New Trump Indictment Says He Ordered Mar-a-Lago Camera Footage Deleted

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No.
It is what it appeared to be.
The AG and the FBI director prevented them from conducting the investigation properly.
The AG and the FBI director prevented investigations on Biden, Obama, and Hillary but then turned around and decided that these same offenses merited indictments against Trump, even though there's no missing emails or destroyed cell phones or Bleachbit servers.
Everything this administration does is purely political.
That's how it appears, and that is what is going on.

So, attorney general, Jeff Sessions, Matt Whitaker, William Barr and Jeffery Rosen, prevented a proper investigation of Hillary?
I bet A LOT of stuff "APPEARS" in Trumplandia.
The orange kool-aid is some powerful stuff.

 

[22lcidw]

The laws apply to him, just as they apply to anyone else.

And anyone you think SHOULD be convicted -- like Hillary, no doubt -- have nothing to do with this, and don't work as a deflection.

If he, or anyone else in either party, has broken laws, he needs to be punished. Period.

Progs are not held to any standard. This is not about Trump being corrupted. It is about globalism.

 

[Mac1958]

Progs are not held to any standard. This is not about Trump being corrupted. It is about globalism.

These trials will be about Trump. You don't have to like that, but it's true.

 

[dudmuck]

He tried to....according to Jack Smith...which isn't the same as actually doing it.
There is no evidence here that Trump destroyed evidence.
There is, however, not only evidence that Hillary destroyed evidence, but there is her own admissions that she destroyed evidence.

Can you tell the difference here, Dumbass?

What I'm seeing here is Jack Smith is trying to convict Trump for his thoughts, but James Comey refused to charge Hillary for what she actually did and admitted to doing.

If I were to say to my lawyer; "I wish you would cheat on my taxes", is that a crime?

No.

The crime is telling your lawyer to cheat on your taxes and he goes ahead and does it. That is a conspiracy to commit a crime.

What I'm seeing is a crooked prosecutor using some sort of threat or bribe to obtain a false-statement from a Trump employee. That's why he's just now issuing the indictment. Because he's been able to scare someone into flipping on Trump.

investigation found no evidence of obstruction from Hillary.

by contrast, Trump obstructs bigly.

which means you got it backwards.

Every accusation from Trump is an admission.

 

[mudwhistle]

investigation found no evidence of obstruction from Hillary.

by contrast, Trump obstructs bigly.

which means you got it backwards.

Every accusation from Trump is an admission.

Only way that's possible if if you redefine what obstruction means.

You see when you destroy evidence....that's obstruction.
Mkay?

There has been no claims by the DOJ in this latest indictment that Trump destroyed any evidence or even committed any act that prevented an investigation.

They're literally trying to charge him with talking about his legal options with his lawyers and employees.

 

[Marener]

They're literally trying to charge him with talking about his legal options with his lawyers and employees.

Telling someone to break the law is illegal.

 

[mudwhistle]

Telling someone to break the law is illegal.

No it's not. If you didn't take any steps afterwards then there is no law broken.
If they had followed thru on his orders then they would have been possibly guilty of a criminal conspiracy.
However, it's still debatable that he even gave the order in the first place, considering the fact that the FBI tried to shut off the cameras when they started the raid. If anything, they were attempting to obstruct justice, not Trump:

By Wendy N. Whitman Cobb




Though thinking about committing illegal acts is not illegal, conspiracy laws can only be enforced when one takes a step beyond merely planning the act and toward execution of the crime. Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA, and other members of the party were convicted of conspiring to teach or advocate the violent overthrow of the government. (Photo by the US Library of Congress, public domain)

The application of conspiracy laws requires a tacit agreement among members of a group to commit a crime. Such laws allow the government to charge a defendant regardless of whether the planned criminal act has been committed or the possibility of the crime being carried out successfully.

Conspiracy laws can only be enforced after individuals take steps beyond planning a crime​

It is not illegal to think about committing illegal acts — such as in the case of civil disobedience — as any law that would criminalize the mere thought or suggestion of committing an illegal act would be a free speech violation.
Conspiracy laws can only be enforced after individuals take an initial step beyond planning and toward execution of an illegal deed. An individual who has agreed to participate in a crime is not required to know everyone involved in the plot in order to be charged with conspiracy.

Conspiracy Laws

There are concerns about conspiracy laws interfering with First Amendment rights by allowing governments to crack down on those who disagree with the positions of the state.

www.mtsu.edu

 

[Catsnmeters]

What leaks? give me a break... you tools are not getting the truth about anything....

What leaks?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don’t know what everyone is upset about, this charge is very EASY to beat. All trump has to do is go in front of congress and say “what do you mean I wiped the video footage? You mean like with a cloth?”, and then it all goes away! See, easy peasy!

 

[Marener]

If you didn't take any steps afterwards then there is no law broken.

Telling the IT staffer to delete the server is a step.

 

[MagicMike]

Bleach Bit-Hammer Time IS INTENT TO DESTROY you lying bitch!!!!

Are you only talking about Hillary what's-her-name so that you don't have to talk about the orange cat turd king's SEVENTY-FOUR felony indictments so far?

 

[Lesh]

No it's not. If you didn't take any steps afterwards then there is no law broken.
If they had followed thru on his orders then they would have been possibly guilty of a criminal conspiracy.
However, it's still debatable that he even gave the order in the first place, considering the fact that the FBI tried to shut off the cameras when they started the raid. If anything, they were attempting to obstruct justice, not Trump:

By Wendy N. Whitman Cobb




Though thinking about committing illegal acts is not illegal, conspiracy laws can only be enforced when one takes a step beyond merely planning the act and toward execution of the crime. Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA, and other members of the party were convicted of conspiring to teach or advocate the violent overthrow of the government. (Photo by the US Library of Congress, public domain)

The application of conspiracy laws requires a tacit agreement among members of a group to commit a crime. Such laws allow the government to charge a defendant regardless of whether the planned criminal act has been committed or the possibility of the crime being carried out successfully.

Conspiracy laws can only be enforced after individuals take steps beyond planning a crime​

It is not illegal to think about committing illegal acts — such as in the case of civil disobedience — as any law that would criminalize the mere thought or suggestion of committing an illegal act would be a free speech violation.
Conspiracy laws can only be enforced after individuals take an initial step beyond planning and toward execution of an illegal deed. An individual who has agreed to participate in a crime is not required to know everyone involved in the plot in order to be charged with conspiracy.

Conspiracy Laws

There are concerns about conspiracy laws interfering with First Amendment rights by allowing governments to crack down on those who disagree with the positions of the state.

www.mtsu.edu

“An initial step towards…”

Giving that order is the initial step

 

[MagicMike]

Everything that Hilliary did

Felony indictments so far:
Hillary Clinton. 0
Donald Trump. 74

 

[MagicMike]

Zzz. It’s not really a new indictment, first of all. It’s just been modified with some additional charges.

And an indictment is merely an accusation. It isn’t evidence of a single word of anything it claims.

Indictments are based upon evidence

 

[mudwhistle]

“An initial step towards…”

Giving that order is the initial step

Good luck trying to proof that fallacy in any court in the country.
What you're claiming is that crimes of the mind are worthy of jail time.
Why don't we just start arresting people and putting them in prison for their opinions, Okay?

 

[mudwhistle]

Unfortunately the cameras weren't working. Damn Indonesian junk cameras.

You'd think that Epstein was at Mar-a-lago.

 

[mudwhistle]

You don't seem to know much about Jack Smith.
Hide and watch and then get back to me after the evidence (that you claim doesn't exist) is presented at Trump's trial.
At that point you'll have to switch your excuse for the guilty verdict to "that's just because the jury was biased and it wasn't a fair trial!"
But that's ok.
He'll still be a multiple felon headed for prison.

Yep. That's the way that ole crappy-pants can beat Trump.
By throwing him in prison.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Trump charged with seeking to delete security footage in documents case​

Federal prosecutors announced new charges against Donald Trump in his alleged hoarding and hiding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago home, alleging the former president and a newly-charged aide tried to keep security camera footage from being reviewed by investigators.

Trump was also hit with a fresh charge, in addition to the 31 counts he already faces, of illegally retaining national defense information.

The indictment charges that Trump and two aides, Waltine “Walt” Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, requested that another Trump employee "delete security camera footage at the Mar-a-Lago Club to prevent the footage from being provided to a federal grand jury.”

De Oliveira is the second Trump aide to be charged in the documents case. Nauta was indicted alongside Trump in June, accused of helping the former president mislead investigators as they sought to retrieve all of the classified documents that remained at the former president’s home and private club after he left the White House.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/07/27/trump-carlos-deoliveira-classified-indictment/

---

New charges. And any day now, there is a third indictment on the way. Not to mention a fourth one very soon.

What has he got to hide ? We all know he is innocent.

 

[Billiejeens]

Indictments are based upon evidence

They are based on party affiliation.

 

[MagicMike]

Yep. That's the way that ole crappy-pants can beat Trump.
By throwing him in prison.

Biden has nothing to do with this.
That is the purpose of the Special Counsel; to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest and bias.