Judge's ruling is more evidence that Trump is a criminal

Don't be confused. This doesn't mean that Trump is a convicted criminal. For that you would need a jury and a trial in which the burden of proof has been met. So you can spare us that argument. We can safely say that there is more than enough evidence that he committed a crime. Many crimes, in fact. And more and more evidence keeps popping up. To the point where it would be absurd at this point for any moderately reasonable human being who analyzes the facts, to still claim that he is not a proven criminal. For YOU (not a jury) to conclude that something... anything... is "proven" you don't need a conviction. You just need PROOF. So don't confuse "proven" with "convicted".

Now, the details of the judge ruling are sealed. But we do know that she ordered an exception to the client-attorney privilege. This happens in cases in which the privilege is being used to cover up for a crime.

Here is the best explanation I've heard. Again, we don't know what this is about, but we do know of the suspension. One example, for illustrative purposes only. Say that Trump told his attorneys that he had turned in ALL the government documents that he stole. But he didn't. The judge determines that Trump lied to his attorneys. His attorneys issued a statement to the court on behalf of their client saying that Trump turned in all the documents he stole because... Trump told them so! This is a crime! The client suspends the privilege so investigators can find out if the crime was committed by Trump alone, or if he colluded with his attorneys.

You can deny all you want. But PROOF that Trump is a criminal keeps piling up. So there is no point in denying that, even though he is not a convicted criminal, he is most definitely a proven criminal.

 

There is more evidence of a crime on Hunter's laptop than there is evidence that Trump committed a crime.

 

@Golem
Link?

"This doesn't mean that Trump is a convicted criminal." Exactly, but that has never stopped you from posting about it anyway. "the details of the judge ruling are sealed" but you are going to tell us all about what you don't know..
Show us the "PROOF that Trump is a criminal keeps piling up."

As we watch the left try to draw all conversations away from the mess the administration and "leader" ( a term I use lightly) have been in.

 

Did you hear that guys? Even though not convicted he is a PROVEN criminal. I thought PROVEN criminals usually get CONVICTED but I won't dare challenge the super intelligence of the left.
and the left continues their WAR OF WORDS because they can never win the WAR OF FACTS

 

So, in your mind, proof means allegations then, right?

 

Who's Hunter?

 

Wrong, as usual.... Judges don't make allegations. They make rulings.

 

@Golem

"Judges don't make allegations. They make rulings." So tell us what you don't know about the Judge's ruling. (that is sealed)

And yes I did ask for a link... so could you please supply one..

 

You mean like OJ.

 

So what "ruling" was made since you didn't actually cite one. You asserted something absent a set of conditions to be discussed. A judge could, for example say, a proceeding could go forward. That isn't an indiction of guilt, is it?

 

Sorry, but you make these claims that you research EVERY ANSWER you post here and imply that your are mentally superior to most of us, that response was disappointing.

 

Read the OP. Or the papers. Not sure what you are trying to research, but I don't do your research for you.

 

Link please…. This is the third time asking.

but again the more you keep the trash slinging… we are not talking about your dementia ridden loser of a leader.

 

Link to WHAT? You have any doubts that the ruling happened? If it were reasonable to doubt it, I would provide a link. But the news was even on Fox. I'm not wasting my time looking for something you can easily find in basically ANY news media.

The thread is not to convince you that the ruling occurred. The topic is what it means.

 

I would like a link for every post in PF. If you don't have one feel free to use this one:
www.l-i-n-k.com

 

The OP doesn't cite a case, produce or provide a link, or otherwise support your assertion.

 

Either put up a link or stop posting . Your running from lame posts is getting old.

 

The case is the Mar-a-Lago government document theft case. I think there's a link to that. Let me see...

Here it is
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ss-this-trump-biden-documnts-nonsense.607417/

 

Golly, I bet the BIdens are now shivering in their boots... Did you create a separate thread for them?

 

No. It's in the same thread.

 

Hmm... So the title doesn't suggest it would address the Bidens, does it? Misleading title then?

Do you suppose that if you are this enraged over the Mar a Lago instance, that you'd want to share a comment or two about the now 5 locations that demonstrated that mr Biden et al also broke the laws you seem so concerned with here?

 

It does address Biden. I'm talking about this thread
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ss-this-trump-biden-documnts-nonsense.607417/

 

Where are the convictions, then?...lol

 

Those investigations are still ongoing. But we both know how this goes. You are stalling for time for your own excuses when he is convicted.

 

If you read the Judges ruling she said ". . . may have committed a crime . . . "(or something to that effect) Even the Judge isn't convinced that a crime has been committed and yet here you are offering as proof that one has been is the mere fact that she suspended the attorney/client privilege. Can I laugh now?