Charges added to Trump indictment for having govt records at MAL, a 3rd defendent charged

a reply to: Threadbare

Ive heard its still on the books that women who where makeup are practicing witchcraft in Mass.

Nobody would ever think to charge a political enemy with it tho'....or would they?


I don't care what you call ''evidence'... the entire affair is a silly witchhunt. It's hatred fueled, not logic or duty fueled.

And only makes sense to the lawyer class, and we all know how most non-lawyers feel about that.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

It's not what I call evidence. It's what the courts call evidence.

Also, a law making it illegal to destroy evidence is hardly a dead letter law.

a reply to: Threadbare

evidence of a crime of moving boxes around your house..... I GET IT

and it's still stupid

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Sorry, do all criminal offences have to involve dismembered bodies?

Silly, beyond belief, indeed.

Now, that subpoena?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Unfortunately, it's lawyers who will deal with this.

If you don't like the rule of law, that's your problem.

Do you have an alternative?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

The courts see it as evidence of obstruction of justice.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

So many seem to think that some criminal charge for one 'side' somehow exonerates the other 'side' from their criminality.

One charge? I think there is 47 or more at this point. Nice try though.

Two bad people, who both do bad things, are still two bad people who both have done bad things.

Perhaps you can clarify this question for us.

Who since and who before has been held to the same legal standard as Trump?
Who since and who before has been held to the same public standard as Trump?
Who since and who before has been investigated as much as Trump?

Thanks in advance.

There has been nothing remarkable, or that different, about Trump - except for the way he used the internet.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

"And only makes sense to the lawyer class, and we all know how most non-lawyers feel about that."

So, you don't like the rule of law, due process, with both sides being represented by lawyers? Before a Judge?

What's your suggested alternative?

Trial on ATS?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Equal application of the rule of law.

2nd

a reply to: Threadbare

The prosecutor sees it that way. Courts havent ruled, there hasn't been a trial.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Exactly. Wait for it?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

He didn't remove the boxes from the house.

They found them right off when they served the warrant.

Much ado about a man who moved boxes containing personal papers and a few govt documents that are in dispute mixed in, around on his own property.

Obstruction would have been if he moved them OFF the property. Or BURIED them on the property. Or some other way prevented the FBI from finding them, don't you think?

Does all this sound like the crime of the century to you? Or is it hair splitting by an overzealous tyrant prosecutor making a bad-ass name for himself?

You should be ashamed cheering him on.


ROFLMAO

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

More will be revealed.

If future outcome is predicted by past performance by team donk, Trump aint going anywhere near a prison.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Who do you think issues a subpoena?

a reply to: Threadbare

Requested by the prosecutors.

2nd

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

This post is not going to age well when the rumored New Jersey indictments come down.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Last time I checked prosecutors aren't the bosses of judges. In fact, wasn't there a case just this week where a judge refused a plea deal offered by a prosecutor?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

oK.

Let's see how it pans out. Instead of ROTFLMAO.?

a reply to: Threadbare

Judges sign off on warrants and subpoenas all the time before indictments and trials that fail to produce results.

You know this don't you? Are you just playing dumb?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

That's all we can do.

Im betting it wont happen before the election. The prosecution pretty much guaranteed that when they added charges. Trump wanted a delay, now it looks like he will have it.

Did the prosecution mean for it to go down this way?

If Trump loses the election, will they even bother and they will never have to actually prove any of this. And they could appear very magnanimous and uniting. pfffft.