DOJ recovers missing text messages between anti-Trump FBI agents Strzok and Page

#76
#76
lawgator1 said:
Wanting to interview Trump is the signal that he's basically done. No way to know what he has. So he will give Trump a chance to TRUTHFULLY explain things.


Hahahahahahahahaha...hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with it and I've always maintained if someone has done something wrong, let them go down in flames. But then I hope Mueller does the investigation of Hillary that Comey didn't do...considering he chose not to indict prior to the "investigation" even being finished. Something reeks of a double standard within the FBI in how these investigations are carried out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#77
#77
lawgator1 said:
The facts aren't excluded. The defendant just gets to defend on the basis that the facts aren't true.

Now, let's say Trump were to be tried on money laundering charges. His lawyers could mount a defense that the facts tendered by the prosecution are not true based on a biased investigation. The jury can agree, or reject it.

I'd love to see Trump defend such a charge on that basis. Would be VERY entertaining.
Click to expand...

Speaking of defending, I tried asking you a question in the OT thread.
 
#78
#78
They just released a text between the two agents talking about not going too hard on Clinton. This is going to get ugly.
 
#83
#83
camp_steveo said:
They just released a text between the two agents talking about not going too hard on Clinton. This is going to get ugly.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the ambiguous "they."

Much like LG and his lack of links, some form of reference would be helpful...
 
#90
#90
lawgator1 said:
Let's see where they were meeting.

PS, if it is never proven that there were meetings of a secret society, and no confidential informant saying that, then this Senator deserves to be impeached, forthwith.
Click to expand...


Just like the members of the 9th circuit federal appeals court out in San Fran?
 
#93
#93
The question is...why would the F.B.I. put out a statement they were lost and blame Samsung? When most F.B.I. agents on the planet knows that's bull****.

FBI sources want to know why the bureau said they couldn't be discovered

Forensic Experts Retrieve 'Ghost Texts' | Sara A. Carter

A former FBI special agent, who worked extensively on counterterrorism related cases, stated they were “dumbfounded” by the FBI’s original excuse that the text messages were irretrievable.

“Even though the servers ‘lost’ the text messages of Strzok they would still be on his actual device, even if he deleted them,” stated the former FBI special agent, who asked to speak on background due to the sensitivity of the case. “That’s how we catch bad guys, we forensically search their phones. Nothing disappears off the device, nothing… unless they take a hammer to it or microwave it. The question is, the FBI knows this, so why did the bureau say they couldn’t retrieve them – why did they mislead Congress.”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#94
#94
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#95
#95
Grand Vol said:
And certainly makes any prosecution harder, no?
Click to expand...


Depends. If it's wacky conspiracy stuff, like this, it can make it easier.

Let's say they produce records of Trump taking out billions of dollars of loans from a Russian mobster' s fake company, in ten transactions over a decade.

If on cross examination all they have to work with is saying, but isn't it true some of the people working there at the FBI wanted Clinton to win?, most jurors realize you are just distracting from actual FACT.

See, that's what Hannity et. al. are missing here. The claim of bias is not going to change any of the facts. The facts are what matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#96
#96
lawgator1 said:
Depends. If it's wacky conspiracy stuff, like this, it can make it easier.

Let's say they produce records of Trump taking out billions of dollars of loans from a Russian mobster' s fake company, in ten transactions over a decade.

If on cross examination all they have to work with is saying, but isn't it true some of the people working there at the FBI wanted Clinton to win?, most jurors realize you are just distracting from actual FACT.

See, that's what Hannity et. al. are missing here. The claim of bias is not going to change any of the facts. The facts are what matter.
Click to expand...

Is that illegal? What's the statute of limitations?
 
#97
#97
Septic said:
Why wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

I know, having extramarital affairs with coworkers, shilling for Hillary, conspiring against Trump, leaking to the media, and being under investigation by Congress should warrant a promotion and raise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#98
#98
The affair and leaking to media should at the very least warrant a suspension while the matter is being reviewed. Not to mention, 50,000 texts over 5 months? That’s like 22/hr for every waking moment over that time. Did they even work?
 
#99
#99
golfballs said:
The affair and leaking to media should at the very least warrant a suspension while the matter is being reviewed. Not to mention, 50,000 texts over 5 months? That’s like 22/hr for every waking moment over that time. Did they even work?
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
#100
#100
lawgator1 said:
Depends. If it's wacky conspiracy stuff, like this, it can make it easier.

Let's say they produce records of Trump taking out billions of dollars of loans from a Russian mobster' s fake company, in ten transactions over a decade.

If on cross examination all they have to work with is saying, but isn't it true some of the people working there at the FBI wanted Clinton to win?, most jurors realize you are just distracting from actual FACT.

See, that's what Hannity et. al. are missing here. The claim of bias is not going to change any of the facts. The facts are what matter.
Click to expand...

I can’t believe you actually passed a bar examination. The point is that, any defense attorney worth their weight in salt would drive this narrative, and the burden of “facts” would lend credence to the defense’s arguments. You’re supposing the “facts” are irrefutably there, regardless of any subversion, but that has to be proven. There is not a single shred of credible evidence for Trump colluding with “muh Russia.”

If you have it, counsel, bring it forward.

DRGwIhyU8AAvxLu.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top