Wouldn’t those be taken out after the president leaves office, though? What would be the point of leaving them there? Or is it cheaper to just abandon in place than to remove?
I don’t know.
I’m sorry, but your argument effectively rests on trump doing something different with these papers… being responsible w/ respect to the law… an attitude which he never held as president.
That 1st article also forces me to take Sean Spicer at his word. He’s too much of a proven liar for him to have earned that trust.
Not buying it. Your argument relies on me forgetting who we are talking about.
guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, ever so guilty!
We know very little about these documents, apparently just talking about what they are about is classified. I do wonder if they are the only copy.
The not so kind side of me speculates that these were papers that had incriminating material on Trump, so he had them removed to somewhere where he thought they would be hidden, and also somewhere where he could have his people go through them and remove anything incriminating.
Sentencing June 8th. Mark your calendars.
What the hell’s wrong with now?
under 4 hours of deliberation. i believe the sentencing guidelines are 20, 20, 10, and some 5 years on the counts.
i believe this may help more cases plead out.
Are you asking rhetorically, or do you really want an answer?
Rhetorical.
:: steeples fingers ::
Excellent.
Very good. Fuck that guy.
I object! This is a frame-up! Clearly all the evidence was circumstan…
…er…never mind.
Reffitt’s court-appointed defense attorney apparently made only a perfunctory effort to defend him (which was perhaps the best that could have been done, given the evidence). His defense argument was mainly that Reffitt was a habitual braggart and loudmouth with a habit of indiscreetly shooting off his mouth, so everything he said was probably just bragging and exaggeration and not to be taken seriously. That, apparently, was pretty much the entire defense.
Seems like the jury took it seriously. (The testimony of his son obviously didn’t help at all, at all.)
As you say, it’s hard to defend someone when they have the defendant saying he did all the things he accused of. The defense of “sure, but do they have any actual evidence other than what my client said?” isn’t terrible. Most court appointed attorneys (especially federal defenders) are quite good at what they do.
Well, they had what the client’s kid said. That apparently counted for quite a lot.
These days, it’s getting exhausting quoting Dale Gribble on King of the Hill:
“Well, if all you’ve got is my confession, you can forget it. I’m simply not credible!”
Guy reminds me of Bart Simpson, who couldn’t deny building the Skinner butt balloon when he had notarized photos of the building process.
Former head of the Proud Boys Enrique Tarrio was arrested today for his role in planning the attack on the Capitol, even though he didn’t actually participate. The only reason that he didn’t participate is because he was forbidden from going to the District of Columbia because of previous charges.
I heard a report about this on the radio this morning from NPR. They played a recording of his wife from after the verdict:
NICOLE REFFITT: Guy was used as an example today to make all the 1/6ers take a plea. Do not take a plea, 1/6ers. Do not.
Sooooooooo, your husband goes to trial - does not take a plea - and is convicted on all counts in a couple of hours and is facing years and years and years in jail. And this is your advice for the other defendants?
These people are fucking nutballs. (I know, I know, we knew that already).