Air tight defense for Trump

a reply to: Grambler

Several things:

The last time someone got caught destroying evidence, in a high profile office, and it was after the subpoena was given, and he knew it, as was his staff, was Nixon, and how did that go for him?

But before we go into Clinton's emails again, here is the thing to consider:

1) Is the evidence in the custody of the federal government?

2) Timing of the subpoena.

3) Communication.

4) Is it a good idea?

While it is appealing to destroy evidence, but that is a risk, and a gamble, cause what could be damming could also be what proves a person innocent in a court of law.

If it is before the subpoena is given, then no law is broken.

As the Clinton showed, a miscommunication can cause some some problems, and the question of is it possible comes into play. So in Clinton's case, it was possible, that the subpoena was gotten by the lawyers, and the information was not sent out fast enough while the actions were going on.

However, in this case, the President and his staff, and his organization is under investigation, from the state to the Federal level, they know it, it is on the news just about every night. To destroy evidence now, would show intent on the part of the defendants.

And in a case, the last thing any one wants to be proven, through action, is intent. It changes the severity of the punishment, changes the level of the crime.

a reply to: sdcigarpig
It was three weeks.

Paul combetta destroyed the emails three weeks after they were subpoenaed.

If thats not enough time, what is. 2 years?

And lets not forget, combetta, the night before he destroyed the emails, was on reddit telling people he needed to remove the name of a "very VIP" from received and sent emails. He couldnt get the help he needed, and coincidentally I am sure, he deleted the emails the very next day.

This proves the whole we had a pile of emails setting around to delete and accidentally got to them three weeks after they were subpoenaed argument is absurd. If they were just to be deleted, why was combetta trying to take a very vip's name off of them?

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

My Best friend is a former Federal prosecutor.
I have had extensive discussion with him.
He worked on the John Gotti case.

a reply to: Joecanada11


Exactly how would you make that illegal?
Can you think of a non-subjective way to craft that law?
I work under an NDA with my company and we have vendors sign them all the time. Exactly how would you distinguish an NDA that is designed to prevent the disclosure of corporate information from some other type of NDA?
How would you determine what was "keeping quite about something" for perfectly normal reasons versus what you think are wrong doings?

a reply to: Grambler

Does Trump really have to do ANYTHING? I mean, if treason charges are brought against him its still incumbent upon a Republican controlled congress to do something about it right, and I don't think anyone here believes Republicans are going to impeach Trump.....

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Grambler

Does Trump really have to do ANYTHING? I mean, if treason charges are brought against him its still incumbent upon a Republican controlled congress to do something about it right, and I don't think anyone here believes Republicans are going to impeach Trump.....

I am not so sure.

There are plenty of senate republicans that dont like him at all. In fact, I am certain there are some senate republicans who wanted hillary over trump.

So if a real serious crime was proven, they would definitely vote with the dems to remove him.

a reply to: Grambler


You people are ridiculous. This used to be a fun website. Now it may have one of the highest concentrations of dumb people and uninformed MAGA-humpers on the entire internet.
Sometimes I cant decide if people on here are just being disingenuous and willfully twisting the truth, or if they're really this dumb....

originally posted by: Dragoon01
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

My Best friend is a former Federal prosecutor.
I have had extensive discussion with him.
He worked on the John Gotti case.

You realize that if you were going to go after Trump in regards to campaign finance violations that they would charge him as a co-conspirator to Michael Cohen. Funny enough, Michael Cohen has already plead guilty to federal prosecutors regarding this issue.

So, ask your best friend, why would Cohen be guilty but not Trump?

Why didn’t Cohen use the EXACT SAME DEFENSE since we’re talking about the exact same offense?

Also, if it breaks the way you presented it, and you had this extensive discussion with your best friend the federal prosecutor about Trumps defense, why would the SDNY even bring these charges knowing full well they would be beaten in court?

What you said would make sense if it played out that way, but it didn’t so it doesn’t.

I would love to hear your best friend’s, the federal prosecutor, professional opinion on the matter?

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Grambler


You people are ridiculous. This used to be a fun website. Now it may have the single highest concentration of dumb people per poster on the entire internet.
Sometimes I cant decide if people on here are just being disingenuous and willfully

That’s two posts I have seen of you guys n the past ten minutes calling people dumb

Your insults add nothing to the conversation, and aren’t even funny

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Grambler


You people are ridiculous. This used to be a fun website. Now it may have the single highest concentration of dumb people per poster on the entire internet.
Sometimes I cant decide if people on here are just being disingenuous and willfully

That’s two posts I have seen of you guys n the past ten minutes calling people dumb

Your insults add nothing to the conversation, and aren’t even funny

He’s not wrong, and it doesn’t just extend to the President Trump threads....

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Grambler


You people are ridiculous. This used to be a fun website. Now it may have the single highest concentration of dumb people per poster on the entire internet.
Sometimes I cant decide if people on here are just being disingenuous and willfully

That’s two posts I have seen of you guys n the past ten minutes calling people dumb

Your insults add nothing to the conversation, and aren’t even funny

He’s not wrong, and it doesn’t just extend to the President Trump threads....

Hahahaha

A whole gang of people that can’t intellectually keep up with anyone that resort to just saying people are dumb

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Grambler


You people are ridiculous. This used to be a fun website. Now it may have the single highest concentration of dumb people per poster on the entire internet.
Sometimes I cant decide if people on here are just being disingenuous and willfully

That’s two posts I have seen of you guys n the past ten minutes calling people dumb

Your insults add nothing to the conversation, and aren’t even funny

He’s not wrong, and it doesn’t just extend to the President Trump threads....

Hahahaha

A whole gang of people that can’t intellectually keep up with anyone that resort to just saying people are dumb

Your post is about Trump destroying evidence that the SDNY already has, which is why they charged Michael Cohen. The evidence they would need is already in their possession.

They won’t charge Trump because you can’t indict a sitting president with a crime.

I think dumb works just fine. Do you have another word I may be missing to describe the theory?

And I’m the dummy who double posts....

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Grambler


You people are ridiculous. This used to be a fun website. Now it may have the single highest concentration of dumb people per poster on the entire internet.
Sometimes I cant decide if people on here are just being disingenuous and willfully

That’s two posts I have seen of you guys n the past ten minutes calling people dumb

Your insults add nothing to the conversation, and aren’t even funny

He’s not wrong, and it doesn’t just extend to the President Trump threads....

Hahahaha

A whole gang of people that can’t intellectually keep up with anyone that resort to just saying people are dumb

Your post is about Trump destroying evidence that the SDNY already has, which is why they charged Michael Cohen. The evidence they would need is already in their possession.

They won’t charge Trump because you can’t indict a sitting president with a crime.

I think dumb works just fine. Do you have another word I may be missing to describe the theory?

So somehow you know no more evidence will be requested of trump?

Very impressive!

Can you please divulge your source inside the investigation that let you know they will be getting no more evidence from trump?

And also if it turns out later that investigators due request evidence from trump, will you please come back on and admit how wrong you were?

Meanwhile, the thread was not a literal suggestion as was easy to see, but instead was pointing out the hypocrisy of people that had no problem with Hillary destroying subpoenaed evidence but would freak out had trump done that

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Grambler


You people are ridiculous. This used to be a fun website. Now it may have one of the highest concentrations of dumb people and uninformed MAGA-humpers on the entire internet.
Sometimes I cant decide if people on here are just being disingenuous and willfully twisting the truth, or if they're really this dumb....

Yeah it kind of started around 2008. With all the free phones and keeping my Doctor.

originally posted by: Grambler
So there is a chance trump may be found guilty of campaign finance violations working with his lawyer cohen who plead guilty today.

As I have stated all along, if trump did the crime, he should be punished.

But I have a strategic question involving trumps defense.

There is a solid chance that cohens testimony enough may not be enough evidence.

In fact, there is also a chance that they will need more evidence from trump that they didnt get from cohen. Cell records, emails, etc.

And so this evidence will be subpoenaed.

So why doesnt trump just destroy all requested evidence?

The precedent has been set with the hillary case, destroying subpoenaed evidence is a ok, and nothing bad will happen to you because of it.

In fact, why doesnt everyone use this strategy from now on?

I mean, its not like the fbi agents who were praising hillary and bashing trump that were in charge of both initial investigations would have had different standards for the two cases, right?

And then once that evidence is destroyed, and no possible conviction can be made, trump supporters can then brag that the investigation exonerated him, just like hillary supporters did, right?

I mean I myself would be appalled if trump did this, but as a legal defense, it seems pretty air tight.

And hillary supporting trump haters would no doubt agree that there is nothing unethical about it, and it is a perfectly legal thing to do.

If Hillary was still in office this Congress would have impeached her. You can bet on it.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: Grambler
So there is a chance trump may be found guilty of campaign finance violations working with his lawyer cohen who plead guilty today.

As I have stated all along, if trump did the crime, he should be punished.

But I have a strategic question involving trumps defense.

There is a solid chance that cohens testimony enough may not be enough evidence.

In fact, there is also a chance that they will need more evidence from trump that they didnt get from cohen. Cell records, emails, etc.

And so this evidence will be subpoenaed.

So why doesnt trump just destroy all requested evidence?

The precedent has been set with the hillary case, destroying subpoenaed evidence is a ok, and nothing bad will happen to you because of it.

In fact, why doesnt everyone use this strategy from now on?

I mean, its not like the fbi agents who were praising hillary and bashing trump that were in charge of both initial investigations would have had different standards for the two cases, right?

And then once that evidence is destroyed, and no possible conviction can be made, trump supporters can then brag that the investigation exonerated him, just like hillary supporters did, right?

I mean I myself would be appalled if trump did this, but as a legal defense, it seems pretty air tight.

And hillary supporting trump haters would no doubt agree that there is nothing unethical about it, and it is a perfectly legal thing to do.

If Hillary was still in office this Congress would have impeached her. You can bet on it.

Not a chance

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: Grambler


You people are ridiculous. This used to be a fun website. Now it may have the single highest concentration of dumb people per poster on the entire internet.
Sometimes I cant decide if people on here are just being disingenuous and willfully

That’s two posts I have seen of you guys n the past ten minutes calling people dumb

Your insults add nothing to the conversation, and aren’t even funny

He’s not wrong, and it doesn’t just extend to the President Trump threads....

Hahahaha

A whole gang of people that can’t intellectually keep up with anyone that resort to just saying people are dumb

Your post is about Trump destroying evidence that the SDNY already has, which is why they charged Michael Cohen. The evidence they would need is already in their possession.

They won’t charge Trump because you can’t indict a sitting president with a crime.

I think dumb works just fine. Do you have another word I may be missing to describe the theory?

So somehow you know no more evidence will be requested of trump?

Very impressive!

Can you please divulge your source inside the investigation that let you know they will be getting no more evidence from trump?

And also if it turns out later that investigators due request evidence from trump, will you please come back on and admit how wrong you were?

Meanwhile, the thread was not a literal suggestion as was easy to see, but instead was pointing out the hypocrisy of people that had no problem with Hillary destroying subpoenaed evidence but would freak out had trump done that

It’s dumb.

He’d be charged with the same crime, of the same offense, that Cohen was.

The payments came from the Trump Organization in regards to sham invoices of retainer fees.

What more do you need? Trump to admit to it on TV? HE DID THAT TOO!

Trump supporters don't really need to defend trump as we all know that Trump has their unconditional support know matter what he does ... legal or illegal.

Trump basically summed up the mind set of his supporters during the election when he said, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone and not loose any votes"

I don't know if I agree with this: Trump won precisely because he wanted to get rid of the s*** that infests the waters of Washington. It would sadden me to see him do that.
Better he take it on the chin because he has little to lose, but a lot to gain by doing so.

If he was found guilty of this trumped up charge...move on and close the investigation. Give them their victory, win the war.