Used to enjoy Benjamin Wittes' and Kate Klonick's in Lieu of Fun podcasts. Always interesting and entertaining.
Word on The Street is that Trump ran out of copies of the Constitution to wipe his big fat, loser ass with and had to shift to using classified documents.
Another funny thing about trump's bathroom with boxes of papers stacked alongside the toilet, but there are even more boxes of papers stacked past the shower curtain in the shower.
And we do know from the evidence that Trump requested his lawyers and staffers to destroy classified documents.
Turley https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...ecial-counsel-smith-singing-to-an-empty-room/ an hour ago DOJ Fatigue: Is Special Counsel Smith singing to an empty room? by Jonathan Turley, Opinion Contributor In his public statement following the release of the 44-page indictment against former President Donald Trump, Jack Smith gave the rote declaration of ethical and nonpolitical conduct by his team. However, one line stood out: “My office will seek a speedy trial on this matter." Smith is not just a man on a mission, but on a deadline. Every criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. Under the federal law, a speedy trial would start within roughly two months. There is a reason Smith would love to see an August trial. If the litigation pushed the trial within a few months of the election, most judges would delay it until after November 5, 2024. That would mean that Trump could avoid a conviction and, if elected, he could give himself a prospective pardon. That would mean that there would be no judgment against him. Smith knows that the Sixth Amendment is designed to help defendants, not prosecutors. MOreover, defendants routinely waive their right to a speedy trial because they need time. Trump needs time in a bad way, and his lawyers would be insane not to waive. In fact, Trump just lost two more lawyers on the day of the indictment's release. More importantly, this indictment is a heart attack on a plate. The team has much to do after the hyperventilation passes. The problem for the defense is that it must run the table on all 37 counts. The government clearly count-stacked to maximize the chances of a conviction. With a 76-year-old client, the defense attorneys have to play a perfect game. Even one conviction on these counts could bring a sentence of 10 to 12 years. Moreover, the indictment is full of legal jump-scares in the form of pictures and transcripts. Like most people, jurors are visual creatures. Pictures of potentially classified documents being stored next to the commode will leave a lasting impression. Most damaging is the audiotape that is transcribed in the indictment. On the tape, Trump tells two individuals interviewing him for a book that he has a classified Department of Defense document regarding an attack on Iran. Trump admits that it is secret and “as president, I could have declassified, but now I can’t." This is damaging on various levels. For one thing, it contradicts his prior claims to have declassified all of the documents. It also suggests that the government has a motive for trial. Although many pundits bizarrely claimed that Trump was intending to sell classified material, the government suggests a more straightforward motive: the documents were trophies for Trump. The indictment portrays him as bragging about his possession of the attack plan. For almost two years, I have written that the most serious threat against Trump would come out of Mar-a-Lago. That torpedo has now hit. Trump's team is fooling itself if it does not recognize that this has caused damage below the waterline. All indictments tend to diminish with time and adversarial process. As of this writing, we have not heard yet from the defense on these allegations. However, the indictment is full of quotes from lawyers and others made under oath or to federal investigators. If false, either would be grounds for criminal charges. It could also get worse. Trump's aide, Walt Nauta, has also been charged. According to reports, the Justice Department pressured Nauta and his lawyer for him to flip as a government witness. Indeed, the defense has charged that prosecutor Jay Bratt suggested that the Justice Department might sink Nauta attorney Stanley Woodward’s application for a federal judgeship unless his client cooperates and changes his testimony. This indictment is clearly designed to concentrate Nauta's mind on cooperation. If he were to flip (as the person who allegedly moved or concealed these documents), Trump would face a potentially insurmountable case. The problem for the Justice Department is that it has made itself unbelievable in the eyes of many in the public. After years of overt bias and targeting of Trump, polls show that the majority of Americans view the FBI as a politically compromised organization. The use of this type of speaking or "talking" indictment is clearly directed more at the public than the court or the defendant. The Justice Department usually prefers a bare-bones indictment, to withhold a full account of its evidence before it has to turn it over to the defense. Smith wanted to show the public that it can trust the government, despite its behavior over the last seven years, as shown most recently by the report of Special Counsel John Durham. This is also the reason Smith turned this indictment into a virtual picture book for public consumption. The Justice Department has left little room for trust among many citizens, and Smith is hoping that these images can change that perspective. But this indictment is likely to do better in the court of law than it does in the court of public opinion. Just as many have Trump fatigue, many also have DOJ fatigue. This is the third consecutive election in which Trump is being hounded by allegations of crimes. It was immediately preceded by a clear political prosecution in New York State. In other words, the DOJ may have long ago lost the room for this production. That does not mean that Trump can face this deluge of 37 counts and come out dry. The odds favor the government in this type of case. Yet the question is whether there will be a case to prosecute after November 2024. Indeed, whatever the merits of a self-pardon, Republican candidates are already indicating that they would also considering pardoning Trump themselves if they are elected. That is why Trump may have a better chance running on this case than defending against it. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
According to several reports he tried to Flush them down the toilet. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-repo...sations-he-flushed-official-documents-1678196 As the controversy surrounding his handling of government documents continues to build, former President Donald Trump is reportedly "terrified" of an accusation that he would periodically attempt to flush papers down the toilet when he was in office. More at link
So the latest defense of Trump is that people are tired of the DOJ. We can add this to the other excuses that we shouldn’t prosecute criminality like it’s a member of the party out of power or we shouldn’t prosecuted candidates almost a year and half before an election.
I think there is a difference between allegations and evidence so far - there's a mountain of allegations, I'm sorry, but I don't trust the government. I simply don't far as that being the source of evidence.
Can anyone put definite evidence on the table not allegations? There was also a report he danced naked with hookers I think in Russia on top of the bed, and we know how that went
https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-documents-922839660373 Maybe the link I gave you earlier didn't work for you. Here is another one. It has been linked before by others. It has transcripts from the audio tapes including Trump's own words. It includes statements by the lawyers from whom Trump requested the acts. It has photographic evidence. It also links the evidence to the specific charges on which Trump was indicted.
The evidence they have are audio recordings of Trump, his aides, and staffers. There is evidence of statements from his own lawyers. That isn't evidence constructed by the government. I linked it multiple times. Others have linked it as well. Perhaps you could explain what you see as government evidence that you don't trust?
Except if you read the article provided the “allegations” are made by someone who was a Trump aide and there is corresponding evidence from white staff that office papers where found in the toilet. if you just chose not to believe it because it doesn’t fit your preconceptions then you’re admitting to having a closed mind on the matter.
I don't see all these things listed - I'm trying to read 50 pages but honestly nothing seems earth shattering
Office papers could be any papers in the toilet. I'm just seeing a lot of loose things it's coming across as supposed reports of peeing on Russian hookers that went nowhere
