716

Prosecutors say the former president’s message on Truth Social raises specter he might use evidence to target witnesses.

In a court filing just before 10 p.m. Friday, Senior Assistant Special Counsels Molly Gaston and Thomas Windom alerted the judge in Trump’s latest criminal case — U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan — to a combative post Trump sent earlier in the day.

“If you go after me, I’m coming after you!” Trump wrote in all caps Friday afternoon on Truth Social, which is run by a media company he co-owns.

The prosecutors said Trump’s post raised concerns that he might improperly share evidence in the case on his social media account and they urged that he be ordered to keep any evidence prosecutors turn over to his defense team from public view.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] havokdj@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

defend trump

Lol. Lmao. Was that an attempt at comedy? Not about to get into this conversation. If you think I'm defending trump then there has to be some kind of barrier between us. I'm not defending trump, I'm attacking the accusations against him that were thrown by people who only wanted to get Hillary in office.

You realize he's being investigated right now, nothing like this has come out and no charges related to this have been pressed since the investigations began.

I vehemently hate politicians, but there are only two things worse in a political position of power than that: tyrants and businessmen.

Yes, Epstein was "not a nobody" in 1994, but he sure as shit was not famous as fuck either, especially compared to trump at the time. He didn't have an endless amount of wealth in 1994, try 1996. The fact that her case was one of the few that were ever dismissed are also telling considering the fact that Epstein still ended up going to prison for the rest of his (rather short) life. Epstein was a filthy evil piece of shit, but that would have been the case even if he was not an acting pedophile.

Let's shift over to the case itself because that's the main point here, not Epstein.

Personally, I think her case was a ploy set up to attack Trump while he was running for office, and she lumped in Epstein because of his several other charges coming on throughout that time period. The fact that it conveniently came at a time where she "recognized trump" over twenty years later but knew Epstein offhand is a bit suspicious don't you think? Wouldn't it have been the latter? And considering the fact that Epstein had been receiving charges since 2005, why would she wait until 2016 specifically to charge Epstein (and trump along with him)? At a surface level, it really didn't seem like this case was about Epstein so much as it was Trump.

Don't confuse what I'm saying with defending Trump. I'm playing devil's advocate because truthfully both parties are evil, and every election there are baseless claims thrown out like this because both are willing to say anything and everything to try and get their candidate elected, Trump included.

this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
716 points (98.8% liked)

News

36251 readers
496 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS