776, while adding all of the prosecutors charging or potentially preparing to charge Trump are politically opposed to him.

"They will use any tool they can. They don't care about free speech. They don't care about the Bill of Rights. They don't care about attorney-client privilege… This is a Democrat Party that is power-hungry, and they see an opportunity right now to monopolize the government and politics forevermore."

---

Turley...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/08/02/trump-indictment-2020-election-jan-6-not-legally-sound/70509753007/

Quote:

---

No, Smith and his team have made history in the worst way by attempting to fully criminalize disinformation by seeking the incarceration for a politician on false claims made during and after an election.

The hatred for Trump is so all-encompassing that legal experts on the political left have ignored the chilling implications of this indictment. This complaint is based largely on statements that are protected under the First Amendment. It would eviscerate free speech and could allow the government to arrest those who are accused of spreading disinformation in elections.

---

Dershowitz, in response to Bill Barr...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/alan-dershowitz-pushes-back-bill-barr-defense-trump-indictment-dead-wrong

Quote:

---

I like Bill Barr. He's a good man, but I think he's just dead wrong about that. Of course, this is a free speech case. Everything involves his exercise of free speech and not only First Amendment free speech, but also the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The way you protest an election is to come up with an alternate slate of electors. That was done in 1960. That was the Tilden Hayes election. That's been done throughout history. And a court in Hawaii said that's the right way to do it. You know, it's interesting that the indictment is based on lies, and the indictment itself contains a blatant lie by Jack Smith. He describes the speech of January 6, a speech that I think was terrible, never should have been made. But he describes the speech in the indictment and deliberately and willfully leaves out the keywords of the speech, namely that the president told his people to protest peacefully and patriotically. By leaving out those words, it's a lie by omission.

---

Four Constitutional scholars who disagree with your weak analysis of what is in the indictment.

---

As you well know, Turley, McCarthy, Hewitt, and Levin are all acting as professional defense attorneys who are being paid through conservative networks to defend Mr. Trump's case in the court of public opinion.

They are very smart and know what they are talking about, but they are very biased and cannot be trusted to provide independent analysis.

I find the analysis from people like Randall Eliason, a former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia to be much more persuasive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/jack-smith-trump-indictment.html

This along with comments from Bill Barr and Ty Cobb show that Turley, McCarthy, Hewitt and Levin are clearly playing for the home team.

FTA 2001 said:

---

As you well know, Turley, McCarthy, Hewitt, and Levin are all acting as professional defense attorneys who are being paid through conservative networks to defend Mr. Trump's case in the court of public opinion.

---

This is not true at all. Where do you come up with this stuff?

will25u said:

---

Sources: Special Counsel Jack Smith has no direct evidence Trump ordered security video footage deleted at Mar-a-Lago. His conspiracy-to-obstruct case is based entirely on hearsay and supposition

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 4, 2023

---

Off the top of my head, the Indictment includes an exchange between an unnamed employee and De Oliveria, where the latter stated "the boss" told him to delete the footage. That's direct evidence Trump ordered the video footage deleted, with the possible exception that you have to infer the meaning of "the boss", which won't be hard to do.

So, whoever Paul Sperry is, I think is wrong per the indictment. We can give him grace in that sure, De Oliveria probably won't testify. The unnamed employee who was told that, will be able to testify to what De Oliveria said as a statement against De Oliveria's interest, at least.

I don't mean to quibble over "direct", just trying to make the point I don't think they'll has hamstrung as perhaps Mr. Sperry is attempting to suggest

My parents taught me there are times to be quiet, because usually speaking during those times do not end well. Also, when you're in a hole, stop ****ing digging. Currently the top trend on Twitter, with MAGA wanting war, the left wanting Trump either imprisoned right now or executed.

Trump on Truth Social:

“IF YOU COME AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” pic.twitter.com/iByibOGhbX

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 4, 2023

The Supreme Court is not going to touch this right now, even though Trump likely thinks they owe him for appointing 3 Justices and of course because he's Trump.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

will25u said:

---

Sources: Special Counsel Jack Smith has no direct evidence Trump ordered security video footage deleted at Mar-a-Lago. His conspiracy-to-obstruct case is based entirely on hearsay and supposition

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 4, 2023

---

Off the top of my head, the Indictment includes an exchange between an unnamed employee and De Oliveria, where the latter stated "the boss" told him to delete the footage. That's direct evidence Trump ordered the video footage deleted, with the possible exception that you have to infer the meaning of "the boss", which won't be hard to do.

So, whoever Paul Sperry is, I think is wrong per the indictment. We can give him grace in that sure, De Oliveria probably won't testify. The unnamed employee who was told that, will be able to testify to what De Oliveria said as a statement against De Oliveria's interest, at least.

I don't mean to quibble over "direct", just trying to make the point I don't think they'll has hamstrung as perhaps Mr. Sperry is attempting to suggest

---

I don't think that is correct. I don't believe that is anything approaching "direct evidence".

Consider a hypothetical:

Allen, the boss, tells Baxter to wipe evidence. Baxter, in turn, tells Charles to wipe the evidence as ordered by Allen. And Allen never talks directly to Charles at all.

All Charles can really testify to is that Baxter told him to wipe the evidence and claimed that Allen ordered it. What Charles cannot do is testify that Allen told Baxter to wipe the evidence. For all anyone knows, Baxter lied when he told Charles that Allen ordered.

So to tie Allen to the scheme, they need to convince Baxter to testify against Allen.

All that Charlie could really testify to is that Baxter told him to do it. He has no proof that Allen knew about it at all.

Of course, if Allen conferred about it with Charlie, then Charlie could testify to that?

Is this not correct?

By the way, this reminds me of the scene from The Godfather II in which one mobster was testifying in front of the Senate and when asked about buffers said "Oh yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers!"

TXAggie2011 said:

---

will25u said:

---

Sources: Special Counsel Jack Smith has no direct evidence Trump ordered security video footage deleted at Mar-a-Lago. His conspiracy-to-obstruct case is based entirely on hearsay and supposition

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 4, 2023

---

Off the top of my head, the Indictment includes an exchange between an unnamed employee and De Oliveria, where the latter stated "the boss" told him to delete the footage. That's direct evidence Trump ordered the video footage deleted, with the possible exception that you have to infer the meaning of "the boss", which won't be hard to do.

So, whoever Paul Sperry is, I think is wrong per the indictment. We can give him grace in that sure, De Oliveria probably won't testify. The unnamed employee who was told that, will be able to testify to what De Oliveria said as a statement against De Oliveria's interest, at least.

I don't mean to quibble over "direct", just trying to make the point I don't think they'll has hamstrung as perhaps Mr. Sperry is attempting to suggest

---

As Eric said, isn't that heresy? You can't as to what someone else was told that you were not a party to.

If it doesn't require an inference or another fact to get to the fact being asserted, its direct. De Oliveria telling this unnamed Employee 4 that Trump ordered De Oliveria to delete the footage, or even if De Oliveria told Employee 4 that someone else told De Oliveria that Trump ordered the footage deleted, it is hearsay but it is direct. We don't have to infer or know another fact that Trump ordered the footage deleted.

Absolutely agree De Oliveria could be lying, or Employee 4 could have misheard. That comes down to credibility and believability. That's not what I mean by another "fact." "I saw Jack shoot the gun." I may be lying (I might have shot the gun) or I may have confused someone else for Jack, still direct evidence. So, still direct evidence.

And yes, I agree that's an excellent line from an excellent movie.

will25u said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

will25u said:

---

Sources: Special Counsel Jack Smith has no direct evidence Trump ordered security video footage deleted at Mar-a-Lago. His conspiracy-to-obstruct case is based entirely on hearsay and supposition

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 4, 2023

---

Off the top of my head, the Indictment includes an exchange between an unnamed employee and De Oliveria, where the latter stated "the boss" told him to delete the footage. That's direct evidence Trump ordered the video footage deleted, with the possible exception that you have to infer the meaning of "the boss", which won't be hard to do.

So, whoever Paul Sperry is, I think is wrong per the indictment. We can give him grace in that sure, De Oliveria probably won't testify. The unnamed employee who was told that, will be able to testify to what De Oliveria said as a statement against De Oliveria's interest, at least.

I don't mean to quibble over "direct", just trying to make the point I don't think they'll has hamstrung as perhaps Mr. Sperry is attempting to suggest

---

As Eric said, isn't that heresy? You can't as to what someone else was told that you were not a party to.

---

Oh, its hearsay, but I think admissible hearsay as a statement against the party's interest. We generally presume that when people say something against their own interest, they really meant it.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

will25u said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

will25u said:

---

Sources: Special Counsel Jack Smith has no direct evidence Trump ordered security video footage deleted at Mar-a-Lago. His conspiracy-to-obstruct case is based entirely on hearsay and supposition

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 4, 2023

---

Off the top of my head, the Indictment includes an exchange between an unnamed employee and De Oliveria, where the latter stated "the boss" told him to delete the footage. That's direct evidence Trump ordered the video footage deleted, with the possible exception that you have to infer the meaning of "the boss", which won't be hard to do.

So, whoever Paul Sperry is, I think is wrong per the indictment. We can give him grace in that sure, De Oliveria probably won't testify. The unnamed employee who was told that, will be able to testify to what De Oliveria said as a statement against De Oliveria's interest, at least.

I don't mean to quibble over "direct", just trying to make the point I don't think they'll has hamstrung as perhaps Mr. Sperry is attempting to suggest

---

As Eric said, isn't that heresy? You can't as to what someone else was told that you were not a party to.

---

Oh, its hearsay, but I think admissible hearsay as a statement against the party's interest. We generally presume that when people say something against their own interest, they really meant it.

---

I don't understand many of the rules regarding hearsay.

That said, if he testifies that he was told that Trump was behind the original order, how is that against his own interest?

eric76 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

will25u said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

will25u said:

---

Sources: Special Counsel Jack Smith has no direct evidence Trump ordered security video footage deleted at Mar-a-Lago. His conspiracy-to-obstruct case is based entirely on hearsay and supposition

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) August 4, 2023

---

Off the top of my head, the Indictment includes an exchange between an unnamed employee and De Oliveria, where the latter stated "the boss" told him to delete the footage. That's direct evidence Trump ordered the video footage deleted, with the possible exception that you have to infer the meaning of "the boss", which won't be hard to do.

So, whoever Paul Sperry is, I think is wrong per the indictment. We can give him grace in that sure, De Oliveria probably won't testify. The unnamed employee who was told that, will be able to testify to what De Oliveria said as a statement against De Oliveria's interest, at least.

I don't mean to quibble over "direct", just trying to make the point I don't think they'll has hamstrung as perhaps Mr. Sperry is attempting to suggest

---

As Eric said, isn't that heresy? You can't as to what someone else was told that you were not a party to.

---

Oh, its hearsay, but I think admissible hearsay as a statement against the party's interest. We generally presume that when people say something against their own interest, they really meant it.

---

I don't understand many of the rules regarding hearsay.

That said, if he testifies that he was told that Trump was behind the original order, how is that against his own interest?

---

Take a semester in law school…it will click