The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#4,726
#4,726
Hunerwadel said:
I suspect someone who was in the room will be testifying about what Trump was holding. Just saying that he was holding classified documents on a recording won't cut it.
Click to expand...
But when the content of what Trump says he is holding on the recording ... ends up being published verbatim in the book? There is proof.
 
#4,727
#4,727
BowlBrother85 said:
But when the content of what Trump says he is holding on the recording ... ends up being published verbatim in the book? There is proof.
Click to expand...
I just don't believe the prosecution would rely entirely on the recording. Someone who was in the room is going to testify about what they saw IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002
#4,729
#4,729
#4,731
#4,731
* Also, because Donald Trump was no longer the President of the United States during the time of the audio recoding, which was in July of 2021, he can no longer claim executive privilege (out of desperation, he will probably try). Executive privilege does not extend to activity which occurred beyond the day the President left office. Mark Meadows can be compelled to testify.
 
#4,732
#4,732
clarksvol00 said:
Seems to me the book probably isn't something you can just throw at a jury and say, "here, read this."
Click to expand...
You probably could I wouldn’t want to rely on just that. I would want the author or other people in the room to testify about what he was holding then impeach them with the book if they say otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#4,733
#4,733
RockyTop85 said:
You probably could I wouldn’t want to rely on just that. I would want the author or other people in the room to testify about what he was holding then impeach them with the book if they say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Exactly the passage and the audio together mean very little without a collaborating witness which we don't know if they have yet...BB can't see past Orange man bad to use common sense.
 
#4,734
#4,734
RockyTop85 said:
You probably could I wouldn’t want to rely on just that. I would want the author or other people in the room to testify about what he was holding then impeach them with the book if they say otherwise.
Click to expand...
and @whodeycin85 .... as well.

Of course.

I didn't mean to imply that Jack Smith didn't need a witness from within the room at the time of the recording. Please see post # 4,729 up above. Jack Smith must have someone who is cooperating with the investigation. Donald Trump's attorneys seem to think that it's Mark Meadows.
 
#4,735
#4,735
whodeycin85 said:
Exactly the passage and the audio together mean very little without a collaborating witness which we don't know if they have yet...BB can't see past Orange man bad to use common sense.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree that they mean very little. I just think it’s like asking whether Nick Chubb or a Dalvin Cook will have a better season in 2023. Seems obvious to me, but we’ll find out one way or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#4,736
#4,736
RockyTop85 said:
I don’t agree that they mean very little. I just think it’s like asking whether Nick Chubb or a Dalvin Cook will have a better season in 2023. Seems obvious to me, but we’ll find out one way or the other.
Click to expand...
If Mark Meadows testifies in court that Donald Trump showed that entire room classified documents, pertaining to an invasion of Iran, which the Department of Defense had given to him .... I don't see how Trump stays out of jail.
 
#4,737
#4,737
BowlBrother85 said:
If Mark Meadows testifies in court that Donald Trump showed that entire room classified documents, pertaining to an invasion of Iran, which the Department of Defense had given to him .... I don't see how Trump stays out of jail.
Click to expand...
Was the documents seized when the FBI raided mar a Lago??
 
#4,738
#4,738
whodeycin85 said:
Exactly the passage and the audio together mean very little without a collaborating witness which we don't know if they have yet...BB can't see past Orange man bad to use common sense.
Click to expand...
Please see posts the following posts .... #4,729, #4,734 and #4,736 in this thread from up above. Please click on the link in post #4,729.
 
#4,739
#4,739
whodeycin85 said:
Was the documents seized when the FBI raided mar a Lago??
Click to expand...
That audio recording was at Trump's Bedminster property and the Iran documents have likely been shredded, but that won't matter if Meadows testifies that he saw Trump showing classified documents to the people in the room at the time of the recording. The contents of the book verify that the information was seen ... because it was used in the book.

You are trying a little too hard now. Meadows can sink Trump. That should be obvious, even to you.
 
#4,740
#4,740
BowlBrother85 said:
That audio recording was at Trump's Bedminster property and has likely been shredded, but that won't matter if Meadows testifies that he saw Trump showing classified documents to the people in the room at the time of the recording. The contents of the book verify that the information was seen ... because it was used in the book.

You are trying a little too hard now. Meadows can sink Trump. That should be obvious, even to you.
Click to expand...
If meadows testifies and had a collaborating witness then there is no question. Until then it s he said she said especially with no actual document...no body no murder...
 
#4,741
#4,741
whodeycin85 said:
If meadows testifies and had a collaborating witness then there is no question. Until then it s he said she said especially with no actual document...no body no murder...
Click to expand...
You are wrong that they need the actual documents ... and it's already definitely much more than "He said ... She said". That implies that all of the evidence is hearsay and that is not the case. Donald Trump is on an audio recording, and can be heard saying that he has in his possession documents given to him by the Department of Defense, which have not been declassified. Trump then discusses the contents of those documents with people in the room who did not have security clearance to be receiving the information. Those people then used the classified information in Mark Meadows book.

That is miles and miles away from "He Said ... She Said." You have to be kidding with this crap.
 
#4,742
#4,742
whodeycin85 said:
If meadows testifies and had a collaborating witness then there is no question. Until then it s he said she said especially with no actual document...no body no murder...
Click to expand...
I don't think corroborating witnesses are requirements in court. It may be what would satisfy you, but I don't think that's required in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#4,743
#4,743
clarksvol00 said:
I don't think corroborating witnesses are requirements in court. It may be what would satisfy you, but I don't think that's required in court.
Click to expand...
Without a corroborating witness who is to say who is telling the truth. Milley could be lieing, the audio could be AI (although Trump's not disputing it). So now we have milley saying he had the document and Trump saying he wasn't showing it...and the documents wasn't seized. Seems beyond a reasonable doubt would need more then 1 witness on each side..correct?
 
#4,744
#4,744
whodeycin85 said:
Without a corroborating witness who is to say who is telling the truth. Milley could be lieing, the audio could be AI (although Trump's not disputing it). So now we have milley saying he had the document and Trump saying he wasn't showing it...and the documents wasn't seized. Seems beyond a reasonable doubt would need more then 1 witness on each side..correct?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. I think the jury gets to decide who they find credible and make a decision based on the totality of the evidence presented. @RockyTop85 ?
 
#4,745
#4,745
whodeycin85 said:
Without a corroborating witness who is to say who is telling the truth. Milley could be lieing, the audio could be AI (although Trump's not disputing it). So now we have milley saying he had the document and Trump saying he wasn't showing it...and the documents wasn't seized. Seems beyond a reasonable doubt would need more then 1 witness on each side..correct?
Click to expand...
Not only did Trump not dispute it ... but as a defense, he claimed in his interview with Bret Baier of Fox News, that it was just "bravado." Trump admitted to saying it, but claimed that he was just showing off.

The corroborating witness would be Meadows. We already have the audio recording of Trump's description of what he was showing the room of people who were working on the Meadows book. You are trying way too hard to defend Trump now. Some of your logic looks pitifully desperate.
 
Last edited:
#4,746
#4,746
whodeycin85 said:
Without a corroborating witness who is to say who is telling the truth. Milley could be lieing,
Click to expand...
Do you understand that the person who you need to show was lying ... is Donald Trump (on the audio recording) ??? If Mark Meadows testifies that Trump was holding exactly what Trump said he was holding on the recording ... Trump is screwed.
 
#4,747
#4,747
BowlBrother85 said:
Do you understand that the person who you need to show was lying ... is Donald Trump (on the audio recording) ??? If Mark Meadows testifies that Trump was holding exactly what Trump said he was holding on the recording ... Trump is screwed.
Click to expand...
I agree with that...still think you need another source. But if meadows testifies that definitely hurts trump.
 
#4,748
#4,748
whodeycin85 said:
I agree with that...still think you need another source. But if meadows testifies that definitely hurts trump.
Click to expand...
In most cases, the prosecutor has to prove the defendant is lying, but because of an audio recording, Jack Smith just has to prove that Donald Trump was telling the truth.
 
#4,749
#4,749
clarksvol00 said:
I don't think so. I think the jury gets to decide who they find credible and make a decision based on the totality of the evidence presented. @RockyTop85 ?
Click to expand...

Plot twist: proving what he was holding doesn’t really matter. He’s not charged with that document. It’s arguably not the right venue for that unless they can show that he possessed it at MAL at some point, but without the document they’ll probably never charge him because it’s a much harder case without it.

The main point of the recording is likely to show his state of mind related to the documents they can prove he did possess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00
#4,750
#4,750
RockyTop85 said:
Plot twist: proving what he was holding doesn’t really matter. He’s not charged with that document. It’s arguably not the right venue for that unless they can show that he possessed it at MAL at some point, but without the document they’ll probably never charge him because it’s a much harder case without it.

The main point of the recording is likely to show his state of mind related to the documents they can prove he did possess.
Click to expand...
How dare someone use Donald Trump's own words to discredit Donald Trump!?

Edit: in before somebody says this violates the 5th amendment.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top