Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
“The case is not over.” Barbara McQuade explains how the Trump documents case being dismissed is actually a “blessing in disguise” for prosecutors. Trump could be re-indicted in a couple of weeks, with a different judge presiding. (Video: MSNBC)
1,984,393 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren •via X (Twitter)
10 Kommentare
The administeratton illegally appointed a prosecutor. Cope harder.
God you guys are desperate.
This will get to the supreme court before that and we all know how that will go so cry harder libs
It's an ESPIONAGE case, not "documents" case.
Except…
What a great idea. Instead of having an independent special prosecutor do it, have the DOJ step in and do it. That way, nobody will think it's politically motivated at all. Genius.
Sounds like a bunch of cope
You can’t imprison Trump and you can’t kill Trump. All you can do at this point is take your loss with grace.
How much of our taxpayer money has been wasted trying to convict him of something?? Since day one.
They just keep missing Trump!
![#BREAKING:Psaki: “Tonight the judge who initially oversaw Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS, REOPENED the case, and this is a very significant development because remember, as part of his ‘settlement’, Trump voluntarily [withdrew] his case, he [withdrew] it just days before his personal lawyers and DOJ were going to be forced to explain to the judge how the heck they were actually oppositional parties, how Trump and the IRS that worked for HIS Treasury Department were on different sides…and if the judge didn’t buy their story, it could have been grounds for the judge to toss Trump’s case altogether. So instead of actually working through the court system, Trump settled out of court, again, with HIS OWN Justice Department.”🤦♀️](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2060869514145714398/amplify_video_thumb/2060869331571855360/img/ol3SeFUPUhXUOOjV.jpg)
![Jack Smith breaks silence, reveals he had "tons of evidence" in the criminal case against Trump that Aileen Cannon dismissed: “Both cases involved classified documents; the difference is the facts. In my particular case, we had tons of evidence of willfulness and obstructive evidence: publicly saying ‘these are my documents’ or things like that, and ‘I can keep them,’” Smith said. “The government even tried to get them back before there was a criminal investigation, and then after the investigation started, [Trump] still [refused] to give them back, and then [tried] to obstruct the investigation. That sort of evidence didn’t exist in the other case.” Smith did not investigate Biden’s classified documents case, but explained that there was no "willful retention of national defense information,” on Biden’s part or obstruction of the federal government’s attempts to retrieve documents for which Trump was indicted. “Both cases involved classified documents; the difference is the facts,” Smith said. “The rule of law allows for different outcomes when the facts are different. One of the major differences between the two cases is the obstructive conduct in the case that I investigated.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1978470327366611296/amplify_video_thumb/1978469327297716224/img/UKqi8bMs5KiErAG2.jpg)
