SC Jack Smith is Using Subterfuge Tricks with Donald Trumps Upcoming Documents Trial.

a reply to: frogs453

Fair enough, let me fill you in.

You are presented a case. The goal is to reach probable cause that an indictment is warranted. The GJ may use many tools at their disposal such as subpoenaing witnesses and materials (which is rarely done).

It's a presentation put on by the prosecution and they are NOT required to provide ANY exculpatory evidence to the GJ.

This is why the colloquialisms exist.

It's a very safe bet to not merely form your opinions on what is presented to the GJ nor indictment.

a reply to: JinMI

Yet your argument is not about "exculpatory evidence". You flat out said the evidence in the indictment and presented to the GJ is not evidence, but it's allegations.

I only stated in the post you are arguing that evidence is noted in the indictment of the things I stated.

The GJ only has to decide on an indictment based on evidence. That's their only job. The crime based on that evidence is alleged until proven in court. At this time he has not been found guilty in court. Does the evidence presented still exist? Yes.

Again, we have to agree to disagree I suppose.

a reply to: frogs453

Yet your argument is not about "exculpatory evidence". You flat out said the evidence in the indictment and presented to the GJ is not evidence, but it's allegations.

You understand that evidence is not proof....right?

The GJ only has to decide on an indictment based on evidence. That's their only job. The crime based on that evidence is alleged until proven in court. At this time he has not been found guilty in court. Does the evidence presented still exist? Yes.

I'm getting the distinct impression that you do not understand the difference and significance of evidence not being equal to proof.

I forgot to also mention that the GJ is not there to find "beyond reasonable doubt" but "probable cause" based on the presented evidence.


Giving you the benefit of the doubt, allow me to explain.

You're sitting on a GJ and a murder case is brought before you.

You need a few things. A body, a weapon, a suspect and a motive (loosely speaking).

You have a body, murdered by the weapon that you also have.

It's registered to a suspect and not only does he own said weapon, but he also knows the body.


Is this enough to convict of guilt? I think you'd agree no.

Is it enough to indict? Sure, almost absolutely even being conservative of the probable cause standard.

a reply to: JinMI

So basically you never read my orginal post. I said:

Question, if the PRA states all the docs must be retained by the PRA at the end of his term, and he lies on the attestation for the subpoena that they have been turned over, after he asked his attorney to not turn some over, hide, or destroy the "bad ones", and when the lawyer will not do so, he then moves them before partially complying,so they will not be found, that is not a crime? He was not the President at the time, heck, he wasn't even granted any intelligence briefings after office. And it's hard to argue Nat Sec, human Intel and Nuclear docs are "personal records".

I have stated numerous times that he is not yet guilty and the crime is alleged.

However again, the evidence in the indictment is evidence. I also stated numerous times the GJ is given evidence and their job is to indict or find the evidence lacking and not indict.

Sigh, the evidence is proof of what I stated in my post though. Then you told me that the text messages, the testimony from attorneys, the surveillance video and the documents are all "allegations". No, the GJ indicted on that evidence.

I'm done with this argument. First you said it's all "allegations", then you moved to "I don't know what they leave out" basically the rules they follow. Provided that. Then you went to there is no "exculpatory " evidence. That isn't part of a GJ process. Then you speak as if I've said he's guilty of the crime. I also never said that either, which is why I included my orginal post, I won't go back through where I said the crime is alleged. Again the current evidence is evidence. The crime has to yet be proven in court.

a reply to: frogs453

I read it a few times actually before hurling my sentiments. Lemme highlight the traps you're falling into:

Question, if the PRA states all the docs must be retained by the PRA at the end of his term, and he lies on the attestation for the subpoena that they have been turned over, after he asked his attorney to not turn some over, hide, or destroy the "bad ones", and when the lawyer will not do so, he then moves them before partially complying,so they will not be found, that is not a crime? He was not the President at the time, heck, he wasn't even granted any intelligence briefings after office. And it's hard to argue Nat Sec, human Intel and Nuclear docs are "personal records".

The above are attributed to a motive that needs to be proven. A framing device which, and on topic, is what AUSA's do to GJ's to secure their indictments.

a reply to: JinMI

Uhh, the attorneys quoted testimony is in the indictment. And yes I'm sorry, Trump wanting Nauta to move them on the plane to Bedminster, which just so happens means they will not be there when the feds come to get them, doesn't mean he was moving them so they won't be found. Got me on that.

They also listed those docs as found on the search affadavits.

a reply to: frogs453

My mistake again trying to be good faithed and imparting what little knowledge I hold upon you.

You want to assign a motive, fine. Have at it.


It's going to have a disappointing conclusion like every other time however.

a reply to: JinMI

Hmmm, maybe you could read the documents,read the attorneys testimony and give me an explanation regarding why asking your lawyer to remove, hide, or destroy documents the government is seeking in a subpoena is not a crime. Does motive even matter? Again, will have to go to court in which he will defend himself, but just curious.

When you read that testimony, what are your thoughts about someone doing that? You believe it's a-ok? Just seeking an opinion. It's fine for him to do? How about you or me doing it? It's ok? If the current President did that after office? It's ok?

a reply to: frogs453

2/2/2024

Special Counsel Jack Smith made a STRANGE filing today in court.

It's like he's trying really hard to win an argument with Donald Trump.

Smith Defends His Actions: www.politico.com...

Feb 5, 2024

Judge Cannon has summoned Donald Trump's Attorneys for a Special Meeting on Monday, February 12, 2024, when all the guberment people are sleeping late to celebrate President's day....yes another excuse for Congress to take a week off.

Source: www.newsweek.com...

I am waiting for the deal to come....and he tells them to ride into the sunset...

a reply to: WeMustCare

Once again, it's a CIPA hearing.

a reply to: Threadbarer

He, how come you did not give an update on this case today?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WeMustCare

Once again, it's a CIPA hearing.

OK. I suppose these little meetings happen all the time but nobody cared until Trump was involved. Fanni Willis should have stayed in the kitchen too. Coming out to hunt a Trump ruined her reputation.

a reply to: matafuchs

Because it's not exactly newsworthy. It's a run-of-the-mill, pretrial hearing, that we'll never hear any details about because it's closed doors and pertains to classified information.

There's plenty of pre-trial hearings I haven't mentioned.

a reply to: Threadbarer

She did rule yesterday that there no need to worry about safety of witnesses or intimidation and their names can become public, while their addresses are to be redacted. She put the President's defense team in charge of any redactions.

a reply to: Threadbarer

No, it was not and thanks Frogs for a little info. I am sure you will post later about how Smith is trying to have Cannon removed though. She ruled to allow Trumps lawyers to see the documents in question unredacted. Which they should have access to. They have been withheld by prosecution.

Cannons ruling

He also wants to keep secret his witnesses secret. His reasoning is for their safety. Please...name one person hurt by MAGA from any of the Trump trials. Name one...

Why would they not want anyone to see what they have? Maybe because they mean...nothing? She is not ruling in his favor so she must be prejudiced...right?

Remove Cannon Says Smith

a reply to: matafuchs

It was a run-of-the-mill CIPA hearing going in. How am I supposed to predict what crazy rulings Cannon is going to hand down?

a reply to: Threadbarer

So her rulings are crazy but the rest of the judges Trump has are ok....right? You know damn well if she ruled the other way you would be posting it saying Here is COMES!!!!!!

a reply to: matafuchs

CIPA has been a law for over 20 years. That means there's over 20 years of precedent. None of Cannon's rulings regarding CIPA have kept with that precedent. So, yes, her rulings are crazy. At best, she's our of her depth. At worst, she's corrupt and doing everything she can to hand Trump a victory.