Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cite the criminal statute that violated and the proof Trump violated it.FBI raid found many documents Trump claimed were returned
The tape is audio. Cite the criminal statute that violated and the proof that trump violated it (because an audio tape cannot be proof of that).Trump is on tape showing top secret documents to uncleared reporter.
Which lawyer said that, what proof do they offer and what criminal statute does that violate?His lawyers say he fooled them into signing false statements.
"Gus says," is your proof? How many videos were erased?his IT guy says Trump ordered erasure of video evidence.
Is it as unproven as the above?...and there is more.
Cite the criminal statute that violated and the proof Trump violated it.
The tape is audio. Cite the criminal statute that violated and the proof that trump violated it (because an audio tape cannot be proof of that).
Which lawyer said that, what proof do they offer and what criminal statute does that violate?
"Gus says," is your proof? How many videos were erased?
Is it as unproven as the above?
That's your very brief way of ignoring my request.
It's easy to debunk your BS argument, you're acting as if the reporter is implying a charge that doesn't exist, when really the answer has more to do with tangential procedural violations - the two are unrelated.
But you didn't answer me.
I can't count how many times on these threads you stupid Lefties go into interrogation mode in a desperate attempt to obfuscate the main issue.
So I'll ask you again:
Please read the article I posted and go line by line - with receipts - to refute each and every point.
It's the least you can do after the hoops I've been jumping through for you morons over the past year.
We'll wait for you to issue your report.
OK, run along now.
The obstruction.case will get him...if nothing else. The dumb SOB thought he could hide subpoenaed documents from the DOJ.Clueless.
Read the thread before throwing your laughable two cents, I've already cited legal analysis and specific statutes.
Trump will be convicted, you can no-no-no that all the way to the bank.
I believe my brother would vote for trump next year but would also find him guilty if he were on a jury. A trump loyalist couldn’t hide his ignorance in a jury. H wouldn’t be able to dismiss evidence as fake news when it’s clearly factsWe already know that the juries in DC will find him guilty. They would convict a ham sandwich if it was registered as a Republican..
We all know trumps a criminal and they all know he’s innocent.Dummy I already did refute the very first point made in your OP.
You denying that I did over and over, without ever addressing a single word of mine, is both insane and silly.
Cults do that...We all know trumps a criminal and they all know he’s innocent.
And I believe my state, a state trump would need to win, could keep him off our ballot if he’s a felon.The obstruction.case will get him...if nothing else. The dumb SOB thought he could hide subpoenaed documents from the DOJ.
IF THE CRIME DONT GET YOU, THE COVER UP WILL.
The obstruction.case will get him...if nothing else. The dumb SOB thought he could hide subpoenaed documents from the DOJ.
IF THE CRIME DONT GET YOU, THE COVER UP WILL.
One of the two employees of trumps is going to testify against him. And he ant trying to sell a book. He’s no5 going to prison for trump like Michael Cohen did.The obstruction.case will get him...if nothing else. The dumb SOB thought he could hide subpoenaed documents from the DOJ.
IF THE CRIME DONT GET YOU, THE COVER UP WILL.
The relavant fact is that Trump was in indicted.
Nah. Again, it’s your petty little pointless that is irrelevant.What you think of that fact is irrelavant to the point....
Sack up, child.but that doesn't prevent you from accusing me of avoiding your deflection.
No. Not even close.Ok, lets address your deflection - case against Trump is solid:
Prove it. And even if he had made the claim, merely making a mistake isn’t criminal.FBI raid found many documents Trump claimed were returned
Not true. He’s on audiotape making an ambiguous statement. And you have not the slightest clue whether he was holding a previously classified document or a news article about the idiotic plan.Trump is on tape showing top secret documents to uncleared reporter.
Prove that. They may have all been mistaken. But Trump isn’t guilty if his lawyers made a mistake.His lawyers say he fooled them into signing false statements.
Uh huh. Is that what he swore to on his GJ testimony or is it now what he’s claiming? Show me. But you can’t.his IT guy says Trump ordered erasure of video evidence.
There is still nothing....and there is more.
To no charge trump of all the crimes he committed would be the definition of playing politics.The crime itself is too dumb and obvious to not get him.
Relevant to what?
It’s funny that you guys took affidavits so seriously in 2020 but no downplay being indicted TodayRelevant to what? An indictment is not evidence. All it is or has ever been is a mere allegation or set of allegations.
Nah. Again, it’s your petty little pointless that is irrelevant.
Sack up, child.
No. Not even close.
Prove it. And even if he had made the claim, merely making a mistake isn’t criminal.
Not true. He’s on audiotape making an ambiguous statement. And you have not the slightest clue whether he was holding a previously classified document or a news article about the idiotic plan.
Prove that. They may have all been mistaken. But Trump isn’t guilty of his lawyers made a mistake.
Uh huh. Is that what he swore to on his GJ testimony or is it now what he’s claiming. Show me. But you can’t.
There is still nothing.
The great thing is we don’t have to provide you evidence. It’s actually going to play out in court. Will trump lie on the stand or plead the 5th?Cite the criminal statute that violated and the proof Trump violated it.
The tape is audio. Cite the criminal statute that violated and the proof that trump violated it (because an audio tape cannot be proof of that).
Which lawyer said that, what proof do they offer and what criminal statute does that violate?
"Gus says," is your proof? How many videos were erased?
Is it as unproven as the above?
I know better by now than to waste time with emotionally driven, shameless nutbags like you. You've proven yourself immune to rational thought.Prove it. And even if he had made the claim, merely making a mistake isn’t criminal.
Not true. He’s on audiotape making an ambiguous statement. And you have not the slightest clue whether he was holding a previously classified document or a news article about the idiotic plan.
Prove that. They may have all been mistaken. But Trump isn’t guilty of his lawyers made a mistake.
Uh huh. Is that what he swore to on his GJ testimony or is it now what he’s claiming. Show me. But you can’t.
There is still nothing.
You’re brainless. We all know he stands indicted. So, your present moron claim is that it’s relevant to note an indictment to establish that he is under indictment which is undisputed.To the past claim that Trump will be indicted. Duh.
If you can’t be bothered to reply intelligently, it’s likely because you’re already brain dead. Maybe consider quitting this board and try your hand at the Democrap Underground.If you can't be bothered to read the conversation don't throw your two cents in.
It’s funny that you guys took affidavits so seriously in 2020 but no downplay being indicted Today
It will be a juries decision did heI know better by now then to waste time on nitty-gritty details with insane nutter idiots like you.
It will be proven in court, where he will get convicted (or guilty plea).
You will be WrongAgain and I will be right again, it's as simple as that.
You obviously have nothing. No surprise. You never do.I know better by now then to waste time on nitty-gritty details with insane nutter idiots like you.
It will be proven in court, where he will get convicted (or guilty plea).
You will be WrongAgain and I will be right again, it's as simple as that.
