If you are anti Trump but still have a sense of fair play…read this

I remain gobsmackingly astounded that Trump holds any seat in any govt after his hysterical Jan6 tirade of anger & abuse.

Shame on you Mozart & cohorts. :(

Ffs seek help & guidance.

AI Fact check:

The claim is partly accurate and partly misleading. Some of the “lacked” items are too narrowly framed or contradicted by what is in the indictment and later court filings.?

What DOJ actually has

1. The indictment alleges that Trump personally directed that boxes be moved from the storage room to his residence after the May 2022 subpoena, and that this was done so he could review them before his lawyer searched for classified documents.?
2. It also alleges a conspiracy in which Trump and aides tried to delete security camera footage showing the movement of boxes, based on testimony and digital evidence.?
3. One Trump employee told investigators that Trump instructed that boxes be moved from the storage room to his residence after the subpoena; this account is described in multiple outlets as a cooperating witness statement, corroborated by surveillance footage.?
4. 
   

Line?by?line on your list

1. “A written instruction to withhold documents”
2. Public materials do not describe any written order from Trump saying “don’t give them back” or equivalent, so this is plausibly true as stated.?
3. However, obstruction charges do not require a written instruction; verbal directions and circumstantial evidence can be enough.?
4. “A recorded order directing non-compliance”
5. There is no known audio or video of Trump literally ordering subordinates to defy the subpoena, so this is also plausibly true in that narrow sense.?
6. But there is an audio recording of Trump at Bedminster acknowledging he still had a classified military document and saying he could no longer declassify it, which undercuts a “no knowing retention” defence, even though it is not an order about Mar?a?Lago compliance.?
7. “A witness saying ‘Trump told me to hide these’”
8. This is misleading if taken to mean there is no witness describing Trump directing the movement or concealment of boxes.
9. Reporting and the indictment describe at least one employee telling investigators that Trump directed boxes to be moved from a storage room to his residence after the subpoena, which prosecutors characterise as an effort to keep them from being found.?
10. That is not a verbatim quote “hide these,” but functionally it is witness evidence of Trump instructing concealment.

1. “Evidence Trump personally packed, labelled, or concealed documents”
2. The superseding indictment explicitly says Trump was personally involved in the packing process and “caused” boxes with classified material to be transported to Mar?a?Lago, but it does not show him on video physically packing or labeling specific files.?
3. For the post?subpoena period, the evidence focuses on Trump directing others (Nauta, De Oliveira, “Trump Employee 2”) to move and store boxes and on attempts to delete footage, not on him personally lifting boxes.?
4. So if “evidence” is limited to “direct proof he himself handled pages or slapped labels on folders,” the statement is broadly fair, but it omits that the case relies on his directions and intent, not on him being caught on camera packing.

Overall assessment

1. Accurate: There is no public indication of a written instruction or a recorded spoken order explicitly telling staff to refuse the subpoena.
2. Misleading by omission: There is witness testimony and CCTV?corroborated evidence that Trump directed the movement of boxes after the subpoena, interpreted by prosecutors as concealment, even if nobody quotes him saying the exact words “hide these.”?
3. Technically defensible but incomplete: There is no known video of Trump himself packing or hiding documents, but the indictment still alleges his personal involvement and direction, which is enough to charge him with willful retention and obstruction.?

So, as a rhetorical list to suggest “they have nothing,” it is inaccurate; as a very literal list of specific kinds of “smoking gun” proof (written order, taped command, on?camera packing), parts of it are narrowly true but leave out the substantial circumstantial and testimonial evidence DOJ actually has.

Or maybe he’s playing chess and you’re playing checkers

I know that's just a metaphor, but I can't help at laugh at the idea that Trump knows how to play chess. SNAP would be to complicated for him.

I repeat for the fourth time:

DOJ lacked:

1. A written instruction to withhold documents
2. A recorded order directing non-compliance
3. A witness saying “Trump told me to hide these”
4. Evidence Trump personally packed, labeled, or concealed documents

Repeat it a hundred times its completely irrelevant no matter how many times you bring it up.

The FBI obtained a legally approved warrant from a federal judge for the search of Mar-a-Lago...end of story.

What 9 years of this nonsense is enough for you?

Yes 9 years of idiot republicans saying Russian Hoax is quite enough, it was nonsense 9 years ago, it's still nonsense now.

And yet if a whistleblower reveals confidential information he is protected by the press annd andmired by the Woke set.

What a bullshit apple to oranges comparison. As if Trump was holding on to the documents to be a whistleblower. There is no suggestion that any of the classified documents that Trump was holding on to indicated indicated wrong doing on the part of the government.

And Clinton’s sock drawer case was really very conveniently different.

You really are laying out these bullcrap comparisons thick and fast Yes it was different in a very important manner, those recording in Clinton's sock drawer were personal records, not classified documents. Their was no classified information in the recordings. And it was a third party conversative group that sought for those recording to be transferred over to the National Archives, not the national Archives themselves.

The truth is this is a lax area and should be tightened up. But in this instance Trump was cooperative as his lawyer attests. This whole thing has no more legitimacy than Russian collusion.

I'd agree that given the situation with Trump, Clinton, Biden and Hegseth the handling and communication of classified information in Washington seems incredibly lax given these people are handling some of the most sensitive security information on earth, it's a potential treasure trove of intelligence for state actors hostile to the US. The President who holds the highest office the land should be setting the example and not one that of the rules don't apply apply to him.

But Trump cooperating, lol that's why he was set to be charged with 5 counts of obstructing the course of justice and 1 count of making false statements. The Trump apologists, miniature Karoline Levitt's reading from their assigned script from the teleprompters. Least Levitt is smart enough to get paid to be dishonest, the lemming's on here do it for free.

The Russian hoax as it's called is the hoax with no legitimacy.

Name the five charges Trump was cherged with and what was the outcime of the cjarges,

We have been through most of this enough…but this deserves a response:

What a bullshit apple to oranges comparison. As if Trump was holding on to the documents to be a whistleblower. There is no suggestion that any of the classified documents that Trump was holding on to indicated indicated wrong doing on the part of the government.

Where did I say or even imply that was Trump’s motivation. I mention whistleblowers because they are a fact of life and very little is said about national security when they breach confidentiality.

You have a problem with jumping to conclusions. You have another problem, believing everything the Woke side puts out there but impugning the motives of anybody on the right. Very naive.

There isn’t one uniquely honest set of politicians. Nor are there any countries that are totally right in everything they do. We have to live with imperfection…and we have to live with imperfect leaders. Many predictions about Trump’s fate and failures have been made this year. The year ends with all the economic predictions, at a minimum, looking pretty silly.

Many predictions about Trump’s fate and failures have been made this year. The year ends with all the economic predictions, at a minimum, looking pretty silly.

It is very funny because predictions demand a reliable connection to the things you want to predict. Trump have battered many liberal tenets, political and economical tenets alike. This places liberal economists in a very uncomfortable position. Liberal economists have justified many painful economical measures on the rest of the world for the sake of their liberal economics tenets. And now, Trump is breaking the mirror in thousands pieces. This places them in a very difficult place where they can no longer predict accurately without confessing the hidden parts of their tenets.

Liberals reframe, redefine everything in an effort to get away with things.

For example, the US speak of an affordability crisis. There is no economical indicator for affordability. Except of course purchasing power. Which is dismissed by liberals (as shown multiple times on this board) as speaking about purchasing power would expose liberal economies. On many occurrences, liberals on this board threw in GDP numbers to score points. When faced with other metrics like PPP things, they cowered. They could not take it.Because it shows that places around the world, life is getting more and more affordable. Which is unbearable.

Liberals live more and more in a deep state of cognitive dissonance. They rely on metrics that are disconnected from their demands and requests. The markets are booming, the growth numbers are through the roof, yet the problems on a daily basis remain. It is going to be very hard in this context for liberal economists to predict properly as correct predictions mean they reject their own liberal tenets. Liberal tenets used to inflict punishment on a large share of humanity. Large share of humanity that is increasingly growing in power.

But you gotta love the fact that Trump apologists here go on and on and on about the validity of the warrant but refrain from acknowledging that the raid recovered additional classified documents which indicates the warrant was entirely justified

Great logic applied here .....break the rules... find something, and then suddenly it's all legit.

It's kinda like saying, Hey, I broke into your house illegally, but I found my stolen TV, so the break in was justified......classic.

You have a problem with jumping to conclusions. You have another problem, believing everything the Woke side puts out there but impugning the motives of anybody on the right. Very naive.

I have said this for ages now.....

Where did I say or even imply that was Trump’s motivation. I mention whistleblowers because they are a fact of life and very little is said about national security when they breach confidentiality.

Why did you even bring it up if weren't making a comparison. Whisteblowing potential serves a public good and doesn't always compromise national security. When it does it's a complex grey area both legally and ethically and while generally the "woke" left of them are more supportive of whisteblowing than the republicans (let me guess Republican's who do support whisteblowers are RINO's?) that support drops off dramatically when national security is potential compromised.

You have a problem with jumping to conclusions. You have another problem, believing everything the Woke side puts out there but impugning the motives of anybody on the right. Very naive.

You have a problem too, its called Woke Derangement Syndrome. I was driving home one day when I heard a woke radio station talk about climate change, distracting me from the woke condition of the road, I hit a woke pothole which gave me a woke flat tyre, I called for a pick up truck which was driven by a man of woke ethnicity. When I got to the garage I released it was also woke when I saw a rainbow flag behind the counter. They replaced my flat trye but charged woke prices for it. Woke Woke Woke.

It's like you have gone into competition with Trad trying to out do his use of the word liberal.

There isn’t one uniquely honest set of politicians. Nor are there any countries that are totally right in everything they do. We have to live with imperfection…and we have to live with imperfect leaders.

No one stated otherwise.

Many predictions about Trump’s fate and failures have been made this year. The year ends with all the economic predictions, at a minimum, looking pretty silly.

Not necessarily, economic predictions are normally qualified predictions for example " if Trump does X, Y, Z the economy will most likely do this" but if Trump only did X, part of Y and none of Z then it's not the prediction was wrong, its that underlying assumptions the prediction was based did not come to pass fully.

Great logic applied here .....break the rules... find something, and then suddenly it's all legit.

It's kinda like saying, Hey, I broke into your house illegally, but I found my stolen TV, so the break in was justified......classic.

Where did I say that rules can be broken. I repeat again, the FBI obtained a legal warrant from a federal judge to conduct that search of Mar-a-Lago, when Trump challenged the validity of that warrant a second judge upheld the validity of that warrant. No rules were broken.

.

Hulle weet nie wat ons weet nie.

Stav read the string on solar power posted by blob and see how capitalism solves problems as opposed to government. Embrace the ingenuity of man working for his own benefit….read Atlas Shrugged, it’s still relevant.

And have a Woke New Year….may all your anxieties diminish and all your friends be real Irishmen. Sing the songs of your fathers….the West’s Awake, is a good one.

The voice of Trump runs very powerfully on this thread.