TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

So the DOJ is seeking a criminal conviction based on secreted evidence?

---

There is a reason Congress created and passed an entire act defining how courts should conduct trials regarding classified information. This is hardly a novel nor infrequent issue.

---

Ahh, I assume you're speaking of that 1917 act? And you're asserting that a 105 year old law applied for the first time ever to target a FPOTUS and current presidential candidate is NOT novel????

The trolls are definitely out today.

---

I'm speaking of CIPA

---

Wonderful. The point stands. CIPA procedures used in the prosecution of a former POTUS for how he handled documents from his own presidency post-office is still most certainly novel, much less infrequent, is it not?

Do you believe that Congress had this exact scenario in mind when they passed CIPA?

---

I'm not sure what the point about CIPA is. Not trying to be a smartass. I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

To answer the question, CIPA states it applies to "any defendant in any criminal case in a district court of the United States." I'm sure they did not think exactly about a former President being criminally prosecuted, unless Nixon or something came up. But I don't understand the point. CIPA's an evidentiary procedural rule. Under that standard, does any rule of criminal procedure or evidence apply to this case?

---

I'm not trying to be a smarass either, but you seem to enjoy arguing small points of minutiae around the edges rather than addressing the problems with the whole motive of the prosecution.

So let me try it this way. (It's going to ramble a bit because I have to leave and cannot completely organize this as I would like)

What is the actual crimes committed in the first 31 counts with respect to the documents? Set aside the obstruction for a moment. What is the government alleging? Is it:

• That Trump mishandled classified documents?
• That he failed to return NDI when asked?
• Some other offense that can be boiled down to a statement? I'm all ears.
• And when did the alleged crimes occur? On a specific date? Or on the day that documents arrived at Mar-A-Lago? The indictment counts list a range of dates beginning at Biden's inauguration.

Looking at the indictment, the governments seems to place a lot of emphasis on Trump's moving boxes as evidence of obstruction, and I understand that he was told at some point to refrain from accessing any of the boxes after the 15 were given.

But.... Under the PRA, a FPOTUS has the right to designate personal vs. presidential vs. NDI documents. How does he do this without being able to access said boxes? It has been argued that he should have done it before he left office. But can a single POTUS be named that did that? It seems the expectation was that Trump should have secluded himself for weeks to personally go through each box and CORRECTLY make the determination that would be 100% in agreement with the government. THAT'S the expectation.

So again, CIPA procedures are relevant - and NOVEL - in that we're not talking about somone who took a classified document home in a briefcase. We're talking about 100 documents that were buried in God knows how many boxes that were seized from a former POTUS who believed he was acting under the confines of the PRA. (I find it curious that I could not find the number of boxes seized - only 102 documents with classifcation markings)

To me, the government is alleging that this is a BIG DEAL based upon the classification markings. But they weren't looking for specific documents when they raided Mar-A-Lago. They were hoping. We don't know what those documents really say, and we DO know that a POTUS would have all types of classified documents cross his desk. Some serious, some not-so-serious. If they try CIPA procedures, the motive could easily be to overstate the actual impact on National Security. Again, we all know that this is a political action - not a law-enforcement action. The Espionage Act is simply the tool.

I'm sorry if the above is confusing. But I believe the indictment was designed to be confusing.

Is the dispute involving handling of presidential records considered a political question within the meaning of Supreme Court precedent because the discretionary power over it should be left to the politically accountable branches of government (i.e., the President and Congress)?

And bonus question before I clock out for the day.

Should the US Supreme Court make that determination before or after the presidential election?

Well, I've never been to Heaven
But I've been told streets up there
Are lined with gold
Keep your hand on that plow, hold on
Oh Lord, oh Lord, keep your hand on that plow, hold on
Oh Lord, oh Lord, keep your hand on that plow, hold on
Oh Lord, oh Lord, keep your hand on that plow, hold on

Quote:

---

It's him functionally defecting. With 4 years of knowledge of this country's deepest and most closely held secrets residing between his ears.

---

You keep posting this fan fiction, but it's not going to happen. Trump is not a traitor.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Is the dispute involving handling of presidential records considered a political question within the meaning of Supreme Court precedent because the discretionary power over it should be left to the politically accountable branches of government (i.e., the President and Congress)?

And bonus question before I clock out for the day.

Should the US Supreme Court make that determination before or after the presidential election?

---

If they choose to punt if that question is directly posed to them? Sure, they can take that position that it is a political question. They refused to address ObamaCare head on by not defining what a "tax" was.

But procedurally I don't think that question gets to them unless Cannon dismisses the indictment against Trump and Smith appeals to the 11th Circuit. They reverse and Trump appeals to SCOTUS.

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

So the DOJ is seeking a criminal conviction based on secreted evidence?

---

There is a reason Congress created and passed an entire act defining how courts should conduct trials regarding classified information. This is hardly a novel nor infrequent issue.

---

Ahh, I assume you're speaking of that 1917 act? And you're asserting that a 105 year old law applied for the first time ever to target a FPOTUS and current presidential candidate is NOT novel????

The trolls are definitely out today.

---

I'm speaking of CIPA

---

Wonderful. The point stands. CIPA procedures used in the prosecution of a former POTUS for how he handled documents from his own presidency post-office is still most certainly novel, much less infrequent, is it not?

Do you believe that Congress had this exact scenario in mind when they passed CIPA?

---

I'm not sure what the point about CIPA is. Not trying to be a smartass. I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

To answer the question, CIPA states it applies to "any defendant in any criminal case in a district court of the United States." I'm sure they did not think exactly about a former President being criminally prosecuted, unless Nixon or something came up. But I don't understand the point. CIPA's an evidentiary procedural rule. Under that standard, does any rule of criminal procedure or evidence apply to this case?

---

I'm not trying to be a smarass either, but you seem to enjoy arguing small points of minutiae around the edges rather than addressing the problems with the whole motive of the prosecution.

So let me try it this way. (It's going to ramble a bit because I have to leave and cannot completely organize this as I would like)

What is the actual crimes committed in the first 31 counts with respect to the documents? Set aside the obstruction for a moment. What is the government alleging? Is it:

• That Trump mishandled classified documents?
• That he failed to return NDI when asked?
• Some other offense that can be boiled down to a statement? I'm all ears.
• And when did the alleged crimes occur? On a specific date? Or on the day that documents arrived at Mar-A-Lago? The indictment counts list a range of dates beginning at Biden's inauguration.

Looking at the indictment, the governments seems to place a lot of emphasis on Trump's moving boxes as evidence of obstruction, and I understand that he was told at some point to refrain from accessing any of the boxes after the 15 were given.

But.... Under the PRA, a FPOTUS has the right to designate personal vs. presidential vs. NDI documents. How does he do this without being able to access said boxes? It has been argued that he should have done it before he left office. But can a single POTUS be named that did that? It seems the expectation was that Trump should have secluded himself for weeks to personally go through each box and CORRECTLY make the determination that would be 100% in agreement with the government. THAT'S the expectation.

So again, CIPA procedures are relevant - and NOVEL - in that we're not talking about somone who took a classified document home in a briefcase. We're talking about 100 documents that were buried in God knows how many boxes that were seized from a former POTUS who believed he was acting under the confines of the PRA. (I find it curious that I could not find the number of boxes seized - only 102 documents with classifcation markings)

To me, the government is alleging that this is a BIG DEAL based upon the classification markings. But they weren't looking for specific documents when they raided Mar-A-Lago. They were hoping. We don't know what those documents really say, and we DO know that a POTUS would have all types of classified documents cross his desk. Some serious, some not-so-serious. If they try CIPA procedures, the motive could easily be to overstate the actual impact on National Security. Again, we all know that this is a political action - not a law-enforcement action. The Espionage Act is simply the tool.

I'm sorry if the above is confusing. But I believe the indictment was designed to be confusing.

---

Note that there is an argument to be made that the documents in question were Agency Documents, not Presidential Records. If that is the case, the PRA quite possibly not apply.

That said, I'm not convinced that they aren't Presidential Records.

In my view, it's not that Trump possessed the documents but that he did not return them when found and did not return them when asked for them or when they were subpoenaed. That isn't Trump's decision to make.

CIPA is merely a procedural statute laying out a process for a judge, prosecution, and defense to figure out how much of the content of facially classified materials the defense and jury need to see in order for the defendant to get a fair trial. CIPA mostly serves to get questions which would come up anyways as both sides haggle about discovery and evidence out of the way earlier in the process than they otherwise would.

CIPA's been applied 100s of times and Trump has no more and no less a right to a fair trial than any other American. There would be nothing novel about its use in this trial.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

CIPA is merely a procedural statute laying out a process for a judge, prosecution, and defense to figure out how much of the content of facially classified materials the defense and jury need to see in order for the defendant to get a fair trial.

CIPA's been applied 100s of times and Trump has no more and no less a right to a fair trial than any other American. There would be nothing novel about its use in this trial.

---

While I agree conductig trials under CIPA happen and are not unusual, its use here would produce a lot of grumbling and questions. Closed courtroom, no press, everything filed under seal, etc.

Optics would be that Trump was being tried by a Star Chamber and not a public trial.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

CIPA is merely a procedural statute laying out a process for a judge, prosecution, and defense to figure out how much of the content of facially classified materials the defense and jury need to see in order for the defendant to get a fair trial.

CIPA's been applied 100s of times and Trump has no more and no less a right to a fair trial than any other American. There would be nothing novel about its use in this trial.

---

While I agree conductig trials under CIPA happen and are not unusual, its use here would produce a lot of grumbling and questions. Closed courtroom, no press, everything filed under seal, etc.

Optics would be that Trump was being tried by a Star Chamber and not a public trial.

---

Would they close the entire courtroom for the entire trial? Or only for parts with discussions of the classified documents?

Up to the judge. But given the number of the counts here, it would almost have to be the vast majority of the evidenciary portion of the trial, including opening and closing statements.

aggiehawg said:

---

Up to the judge. But given the number of the counts here, it would almost have to be the vast majority of the evidenciary portion of the trial, including opening and closing statements.

---

Thanks.

I doubt CIPA will end up with any kind of closed or restricted access to the court room. That's a high Constitutional bar which I don't think DOJ wants to wade into.

It might end up with us (the public) not seeing the documents themselves (Silent Witness Rule), or they just settle on some level of redactions to the documents that everyone sees as if its a normal piece of evidence at a normal trial. We just won't know what's redacted. Always possible they stipulate certain facts to the jury to further limit what needs to get brought up at trial.


I believe it is safe to assume the DOJ carefully thought through these scenarios as they selected what to charge and what not to charge Trump and Nauta with.

I think its pretty clear there will be a extreme amount of grumbling no matter what happens. But I agree with the above poster. They will do their best to and more so, are required to do their best, to avoid closing a court room to the public.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

I think its pretty clear there will be a extreme amount of grumbling no matter what happens. But I agree with the above poster. They will do their best to and more so, are required to do their best, to avoid closing a court room to the public.

---

LOL. You are obviously unfamiliar with Smith and Gilbert, the prosecutors then. They are both highly unethical cheaters.

Quote:

---

But procedurally I don't think that question gets to them unless Cannon dismisses the indictment against Trump and Smith appeals to the 11th Circuit. They reverse and Trump appeals to SCOTUS.

---

This case needs to go away.

This has got to get settled.

There needs to be some political negotiation to end all this.

There also needs to be some settled law with respect to all of these constitutional issues.

You can't have a functioning government centered around trying to imprison your political opponent.

So somebody has got to come up with a plan to end this case in the most efficient way possible and get a judicial decision on all of these issues..

The judge could dismiss the indictment like you say. And there be no appeal. That's within the realm of possibility. But there is no finality to the matter.

Problem is that without a judicial opinion the odds of this happening again are probably high.

So as far as getting a final resolution to this case as fast as possible. If done in a linear fashion that takes a minimum of three years. I don't see how it happens faster than that.

We are looking at the 2023 equivalent of bread and circuses at the Colosseum.

Keeping people distracted from whatever is going on in the background.

Trump is gonna spend a huge amount of his own money to defend this case. I wouldn't be surprised if they treat donations to Trump's legal defense fund like they did with donations to the Canadian truckers during covid.

For all the Trumper Pretend Attorneys who think they have solved the case:

Attorney General Barr Demolishes the Trump Defenders Legal claims
And who appointed William Barr as the Attorney General?

"Some have tried to frame this affair as a simple custody dispute over documents. Trump's apologists have conjured up bizarre arguments that the Presidential Records Act, a statute meant to prohibit former presidents from removing official documents from the White House, should be interpreted as giving Trump carte blanche to remove whatever he wants, even if it is unquestionably an official document.

These justifications are not only farcical, they are beside the point. They ignore the central reason the former president was indicted: his calculated and deceitful obstruction of a grand jury subpoena.

That Trump had no right to remove national defense documents from the White House is beyond debate. These documents are the very quintessence of the materials that the law expressly forbids an outgoing president from taking with him.

Under the Presidential Records Act, when there is a change in administrations, official documents related to the conduct of government business must remain under ownership, custody, and control of the government.

The only documents a departing president is allowed to take with him are "purely private" documents unrelated to official duties, such as "diaries, journals, or other personal notes. . . which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business."

Obviously, the documents at issue here were generated and used by defense, intelligence, and other national security officials, and they were provided to the president to carry out the business of the government. There is simply no universe in which these could be deemed "purely private" papers like a diary.

That's why Trump's apologists don't even attempt to contend that the documents are private. Instead, they advance a ludicrous argument - perhaps even crazier than their argument that Vice President Pence could unilaterally decide the election on January 6-

that an outgoing president has absolute "discretion" to label any document "private," even if the document indisputably falls outside the statutory definition of "private."

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

But procedurally I don't think that question gets to them unless Cannon dismisses the indictment against Trump and Smith appeals to the 11th Circuit. They reverse and Trump appeals to SCOTUS.

---

This case needs to go away.

This has got to get settled.

There needs to be some political negotiation to end all this.

There also needs to be some settled law with respect to all of these constitutional issues.

You can't have a functioning government centered around trying to imprison your political opponent.

So somebody has got to come up with a plan to end this case in the most efficient way possible and get a judicial decision on all of these issues..

The judge could dismiss the indictment like you say. And there be no appeal. That's within the realm of possibility. But there is no finality to the matter.

Problem is that without a judicial opinion the odds of this happening again are probably high.

So as far as getting a final resolution to this case as fast as possible. If done in a linear fashion that takes a minimum of three years. I don't see how it happens faster than that.

---

You don't have any confidence at all that Trump is innocent, do you?

That's it, you got it all sorted out.

Trump should be sent away to prison over document disputes and consulting with his attorney.

Justice in the World of LM Cane ensures that people they do not like are persecuted to the fullest, and establishment folks they aim to protect are guarded by the absolutely unbiased DOJ / FBI (that unbiased news, particularly towards Trump, was shown clearly in their review of the Durham report).

Finally, in the World of LM Cane the FBI raid is somehow related to January 6th.

Seems legit, well informed take. Plus +1 for you.

BREAKING: Democrats introduce a bill to "make everything Trump does illegal", so they can finally nail him on a crime.

— Cantaloupe News (@CantaloupeNews) June 11, 2023

annie88 said:

---

BREAKING: Democrats introduce a bill to "make everything Trump does illegal", so they can finally nail him on a crime.

— Cantaloupe News (@CantaloupeNews) June 11, 2023

---

You joke, but one of the Dem congressrats this morning essentially said as much when yelling at Durham this morning, essentially telling him that he and his legacy will go down along with Trump and that EVERYTHING Trump does is corrupt.

TDS is alive and real in many, many people.

eric76 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

But procedurally I don't think that question gets to them unless Cannon dismisses the indictment against Trump and Smith appeals to the 11th Circuit. They reverse and Trump appeals to SCOTUS.

---

This case needs to go away.

This has got to get settled.

There needs to be some political negotiation to end all this.

There also needs to be some settled law with respect to all of these constitutional issues.

You can't have a functioning government centered around trying to imprison your political opponent.

So somebody has got to come up with a plan to end this case in the most efficient way possible and get a judicial decision on all of these issues..

The judge could dismiss the indictment like you say. And there be no appeal. That's within the realm of possibility. But there is no finality to the matter.

Problem is that without a judicial opinion the odds of this happening again are probably high.

So as far as getting a final resolution to this case as fast as possible. If done in a linear fashion that takes a minimum of three years. I don't see how it happens faster than that.

---

You don't have any confidence at all that Trump is innocent, do you?

---

Trumps gotta come to Jesus man.

That's what I been sayin' this whole time but you ain't pay attention.

It seems likely to me that you can't have a functioning government if the leaders in the government and and former leaders in the government are exempt from prosecution. They must be held to the same standards as all other citizens or the entire basis of our Democratic Republic is unsound.

That's the problem. One party is exempt and the other isn't. We know how trump got his documents but how did Biden get his documents if he was just a senator? DOJ and FBi are a bunch of political hacks.

Biden's came from his time as vice president.

Nope it was his time from senate and VP. So how did a senator get to take home classified documents. I'm sure the doj is on top of it.

RogerFurlong said:

---

Nope it was his time from senate and VP. So how did a senator get to take home classified documents. I'm sure the doj is on top of it.

---

Do you have any citations to show that?

My understanding was that they were the Obama-Biden Administration.

In any event, Biden appears to have willingly returned them. If Trump had done the same, then it doesn't seem likely that they would have pursued him criminally. I think that Trump's problems are because of his obstruction.

eric76 said:

---

RogerFurlong said:

---

Nope it was his time from senate and VP. So how did a senator get to take home classified documents. I'm sure the doj is on top of it.

---

Do you have any citations to show that?

My understanding was that they were the Obama-Biden Administration.

In any event, Biden appears to have willingly returned them. If Trump had done the same, then it doesn't seem likely that they would have pursued him criminally. I think that Trump's problems are because of his obstruction.

---

Biden still had no authority to have them in his personal possession and outside of a SCIF. He would literally need a note or tape recording from Obama saying those specific documents were declassified.

It makes Biden's situation drastically WORSE.

And just because you return a stolen car does not mean you are innocent of stealing the car.

Trump cannot obstruct justice for a crime that never occurred. Hope this helps clear things up, you seem to continue to struggle keeping up with the facts and the laws regarding these cases.

Quote:

---

Jan. 21

• Richard Sauber, a member of the White House Counsel's Office, said additional classified documents were discovered during a Jan. 20 search at Biden's Wilmington, Delaware, home.
• Bob Bauer, Biden's personal attorney, said in a separate statement that the search by the Department of Justice took almost 13 hours to complete, but neither Biden or first lady Jill Biden were present.
• Six items containing classified document markings were discovered during the search, Bauer's statement said. Some of the documents were from Biden's time in the Senate, as well as his vice presidency. Handwritten notes from Biden's vice presidential years were also taken for further review.

---

Axios

Trumps problem is he's a republican that didn't go along to get along like Biden does. He stole classified documents but it's ok because his lawyers who don't have clearance reviewed and returned them.

I don't agree with Eric very often but at least he's a very nice person who states his premises, theories, and ideas.

I like him much better than some other people who I actually agree with more.

fka ftc said:

---

annie88 said:

---

BREAKING: Democrats introduce a bill to "make everything Trump does illegal", so they can finally nail him on a crime.

— Cantaloupe News (@CantaloupeNews) June 11, 2023

---

You joke, but one of the Dem congressrats this morning essentially said as much when yelling at Durham this morning, essentially telling him that he and his legacy will go down along with Trump and that EVERYTHING Trump does is corrupt.

TDS is alive and real in many, many people.

---

Yup. Many on this site. No, the guy is being funny about it but he is being truthful.