Trump indicted over classified documents

279,545 Views | 3652 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by aggiehawg
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NARA did not know exactly what Trump had but were looking for specific documents that would be useful to further other efforts to embarrass and potentially indict Trump.

They hoped the Kim love letters would show some sort of nefarious collusion with Rocket Man to destroy the evil empire of the DemLibs.

They wanted the Hurricane Dorian map to embarrass Trump again and to potentially charge him with altering an official National Weather Service map. Regardless of whether they could charge him (NWS is under the Executive and its an easy argument that Trump had authority to alter) but they would say "we would charge him if we could".

I think the scuttle that Obama included what he knew would be considered secret information and/or national defense information in his "turnover letter" to Trump. When this was not found, it likely became a good excuse to demand information from Trump starting the whole change from NARA conflict to DOJ persecution of FPOTUS.

As was stated over and over and over again in the original FBI Raided Mar-a-Lago thread, as evidenced in the search warrant, and as further evidenced in the indictment, the CLASSIFICATION status of documents is ENTIRELY IRRLELEVANT to their case at least according to the two primary laws at play the PRA and the Espionage Act.

There was discussion the previous evening and a great analysis by Hawg regarding "agency" v Presidential records and Personal presidential records. Those points are valid and follow not only the law but common sense. Yes, the PDB that POTUS receives daily will contain "national defense information" every time and likely always considered classified. These would also be the sorts of documents that if Trump took notes on them, they arguably become part of his "journal or diary" and this personal. Regardless of ultimate deposition, the courts have previously held that the FPOTUS has wide latitude in making such determination.

Under the PRA the FPOTUS is to have documents made available to them after their term in office. Biden, the GSA and NARA all seem to agree when they shipped the boxes to his personal residence in Florida.

So to Manhattan, its not about classification of documents other than a flimsy and not particularly creative path of reasoning from WH counsel and DOJ determining that classified markings means official "agency" document meaning its not personal and that if its official record with classified markings there is an assumption it may contain the poor defined term "national defense information" and that means the Espionage Act comes into play and that anyone from the government, be it NARA, DOJ, FBI, IRS, EPA or whatever can demand the documents back and refusing to provide is a violation of either 1(d) or 1(e) of the Espionage Act.

Many discussing this topic online and on the air exhibit very poor understanding of the law, the US Constitution, the classification / declassification of documents, the Presidential Records Act, history, etc.
I present the above after spending considerable time looking through the language of the applicable law, the US Constitution, information others have presented here, good and bad, and following the news and experts of all varieties.

BTW, I have grown used to the insults that I am being dishonest, that I am ignorant of the law, that I am nothing but a suckler on Teat Trump, and my favorite that I am somehow the reincarnation of MF Barnes. You can keep the attacks up cause the only thing that happens is a vacay day for me if I respond. All you do is derail with that nonsense, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.

TLDR; the entire thing is a fabrication by NARA, WH counsel and the DOJ to embarrass the FPOTUS and interfere in the 2022 and 2024 elections.
BD88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
zwhag2010 said:

Manhattan said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:



The goalposts have moved quite far.
My goalposts have never moved. The President's constitutional authority does not hinge on some leftist bureaucrat with no authority.

He wasn't the president when he was admittedly waving around non declassified, classified national security information around his golf club, for clout.


I would like to know from the people defending trump why this is ok? If the recording is true and he did have non declassified documents in his possession in a nonsecure area as former president, How is this not breaking the law?

And just to get ahead of it we are not talking about Hillary or Biden (that is a separate issue which I agree they need to be prosecuted and forced to stand trial) we are talking about Trump.
Do you and Manhattan have any real proof of this? Lots of accusations but little real evidence. Typical.
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BD88 said:

zwhag2010 said:

Manhattan said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:



The goalposts have moved quite far.
My goalposts have never moved. The President's constitutional authority does not hinge on some leftist bureaucrat with no authority.

He wasn't the president when he was admittedly waving around non declassified, classified national security information around his golf club, for clout.


I would like to know from the people defending trump why this is ok? If the recording is true and he did have non declassified documents in his possession in a nonsecure area as former president, How is this not breaking the law?

And just to get ahead of it we are not talking about Hillary or Biden (that is a separate issue which I agree they need to be prosecuted and forced to stand trial) we are talking about Trump.
Do you and Manhattan have any real proof of this? Lots of accusations but little real evidence. Typical.
In Manhattan's mind there's a picture somewhere of the Orange Man going from table to table at the 19th hole restaurant saying "Looky what I have here! Would you like to read it? This is how important I am!"

ETA - I said that in my best Adam Schiff voice, for those who want to know...
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:

Indeed, that is interesting. The "Get Trump!!!" derangement is really destroying some reputations far and wide, imho.



Trump, The Great Bug Zapper. Lures them in where they are destroyed by their own attack. And it continues.
Manhattan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jrdaustin said:

BD88 said:

zwhag2010 said:

Manhattan said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:



The goalposts have moved quite far.
My goalposts have never moved. The President's constitutional authority does not hinge on some leftist bureaucrat with no authority.

He wasn't the president when he was admittedly waving around non declassified, classified national security information around his golf club, for clout.


I would like to know from the people defending trump why this is ok? If the recording is true and he did have non declassified documents in his possession in a nonsecure area as former president, How is this not breaking the law?

And just to get ahead of it we are not talking about Hillary or Biden (that is a separate issue which I agree they need to be prosecuted and forced to stand trial) we are talking about Trump.
Do you and Manhattan have any real proof of this? Lots of accusations but little real evidence. Typical.
In Manhattan's mind there's a picture somewhere of the Orange Man going from table to table at the 19th hole restaurant saying "Looky what I have here! Would you like to read it? This is how important I am!"

ETA - I said that in my best Adam Schiff voice, for those who want to know...


Replace 18 holes with dinner and that is what the indictment alleges… and unlike Grassley, the doj has the audio.
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BD88 said:

zwhag2010 said:

Manhattan said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:



The goalposts have moved quite far.
My goalposts have never moved. The President's constitutional authority does not hinge on some leftist bureaucrat with no authority.

He wasn't the president when he was admittedly waving around non declassified, classified national security information around his golf club, for clout.


I would like to know from the people defending trump why this is ok? If the recording is true and he did have non declassified documents in his possession in a nonsecure area as former president, How is this not breaking the law?

And just to get ahead of it we are not talking about Hillary or Biden (that is a separate issue which I agree they need to be prosecuted and forced to stand trial) we are talking about Trump.
Do you and Manhattan have any real proof of this? Lots of accusations but little real evidence. Typical.


They have a recording of him literally saying it, I'm assuming it will be used at trial. What other evidence would you like? Unless you're saying they lied about having a recording, which would be easily discovered when they are asked to produce it.
the_batman26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I doubt the DOJ would produce it. The same culture displayed in the Durham report doesn't just go away.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Manhattan said:




Replace 18 holes with dinner and that is what the indictment alleges… and unlike Grassley, the doj has the audio.
Great, you want to show us how that audio violates the Espionage Act?

We do not know the specifics of the document, the context of the conversation, what the person was allowed to see or not see.

Since Trump was likely authorized to have the document under the PRA, then showing his possession of the document and talking about what it might or might not show does not appear to substantiate a violation under the act, which is why the centered on 1(e) of the act.
richardag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

eric76 said:

More importantly, can a President magically pardon himself just by thinking it in the same way that some say he can declassify documents just by thinking it?
I know this is REALLY difficult. The POTUS is THE Executive Branch. He can declassify anything. Laws passed by Congress regarding classification do not impact him. "Rules" put in place by employees of the Executive Branch do not apply to him. HE does not work under those people's authority.
This is exactly the argument Mark Levin makes and I do believe and you are accurate.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
IMnAg79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.tiktok.com/music/original-sound-7243805117592488746?refer=embed
Pizza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Manhattan said:

jrdaustin said:

BD88 said:

zwhag2010 said:

Manhattan said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:



The goalposts have moved quite far.
My goalposts have never moved. The President's constitutional authority does not hinge on some leftist bureaucrat with no authority.

He wasn't the president when he was admittedly waving around non declassified, classified national security information around his golf club, for clout.


I would like to know from the people defending trump why this is ok? If the recording is true and he did have non declassified documents in his possession in a nonsecure area as former president, How is this not breaking the law?

And just to get ahead of it we are not talking about Hillary or Biden (that is a separate issue which I agree they need to be prosecuted and forced to stand trial) we are talking about Trump.
Do you and Manhattan have any real proof of this? Lots of accusations but little real evidence. Typical.
In Manhattan's mind there's a picture somewhere of the Orange Man going from table to table at the 19th hole restaurant saying "Looky what I have here! Would you like to read it? This is how important I am!"

ETA - I said that in my best Adam Schiff voice, for those who want to know...


Replace 18 holes with dinner and that is what the indictment alleges… and unlike Grassley, the doj has the audio.


Even if the indictment is true, the double standards involved surrounding Joe & Donald have the potential to tear the country in half.

If Biden or Hillary are not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, the case against Trump - ACCORDING TO THE PRECEDENT SET BY DEMOCRATS - should be dropped immediately.

You're cheering on the destruction of the country you live in, and either don't know it because you believed a lie, or want it because you don't like where you live & can't afford to leave.

This is fair is it not?
Anyone who chooses to ride a bicycle in the street is a threat to themselves, and others. If a vehicle strikes you accidentally, YOU are at fault; and the laws of physics supercede all else when you're in the path of a 2 ton killing machine. Know your place, stay off the road.
BD88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
J. Walter Weatherman said:

BD88 said:

zwhag2010 said:

Manhattan said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:



The goalposts have moved quite far.
My goalposts have never moved. The President's constitutional authority does not hinge on some leftist bureaucrat with no authority.

He wasn't the president when he was admittedly waving around non declassified, classified national security information around his golf club, for clout.


I would like to know from the people defending trump why this is ok? If the recording is true and he did have non declassified documents in his possession in a nonsecure area as former president, How is this not breaking the law?

And just to get ahead of it we are not talking about Hillary or Biden (that is a separate issue which I agree they need to be prosecuted and forced to stand trial) we are talking about Trump.
Do you and Manhattan have any real proof of this? Lots of accusations but little real evidence. Typical.


They have a recording of him literally saying it, I'm assuming it will be used at trial. What other evidence would you like? Unless you're saying they lied about having a recording, which would be easily discovered when they are asked to produce it.
Govt never lies. Must be legit. At least you hope so. Again, espionage should be easy to prove with that so called recording.
richardag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aggiehawg said:

Letter
The corruption is blatantly ignored, those people should have been investigated, indicted and tried. I guess they used the Hillary Clinton defense:

edit to short post
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Except the recording is nothing close to Espionage. Those parts of the Espionage Act require intent and that was not charged in the indictment. But it confuses people like them also referencing classified documents in the indictment, but not charging anything related to classified documents.

The indictment and investigation ignoring the PRA entirely is also HUGELY suspect.
richardag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:



The goalposts have moved quite far.
My goalposts have never moved. The President's constitutional authority does not hinge on some leftist bureaucrat with no authority.
Exactly
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jrdaustin said:

TXAggie2011 said:

That's a really bad take from Mr. Davis. The PRA does not say anywhere that documents not designated as Presidential or Personal default to Personal. That's a completely made up assertion.

And, by the way, if the Trump White House produced some sort of guidance or general rule stating as much, that would be subject to judicial review that the guidance is in accordance with the language of the PRA under the Armstrong cases (and the case he mentions in that tweet.)

...

He's misreading and taking "available" out of the context. (1)The PRA also talks about making Presidential records "available" to the public and none of us have the right to go take documents from a Presidential Library home and keep them at our house. That's just not what "available" means. (2) That reading of "available" by Mr. Davis is completely at odds with the rest of the regulatory scheme under the PRA, which says the President doesn't own them, that the records are to go to a NARA facility, etc., etc., etc.
I think Davis's take results from the "sock drawer" decision. Two points that I've read that will surely be points of contention:

1. The Archivist does not have the authority to determine what is Presidential Records vs. Personal Records. That authority rests soley with the President. The decision stated: "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."

2. I've also heard the argument that alleges the "classified" documents are Agency Records rather than Presidential/Personal Records; but, Mark Levin argued yesterday that copies GIVEN TO the President - such as daily briefing notes - can be argued as Presidential/Personal, as they are not the only copy. NARA/affected agencies already have copies of those documents, so it's not as if Trump destroys his that that information is lost. So the Agency copies are the originals drafted by the Agency. They don't "own" a copy of the original that was given to the WH. Those copies are now Presidential/Personal and under the purview of the President.

I'm not advocating a position here. I'm simply stating what I've seen/heard, It's going to be an interesting ride.
I appreciate that bold part

I just think the PRA is a big red herring. The 11th Circuit has already ruled they can't think of a plausible argument that Trump has any kind of personal property interest in these documents. I can't think of a plausible reason, based on the facts asserted by Trump in Trump's own filings last year, why he would have any kind of personal property interest in these documents.

To the extent that he ever had these documents labeled as "personal", and I really doubt despite all the social media chatter, that they'll make that assertion in court, I appreciate that POTUS has sole discretion during their term to make those decisions, but let's keep in mind that the law of the land says this:

Quote:

the Court observes that Armstrong II does not necessarily foreclose judicial review of a decision to denominate certain materials `personal records' of a former President. Such judicial review may be available to ensure that Presidential records are not disposed of as personal records at the end of an Administration and that, instead, all Presidential records fall subject to the Archivist's `affirmative duty to make such records available to the public.
And regarding all this business of he was trying to sort out what documents were what at Mar-A-Lago after he was out of office and no one can question those decisions...that sure as hell isn't how it works.
Quote:

it borders on the absurd to posit that Congress-in passing a statute to preclude former Presidents from disposing of Presidential records at will, and affording Presidents no discretion to restrict access to records after leaving office-intended that a former President's post-term decisions regarding disposal of such records be immune from judicial review.
https://casetext.com/case/citizens-for-responsibility-ethics-v-cheney-3#p198
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Your take on this and logic fall apart when you realize Trump was not attempting to dispose of any documents, but was instead going through the normal and previously acceptable practice of sorting through documents and records from his presidency that he considered personal in nature or that he wanted to retain access to as allowed under the PRA.

Are you trying to say that if Trump wanted to write a memoir of his time in office that he would not be allowed to consult copies of the PDBs from his time in office because some low level clutz at NARA says no?

The PRA and other similar acts were put in place to PRESERVE records, not to limit FPOTUS from materials from his time in office. Do you have a note or citation that says a former POTUS may never under any circumstance access records from their time in office unless some clerk at NARA says so? Please provide the citation.

The red herrings are the references to classified docs and the Espionage Act, both misused and misapplied to take a civil dispute and turn it into a criminal indictment in an effort to influence the 2022 and 2024 elections. Period. The end.

At this point, appears you want to mislead people away from the truth. Luckily there are folks here to stop the CNN angle from being distributed.
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BD88 said:

J. Walter Weatherman said:

BD88 said:

zwhag2010 said:

Manhattan said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:



The goalposts have moved quite far.
My goalposts have never moved. The President's constitutional authority does not hinge on some leftist bureaucrat with no authority.

He wasn't the president when he was admittedly waving around non declassified, classified national security information around his golf club, for clout.


I would like to know from the people defending trump why this is ok? If the recording is true and he did have non declassified documents in his possession in a nonsecure area as former president, How is this not breaking the law?

And just to get ahead of it we are not talking about Hillary or Biden (that is a separate issue which I agree they need to be prosecuted and forced to stand trial) we are talking about Trump.
Do you and Manhattan have any real proof of this? Lots of accusations but little real evidence. Typical.


They have a recording of him literally saying it, I'm assuming it will be used at trial. What other evidence would you like? Unless you're saying they lied about having a recording, which would be easily discovered when they are asked to produce it.
Govt never lies. Must be legit. At least you hope so. Again, espionage should be easy to prove with that so called recording.


So when they produce the recording in the trial will you agree they didn't make it up? Or at that point will you say that they fabricated it?
TXAggie2011
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Are you trying to say that if Trump wanted to write a memoir of his time in office that he would not be allowed to consult copies of the PDBs from his time in office because some low level clutz at NARA says no?
No, I am not saying that. He'd probably need to talk to the Director of National Intelligence to make arrangements to look at old PDBs.

Quote:

The PRA and other similar acts were put in place to PRESERVE records, not to limit FPOTUS from materials from his time in office. Do you have a note or citation that says a former POTUS may never under any circumstance access records from their time in office unless some clerk at NARA says so? Please provide the citation.
No one has ever said the President could not ask for and be provided access to his Presidential Records.
damiond
How long do you want to ignore this user?
and now the tapes are gone

it all comes back to burisma

impeachment didn't work

now there is an indictment

Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump gotta make sure that co-conspirator's legal fees are paid and the guy stays in the fold. We aint' even break the seal on discussing that little tar baby.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TXAggie2011 said:

Quote:

Are you trying to say that if Trump wanted to write a memoir of his time in office that he would not be allowed to consult copies of the PDBs from his time in office because some low level clutz at NARA says no?
No, I am not saying that. He'd probably need to talk to the Director of National Intelligence to make arrangements to look at old PDBs.

Quote:

The PRA and other similar acts were put in place to PRESERVE records, not to limit FPOTUS from materials from his time in office. Do you have a note or citation that says a former POTUS may never under any circumstance access records from their time in office unless some clerk at NARA says so? Please provide the citation.
No one has ever said the President could not ask for and be provided access to his Presidential Records.
Seems to me then the President asked for them to be shipped to MAL, the GSA, NARA and Biden admin complied, and he was sorting through the boxes. If they did not want them to have them, they should have been more careful about shipping them to him,

I would also be surprised if the absolute authority of who approves the access is deferred to ODNI. What has the process been typically? Did Coats, Grennel and Ratcliffe approve Obama viewing any of his old PDBs from 2017 to 2021? Should be some record of this and the process I imagine.
Charpie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
damiond said:

and now the tapes are gone

it all comes back to burisma

impeachment didn't work

now there is an indictment


What did I miss?
jrdaustin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
J. Walter Weatherman said:

BD88 said:

J. Walter Weatherman said:

BD88 said:

zwhag2010 said:

Manhattan said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:



The goalposts have moved quite far.
My goalposts have never moved. The President's constitutional authority does not hinge on some leftist bureaucrat with no authority.

He wasn't the president when he was admittedly waving around non declassified, classified national security information around his golf club, for clout.


I would like to know from the people defending trump why this is ok? If the recording is true and he did have non declassified documents in his possession in a nonsecure area as former president, How is this not breaking the law?

And just to get ahead of it we are not talking about Hillary or Biden (that is a separate issue which I agree they need to be prosecuted and forced to stand trial) we are talking about Trump.
Do you and Manhattan have any real proof of this? Lots of accusations but little real evidence. Typical.


They have a recording of him literally saying it, I'm assuming it will be used at trial. What other evidence would you like? Unless you're saying they lied about having a recording, which would be easily discovered when they are asked to produce it.
Govt never lies. Must be legit. At least you hope so. Again, espionage should be easy to prove with that so called recording.
So when they produce the recording in the trial will you agree they didn't make it up? Or at that point will you say that they fabricated it?
I think what he's saying is that you and others are drawing conclusions based off of a snippet of a conversation referenced in the indictment. And somehow you read into the snippet proof of guilt - of something.

I have no doubt a recording exists. I also have no doubt that we have seen a small snippet that is designed to lead to a desired conclusion; but, it is not the whole conversation. So we don't know the full scope of the conversation, and how much this little snippet really mattered - or what it meant in the context of the full conversation.

We don't have the document, so we don't know how much it actually applied to National Intelligence. Trump said "Read this". Read what? The word 'classified'? The word "Iran"? The word "Milley"? The whole thing? Did he hand it to them? Did he wave it at them from his side of the desk?

You may be asking why I'm going into this detail. But he's now accused of a crime. And apparently this conversation is material, or else why include it in the indictment? Unless, of course, this whole thing has a political motive rather than a law-enforcement one.
BD88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
J. Walter Weatherman said:

BD88 said:

J. Walter Weatherman said:

BD88 said:

zwhag2010 said:

Manhattan said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Quote:



The goalposts have moved quite far.
My goalposts have never moved. The President's constitutional authority does not hinge on some leftist bureaucrat with no authority.

He wasn't the president when he was admittedly waving around non declassified, classified national security information around his golf club, for clout.


I would like to know from the people defending trump why this is ok? If the recording is true and he did have non declassified documents in his possession in a nonsecure area as former president, How is this not breaking the law?

And just to get ahead of it we are not talking about Hillary or Biden (that is a separate issue which I agree they need to be prosecuted and forced to stand trial) we are talking about Trump.
Do you and Manhattan have any real proof of this? Lots of accusations but little real evidence. Typical.


They have a recording of him literally saying it, I'm assuming it will be used at trial. What other evidence would you like? Unless you're saying they lied about having a recording, which would be easily discovered when they are asked to produce it.
Govt never lies. Must be legit. At least you hope so. Again, espionage should be easy to prove with that so called recording.


So when they produce the recording in the trial will you agree they didn't make it up? Or at that point will you say that they fabricated it?
Dont worry about it Weatherbeater. There are some Rhonda Santis threads that need your attention! Hurry along before someone gets the attention.
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fka ftc said:

Your take on this and logic fall apart when you realize Trump was not attempting to dispose of any documents, but was instead going through the normal and previously acceptable practice of sorting through documents and records from his presidency that he considered personal in nature or that he wanted to retain access to as allowed under the PRA.
If that is true, then why did Trump go to the lengths he did to avoid returning the classified documents?

Quote:

Are you trying to say that if Trump wanted to write a memoir of his time in office that he would not be allowed to consult copies of the PDBs from his time in office because some low level clutz at NARA says no?
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
eric76 said:

fka ftc said:

Your take on this and logic fall apart when you realize Trump was not attempting to dispose of any documents, but was instead going through the normal and previously acceptable practice of sorting through documents and records from his presidency that he considered personal in nature or that he wanted to retain access to as allowed under the PRA.
If that is true, then why did Trump go to the lengths he did to avoid returning the classified documents?

Quote:

Are you trying to say that if Trump wanted to write a memoir of his time in office that he would not be allowed to consult copies of the PDBs from his time in office because some low level clutz at NARA says no?

Because he was still going through stuff and because under the PRA he didn't have to return records he was reviewing.

Not sure why you mention classified documents. The indictment does not charge him with possession, destruction or dissemination of classified documents.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the indictment. I think it is linked on here somewhere.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore argued on MSNBC Tuesday that "prosecutorial misconduct" could derail Donald Trump's federal trial. Parlatore claimed to a highly skeptical panel that he was in the room and witnessed misconduct during the grand jury proceedings.

"What are the issues that you think would lead to this case never going to trial?" Andrew Weissmann asked during an MSNBC panel.

"The biggest issue, of course, Andy, is prosecutorial misconduct," Parlatore said, before laying out his accusations against the federal prosecutors. "This is a case where you have prosecutors who have consistently demonstrated lack of ethics and willingness to lie to federal judges in sealed proceedings.

Willingness to, in the grand jury, openly suggest to the jurors that they may take the invocation of constitutional rights as evidence of guilt. Willingness to meet with an attorney for one of the witnesses and suggest that his application for a judgeship is something that should be considered and is a reason to convince his client to change his mind.
Quote:

A skeptical Weissmann interjected to ask how Parlatore knew of the alleged misconduct since grand juries usually operate in secret.

"Because I was in the room," Parlatore said. "It happened right in front of me."

Parlatore was a witness before the grand jury considering the classified documents case against Trump.
Weissmann then asked what Parlatore saw.

"Forty-five separate times I know sounds like I made that number up but 45 separate times they tried to to get into attorney-client privileged information and frequently when the question was asked about conversations between attorney and client, they would turn to the grand jury and say, 'so you're refusing to provide that information to the grand jury?' At a certain point, further exchange ensued where the prosecutor says, 'well isn't it possible to waive the privilege? And if President Trump is being so cooperative, why won't he waive the privilege and allow you to tell the jury about his conversations with you?' That's totally improper. And I know, Andy, that you know, had it happened during a jury trial, it would be a mistrial, right there."
Video at LINK

Fortyfive times? YIKES!
BD88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76 said:

fka ftc said:

Your take on this and logic fall apart when you realize Trump was not attempting to dispose of any documents, but was instead going through the normal and previously acceptable practice of sorting through documents and records from his presidency that he considered personal in nature or that he wanted to retain access to as allowed under the PRA.
If that is true, then why did Trump go to the lengths he did to avoid returning the classified documents?

Quote:

Are you trying to say that if Trump wanted to write a memoir of his time in office that he would not be allowed to consult copies of the PDBs from his time in office because some low level clutz at NARA says no?

What lengths did he go to to avoid returning them? If you read the info from the attorney for Trump (provided by hawg) it says they were happy to give them what they wanted. They would have liked to pull personal stuff out before handing over the rest. Doubt you wanted to read that and that take damn sure wouldnt fit your narrative.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pretty sure I was laughed at when suggesting the Trump lawyers may have been winked and nodded at that it may not be in their best interest to continue being Trump's lawyers.

Some of those folks went on and on about how terrible a client Trump must be and that no one wants to represent him because he is such a terrible imbecile.

And then here we are...
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

What lengths did he go to to avoid returning them? If you read the info from the attorney for Trump (provided by hawg) it says they were happy to give them what they wanted. They would have liked to pull personal stuff out before handing over the rest. Doubt you wanted to read that and that take damn sure wouldnt fit your narrative.
Trump's lawyers had a deal with Bratt that they would do a rolling production on a schedule for Trump to review and then ship those boxes when done with them. They also offered that the FBI or someone from NARA could be present to observe as he did so.

Then sudenly, acoording to the lawyers, Bratt changed his mind and insisted on complete production immediately.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon took one of her first substantive steps Thursday in Donald Trump's prosecution for amassing military secrets at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

In a brief order, Cannon required all attorneys in the case for Trump as well as his longtime valet, Walt Nauta, who is charged alongside him as an alleged co-conspirator to contact the Justice Department about obtaining security clearances. The same instructions apply to any "forthcoming" attorneys, the judge said.
Quote:

It is common in criminal cases involving classified documents for defense attorneys to obtain security clearances.


The case against Trump revolves around his alleged hoarding of highly classified national security documents at his private residence, and then obstructing efforts by federal officials to reclaim them. To make its case, the government is likely going to have to share key aspects of those documents with Trump and his legal team. Some may also be declassified and publicly revealed as part of the prosecution, though the Justice Department has not signaled any immediate intention to do so.
LINK
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon took one of her first substantive steps Thursday in Donald Trump's prosecution for amassing military secrets at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

In a brief order, Cannon required all attorneys in the case for Trump as well as his longtime valet, Walt Nauta, who is charged alongside him as an alleged co-conspirator to contact the Justice Department about obtaining security clearances. The same instructions apply to any "forthcoming" attorneys, the judge said.
Quote:

It is common in criminal cases involving classified documents for defense attorneys to obtain security clearances.


The case against Trump revolves around his alleged hoarding of highly classified national security documents at his private residence, and then obstructing efforts by federal officials to reclaim them. To make its case, the government is likely going to have to share key aspects of those documents with Trump and his legal team. Some may also be declassified and publicly revealed as part of the prosecution, though the Justice Department has not signaled any immediate intention to do so.
LINK
Can they require jurors to have security clearances, too? It would be interesting if the time between the jury selection and the start of the trial was several months to allow time for the jurors to be investigated and security clearances to be granted.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BD88 said:

eric76 said:

fka ftc said:

Your take on this and logic fall apart when you realize Trump was not attempting to dispose of any documents, but was instead going through the normal and previously acceptable practice of sorting through documents and records from his presidency that he considered personal in nature or that he wanted to retain access to as allowed under the PRA.
If that is true, then why did Trump go to the lengths he did to avoid returning the classified documents?

Quote:

Are you trying to say that if Trump wanted to write a memoir of his time in office that he would not be allowed to consult copies of the PDBs from his time in office because some low level clutz at NARA says no?

What lengths did he go to to avoid returning them? If you read the info from the attorney for Trump (provided by hawg) it says they were happy to give them what they wanted. They would have liked to pull personal stuff out before handing over the rest. Doubt you wanted to read that and that take damn sure wouldnt fit your narrative.

Naturally, Trump's attorney is going to put Trump in the best light.

At least one of his attorneys at the meeting over dealing with the subpoena for the documents said that Trump wanted to hide documents responsive to the subpoena.
First Page Last Page
Page 48 of 105
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.