Trump Indictment Watch

Garmel said:
Judicial Watch vs. NARA and the older Navy vs. Egan are clear to what a president's powers are. Libs better hope DeSantis or Trump doesn't win because the corruption is going bye-bye.
Click to expand...

Trump is nothing if not synonymous with rampant corruption and grifting. Buy your Trump gold rimmed dollars quick, before they run out!!!
 
Runnin said:
Trump is nothing if not synonymous with rampant corruption and grifting.
Click to expand...

Might be true but what I said about the current investigations are also true. The PRA isn't even supposed to be enforced by a criminal court.
 
Last edited:
The Chosen One said:
If I ever became a white collar criminal, I wouldn't even think about hiring a defense lawyer. All I'd need is Garmel.
Click to expand...

Lol, funny. Everything I've said is written in black and white and not hard to find. Just look for yourself but you won't do that because it might get in the way of your brainwashing. You would think that after the FBI collusion fiasco you libs would have learned your lesson but you haven't. You will blindly follow the narrative to its end ignoring all reason and legal precedent. Oh, I believe that Trump will be hammered but it doesn't change the fact this is all bull**** just like the Collusion investigation. Plenty of legal minds agree with me on this.

Do you think Trump resisted NARA just for the hell of it? No, he didn't because there is legal precedent that backs up what Trump and his legal team have said.
 
Last edited:
The DOJ should not even respond to a letter from anyone calling himself The POTUS, unless it's Joe Biden.
 
Apparently they still have plenty IN STOCK. I guess there aren't as many fools in the MAGA tent as there used to be.

Only $9.99. lol

51NFL2lShOL._AC_.jpg


Republican Collector Items for the future Museum of Crazy American Phases
 
Last edited:
In Gamel's defense, once you buy into all the lies it takes to keep a criminal afloat, there really isn't any option other than subterfuge and misdirection. To that point, Jack Smith should look by "the CORVETTE".
 
Garmel said:
Lol, funny. Everything I've said is written in black and white and not hard to find. Just look for yourself but you won't do that because it might get in the way of your brainwashing. You would think that after the FBI collusion fiasco you libs would have learned your lesson but you haven't. You will blindly follow the narrative to its end ignoring all reason and legal precedent. Oh, I believe that Trump will be hammered but it doesn't change the fact this is all bull**** just like the Collusion investigation. Plenty of legal minds agree with me on this.

Do you think Trump resisted NARA just for the hell of it? No, he didn't because there is legal precedent that backs up what Trump and his legal team have said.
Click to expand...


You say this like Trump was charged in the Russia investigation. If they were truly out to "get Trump" they would have charge Don Jr for the Trump tower meeting. They arent going to bring a case against Trump or his buddies unless its guaranteed win. Thats the same standard Hillary got. She could have been charged but it was hardly an easy conviction. Your boy is not above investigation. He is trying this case in the court of public opinion because he knows he has no case in a court of law.
 
Garmel said:
For obstruction, right? There's one problem with that though.
Click to expand...


There might be obstruction charges relating to the PRA. I dont know. Whatever you think of that he did obstruct a subpoena. And unlike Hillary theres proof of that and not just theories. You assured me anyone could just have a fall guy say they did it so Trumps got nothing to worry about he can just have someone fall on that sword.......
 
cajunrevenge said:
You say this like Trump was charged in the Russia investigation. If they were truly out to "get Trump" they would have charge Don Jr for the Trump tower meeting. They arent going to bring a case against Trump or his buddies unless its guaranteed win. Thats the same standard Hillary got. She could have been charged but it was hardly an easy conviction. Your boy is not above investigation. He is trying this case in the court of public opinion because he knows he has no case in a court of law.
Click to expand...

They tried to get Trump and they would have had a partisan lib been in charge. He has no case? Of course he does and I've shown you where it's at.
 
Last edited:
cajunrevenge said:
There might be obstruction charges relating to the PRA. I dont know. Whatever you think of that he did obstruct a subpoena. And unlike Hillary theres proof of that and not just theories. You assured me anyone could just have a fall guy say they did it so Trumps got nothing to worry about he can just have someone fall on that sword.......
Click to expand...

How did he obstruct? They're his by law. You can't obstruct a noncrime. I can show you for the millionth time where I'm correct. Show me in writing where you're correct.
 
Garmel said:
They tried to get Trump and they would have had a partisan lib been in charge. He has no case? Of course he does and I've shown you where it's at.
Click to expand...


Newsflash, each side tries to "get" the other. Do you really think every investigation of the Clintons and Biden is motivated by noble intentions? Republicans have been trying to "get Biden" for years now because they couldnt beat him in an election. Spare me your selective outrage. Unlike you I am consistent. I welcome any and all investigations of the Bidens and Clintons.
 
Garmel said:
How did he obstruct? They're his by law. You can't obstruct a noncrime. I can show you for the millionth time where I'm correct. Show me in writing where you're correct.
Click to expand...


You need me to explain to you how Trump obstructed a subpoena? Theres a legal process he could have gone through if he thought he didnt have to comply with the subpoena. He could have sued and asked a Judge for an injunction until the matter was resolved. Do you know why his lawyers are losing attorney-client privileges? Because they committed a crime by lying on an affidavit stating they didnt have the documents subpoenaed. At that point their options are fall on the sword or admit they were deceived/coerced into signing the document. They allegedly had rehearsals about how to hide the documents if the FBI executed a search warrant. The FBI has security footage of them moving the boxes they said couldnt be found. Would you not agree thats damning evidence against Trump for obstruction?
 
Garmel said:
How did he obstruct? They're his by law. You can't obstruct a noncrime. I can show you for the millionth time where I'm correct. Show me in writing where you're correct.
Click to expand...


And yes you can obstruct a non crime. The same way you can resist arrest if you were never under arrest.
 
cajunrevenge said:
You need me to explain to you how Trump obstructed a subpoena? Theres a legal process he could have gone through if he thought he didnt have to comply with the subpoena. He could have sued and asked a Judge for an injunction until the matter was resolved. Do you know why his lawyers are losing attorney-client privileges? Because they committed a crime by lying on an affidavit stating they didnt have the documents subpoenaed. At that point their options are fall on the sword or admit they were deceived/coerced into signing the document. They allegedly had rehearsals about how to hide the documents if the FBI executed a search warrant. The FBI has security footage of them moving the boxes they said couldnt be found. Would you not agree thats damning evidence against Trump for obstruction?
Click to expand...

First of all, the FBI the first time around said they couldn't find them. Trump said they couldn't either. There's only 100 left. The court will have to prove that they lied on purpose which is difficult. All of this is moot anyway because when Trump took them home they were declassified and they are his.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top