Posted on 06/10/2023 9:51:18 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
I never said I supported it, but every indictment is “selectively edited”. An indictment is an accusation, and will be written in such as way as to present the prosecution case as strongly as possible. I said that doing so is not “evidence tampering”, since the indictment is not evidence. As long as the actual evidence is unaltered, the jury will get to decide if the prosecution’s characterization of the statements are correct and justified.
Why is merely pointing out facts as opposed to hyperbolic statements made by so many seen as some sort of attack? The prosecutors will have to provide evidence to support what they claim the tape shows. Perhaps Trump will have evidence and witnesses that will negate what the tape appears to show. But to deny that it currently presents a problem for the defense is to deny reality.
As I said in a previous post, if the grand jury was never allowed to hear the tape or read the actual transcript, and the only information that was given was the prosecution version of what was said, Trump should have no problem getting the charge dismissed.
Never forget the Deep State is about money first, then power.
But I'll take a 9-0 SCOTUS.
Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
BREAKING: Sources say Special Counsel Smith does not actually have the supposed “smoking gun” doc Trump is heard on an audio talking about, which means he cannot prove it is classified and thus prove Trump knew it was classified. Prosecutors have no real evidence to show jurors
12:00 AM · Jun 10, 2023
No, it means they MAY have been presented altered evidence, not that they were. Trump’s team would still have to prove that to a judge.
It is the evidence of the law(s) being used to charge the innocent. It is excerpts of evidence that will be used, but in this document there were no ellipses to indicate a removed word or two, and the meaning of the section being addressed. The removal of the words will poison the pool of potential jurors, though, which is the hope of the cheating prosecutors.
They didn’t alter anything. They included his actual words in the indictment, just not all of them in one particular spot. They did include the entire quotes later in the document. I know this argument gets everyone all hyped up, but it is a specious argument. If they hadn’t included the actual transcript, there might be a point, but the fact that they did negates this line of attack on the indictment.
George Orwell is rolling in his grave, you are the epitomie of 1984.
Now this could be a line of argument for the Trump team, but the problem as I see it is for that to have any weight, Trump would have to prove the document was declassified when he showed it to the writer. I agree that Trump, as president, could declassify anything and didn’t have to follow any specific process. However, if he did declassify it but didn’t document that fact prior to leaving office or have witnesses to the act, then it becomes a question of credibility - will the jury really believe him, or will they think he is covering himself after the fact?
Correct. The indictment is written to present the case in the strongest possible way. But the indictment is not evidence, and as long as Smith didn’t actually lie, I think this furor is nothing but mental masturbation. It may make people feel good, but accomplishes nothing useful.
But he(Jack Smith) did lie.
Ca Conservative meet George Costanza your new hero, “it’s not a lie if you believe it”.
That’s a silly analogy and shows how much you are reaching on this. The whole point the poster is making is that because the prosecution left off the word “like” that he altered the meaning of the sentence. However, if you read the transcript, the word “like” is used as a verbal interjection, Valley Girl style. “You, know, like, we went down to the lake, and then, like, we went swimming…”
It is not used to indicate a comparison. “Apples are like oranges because they are both fruit.”
And as far as the other statement, in one place the indictment says Trump acknowledged the information he was sharing was secret and quoted Trump as saying “this is a secret”. They try to say that the use of “a secret” did not mean it was secret in the legal sense. But in the transcript, Trump also says, “Secret. This is secret information.” So undermines the argument that somehow not including the “a” in one place somehow changed the context or altered evidence.
If it’s true they don’t have the document, Trump should have no problem. I find it a little difficult to believe they would bring a charge knowing they could not prove it, but stranger things have happened.
Really, Valley girl style, the point is that Jack Smith intentionally left out an important word and letter in his indictment.
As my eight grade grammar teacher would say words and letters mean things.
And since you are so fond of Valley girl grammar, "Gag me with a spoon".
Where did Smith lie? Please provide specifics.
It is a problem—it taints the jury pool which is what I was referring to and is not ok—could be grounds for dismissal.
By leaving out two important words from the transcript for the indictment.
LOL, ok milquetoast.
“Certainly, the omission of the words “like” and “a” will be a strong foundation for Trump’s defense at trial.”
Well, why did Smith delete the two words if they are meaningless?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.