Trump Indictment Watch

You already demonstrated that you dont care. A President could be shooting heroin while gangbanging prostitutes in the White House so long as you like his policies. So stop concern trolling. Heres a hint, if an accusation is so weak that Republicans who have a majority in the House dont impeach him, then its probably bull****.

When the president is getting payoffs from Ukraine and just so happens his policies is to give hundreds of billions of resources to Ukraine... I don't like his policies and wonder what may be driving them
 
All I am asking for is the money you people claim he was bribed with. The different standards you people have for Trump and Biden are amazing.
 
Show me where Joe Biden received the money. He has released his taxes so any hidden income is tax evasion before even discussing what it was for.
 
Just ask yourself, if Trump was accused of this what evidence would convince you. In the Russia investigation Don Jr went to a meeting with Russians who promised dirt on Hillary Clinton. And thats not considered enough evidence. So we could have Joe attending meetings fully intending to take a bribe from someone and that's not enough evidence unless money exchanges hands and you can prove it. All the circumstantial evidence didn't mean **** for Trump so I don't care how much circumstantial evidence there may be.
 
Is this like when Trump and his lackies kept getting caught talking to Russian agents after they said there were no communications with Russians?
 
F2FDDWAXgAEAsgh
 
"On June 23, 2022, at 8:46 pm, Trump called De Oliveira and they spoke for approximately 24 minutes."

Trump talked on the phone to a maintenance worker for 24 minutes???

Is this where they brainstormed the brilliant idea of flooding the office holding the security footage with water from the pool? I still don't understand the details of this part of the conspiracy. Having a decent criminal mind myself, it's clear to me that if you're going to attempt something this bizarre and blatantly obvious, you have to make sure it works. Meaning, you MUST at all costs destroy the security footage! You can concoct another lie later.

Why didn't it work? Was this real obstructionism or just an unfortunate coincidence? I hope we learn the details on this at some point.
 
"On June 23, 2022, at 8:46 pm, Trump called De Oliveira and they spoke for approximately 24 minutes."

Trump talked on the phone to a maintenance worker for 24 minutes???

Is this where they brainstormed the brilliant idea of flooding the office holding the security footage with water from the pool? I still don't understand the details of this part of the conspiracy. Having a decent criminal mind myself, it's clear to me that if you're going to attempt something this bizarre and blatantly obvious, you have to make sure it works. Meaning, you MUST at all costs destroy the security footage! You can concoct another lie later.

Why didn't it work? Was this real obstructionism or just an unfortunate coincidence? I hope we learn the details on this at some point.

Employee #4 apparently didn't think it was a good idea. I'm surprised very poorly chosen one had someone with that kind of common sense on the payroll.

Deoliveira is the guy who drained the pool in a manner that flooded the room with the server. After Employee #4 told him deleting the recordings from the server was a bad idea.

Meanwhile back at the ranch Walt Nauta is objecting to limits on his personal access to the classified docs. He wants to personally inspect them rather than have his lawyer (with a security clearance) do it.
 
Last edited:
"On June 23, 2022, at 8:46 pm, Trump called De Oliveira and they spoke for approximately 24 minutes."

Trump talked on the phone to a maintenance worker for 24 minutes???

Is this where they brainstormed the brilliant idea of flooding the office holding the security footage with water from the pool? I still don't understand the details of this part of the conspiracy. Having a decent criminal mind myself, it's clear to me that if you're going to attempt something this bizarre and blatantly obvious, you have to make sure it works. Meaning, you MUST at all costs destroy the security footage! You can concoct another lie later.

Why didn't it work? Was this real obstructionism or just an unfortunate coincidence? I hope we learn the details on this at some point.



What this speaks to is criminal intent. When someone goes through all that trouble to try and hide evidence it makes it hard to argue that you believe what you were doing was legal.
 
Back
Top