BREAKING: Sources say Special Counsel Smith does not actually have the supposed "smoking gun" doc Trump is heard on an audio talking about, which means he cannot prove it is classified

Paul Sperry on Twitter ^ | June 10, 2023 | Paul Sperry

[Macho MAGA Man]

Paul Sperry @paulsperry_

BREAKING: Sources say Special Counsel Smith does not actually have the supposed "smoking gun" doc Trump is heard on an audio talking about, which means he cannot prove it is classified and thus prove Trump knew it was classified. Prosecutors have no real evidence to show jurors

12:00 AM · Jun 10, 2023

[Macho MAGA Man]

Gosh I hope Trump's new lawyers are successful in exposing that Jack Smith and his corrupt prosecutor in Miami poisoned the jury pool and therefore get this dismissed.

[bitt]

[thegagline]

I hope this is true. However, “unnamed sources” are often wrong.

[Bayard]

I’m not falling for unnamed sources and a “Kraken”

[Just mythoughts]

What difference does it make? Democrat process is the rule.

[Golden Eagle]

This is not good news for Trump then. It would mean he is still holding docs he admitted were classified, and could be subjected to further raids.

[Signalman]

Paul Sperry, unlike GP, has been a credible source.

[euram]

After 8 years of lies and illegal activities aimed at taking Trump down, we are supposed to now believe that Smith and his crowd are on the up and up. As far as I’m concerned, they are just the late iteration of the liars of the past. They don’t deserve our respect in any way, and neither should we believe a word they say.

[Macho MAGA Man]

Paul Sperry is very reputable.

[moonhawk]

Not necessarily.

[Sarah Barracuda]

It could also mean the document doesn’t exist and trump was just boasting

[ConservativeInPA]

We have to wait and see what is true or not. There’s very little truth in the world today, particularly from unnamed sources.

[plain talk]

Great. In a sane world trump would not even be charged.

[MrRelevant]

This is what ive been wondering about since i read about the recording.

[Artemis Webb]

I’m really not that familiar with Sperry other than his name. GP on the other hand is a rag.

[Alberta's Child]

The document may not even exist anymore — or maybe it didn’t exist at all.

This is starting to remind me of a civil court case I was involved in on behalf of a client. After years of legal wrangling, the defendant won a major settlement in his counter-suit when it turned out the plaintiff’s whole case hinged on a damaging corporate document that never existed. The defendant played the plaintiff for five years on that one.

[CrazyCatChick]

They’re not using it for the document per se, they’re using it to show that he knew he shouldn’t show classified or sensitive documents to people but did it anyway and that he didn’t declassify everything he took. Also, if they don’t have the document, that he either still has it or destroyed it - or, I guess, he was lying on the tape, although that wouldn’t be criminal

[skr]

Have they even verified the recording yet?

[Golden Eagle]

So the defense will be, he was lying? Ok. Guess we’ll see.

[Colo9250]

How do we know that said document(s) even existed in the first place?