Dragonlady
Designing Woman
- Dec 1, 2012
- 53,108
- 31,141
Neither the article nor Lakhota claimed it was on purpose. Suspicious, yes. For certain criminal no.
The thing is though with what is claimed. Claimed in high detail in the indictment. The flooding of the server room is completely unnecessary to prove obstruction of justice, which is the charge.
I would even suggest that just going by what's in the public domain. Proving obstruction of justice isn't all that hard. The only thing basically required is showing the subpoena for the documents, the reply attesting to all documents subject to that subpoena being delivered, and showing the picture of the documents in Trump's office during the search warrant.
That's it. All you need. Unless Trump can somehow give a compelling reason for documents clearly subject under the language of the subpoena being found in his desk.
Of course the indictment makes many more and egregious and highly detailed claims but the meat of that particular charge is not really contested. Even by his own lawyers.
Not only are the basic facts of the case not being contested by Trump’s lawyers, Donald Trump has openly discussed his retention of these documents in multiple TV. Interviews and essentially admission dad he had the dog, and then made specious claims that he had every right to do so.
Trump had no right to these documents, and his lawyers told him so on multiple occasions. He continues to go on TV in contrast to everything and you continue to claim he’s innocent.
Then there’s employee #4 who, as I suspected has taken a deal and turned state’s evidence.
And yet here you are proclaiming that Jack Smith is a horrible person, and Donald Trump is innocent as the driven snow. Stupid and gullible doesn’t begin to describe you.