General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrumps lawyers are telling us they have no defense in the secret document investigation.
Whether Trump declassified the documents or not is completely irrelevant when it comes to the possible charges listed in the warrant. It is not a defense.
They found secret documents in Trumps desk, that's game over.
The lawyers who signed the document stating all the documents were returned have two choices. They can admit they lied and be indicted or they can say Trump told them all the documents were returned.
All Trump and his lawyers can do is delay, create chaos in the justice system. It is up to our courts, judges, to uphold the law. Trump is guilty and he has no defense, period. Everything else is a side show.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
underpants
(182,800 posts)Anyone caught with something illegal or stolen where they live is busted. Simple as that. His real only hopes are to keep taking this up the courts (he has friends there) or someone tries to fall on their sword for him.
RevBrotherThomas
(838 posts)...is now keeping this entangled in the courts until he croaks.
He's succeeding.
Ocelot II
(115,686 posts)Being tangled up in lawsuits and prosecutions is its own special hell, whether you win or lose. TFG is going to be getting subpoenas and search warrants, attending depositions, answering questions and paying lawyers (or not paying them and getting stuck with the kind of morons he has now) for the rest of his life. I want very much to see him in the dock, but in any event I do get some satisfaction from knowing he's being sued and investigated more than anybody has ever been sued and investigated before.
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)We are now at the conviction and sentencing phase. Or he pleads out for a lighter sentence. Either way this is a felony conviction.
Go away orange man and stay away.
multigraincracker
(32,675 posts)Just call it a "Professional Courtesy” .
3Hotdogs
(12,375 posts)Roberts will be the deciding factor. He may want to preserve the honor of the Roberts court. That's the only hope we have.
Meadowoak
(5,545 posts)Justice matters.
(6,928 posts)The fact that mango wants to run in 2024 (if not in a state prison, and even if he is) and republiQan legislatures could toss out the results of their states is a deterrent to our allied countries for sharing their intel with US. They are seriously considering to stop doing that if he is not either in jail or disqualified for any public office (lest the presidency).
The traitorous Furhair cannot be trusted with THEIR classified information (OURS as well). It's as simple as that. Roberts should understand that or be told terrorist-related informations could stop coming in our intel community.
Johonny
(20,849 posts)Giving extraordinary powers to Trump post presidency grants them to Obama, Biden, Clinton, and Carter. Heck Bush and Cheney too. I think that's way to dangerous for even this court to consider. They could try one of those, this isn't a precedent, but used only here. But we've seen that never works.
One ruling and Biden could keep the Hunter Biden's laptop investigation classified information forever 
Bev54
(10,052 posts)
Ray Bruns
(4,095 posts)
no_hypocrisy
(46,097 posts)There are sanctions against attorneys who know they have no argument, no evidence, etc. to go forward with a legal action.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)Trump convinces lawyers to commit crimes for him.
Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #6)
fightforfreedom This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jarqui
(10,124 posts)And that was three weeks ago.
More evidence has come out since.
Many other legal experts had similar sentiments on probable cause and indictment.
I previously covered why Trump's declassified claim is BS
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217173984#post15
In that thread, they now have a credible lawyer who warned Trump not to take the docs - on top of Trump ignoring the subpoena and his lawyer's letter swearing they had returned all the documents that had been marked classified (not necessarily still classified). And then the search warrant proved otherwise.
Beyond that, even if Trump had declassified the documents, they still belong to the US government (NARA) so the Special Master can't give those back to Trump - they don't belong to him.
Deliberative process privilege is only applicable in civil matters. This is a criminal case. So that won't work.
Executive privilege was settled by the Presidential Records act - the incumbent President prevails over the former President.
So the question is: who is guilty of what. Christina Bobb, who signed the letter, got a lawyer for that reason - she could be charged. Other members of Trump's staff may be guilty of crimes for mishandling these documents. Trump is bound to be looking for a fall guy. Aside from the national security issues, that is part of what the DoJ has to sort out and they need access to the documents to do their jobs.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)Wondering how many years this investigation and prosecution will be drawn out. And will tfg ever experience any incarceration for his crimes?
Evolve Dammit
(16,725 posts)ms liberty
(8,574 posts)
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)They're saying that it isn't their job to prove that documents had been declassified... it's the prosecution's job to prove that they had not been. And, legally, they have a point.
And it absolutely matters whether or not the documents are classified. Because the best defense against most of the other charges (that they were personal records and not subject to the PRA) is much more easily defeated if they are (since he can't reasonably argue that actually classified documents are personal records)
They found secret documents in Trumps desk, that's game over.
This appears to contradict the prior paragraph. It's completely irrelevant whether they're classified but it's game over because they're classified?
The lawyers who signed the document stating all the documents were returned have two choices. They can admit they lied and be indicted or they can say Trump told them all the documents were returned.
They can also say that their statement was true - that they looked everywhere they could think of and found no classified documents. That's tough for a rational person to believe, but it may keep them from being convicted of the associated crime. But, again, they benefit from our justice system that puts the burden on a hypothetical prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury that their statement was knowingly false.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)FBaggins
(26,735 posts)Nobody said that a case should be thrown out (if one ever appears).
We just need to recognize the standards built into our constitutional system. Defendants don't have to prove themselves innocent.
Response to FBaggins (Reply #18)
wnylib This message was self-deleted by its author.
When did Trump go from "person of interest" to defendant?
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)I'm not sure he's even been called a person of interest at this point.
But I don't think fightforfreedom intended to imply that a criminal prosecution had begun yet. Just that a case was being built and should not be thrown out just because the potential future defendant hadn't yet rolled over and played dead.
VMA131Marine
(4,139 posts)or even a “target” before indicting or even arresting them. There are obviously cases, where the person being investigated is a flight risk for example, when this would be inadvisable.
VMA131Marine
(4,139 posts)The documents have all the proper markings required of classified documents. The President can’t secretly declassify a document and documents that have been declassified have to be marked as such. It’s even more involved than that because the agency that owns the classified information has to take steps to protect methods and sources that may be revealed by the declassification. Further, declassified documents become subject to public FOIA requests. The burden is on Trump’s lawyers to prove he declassified them, and not they have only suggested that he could do that, not that he did.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)In almost any other case, the fact that a document is marked as classified is effectively proof that it is, in fact, a classified document.
But when you're dealing with the one person who can declassify things at will (as president, of course, not as a former president), things get much murkier.
There's absolutely an argument to be made that Congress laid out a process by which secrets are declassified and these documents haven't gone through that process. But there's also an argument to be made that classification/declassification is an inherently executive-branch function and Congress can't bind a president in that way. Neither position has run far enough up the flag pole to say with certainty.
Let's take an example - Iran develops a nuclear weapon and we have undercover spies who get us proof not only of its existence but of a developing plot to use it in an attack on Israel and frame some other country (we'll say the Saudis). That would be among the most classified intelligence possible. The president preemptively attacks the Iranian facility and announces on TV why he's doing it (including showing the photos that potentially expose the spy to arrest/execution).
We can't plausibly claim that Biden has violated a law regarding the declassification of secret documents or that he had to go through a specific process before releasing the information.
wnylib
(21,449 posts)If Trump had exercised an executive right to declassify documents, wouldn't there be a record of doing it? If there is no record, how credible is the claim that they were declassified?
Isn't it still against the law to remove documents from the WH whether classified or not?
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)Unfortunately, legal defenses don't have to be particularly credible in order to prevail. They merely have to introduce a reasonable amount of doubt in one out of twelve jurors.
But that doesn't really address the hypothetical. In that imagined story, Biden has not created any record (other than the fact that he talked about it on television). Yet we couldn't really claim that he had broken the law. Classification standards exist to get the President the information necessary to make decisions. What they chose to do with them may be stupid (and even impeachable), but "illegal" is a much tougher standard to apply.
Isn't it still against the law to remove documents from the WH whether classified or not?
No. That's definitely not the case. That has been the oversimplified shorthand description of the Presidential Records Act... but that isn't what it says.
wnylib
(21,449 posts)In that hypothetical setting, going on TV with classified information would indicate that the president believed that it was necessary, or at least permissible to declassify it. That broadcast would be evidence that he had, in fact, declassified the information if it was ever questioned in the future.
So where is the indication, in any form, that the material that Trump took to MAL was declassified?
Consider another hypothetical, JFK and the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy went on TV to tell the world as well as the American people that there were Soviet missiles in Cuba, aimed at the US. Until that broadcast, the info was top secret. Kennedy revealed a portion of what was known, for a specific purpose, in that broadcast. He kept other related evidence classified while preparing for a public confrontation with the Soviet Union, revealing it only at the UN for the timing effect of springing it publicly on the Soviet ambassador. Kennedy also did not reveal his step by step decisions on military preparations.
But what if he had "secretly" declassified the rest of that info in the middle of that whole event and sold it to a Soviet agent or to an ally of the Soviets? Why would he do that? For the money if it was high enough. Or because of kompromat about him and his affairs.
Declassification with the intent to give or sell materials to an enemy or ally of an enemy would seriously jeopardize national security, of course. It would be a deliberate act against the security of the US. Intent is hard to prove, but cases have been won by selling juries on probabilities.
So, evidence beyond Trump's very unreliable word that the documents were declassified is important, along with the timing of the declassification and the reason for it.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)If a president treating classified information as though it were declassified indicates that he believed that it was declassified... then taking it with him when he left office could be said to mean the same thing.
Indeed... this is similar to what the judge thought in the "Clinton sock drawer" case. In her second footnote, she appears to be saying that Clinton's decision to take the tapes with him was evidence of his decision to consider them "personal" rather than "presidential".
Re: your JFK example. There's no evidence that JFK followed any formal procedure to declassify the information that he chose to share. I think we both agree that the fact that he shared it was enough. I certainly don't think that he could be accused of a crime.
But what if he had "secretly" declassified the rest of that info in the middle of that whole event and sold it to a Soviet agent or to an ally of the Soviets?
There's an argument that this would be an impeachable offense, but not a crime... but it doesn't matter unless/until someone gives us a reason to think that happened. More relevantly, however, is what if he never declassified it by chose to share it with an ally? That happens all the time. It's probably happening in Ukraine right now. But if it's done at the direction of the commander in chief - one could argue that Congress does not have the power to place a restriction there.
So, evidence beyond Trump's very unreliable word that the documents were declassified is important, along with the timing of the declassification and the reason for it.
All logically true... but that's not the same thing as legally enforceable.
It's like saying that Congress should pass a law forbidding the president from pardoning his political allies. They can't do it. They can (and have) make it a crime to trade the exercise of that power for things of value... but they can't remove the power itself - even if it makes logical sense to do so.
wnylib
(21,449 posts)support Trump's position and is not really circular. The example is of a president publicly declasifying something, on air, for the entire world to see that he has done that. Kennedy did it again through Ambassador Stevenson at the UN, showing publicly the CIA photographs of Soviet missiles for all the world to see.
Not the same at all as a president claiming that he "secretly" declassified material, leaving no paper or electronic trail of having done so and no public indication like a broadcast. So we only have the word of a man who lies with every breath that he declassified the materials and they are therefore his personal documents and not the government's. Why and how in hell would declassified documents of over-the-top US nuclear secrets become "personal" documents of DJT, anyway? Not even if possible, his verbal claim is empty unless backed up with empirical evidence.
Trump made the claim, so he should substantiate it.
JFK. Of course he did not commit a crime. I never suggested or even hinted that he did.
I disagree with your statement that, if Kennedy had shared or sold top secret info with Soviets during the Missile Crisis that it would only have been an impeachable offense, but not a crime. It was a hostile situation with an enemy that involved the positioning of extremely deadly weapons. Giving aid to an enemy under such conditions could fit the constitutional definition of treason. Americans have been executed for selling secrets to hostile foreign governments.
Total disagreement with everything in your last paragraph. DJT has made a claim of declassifying extremely sensitive top secret documents in order to claim that they are his personal documents so he had a right to take them to MAL. Unless he can substantiate that claim, he was found in possession of highly classified documents and has therefore committed a crime. Even if he did declassify them, though, US law says that they are government documents that cannot be removed from the WH.
His refusal to provide substantiation of having declassified the documents because the information is part of a defense in case he gets indicted indicates 2 things to me. 1) He knows that his actions are probably indictable, and 2) He is telling DOJ, "So go ahead and indict me. I have my defense prepared." Kind of like somebody would say, offhandedly, "So sue me."
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)Hmmm. Two competing forces there... presumption of innocence vs. the difficulty of proving a negative. I'm sure there's plenty of precedent about how that is handled...
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)Corpus delicti
A prosecutor's job is very difficult. Our system is predicated on the notion that we would rather see ten guilty criminals go free than see a single innocent citizen convicted of a crime. That necessarily means that there will be cases where the prosecutor is absolutely convinced of the accused's guilt... and yet cannot convict.
It isn't enough to say that I'm wearing a watch that I can't possibly afford and that I've previously been convicted of theft. You can't require me to show the judge a receipt. You have to prove that a watch matching the one I'm wearing had been stolen. And the "matching" needs to be pretty precise (e.g., serial numbers).
VMA131Marine
(4,139 posts)Plus the only reason we are having this conversation is because Trump could have ordered the documents declassified while he was President whereas any other person could not as they don’t have that authority. I think you would agree that if you or I had been caught in possession of the documents Trump had we would not be able to question that they were properly classified. The executive branch has exclusive authority to classify information for national security purposes and that is not subject to challenge (cf. Reality Winner).
Trump’s only defense to holding properly labeled classified documents is that he declassified them while he was still president but if there is no record of that action then they were not properly declassified. It’s likely that Trump, being the narcissist he is, kept the documents because he wanted to feel like he still had some power over the government. If the documents had really been declassified they would have been available to anyone, and therefore useless to him.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)I entirely agree with your first paragraph (it is, in fact, what I've been saying).
It's the second 'graph I see issues with.
Trump’s only defense to holding properly labeled classified documents is that he declassified them while he was still president
He doesn't have to make a defense (just like me with my stolen watch). He only has to state that such a scenario is plausible and it becomes the government's job to prove that it isn't so.
if there is no record of that action then they were not properly declassified
That, too, is like the first paragraph. For you or me it would clearly be the case because that's the process that the law requires. But can Congress pass a law requiring a president to follow that process? I doubt it (see my Iran example in #23 above).
It’s likely that Trump, being the narcissist he is, kept the documents because he wanted to feel like he still had some power over the government.
Yep. That much seems clear. I'd very much like to know more about the documents themselves and what he planned to do with them... but that seems unlikely to happen.
VMA131Marine
(4,139 posts)show that they contain classified information and provide information on how they should be handled. If Trump declassified the documents then there is zero reason to not have there declassification status correctly marked on each page as required. Then there would be no question about their status. Trump still would have been required to give the documents to the National Archives, per the PRA, but he would not now be on the hook for stealing national defense information. He wanted to control that information which is why he stole it in the first place. As I said earlier, if the government says it’s all still classified then it is and it’s not open to reasonable doubt.
VMA131Marine
(4,139 posts)are presumptively assumed to be classified. National security dictates that must be the case. If Trump declassified any of the documents, and his lawyers have not definitively claimed that, then he must present an affirmative defense as to how and when he did that because the prima facia evidence all says he did no such thing.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)We haven't had a defendant who once held the unilateral power to declassify things.
his lawyers have not definitively claimed that
There's a reason for that. They might be able to win without making such a claim - so why would they?
This is why attorneys try to shut their clients up. There's no advantage at all in arguing the case in public (not legally anyway). They want the burden to be with the government.
VMA131Marine
(4,139 posts)treated as classified documents. If there is no record of them being declassified and the responsible classifying authority confirms their classification status then there is no reasonable doubt that they are in fact classified no matter how many times Trump says he waved his magic declassification wand. Trump must present an affirmative defense that he did in fact declassify them.
intrepidity
(7,296 posts)His case is unique due to his FPOTUS status, yet the law is generalized to deal with non-FPOTUSes.
Anyway you slice it, it places at least one category of person--eg, a FPOTUS--"above the law."
If that's the case then they ought just asknowledge it out loud.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... that doesn't sound plausible on its face.
That would give the president a blanket claim to every document that he could think of and the whole damn archive if he wanted to as personal record.
The US Gov does have claim over documents that belong to it and the president can't willy nilly claim them under PRA cause its Thursday
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)He can't make just any document into a "personal record" - but there have been cases that say that the determination of personal/presidential is made entirely by the president. While it's almost certainly not the case that he can just say "those are all mine because I say so" - it's almost as certain that the government can't win in court with an argument that says "you can't take anything with you when you leave office and we get to decide what counts as a presidential record".
That would give the president a blanket claim to every document that he could think of and the whole damn archive if he wanted to as personal record.
It could in many cases, but not (I think) if they're classified. Which is why that matters. The courts (at least probably this SCOTUS) will come down somewhere in between the two extremes imagined above. But it would be much harder for them to rule that even classified documents are subject to the "Clinton sock drawer" test.
This isn't really a new area of law. Legal scholars have been speculating re: the borders here since it was first passed in the wake of Nixon. Like so many of TFG's actions, we get to watch what happens on the fringes of constitutional law in ways that no academic imagined would ever get out of their imagined world.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)I agree NARA doesn't have the right to claim what is or isn't but the law does and seems to have in the PRA ...
I can't see documents that don't fall under these guidelines as the presidents because he can claim so
Let me know what you think, tia
https://www.archives.gov/files/guidance-on-presidential-records-from-the-national-archives-and-records-administration-2020.pdf
Personal records are defined as:
“documentary materials or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character, which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President” and which include “diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business,” “private political associations” and “materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency” [44 U.S.C. § 2201(3)].
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)I suspect it's the same as your own take.
The problem is that when others tried to get the court to enforce that understanding, a judge (that we likely both would respect) said it wasn't NARA or the court's place to make that determination and it was up to the President. Hypothetically, that determination was supposed to be made at the time the record was created... but that too was outside of NARA's ability to evaluate.
This is one of the problems with co-equal branches of government purporting to place restrictions on each other. They can stand for decades before someone challenges them. Presidential records were originally the personal property of the president (they used to be purchased from them). Has anyone challenged whether Congress could change them to the property of the government? It hasn't come to that... but trust TFG to push the envelope. (Remember that the constitution requires both the due process of law and just compensation).
Again - this is why I see the classification debate as relevant to the case when others are saying that it doesn't matter. If they were classified, then the executive branch (acting as agents of TFG) had de-facto declared them as "government business"
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... marked as personal records vs documents of US Gov marked in any way in Trumps possession.
I can see a reasonable person or judge claiming Clinton's tapes were personal seeing they had nothing indicating otherwise.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/team-trump-takes-interest-clinton-sock-drawer-case-rcna47363
But it’s not nearly that simple. NBC News’ report added, “Unmentioned by Trump’s defenders who began raising the issue of the sock drawer case last month is that Jackson’s ruling explicitly states that the Presidential Records Act distinguishes presidential records from ‘personal records,’ defined as documents that are ‘purely private or nonpublic character.’”
In contrast, Trump took highly sensitive national security secrets to his glorified country club. To see the two as comparable is to overlook every relevant detail.
Trump taking 100s of documents ***marked*** classified don't fit in that category of "personal record" ***EVEN IF OFFICIALLY DECLASSIFIED*** seeing that marking alone is and indicator of belonging to US government.
Trumps lawyers are not attempting to claim Judge Jackson's ruling in Clinton Sock Drawer case has some precedence here because Clinton's tapes were marked and she claimed that they were not government property (classification not considered).
My understanding judge Cannon would not do similar to Judge Jackson and is wanting the special master to do so but the Trump team is not addressing the special masters request.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)Jackson's ruling doesn't say that Clinton's tapes were marked as personal. Indeed, you won't find the word "marked" in the ruling at all.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-01834/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-01834-0.pdf
While MSNBC is correct that the ruling distinguished presidential/personal (using the language of the statute)... it's also true that she said that
Indeed, she appears to say (in footnote 2) that merely taking the recordings with him at the end of his presidency was proof that they were personal records. And then there's:
...snip...
Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records.
Now - This is mostly dicta and not an appellate court or SCOTUS. It isn't precedent-setting. It merely shows that the common interpretation that PRA means that presidents can't take anything with them at all when they leave office because everything is a record and all of the records are the government's property... is not as cut and dried as some suggest. Non-MAGA judges have seen things in much the same way as TFG would like Cannon to see them.
I'm not saying that it necessarily wins in the end. But the reason that so many are pushing back hard on the special master ruling isn't less that it helps Trump win this argument. It's really that it moves the argument from occurring after an indictment (or even after a conviction on appeal) and puts all of that time-consuming constitutional maneuvering up in front of DOJ even being able to consider a prosecution.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)... material here seeing the docs TFG has already ***BEEN*** marked with government markings indicating that they belong to the gov.
That's a fact we both agree with; majority of docs TFG has already have been indicated in someway to be US government property.
You're claiming the Clinton tapes weren't marked at all with anything ... I don't read that but lets say they weren't.
That's even worse case for TFG's case because the documents he had ***WHERE*** marked as belonging to the USG.
NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.
We agree with the bolded text but its not material to the point that the the docs TFG has already been indicated to be government property.
This case if ruled in TFGs favor would open up a shit can of worms of claims of who's who's information when someone leaves a place of employment for instance.
I right a sticky note to buy ribs on the way home in my work place doesn't mean its work place product ... that's already been decided.
In TFGs case I just can't claim something with my employers name at the top of it as mine either when there's explicit indicators they're not.
Jackson's ruling is clear; those Clinton tapes MAGA wanted weren't government product and that was clear of that on the face of the case.
The docs TFG is trying to keep isn't **HIS** personal belongings and that is clear on the face of this case too.
intrepidity
(7,296 posts)The burden is on plaintif to prove need for relief.
EndlessWire
(6,526 posts)The Government presented prima facie evidence which shifts the burden to Trump. Since Trump has no proof of declassification that he is willing to present, since he probably has none by inference, he cannot prevail on that issue.
As far as the lawyers who signed or verified the statement, I don't think a statement of ignorance from the Trump Custodian of Records will be a sufficient defense for the subterfuge. That's laughable. I think the statement of the circumstances will shift the burden to the Defense, and it's going to be very difficult to defend.
Response to FBaggins (Reply #10)
John Fante This message was self-deleted by its author.
Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)Which is what they'll do. Which is why limitless pardon power is as much an affront to our justice system as not prosecuting at all.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)Heather MC
(8,084 posts)For all we know the Supreme Court has already decided to let him off the hook for everything
And Donald Trump is just trying to run these court cases through the Supreme Court eventually so that he can't get off.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)All the investigations will fail. Trump always gets away with everything. He will never be indicted for anything. If I thought like that I would be suicidal.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)does everyone keep forgetting that he was denied or dismissed in his 60 election fraud cases. Hey guess what, some of those dismissals came from judges he appointed. Hell, even the current supreme court sent him packing. But hey, if conceding defeat before the game starts is your thing.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)I still don't trust the Supreme Court that's all I'm saying
Obvious85
(259 posts)and hopefully prosecuted. Everyone sees right through here. She really thinks she can take on the U.S. ?
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)That isn't how our system works.
The best we can hope for is an appellate-court smackdown (preferably including some Trump judges) that embarrasses her enough to tone down future rulings.
Turbineguy
(37,324 posts)
peppertree
(21,633 posts)Cheeto spent 4 years importing 3rd-world jurisprudence - and Aileen Mercedes is the living embodiment of that.
FBaggins
(26,735 posts)She can't find him not guilty.
She can't find him guilty either.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)of what? Did a criminal trial start?
Botany
(70,504 posts)1) The Rosenbergs who were convicted of passing classified information to the
Soviet Union and they were executed.
2) FBI agent Robert Hanssen who is doing 15 back to back life terms in the Fed.
Super Max lock up in Colorado. He took the prison time and plead guilty instead
of getting executed.
********
"The lawyers who signed the document stating all the documents were returned" are fucked and
best be getting their own lawyers. And since what they did was in commission of a crime I doubt
they can use lawyer/client privilege.
********
Somethings that I can be pretty sure about is it that Trump and maybe through Kushner, Flynn, Manafort,
Stone, Prince, or ??? he has already given top secret information to Russia and Saudi Arabia much of which
happened when he was in the White House.
My Guesses
Saudi Arabia got stuff on Khashoggi, members of the Royal Family who were not loyal enough to MBS, and
Israel's nuclear weapons.
Russia got stuff on Oligarchs not 100% with Putin (a whole family was murder in Spain), Ukraine's military,
our satellites programs, our intelligence network, our military in Afghanistan, our elections, and areas inside
the United States where Vlad and company should attack to spread social unrest and divisions among the
American people. Whenever you hear about Hunter Biden's laptop you are hearing Russian disinformation.
Vlad/Russia/Russian Intel/Russian Mob have been conducting war on America for years.
progressoid
(49,990 posts)That's all they need to do.
And expecting our courts & judges to uphold the law is optimistic in my opinion.
Johonny
(20,849 posts)People were claiming she was helping them out. It turns out, she wasn't. They were not prepared in anyway to make that argument.
So in the end, one of the core arguments of the judge appears to be wrong. Many judges would start rethinking their decision. But I assume Cannon is willing to let the special master deal with this mess and pretend to ignore it until either the appeals court lifts the burden from her, or the special master rules and lifts her from the burden of making a decision.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)...she says what she says to stay in Trump's good graces, and her mental out is ultimately, she won't be the final arbiter regardless.
kentuck
(111,094 posts)He has no defense. He has a strategy to delay but that is not a defense.
Jarqui
(10,124 posts)What happens in the appeal could mess with Trump's legal strategy.
Still a lot of moving parts to this.
thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)As I read it, the lawyers are not claiming it's a defense against "the possible charges listed in the warrant" but rather it's a defense against other charges that they feel may be forthcoming; and then the argument is whether that's relevant to the disposition of this case. Probably a hail mary, but they're trying everything, and who knows what the right (wrong) judge will say.
jeffreyi
(1,939 posts)
carpetbagger
(4,391 posts)That's the plan, and I think it's got a 50/50 shot, most of the 50 depending on the 2024 election.
fightforfreedom
(4,913 posts)
Beartracks
(12,809 posts)Weird, huh.
=============
Hamlette
(15,412 posts)If he declassified the documents (still a crime to take them from the WH) he will have to say so under oath. Which means, if he can't prove it, he is subject to perjury charges, in addition to everything else. If he doesn't sign an affidavit saying he declassified the documents, he has no property right to the documents thus the Special Master has to rule for DOJ.
I'm thinking Dearie is not going to fall for anything from Trump. He not only held a hearing pronto after his appointment he made it public which Cannon refused to do.
Justice will prevail with this guy at the helm. Trump may appeal but I don't think the orange jesus will get far.