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

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Of course more indictments were expected. De Oliveira received his target letter the other week.

a reply to: frogs453

Based off that the President has no say in who gets a secret service detail. It's the head of DHS and the leaders in Congress. So RFK Jr is lying when he says he was denied secret service protection by Biden.

a reply to: Threadbare

Correct. So if the footage is stored off site nothing was destroyed so...why the charges? See how that works? Any IT person will tell you if you have sensitive data you have a data redundancy plan or disaster recovery plan.

Also, why wait on this charge? I guess Nauta is not giving anything up so they go fishing for someone else.

a reply to: Threadbare

So, you admit they have the tapes, and the backups, and the DOJ can view it so, how would showing a crime pollute anything or cause a mistrial? It is showing a crime. Is that not what you all want is the conviction based on the crime? It is not like these things are not in the media 24/7.

a reply to: matafuchs

If I attempt to kill someone but fail, it's still a crime.

If I attempt to rob someone but fail, it's still a crime.

If I attempt to destroy evidence but fail, it's still a crime.

a reply to: Threadbare

If you attempt to destroy subpoenaed evidence and succeed, "no reasonable Prosecutor" will charge you.

If you're a democrat named Hillary Clinton.

a reply to: underpass61

Combetta probably would've been charged if he hadn't been given immunity in hopes of him having dirt on Hillary.

a reply to: Threadbare

A few of the posters here have in depth background and knowledge of the law. This stuff SINGS to y'all.

So many people's eyes glaze over on all legal minutia, and with a simplified view, see things in the only ways it makes sense to them.

The trend in the polls is going down for Biden, and up for Trump. Not what the left really wants is it?

The cheat in 2024 has to be believable. And it will be a stretch this time.

a reply to: Threadbare

Destroying evidence isn't "dirty" enough?

Not if you're a democrat.

a reply to: underpass61

Hillary didn't destroy evidence. Combetta deleted the emails after he had been told by Mills that the emails had been subpoenaed and needed to be preserved. Other than that, no evidence was destroyed.

a reply to: Threadbare

So Hillary's IT guy destroyed evidence and wasn't charged? Guess it pays to work for democrats too.

I remember some other IT people that got away. The Pakistani brothers that were the sysadmins for the DNC servers and some members of congress.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

The DOJ thought Combetta would testify that he had been instructed by Hillary's team to delete the emails. However, in order to compel his testimony they needed to offer immunity as he would've just pled the 5th otherwise.

However, it turns out he was not instructed by Hillary's team to delete the emails and in fact they told him to preserve them.

The DOJ gambled and it didn't pay off.

a reply to: Threadbare

My questions was....why would the DOJ have waited? I mean, it is a pretty big thing if it is true and if a slam dunk why not lead with it?

a reply to: Threadbare

Neither did Trump.

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Any thoughts on the fact that a Trump employee has testified they were approached by De Oliveira and told them that the "boss" had requested that he destroy the surveillance camera footage just days after Trump had received a subpoena for that footage?

Democrats have been great teachers! Those teachings will be used to expose and prosecute Democrats themselves. It's known as the "boomerang" effect.

a reply to: matafuchs

Its the slow drip drip drip for maximum impact on the election! It's OBVIOUS.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: matafuchs

Its the slow drip drip drip for maximum impact on the election! It's OBVIOUS.

Whether it's activating a GOOD plan or an EVIL plan, Democrats typically act too soon, and Republicans act too late.

According to Conservative Legal Experts this morning, With the added charges (aka added complexity), the rabid desperate Three Stooges (Biden-Garland-Smith) have further delayed the documents trial, which was probably not going to start before November 2024 anyway.

Keep bringing it on, you Three EVIL Stooges!

a reply to: matafuchs

There could be any number of reasons. For example, we know that Yuscil Taveras (Trump Employee 4) is represented by Stanley Woodward. Woodward is also the lawyer for Nauta and a number of other people in Trumpworld.

So maybe Taveras wasn't willing to cooperate at first and without his testimony the DOJ didn't think their case was strong enough.

a reply to: matafuchs

But there's evidence he instructed people to destroy evidence.

a reply to: carewemust

It does seem to appear. But then again, he wont be exonerated before the election either. They would want to delay that very much if their case is weak.

I believe it is.