woodguru

Attorneys are in a worse predicament than most, they know the laws, and they know either they are going to be prosecuted for filing a lie they knew about, or they will have to swear that trump lied to them...there is no middle ground, and there is no fifth amendment...

Taking the fifth would be an admission of guilt and they would be prosecuted for filing false statements. And before going to the stupidity of how these are false charges, remember documents were turned over, and they did in fact file a legal response that everything had been turned over. There is no intelligent response by trump to the fact that they were not.

https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-lawyers-2658189528/?utm_source=push_notifications

microphor Loc: Home is TN

Investigators plan to put Trump lawyers in front of a grand jury and then make them flip:

Am i reading this right? Investigators plan to make attorneys say what they want them to say? Will they be using water boarding techniques or just threatening suicide of family members?

Liberty Tree

More RawStory BS. Why do you keep posting articles no one reads but ELWNJS like you who hate Trump and will believe ahything negative about him. How many RawStory's predictions have come true.

woodguru

No, they are not making them say anything but the truth, either they lied when they filed formal responses, or trump swore to them that everything had been turned over, to which they filed a response in good faith that trump was telling them the truth.

There is no escaping the truth as they represented as attorneys, the response that everything had been turned over was obviously a lie.

And in a further fact, it had been made clear to trump by multiple people on multiple occasions that government documents were not trump's to take, regardless of whatever contrary nonsense he believed.

https://www.rawstory.com/marc-short-donald-trump-mar-a-lago/?utm_source=push_notifications

woodguru

There are facts at the heart of any story, even on FOX, I post things that have the facts that nobody can dispute, facts are facts and you ignore the editorial.

Facts
...trumps attorneys filed a formal legal response indicating that all documents had been returned (which they hadn't)
...either they or trump knowingly lied, and someone is going to get charged, PERIOD

microphor Loc: Home is TN

And how do they know they lied or Trump lied to them? Doesn't fit the Dem narrative? Is it like forcing the Russian Collusion Delusion to be true, no matter what because that's what the Dems want it to be. So we will just keep beating at this round peg till it fits in this square hole? That's certainly what it sounds like.

Liberty Tree

Fact is a court will decide it and not RawStory

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Do you even know what the word editorial means? Here I'll help you oh moronic one...

editorial: a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers.

woodguru

You guys really can't focus on the heart of an issue can you? Someone lied, saying all the documents had been returned when they hadn't was a lie, no shades of gray here.

Who lied? Somebody filed a false statement that all documents had been returned. Is it hard to figure out if they had in fact been returned? NO, it's easy to see they had not, end of that subject.

Did the attorneys know that all documents had not been returned but figured it would not be pursued further, in which case they lied, or did they file that in good faith that they believed trump when he told them everything had been returned? Attorneys will generally lie for their clients if they believe there is no jeopardy, in this case it comes down to who lied and whoever it is in in real danger of being prosecuted.

woodguru

Pay attention sparky, first of all oh moronic one is calling me a moron,

I can't believe I'm having to describe the difference between the facts and what is editorial... an editorial can lay out facts with sources, that part which is 100% true, and the person writing the editorial can put whatever interpretation and spin on it they want...it's the spin that marks the truth of an editorial, not the facts they are writing their personal take on.

Call me a moron again and I will report it, it serves no purpose to have cognitively dysfunctional people calling other people morons. Depending on where you are at it's either a suspension or you are done if you've had warnings and suspensions.

woodguru

Facts are easy to assess, especially when the court filings and evidence being used is in the media. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a grand jury is a different thing with different rules for the attorneys being subpoenaed...there is no lying here, lie and they risk being prosecuted.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

No, we don't know that. This is an opinion peace, don't know if Trump was given a list of what to return and he refused. You know what we do know about refusal. They've failed to return his person records between him and attorneys.

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

I didn't call you a moron, I said that you were moronic.

microphor Loc: Home is TN

Yeah that's what we heard for 3 years with the Russian Collusion Delusion. Turns out a lying, conniving bunch of Democrat forgers created the narritive to try to prevent and/or unseat a president. Those "so called sources" unless named and sworn aren't nothing but another Collusion Delusion!

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

In a world of innocent until proven guilty wouldn't the DOJ have to prove that Trump's lawyer did in fact know that the documents were classified? In a world of innocent until proven guilty would the DOJ have to prove that Trump knew that the documents were still classified even though he believes that he declassified them? Wouldn't the DOJ have to prove intentional misconduct? Oh ya, Democrats no longer live in a world of innocent until proven guilty if it is someone who disagrees with them.

“Our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey said. “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” Comey said. "But there wasn’t reason to believe that there was intentional misconduct." Comey added, "however, that Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless.”

Why wouldn't the same conclusions be appropriate here? The basics of the case are very similar as they both pertain to moving and possession of classified material. The only differences is the fact that Clinton didn't have the power to declassify and the fact the fact that Clinton was a professional Democrat politician.