TRUMP 2024

[Iprof]

You also know that if it was really too secret material the prosecution wouldn’t have access to it and would need clearance. Not sure how that would work

Along With trumps tax returns taking him down. They have them they told me

Yup got him for 83.3 million in January, February is going to be a lot more.
Hey didn't Biden have close to 83 million votes?

 

[Iprof]

Maybe he thought they'd be safer at Mar-a-Lago than in an open box next to Biden's Vette.

See you can't answer the question but try to deflect. Biden can't be indicted as the sitting President maybe they will charge him after he leaves office. I really don't care if he gets indicted as I have said in this thread many times if either broke the law hold them accountable

 

[Golfman25]

I guess you have never seen a criminal complaint before it does not specify what the documents were keep your panties on. This is easy it’s either nuclear secrets or not. We don’t know

For all we know it could be a warning -- "don't press the red button."

 

[Flyer5]

I have it by good authority Trump is building a Top Secret Nuclear submarine. He plans on running up from Maralargo and bombing the inauguration if he loses. " Putin sold him some uranium he purchased from the Clintons. Allegedly of course.

 

[Woody]

The indictment names the Nuclear Defense documents.

Here read the indictment page 2 #3

Goddammit, stop posting when you're drunk, there aren't any Nuclear Defense documents named.

 

[Grec]

Read page 2 #3 or get someone to read it to you. You could also read the entire indictment.

You understand that an indictment is only an accusation, the prosecutor's side of the case, right? It isn't proof of anything. As the line goes, you can indict a ham sandwich - and if it's Trump, you don't even need a precident.

Perhaps, if Garland had chosen a respectable person as the special prosecutor, or maybe one who SCOTUS hadn't slapped down for misapplying the law, people other than the loons on the left would consider the contents of the indictment worth consideration. But alas, either Garland doesn't know any resepectable prosecutors, or he purposely sought out the worst political hack he could find.

 

[Alkas2710]

You understand that an indictment is only an accusation, the prosecutor's side of the case, right? It isn't proof of anything. As the line goes, you can indict a ham sandwich - and if it's Trump, you don't even need a precident.

Perhaps, if Garland had chosen a respectable person as the special prosecutor, or maybe one who SCOTUS hadn't slapped down for misapplying the law, people other than the loons on the left would consider the contents of the indictment worth consideration. But alas, either Garland doesn't know any resepectable prosecutors, or he purposely sought out the worst political hack he could find.

But but but Trump has to pay 83 million to a whack job for a civil action which will be overturned. This means he is guilty of trying to sell nuclear secrets. I mean come on man it’s obviously right in front of you the proof that he did it

 

[Flyer5]

But but but Trump has to pay 83 million to a whack job for a civil action which will be overturned. This means he is guilty of trying to sell nuclear secrets. I mean come on man it’s obviously right in front of you the proof that he did it

There is no reasoning with these people. They trust everything they read or hear negative about Trump.

 

[Grec]

See you can't answer the question

I assumed your question was rhetorical. To ask someone here to know whether the theoretical documents were actually taken, and if they were, to specify exactly what the purpose was, would be a ridicuous request.

And we all know that you don't make ridiculous comments or requests, right?

 

[ttmott]

The indictment names the Nuclear Defense documents.

Here read the indictment page 2 #3

Now that you're an expert in management of sensitive documents - you know what "classification markings" are right? That is what is mentioned multiple times in the inditement. I'm sure you know but for everyone else - a classification marking means the document has been reviewed for sensitive data and it is marked as to it's classification. Most documents are marked as "unclassified"; that is a "classification marking". So neither you nor I know the level of the classification pertaining to the subject documents.
That dog just doesn't hunt.

 

[Alkas2710]

I assumed your question was rhetorical. To ask someone here to know whether the theoretical documents were actually taken, and if they were, to specify exactly what the purpose was, would be a ridicuous request.

And we all know that you don't make ridiculous comments or requests, right?

You can present all kinds of proven facts and they have nothing except orange man bad. I always know when they get desperate the insults start and then they bring up Stormy

 

[Flyer5]

You can present all kinds of proven facts and they have nothing except orange man bad. I always know when they get desperate the insults start and then they bring up Stormy

Didn't Stormy have to pay Trump when all was said and done?

 

[Iprof]

Goddammit, stop posting when you're drunk, there aren't any Nuclear Defense documents named.

Get an adult to read the indictment to you.

 

[Iprof]

You can present all kinds of proven facts and they have nothing except orange man bad. I always know when they get desperate the insults start and then they bring up Stormy

Just look at Woody, OllieC, Golfman25 and highslice happens every single day.

 

[Iprof]

You can present all kinds of proven facts and they have nothing except orange man bad. I always know when they get desperate the insults start and then they bring up Stormy

Just look at Woody, OllieC, Goldman and

Now that you're an expert in management of sensitive documents - you know what "classification markings" are right? That is what is mentioned multiple times in the inditement. I'm sure you know but for everyone else - a classification marking means the document has been reviewed for sensitive data and it is marked as to it's classification. Most documents are marked as "unclassified"; that is a "classification marking". So neither you nor I know the level of the classification pertaining to the subject documents.
That dog just doesn't hunt.

The Charges

• 31 counts of Wilful Retention of National Defense Information — 18 USC 793(e)
• Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice — 18 USC 1512(k)
• Withholding a Document or Record — 18 USC 1512 (b)(2)(A), and abetting
• Corrupting concealing a Document or Record — 18 USC 1512[c](1), and abetting
• Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation — 18 USC 1519, and abetting
• Scheme to Conceal — 18 USC 1001(a)(1), and abetting
• False Statements and Representations — 18 USC 1001(a)(2), and abetting

 

[Alkas2710]

Didn't Stormy have to pay Trump when all was said and done?

Yep

 

[highslice]

Read page 2 #3 or get someone to read it to you. You could also read the entire indictment.

I did.

 

[highslice]

Just look at Woody, OllieC, Golfman25 and highslice happens every single day.

I only return what you send.

 

[highslice]

Just look at Woody, OllieC, Goldman and

The Charges

• 31 counts of Wilful Retention of National Defense Information — 18 USC 793(e)
• Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice — 18 USC 1512(k)
• Withholding a Document or Record — 18 USC 1512 (b)(2)(A), and abetting
• Corrupting concealing a Document or Record — 18 USC 1512[c](1), and abetting
• Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation — 18 USC 1519, and abetting
• Scheme to Conceal — 18 USC 1001(a)(1), and abetting
• False Statements and Representations — 18 USC 1001(a)(2), and abetting

NDI can mean all sorts of things.

 

[Alkas2710]

Just look at Woody, OllieC, Goldman and

The Charges

• 31 counts of Wilful Retention of National Defense Information — 18 USC 793(e)
• Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice — 18 USC 1512(k)
• Withholding a Document or Record — 18 USC 1512 (b)(2)(A), and abetting
• Corrupting concealing a Document or Record — 18 USC 1512[c](1), and abetting
• Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation — 18 USC 1519, and abetting
• Scheme to Conceal — 18 USC 1001(a)(1), and abetting
• False Statements and Representations — 18 USC 1001(a)(2), and abetting

Still no proven facts only charges show something anything that he was guilty of criminally. I have listed a lot of things that were proven false give me one criminal conviction. You just don’t get it. Think about it logically they have been going after Trump for 8 years with nothing proven. You really think that if they had the ticking time bomb on him it would not be front and center.