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

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 10, 2023

Quote:

---

Federal judges don't need clearances, and they undergo deep FBI background checks before their Senate confirmation. Their law clerks, however, are required to obtain security clearances when handling a case involving classified material.

---

Quote:

---

During discovery, according to Gonzalez, defense lawyers typically seek much more information than prosecutors offer. But since materials are classified, he added, they don't have the full scope of what the documents say. They may use their clients' recollections of the materials at hand or even their own intuition to seek details beyond what DOJ volunteers.

Once classified documents are determined to be included in the discovery material, defense lawyers can view the classified materials in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or a SCIF. The Miami courthouse where Trump was arraigned doesn't have one, according to a person familiar with the facilities granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive location. But another building in the same complex does have one.

---

LINK

Haven't found anything about jury selection in CIPA cases.

captkirk said:

---

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

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 10, 2023

---

More than likely they have it (assuming Trump was actually holding one) but they just don't know which one it is. And if they can't figure it out from the contents of the audiotape, the people with which Trump was speaking could not figure it out either.

aggiehawg said:

---

captkirk said:

---

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

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 10, 2023

---

More than likely they have it (assuming Trump was actually holding one) but they just don't know which one it is. And if they can't figure it out from the contents of the audiotape, the people with which Trump was speaking could not figure it out either.

---

I guess that means Trump didn't show it to them

captkirk said:

---

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

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 10, 2023

---

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

Perhaps Speery not familiar with the indictment.

captkirk said:

---

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

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 10, 2023

---

We already knew this

But the tweet says "BREAKING". And in all caps!

The tape nullifies any "i declassified that in my head argument" for all the documents for any sane judge or jury.

That specific document doesn't matter, but they should search Bedminster for it since it is national security info.

Quote:

---

I guess that means Trump didn't show it to them

---

Does to me. That's just a snippet of the conversation too. For instance had Trump been on audiotape saying along the lines of, "See that arrow there? That was the battle for advancing in from Syria" or some such.

PRA does not require declassification.

Manhattan said:

---

The tape nullifies any "i declassified that in my head argument" for all the documents for any sane judge or jury.

That specific document doesn't matter, but they should search Bedminster for it since it is national security info.

---

Yeah, we will see how it is used. We also don't know what other words are said on that tape nor what other tapes they have. But the audiotape is most clearly included in the indictment to (1) head off the "I declassified everything" smoke and mirror show; and (2) show Trump generally knew he had documents that were "secret", "classified", or generally national defense information.

the_batman26 said:

---

So where do protections and privileges start and stop for former heads of the Executive Branch?

---

I'm guessing he was debriefed the morning of January 20, 2021. And he was told all about classifications of documents and his responsibilities in protecting that information at that time.

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

captkirk said:

---

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

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 10, 2023

---

More than likely they have it (assuming Trump was actually holding one) but they just don't know which one it is. And if they can't figure it out from the contents of the audiotape, the people with which Trump was speaking could not figure it out either.

---

I guess that means Trump didn't show it to them

---

Were they all blind? I don't know that they do or do not know what the contents were. But it doesn't follow that if you don't know from an audiotape those physically there cannot know.


Trump uses the words "look", "read it", and "let's see here" in the audiotape. The depositions of those at that meeting will be rather fascinating, I'm sure.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

captkirk said:

---

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

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 10, 2023

---

More than likely they have it (assuming Trump was actually holding one) but they just don't know which one it is. And if they can't figure it out from the contents of the audiotape, the people with which Trump was speaking could not figure it out either.

---

I guess that means Trump didn't show it to them

---

Were they all blind? I don't know that they do or do not know what the contents were. But it doesn't follow that if you don't know from an audiotape those physically there cannot know.


Trump uses the words "look", "read it", and "let's see here" in the audiotape. The depositions of those at that meeting will be rather fascinating, I'm sure.

---

These people were writers. Maybe even journalists. If they read the document, wouldn't that have been in a book or article somewhere?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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

---

That's really sharp. Quoting parts of an opinion that are merely quoting the cases advocated by the Plaintiff (Ethics Commission) against VPOTUS and EOP (Defendants). If you actually read the opinion, you will see that the District Court disagreed with Plaintiff's argument and held that the National Archives had no authority to dictate what records VPOTUS were allowed to keep and what were personal records. So, in other words, the case you are citing actually held that the Executives were right and found in their favor. Plaintiffs (Nat'l Archives, etc.) lost.

And that was a civil case, with a lower standard of proof that a criminal case such as the one brought against Trump.

If you read the case, I'm sure you noted that the court's first words after those quotes were "The same may be said here." That section of the case was about whether judicial review was allowed, and the court agreed with the plaintiffs. "Accordingly, the Court finds that the PRA does not preclude judicial review of Plaintiffs' claims."

My point is court's aren't entirely precluded from reviewing decisions made under the PRA (which again, the PRA is a red herring in the first place.)

eric76 said:

---

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.

---

Naturally the corrupt govt and the attorney they hired will put the most negative spin on it. Gotta a link to that attorney saying that? Woud like to read it. I am sure everything you read, like our govt, is true.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

If you read the case, I'm sure you noted that the court's first words after those quotes were "The same may be said here." That section of the case was about whether judicial review was allowed, and the court agreed with the plaintiffs. "Accordingly, the Court finds that the PRA does not preclude judicial review of Plaintiffs' claims."

My point is court's aren't entirely precluded from reviewing decisions made under the PRA (which again, the PRA is a red herring in the first place.)

---

Congrats you get judicial review. Then the rest of the case says "we have reviewed and the exec is right, bureaucrats are wrong. Suck it, bureaucrats." Again that's under a civil preponderance of the evidence standard, not the higher bar of criminal beyond a reasonable doubt.

Prepare yourself for disappointment.

BD88 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

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.

---

Naturally the corrupt govt and the attorney they hired will put the most negative spin on it. Gotta a link to that attorney saying that? Woud like to read it. I am sure everything you read, like our govt, is true.

---

There was an article on the National Review site by Andrew McCarthy about it.

From https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/06/why-trumps-witch-hunt-cries-ring-hollow-in-face-of-doj-indictment/

Quote:

---

These are not the people who want to take him out. This is not Joe Biden, Liz Cheney, congressional Democrats, or the "fake news" media. It's not even RINO Republicans or that (apparently) fiercest of political combatants, "Ada" Hutchinson.

No, the evidence comes from Trump's lawyers. The people who were trying to minimize his criminal exposure and push back against his destructive tendencies. The people who were trying to help him.

One of these lawyers, Evan Corcoran, kept trying to help Trump even after he knew he'd been had. For his trouble in representing a former president, Corcoran was subpoenaed and forced by a federal judge and an appellate court to testify. He fought them all the way, struggling to preserve Trump's attorney-client privilege even though, apparently unbeknownst to Corcoran at the time, Trump had blithely negated the privilege by using Corcoran to provide false information, under oath, in response to a subpoena.

...

Corcoran was not trying to hurt Trump, even though Trump had thought nothing of putting the lawyer's livelihood at risk. Corcoran provided the lurid testimony reflected in the indictment including Trump's suggestions that he falsely tell the FBI and grand jury that he did not have documents marked classified, and that he "pluck" out of a package of documents responsive to the subpoena "anything really bad in there" because the law required him to, not because he wanted to.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

If you read the case, I'm sure you noted that the court's first words after those quotes were "The same may be said here." That section of the case was about whether judicial review was allowed, and the court agreed with the plaintiffs. "Accordingly, the Court finds that the PRA does not preclude judicial review of Plaintiffs' claims."

My point is court's aren't entirely precluded from reviewing decisions made under the PRA (which again, the PRA is a red herring in the first place.)

---

You keep saying red herring like you know what it means. Are you thinking that red herring means "most important" or "super critical" or 'the law this all hinges on"? If you mean red herring in that context, then you would be closer to being in the realm of correct.

You also keep conflating in the classification status of the documents which are not included in the actual charges and the classification status of the documents has been entirely irrelevant as noted for nearly a year now.

To clear this up for others. The DOJ used the terminology "documents with classified markings" specifically in the warrant and the indictment. They then string together that "documents with classified markings" means "Presidential record" not "personal record" trying to negate any application of the PRA, thinking that allows them to skip that civil statute.

To head off any claim by Trump that he declassified, they went with Section 793 and the Espionage Act. If they wanted him on mishandling classified documents, then they would have layered on Section 798 charges.

That last part is important regarding the audio tape. It still does not show he discussed classified documents to someone no matter what he said on tape. How do we know the tape does not support that...? Well either Jack Smith doesn't know Jack **** about being a prosecutor or he knew he didn't have the goods to make that charge stick.

Again kids, do not take somones summary about red herrings at face value. They are typically... the red herring themselves.

Quote:

---

To clear this up for others. The DOJ used the terminology "documents with classified markings" specifically in the warrant and the indictment. They then string together that "documents with classified markings" means "Presidential record" not "personal record" trying to negate any application of the PRA, thinking that allows them to skip that civil statute.

---

I have already corrected you on this but sense you keep bringing it up…. The indictment says classified documents, and when it goes on to list them it lists them out with their classification markings. It is extremely clear they are talking about classified documents.

Manhattan said:

---

Quote:

---

To clear this up for others. The DOJ used the terminology "documents with classified markings" specifically in the warrant and the indictment. They then string together that "documents with classified markings" means "Presidential record" not "personal record" trying to negate any application of the PRA, thinking that allows them to skip that civil statute.

---

I have already corrected you on this but sense you keep bringing it up…. The indictment says classified documents, and when it goes on to list them it lists them out with their classification markings. It is extremely clear they are talking about classified documents.

---

Can you let Jack Smith know he included the wrong charges?

Gonna make it easy for you to research.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/09/trump-2nd-indictment-full-document-text-00101294

Just noticed something on the charges, the start date. When did the documents get to M-A-L?

The charges are essentially saying he broke the law the second he ceased to be President of the United States.

That can't be right, can it?

Scroll up

Manhattan said:

---

Scroll up

---

Sorry, those are Counts 1 to 31.

Pretty sure the last 6 are the ever nefarious "muh obstructables" bullshizzle.

fka ftc said:

---

Just noticed something on the charges, the start date. When did the documents get to M-A-L?

The charges are essentially saying he broke the law the second he ceased to be President of the United States.

That can't be right, can it?

---

A crime with a rolling start.

jrdaustin said:

---

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.

---

Regardless of the charges themselves, which I can at least understand there could be complication or debate over who actually has authority over the records, I have to say it's pretty amazing how far people are going to defend what was clearly, at a minimum, a careless sharing of classified information. Out of the whole indictment, this was the part that bothered me the most, because it definitively shows how little he cared about the national security implications of sharing sensitive information and apparently was treating it like some kind of trophy to show off.

And they just happened to catch this one on tape,which (I believe?) he knew was running. I can only imagine how many more times he likely did something similar without anyone recording? Not to mention the access anyone at ML who happened to have a bathroom key had to similarly sensitive information.

Like I said, I understand the debate over the charges themselves, don't think he'll end up being convicted but will be interested to see the actual case they present. But I don't understand the need to defend actions that are so objectively stupid, pointless, and possibly put actual lives at risk. YMMV

That was funny.

Oh, you mean you were serious...?

fka ftc said:

---

That was funny.

Oh, you mean you were serious...?

---

I believe the proper fka ftc reply to this would be a crying to the mods "flagged for trolling" type post, but since I don't take defending a lifelong democrat conman on a message board nearly as seriously as you apparently do I'll just assume you don't have an actual response.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Just noticed something on the charges, the start date. When did the documents get to M-A-L?

The charges are essentially saying he broke the law the second he ceased to be President of the United States.

That can't be right, can it?

---

A crime with a rolling start.

---

But the funny thing is, the news was reporting boxes were stacked in a parking lot outside the WH for the week before he left office. They had pictures of it because of course the press was exhilarated he was leaving office.

Somehow, the White House Office of Records Management and NARA were clueless however, that Trump would leave office on January 20, 2021. It was "unexpected" again.

Only inside the DC Swamp does that even make sense.

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Just noticed something on the charges, the start date. When did the documents get to M-A-L?

The charges are essentially saying he broke the law the second he ceased to be President of the United States.

That can't be right, can it?

---

A crime with a rolling start.

---

But the funny thing is, the news was reporting boxes were stacked in a parking lot outside the WH for the week before he left office. They had pictures of it because of course the press was exhilarated he was leaving office.

Somehow, the White House Office of Records Management and NARA were clueless however, that Trump would leave office on January 20, 2021. It was "unexpected" again.

Only inside the DC Swamp does that even make sense.

---

I wonder how the boxes were marked.

If they were marked as "Classified" or "Presidential Documents", then you might have something.

If they were marked "Property of Trump" or something to that effect, should they open the boxes to inspect their contents?

Quote:

---

If they were marked as "Classified" or "Presidential Documents", then you might have something.

---

Guess you missed the part where NARA had their counterpart in the White House.

What do you think they do? White House Office of Record Management? Organize his LPs and 45s?

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

captkirk said:

---

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

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) June 10, 2023

---

More than likely they have it (assuming Trump was actually holding one) but they just don't know which one it is. And if they can't figure it out from the contents of the audiotape, the people with which Trump was speaking could not figure it out either.

---

I guess that means Trump didn't show it to them

---

Were they all blind? I don't know that they do or do not know what the contents were. But it doesn't follow that if you don't know from an audiotape those physically there cannot know.


Trump uses the words "look", "read it", and "let's see here" in the audiotape. The depositions of those at that meeting will be rather fascinating, I'm sure.

---

These people were writers. Maybe even journalists. If they read the document, wouldn't that have been in a book or article somewhere?

---

Funny you mention this. The other day I was wondering who these writers were.

Short answer:
The Chief's Chief, by Mark Frank Meadows



Much longer version with my commentary added:
Between Mark Meadows testifying to the special counsel grand jury (in early June 2023?), and others connecting the dots across book interviews, it seems like his autobiography fits the bill.

What the indictment says about this recorded interview. The June 8 Trump indictment cites two examples, starting on Page 2, claiming:




Edit: All of below pertains to Example (a) above, the book interview.

Who the indictment says is in the room:
POTUS
a writer
a publisher
two members of his staff

Not sure if Meadows is in the room. You'd think he was as much of the book is based on these recorded interviews. I've never written an autobiography but I imagine publishers provide a writer(s) to help the primary author. The indictment states none possessed "a security clearance".

Does anything from that interview end up in the book? Regardless, there is speculation surrounding the following excerpt from the autobiography as mentioning the same plan of attack as the one cited/referenced in the indictment:



Does DOJ possess the same document mentioned by Trump in the recording? We don't know. We do not know whether the 4-page plan of attack document Trump mentions in The Chief's Chief is associated to any specific document # listed in the indictment. Actually, it is disputed whether Milley wrote the plan of attack himself, as Trump states. The closest is probably document #20, shown below. However, roughly two-thirds of the documents cited in the indictment are military or defense related (#3, #4, #8-14, #17-18, #20-22, #24-27, #29-31).

Does "showing" the document really matter for Trump? But as others here have noted, FPOTUS Trump is not being charged with any crime associated with "showing" classified documents to others, specifically. So perhaps this is added to the indictment's narrative to elicit concern. Note it's written into the introduction of the indictment. It's not specifically part of the 793(e) Espionage Act charge. Presumably DOJ has access to the interview recording audio from The Chief's Chief.



This raises an important question. Why do politicians and bureaucrats spend so much time interviewing, researching, and writing these books? Coming soon from the same publisher:



https://www.allseasonspress.com/store/p/tucker-by-chadwick-moore-preorder

Quote:

---

Does DOJ possess the same document mentioned by Trump in the recording? We don't know. We do not know whether the 4-page plan of attack document Trump mentions in The Chief's Chief is associated to any specific document # listed in the indictment. Actually, it is disputed whether Milley wrote the plan of attack himself, as Trump states. The closest is probably document #20, shown below. However, roughly two-thirds of the documents cited in the indictment are military or defense related (#3, #4, #8-14, #17-18, #20-22, #24-27, #29-31).

---

Milley has difficulty finding his ass without both hands and a spotter. LOL.

aggiehawg said:

---

Milley has difficulty finding his ass without both hands and a spotter. LOL.

---

Indeed. But to be fair, Trump likely had no way to test that theory before nominating Milley.