On Thursday, February 15, Acting Justice Juan Merchan in the Manhattan trial court ordered that Alvin Bragg's 34-count felony case against former president Trump, alleging falsification of business records regarding hush money he paid to adult performer Stormy Daniels in 2016, proceed to trial scheduled for March 25, 2024.
It is no accident that the trial date is scheduled for three weeks after Super Tuesday, when sixteen states and territories, representing almost three-quarters of the delegates needed to win the GOP nomination, hold their primaries, and right before five more states hold their primaries on April 2. At best, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Trump or any presidential candidate to campaign and raise money while in the middle of criminal trials. In fact, during the hearing, Justice Merchan said that he spoke twice last week to Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court in D.C., who is overseeing Trump's January 6 criminal case, which special counsel Jack Smith is pushing hard to start as soon as possible.
Though it was inevitable that at least one of Trump's many upcoming trials was going to start and almost certainly finish before the November 5, 2024 election, in perhaps a bit of political luck for Trump, Bragg's case is the weakest and least relevant to Trump's time in office, and thus fuels Trump's political claim that Democrats weaponized the justice system to "persecute" him in order to prevent his returning as president. It seems that Trump's strategy of appearing in court and attacking what his supporters view as a biased legal system is still paying political dividends for him, as it keeps him atop the nation's political attention.
Donald Trump
Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump attends a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 15, 2024 in New York City. Media reports said Trump smiled as a person was heard clapping... Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump attends a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 15, 2024 in New York City. Media reports said Trump smiled as a person was heard clapping in the court. Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images
Bragg's case alleges that Trump, through his former fixer Michael Cohen and the Trump Organization, falsified business records with the intent to defraud and commit another crime. Trump allegedly violated federal campaign finance laws when he paid Daniels $130,000 through Cohen to sign a NDA about their alleged sexual encounter—something we have to glean not from the indictment but from Bragg's statement that Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance violations; Cohen, who paid Daniels the money out of pocket, labeled his invoiced reimbursements as "legal services" instead of something like "reimbursement for settlement payment re: extra-marital sex."
Bragg turned this single transaction, which normally would have been one misdemeanor charge, into 34 separate felony counts with a maximum combined sentence of 136 years by throwing in the federal charge and aggressively subdividing each invoice, check, deposit, etc. into its own charge.
All Bragg needs is a conviction on one of the 34 counts to destroy Trump.
Justice Merchan's opinion apparently ignored several important points of law. For example, it seems to contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's body of cases which limit criminal fraud cases to depriving traditional property interests such as money, not something ephemeral. That's assuming there actually was an intent to defraud, because the only person whom the incorrect labeling affected was Trump himself.
In fact, Bragg's indictment never specifies what the "another crime" is, which is a minimum requirement for any indictment, let alone one of this magnitude.
Also, it is doubtful that Bragg may charge the federal crime. State prosecutors may not prosecute federal crimes because under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, only the president, through his Department of Justice, has that power. Imagine that a district attorney decided to prosecute Hunter, Joe, and Jim Biden for FARA violations because he or she felt that the DOJ was protecting them, or a district attorney in Arizona or Texas decided to prosecute illegal aliens for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which would contravene the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. United States (2012).
Prior to Bragg's indictment, SDNY prosecutors investigated Trump's alleged campaign finance violations, as did the Federal Election Commission, but both declined to pursue the case because Trump used his own money, not campaign finance money, and because reimbursing someone for a hush-money payment does not fit the definition of an in-kind campaign contribution. In fact, candidates do not have to disclose expenses that would have been incurred even if no campaign existed; it is highly likely that Trump would have paid Daniels regardless just to avoid any marital strife or embarrassment to himself and his family.
Furthermore, because Cohen paid Daniels on October 26, 2016, 13 days before the election, and Trump did not complete his reimbursement payments until December 5, 2017, Trump would not have had to report the payment to the FEC, assuming he had to at all, until February or March of 2017 at the earliest, well-after the 2016 election ended.
Moreover, Bragg's assertion that disclosure of the payment would have affected the electoral outcome is wrong; in 2016, Trump lost the State of New York by more than 20 points, a ginormous margin; disclosure would not have made a difference.
Again, imagine that a district attorney decided to charge Tony Blinken and Hunter Biden for an illegal, undisclosed in-kind campaign contribution when they lied in October 2020 to conceal that the abandoned laptop actually belonged to Hunter ("earmarks of a Russian information operation").
It seems clear that Bragg twisted the law to bring this case only because the defendant is Donald Trump. A state court system that truly enforced the rule of law would stop its prosecutors from abusing their discretion as Bragg did.
Justice Merchan should know better because he worked as an ADA under legendary district attorney Bob Morgenthau. A justice system with fairness and integrity would put the brakes on the rush to convict the former president. As Justice Robert H. Jackson once said, a prosecutor who singles out "some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass" is where "the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies," and that such a prosecutor "has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as defects of character."
: John Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of
: California at Berkeley, a nonresident senior fellow at the American
: Enterprise Institute, and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He
: served in the U.S. Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003. John Shu is a
: legal scholar and commentator who served in the administrations of
: Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.
--
Let's go Brandon!
On Thursday, February 15, Acting Justice Juan Merchan in the Manhattan trial court ordered that Alvin Bragg's 34-count felony case against former president Trump, alleging falsification of business records regarding hush money he paid to adult performer Stormy Daniels in 2016, proceed to trial scheduled for March 25, 2024.
On 2024-02-20, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
On Thursday, February 15, Acting Justice Juan Merchan in the Manhattan trial >> court ordered that Alvin Bragg's 34-count felony case against former
president Trump, alleging falsification of business records regarding hush >> money he paid to adult performer Stormy Daniels in 2016, proceed to trial
scheduled for March 25, 2024.
It is no accident that the trial date is scheduled for three weeks after
Super Tuesday, when sixteen states and territories, representing almost
three-quarters of the delegates needed to win the GOP nomination, hold their >> primaries, and right before five more states hold their primaries on April 2.
At best, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Trump or any
presidential candidate to campaign and raise money while in the middle of
criminal trials. In fact, during the hearing, Justice Merchan said that he >> spoke twice last week to Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court in >> D.C., who is overseeing Trump's January 6 criminal case, which special
counsel Jack Smith is pushing hard to start as soon as possible.
Though it was inevitable that at least one of Trump's many upcoming trials >> was going to start and almost certainly finish before the November 5, 2024 >> election, in perhaps a bit of political luck for Trump, Bragg's case is the >> weakest and least relevant to Trump's time in office, and thus fuels Trump's >> political claim that Democrats weaponized the justice system to "persecute" >> him in order to prevent his returning as president. It seems that Trump's
strategy of appearing in court and attacking what his supporters view as a >> biased legal system is still paying political dividends for him, as it keeps >> him atop the nation's political attention.
Donald Trump
Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump attends
a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 15, 2024 in New >> York City. Media reports said Trump smiled as a person was heard clapping... >> Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump attends
a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 15, 2024 in New >> York City. Media reports said Trump smiled as a person was heard clapping in >> the court. Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images
Bragg's case alleges that Trump, through his former fixer Michael Cohen and >> the Trump Organization, falsified business records with the intent to defraud
and commit another crime. Trump allegedly violated federal campaign finance >> laws when he paid Daniels $130,000 through Cohen to sign a NDA about their >> alleged sexual encounter—something we have to glean not from the indictment >> but from Bragg's statement that Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance
violations; Cohen, who paid Daniels the money out of pocket, labeled his
invoiced reimbursements as "legal services" instead of something like
"reimbursement for settlement payment re: extra-marital sex."
Bragg turned this single transaction, which normally would have been one
misdemeanor charge, into 34 separate felony counts with a maximum combined >> sentence of 136 years by throwing in the federal charge and aggressively
subdividing each invoice, check, deposit, etc. into its own charge.
All Bragg needs is a conviction on one of the 34 counts to destroy Trump.
Justice Merchan's opinion apparently ignored several important points of law.
For example, it seems to contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's body of cases >> which limit criminal fraud cases to depriving traditional property interests >> such as money, not something ephemeral. That's assuming there actually was an
intent to defraud, because the only person whom the incorrect labeling
affected was Trump himself.
In fact, Bragg's indictment never specifies what the "another crime" is,
which is a minimum requirement for any indictment, let alone one of this
magnitude.
Also, it is doubtful that Bragg may charge the federal crime. State
prosecutors may not prosecute federal crimes because under Article II of the >> U.S. Constitution, only the president, through his Department of Justice, has
that power. Imagine that a district attorney decided to prosecute Hunter,
Joe, and Jim Biden for FARA violations because he or she felt that the DOJ >> was protecting them, or a district attorney in Arizona or Texas decided to >> prosecute illegal aliens for violating the Immigration and Nationality Act or
the Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which would contravene the U.S. >> Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. United States (2012).
Prior to Bragg's indictment, SDNY prosecutors investigated Trump's alleged >> campaign finance violations, as did the Federal Election Commission, but both
declined to pursue the case because Trump used his own money, not campaign >> finance money, and because reimbursing someone for a hush-money payment does >> not fit the definition of an in-kind campaign contribution. In fact,
candidates do not have to disclose expenses that would have been incurred
even if no campaign existed; it is highly likely that Trump would have paid >> Daniels regardless just to avoid any marital strife or embarrassment to
himself and his family.
Furthermore, because Cohen paid Daniels on October 26, 2016, 13 days before >> the election, and Trump did not complete his reimbursement payments until
December 5, 2017, Trump would not have had to report the payment to the FEC, >> assuming he had to at all, until February or March of 2017 at the earliest, >> well-after the 2016 election ended.
Moreover, Bragg's assertion that disclosure of the payment would have
affected the electoral outcome is wrong; in 2016, Trump lost the State of New
York by more than 20 points, a ginormous margin; disclosure would not have >> made a difference.
Again, imagine that a district attorney decided to charge Tony Blinken and >> Hunter Biden for an illegal, undisclosed in-kind campaign contribution when >> they lied in October 2020 to conceal that the abandoned laptop actually
belonged to Hunter ("earmarks of a Russian information operation").
It seems clear that Bragg twisted the law to bring this case only because the
defendant is Donald Trump. A state court system that truly enforced the rule >> of law would stop its prosecutors from abusing their discretion as Bragg did.
Justice Merchan should know better because he worked as an ADA under
legendary district attorney Bob Morgenthau. A justice system with fairness >> and integrity would put the brakes on the rush to convict the former
president. As Justice Robert H. Jackson once said, a prosecutor who singles >> out "some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass" is where "the
greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies," and that such a
prosecutor "has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as defects of >> character."
: John Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the University of
: California at Berkeley, a nonresident senior fellow at the American
: Enterprise Institute, and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. He >> : served in the U.S. Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003. John Shu is a >> : legal scholar and commentator who served in the administrations of
: Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.
--
Let's go Brandon!
And the progressive left continue to deny that there is an underlying conspiracy to block Trump
from getting elected.
On 2/20/2024 5:11 AM, pothead wrote:
On 2024-02-20, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
On Thursday, February 15, Acting Justice Juan Merchan in the
Manhattan trial
court ordered that Alvin Bragg's 34-count felony case against former
president Trump, alleging falsification of business records regarding
hush
money he paid to adult performer Stormy Daniels in 2016, proceed to
trial
scheduled for March 25, 2024.
It is no accident that the trial date is scheduled for three weeks after >>> Super Tuesday, when sixteen states and territories, representing almost
three-quarters of the delegates needed to win the GOP nomination,
hold their
primaries, and right before five more states hold their primaries on
April 2.
At best, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for
Trump or any
presidential candidate to campaign and raise money while in the
middle of
criminal trials. In fact, during the hearing, Justice Merchan said
that he
spoke twice last week to Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District
Court in
D.C., who is overseeing Trump's January 6 criminal case, which special
counsel Jack Smith is pushing hard to start as soon as possible.
Though it was inevitable that at least one of Trump's many upcoming
trials
was going to start and almost certainly finish before the November 5,
2024
election, in perhaps a bit of political luck for Trump, Bragg's case
is the
weakest and least relevant to Trump's time in office, and thus fuels
Trump's
political claim that Democrats weaponized the justice system to
"persecute"
him in order to prevent his returning as president. It seems that
Trump's
strategy of appearing in court and attacking what his supporters view
as a
biased legal system is still paying political dividends for him, as
it keeps
him atop the nation's political attention.
Donald Trump
Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump
attends
a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 15, 2024
in New
York City. Media reports said Trump smiled as a person was heard
clapping...
Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump
attends
a pre-trial hearing at Manhattan Criminal Court on February 15, 2024
in New
York City. Media reports said Trump smiled as a person was heard
clapping in
the court. Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images
Bragg's case alleges that Trump, through his former fixer Michael
Cohen and
the Trump Organization, falsified business records with the intent to
defraud
and commit another crime. Trump allegedly violated federal campaign
finance
laws when he paid Daniels $130,000 through Cohen to sign a NDA about
their
alleged sexual encounter—something we have to glean not from the
indictment
but from Bragg's statement that Cohen pled guilty to campaign finance
violations; Cohen, who paid Daniels the money out of pocket, labeled his >>> invoiced reimbursements as "legal services" instead of something like
"reimbursement for settlement payment re: extra-marital sex."
Bragg turned this single transaction, which normally would have been one >>> misdemeanor charge, into 34 separate felony counts with a maximum
combined
sentence of 136 years by throwing in the federal charge and aggressively >>> subdividing each invoice, check, deposit, etc. into its own charge.
All Bragg needs is a conviction on one of the 34 counts to destroy
Trump.
Justice Merchan's opinion apparently ignored several important points
of law.
For example, it seems to contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's body of
cases
which limit criminal fraud cases to depriving traditional property
interests
such as money, not something ephemeral. That's assuming there
actually was an
intent to defraud, because the only person whom the incorrect labeling
affected was Trump himself.
In fact, Bragg's indictment never specifies what the "another crime" is, >>> which is a minimum requirement for any indictment, let alone one of this >>> magnitude.
Also, it is doubtful that Bragg may charge the federal crime. State
prosecutors may not prosecute federal crimes because under Article II
of the
U.S. Constitution, only the president, through his Department of
Justice, has
that power. Imagine that a district attorney decided to prosecute
Hunter,
Joe, and Jim Biden for FARA violations because he or she felt that
the DOJ
was protecting them, or a district attorney in Arizona or Texas
decided to
prosecute illegal aliens for violating the Immigration and
Nationality Act or
the Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which would contravene
the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. United States (2012).
Prior to Bragg's indictment, SDNY prosecutors investigated Trump's
alleged
campaign finance violations, as did the Federal Election Commission,
but both
declined to pursue the case because Trump used his own money, not
campaign
finance money, and because reimbursing someone for a hush-money
payment does
not fit the definition of an in-kind campaign contribution. In fact,
candidates do not have to disclose expenses that would have been
incurred
even if no campaign existed; it is highly likely that Trump would
have paid
Daniels regardless just to avoid any marital strife or embarrassment to
himself and his family.
Furthermore, because Cohen paid Daniels on October 26, 2016, 13 days
before
the election, and Trump did not complete his reimbursement payments
until
December 5, 2017, Trump would not have had to report the payment to
the FEC,
assuming he had to at all, until February or March of 2017 at the
earliest,
well-after the 2016 election ended.
Moreover, Bragg's assertion that disclosure of the payment would have
affected the electoral outcome is wrong; in 2016, Trump lost the
State of New
York by more than 20 points, a ginormous margin; disclosure would not
have
made a difference.
Again, imagine that a district attorney decided to charge Tony
Blinken and
Hunter Biden for an illegal, undisclosed in-kind campaign
contribution when
they lied in October 2020 to conceal that the abandoned laptop actually
belonged to Hunter ("earmarks of a Russian information operation").
It seems clear that Bragg twisted the law to bring this case only
because the
defendant is Donald Trump. A state court system that truly enforced
the rule
of law would stop its prosecutors from abusing their discretion as
Bragg did.
Justice Merchan should know better because he worked as an ADA under
legendary district attorney Bob Morgenthau. A justice system with
fairness
and integrity would put the brakes on the rush to convict the former
president. As Justice Robert H. Jackson once said, a prosecutor who
singles
out "some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass" is where "the >>> greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies," and that such a
prosecutor "has a perverted sense of practical values, as well as
defects of
character."
: John Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law at the
University of
: California at Berkeley, a nonresident senior fellow at the American
: Enterprise Institute, and a visiting fellow at the Hoover
Institution. He
: served in the U.S. Department of Justice from 2001 to 2003. John
Shu is a
: legal scholar and commentator who served in the administrations of
: Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.
--
Let's go Brandon!
And the progressive left continue to deny that there is an underlying
conspiracy to block Trump
from getting elected.
Yes, because there is no such conspiracy.
But it wasn't.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:11:33 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
<snip>
And the progressive left continue to deny that there is an underlying conspiracy to block Trump
from getting elected.
It boggles the mind.
Just wait until the shoe is on the other foot and it's a progressive candidate getting attacked. I
hear the snowflakes whining already. And this will happen at some point because the progressives
have opened up Pandora's Box.
The shoe *IS* on the other foot. The incompetent Republicans spent thirty years trying to
burn one of the Clintons and failed.
Only took the Dems two years to get 91 indictments. And the list of civil suits and other
crimes and legal actions he has to answer for is just too long to memorize.
If he wasn't such a crook to start with he wouldn't be in this mess.
He's spent his whole life using the courts to escape debt and force others to do what he
wants. He's guilty of everything he's ever charged the Dems with and worse.
Imported undocumented workers from Poland then refused to pay them.
Has all his merch manufactured abroad instead of in America.
Will sue at the drop of a hat.
Lies when the truth would work better.
The list goes on and on.
Swill
Only because corrupt, deep state Comey let her go.Just wait until the shoe is on the other foot and it's a progressive candidate getting attacked. IThe shoe*IS* on the other foot. The incompetent Republicans spent thirty years trying to
hear the snowflakes whining already. And this will happen at some point because the progressives
have opened up Pandora's Box.
burn one of the Clintons and failed.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:50:56 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-21, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
But it wasn't.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:11:33 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
<snip>
And the progressive left continue to deny that there is an underlying conspiracy to block Trump
from getting elected.
It boggles the mind.
Just wait until the shoe is on the other foot and it's a progressive candidate getting attacked. I
hear the snowflakes whining already. And this will happen at some point because the progressives
have opened up Pandora's Box.
The shoe *IS* on the other foot. The incompetent Republicans spent thirty years trying to
burn one of the Clintons and failed.
Only because corrupt, deep state Comey let her go.
Isn't that a lot like Mueller letting Trump go?
Both he and Comer found guilt but the evidence was not sufficient in either case to
warrant prosecution.
Swill
On 2024-02-22, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:50:56 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-21, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
But it wasn't.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:11:33 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
<snip>
And the progressive left continue to deny that there is an underlying conspiracy to block Trump
from getting elected.
It boggles the mind.
Just wait until the shoe is on the other foot and it's a progressive candidate getting attacked. I
hear the snowflakes whining already. And this will happen at some point because the progressives
have opened up Pandora's Box.
The shoe *IS* on the other foot. The incompetent Republicans spent thirty years trying to
burn one of the Clintons and failed.
Only because corrupt, deep state Comey let her go.
Isn't that a lot like Mueller letting Trump go?
Both he and Comer found guilt but the evidence was not sufficient in either case to
warrant prosecution.
Swill
Did Trump destroy subpoenaed evidence like Hillary did?
That alone is a serious crime.
On 2/22/2024 3:38 PM, pothead wrote:U-Haul Salesperson Of The Yearte:
On 2024-02-22, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:50:56 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wroGavin Newsom Named
That data was (a) deleted per standard government classified handling instructions and (b) deleted before the subpoena was issued. That's why
On 2024-02-21, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
But it wasn't.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:11:33 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
<snip>
And the progressive left continue to deny that there is an underlying conspiracy to block Trump
from getting elected.
It boggles the mind.
Just wait until the shoe is on the other foot and it's a progressive candidate getting attacked. I
hear the snowflakes whining already. And this will happen at some point because the progressives
have opened up Pandora's Box.
The shoe *IS* on the other foot. The incompetent Republicans spent thirty years trying to
burn one of the Clintons and failed.
Only because corrupt, deep state Comey let her go.
Isn't that a lot like Mueller letting Trump go?
Both he and Comer found guilt but the evidence was not sufficient in either case to
warrant prosecution.
Swill
Did Trump destroy subpoenaed evidence like Hillary did?
That alone is a serious crime.
it was deemed not a crime. Probably not reported on Fox, but documented
news.
On 2024-02-23, John Doe <NoOne@private.corp> wrote:
On 2/22/2024 3:38 PM, pothead wrote:U-Haul Salesperson Of The Yearte:
On 2024-02-22, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:50:56 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wroGavin Newsom Named
That data was (a) deleted per standard government classified handling
On 2024-02-21, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
But it wasn't.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 13:11:33 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote:
<snip>
And the progressive left continue to deny that there is an underlying conspiracy to block Trump
from getting elected.
It boggles the mind.
Just wait until the shoe is on the other foot and it's a progressive candidate getting attacked. I
hear the snowflakes whining already. And this will happen at some point because the progressives
have opened up Pandora's Box.
The shoe *IS* on the other foot. The incompetent Republicans spent thirty years trying to
burn one of the Clintons and failed.
Only because corrupt, deep state Comey let her go.
Isn't that a lot like Mueller letting Trump go?
Both he and Comer found guilt but the evidence was not sufficient in either case to
warrant prosecution.
Swill
Did Trump destroy subpoenaed evidence like Hillary did?
That alone is a serious crime.
instructions and (b) deleted before the subpoena was issued. That's why
it was deemed not a crime. Probably not reported on Fox, but documented
news.
And the Blackberry devices Hillary and her handlers destroyed?
Notice how snopes runs cover for Hillary.
<https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-smash-phone-hammer/>
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 119:31:45 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,369 |