Quote:

---

They have that document to prove it was classified, right?

---

Last I saw, they did not.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They have that document to prove it was classified, right?

---

Last I saw, they did not.

---

That is my current understanding and I imagine will be key to any defense that "well no, it wasn't that one".

Of course, he can also play the "It was a signed DVD from Stormy I kept in a classified marked folder so Melania".

Even so, if he just waved the document and did not let the guy read it, have it, or make a copy then all that is moot.

As previously noted, he is also not charged with providing national defense information. Only having it after it had been asked for back. So all 37 counts are about the docs they found. The tape may or may not be related to one of those documents.

Think they are using that in the indictment to manipulate the narrative. Just like the photos of all the boxes. It's mean for noise and effect. And it's utterly despicable of Smith and Garland to conspire to mislead the American people.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They have that document to prove it was classified, right?

---

Last I saw, they did not.

---

Oooooh. That's unfortunate

They charged him over 31 documents. Their theory of the proving each retention charge clearly doesn't hinge on that audiotape about one particular document.

The audiotape is most clearly relevant to show Trump's general mindset and general knowledge. It also is a response ahead of time to any defense that "I declassified everything" and will require a lot of explaining away.

Since CNN got the tape, that means it came from the FBI.

CNN is their go to media outlet when they want to "leak" something.

I was told to go through my records and sort personal vs presidential, as I have the right to under the Presidential Records Act.

Boom. Clear, easy defense. If there were intelligent, honest people in Washington, DC.

But know, its always about "getting Trump".

Including the bull**** "show his mindset" which is a funny claim since the charges show they began the second he was no longer POTUS.

I guess maybe Smith didn't think it all through as much as he claims.

Banana republic, clown show, Trump broke no laws.

NEW: From Trump spokesperson:

“The audio tape provides context proving, once again, that President Trump did nothing wrong at all. The President is speaking rhetorically and also quite humorously about a very perverted individual, Anthony Weiner, who was deep inside the corrupt…

— Henry Rodgers (@henryrodgersdc) June 27, 2023

Is it possible CNN can F up the government case on Trump by leaking evidence against him?

Dan Scott said:

---

Is it possible CNN can F up the government case on Trump by leaking evidence against him?

---

That...

Would be ****ing HILARIOUS...

They're all tripping over their dicks to see how fast they can have him in shackles that if this screwed it up I'd literally LMAO (I'm fat, I could use the weight loss).

Still think Trump should file something at the supreme court.

File something on all these constitutional issues and let them say no.

Put the onus on the supreme court to do what they are supposed to do.

If they refuse to take up the case then at least we'll know where we are at.

Trump stays the case in the district court pending the outcome of concurrent appeals to the 11th circuit and the supreme court of the united states.

Give both higher court an opportunity to deal with the case right off the bat.

Both courts get an opportunity to take a preliminary look at these issues.

If both courts deny trump on this then at least he knows where he's at.

If either one of the courts take the case then it's a massive win for trump.

If both courts reject Trump then its probably a bigger win for Trump.

If both courts deny Trump here it's a bad look.

It lets him know that he's on for the long haul. Wrapped up in federal criminal trial for the next 3-years.

Trump trial is the new covid.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm also confused at you claiming Fed don't want to tell Trump who is on the list. The motion says they already provided it, and if that was false you know Trump lawyers would be all over that telling Cannon it was a lie.

---

She issued a paperless order. No hearing, no response required.

---

"No response required" because Trump's lawyers did not oppose the relief sought. That does not mean they were not allowed to file a response.

It's an absolute certainty Trump's lawyers would have let the Court know if the filing by government falsely states they had provided the list.

If the DOJ is going to leal evidence to CNN, then why is Trump burdened with any sort of restrictions.

I hope Cannon tells DOJ she is throwing the case out for them leaking evidence and limiting Trump's right to an impartial jury.

Can anyone explain how the tape exonerates Trump? I'm not seeing tht angle. I'd be focusing on crooked DOJ if I were his team, but can understand why Trump has to say something. Does he even believe this?

President Trump: “The Deranged Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, working in conjunction with the DOJ & FBI, illegally leaked and “spun” a tape and transcript of me which is actually an exoneration, rather than what they would have you believe.” pic.twitter.com/MiQ3j6S0aT

— Julia 🇺🇸 (@Jules31415) June 27, 2023

Trump told Brett Baier the documents were just magazines, anyone buying that?

So was the "interview" only two minutes? Isn't that the length of what CNN released? That is the complete tape?

It's not the complete interview, but I don't know how long the whole thing is.

How will the judge try and reign in Trump for violating the gag order?

Will Trump be threatened with jail time or substantial fines for talking about his ongoing criminal prosecution ... during the middle of a presidential campaign?

Seems to be shaping up that way.

This case is too much for a single district court judge to deal with.

It's a miscarriage of justice for a single judge to be put in a position of administering this kind of case.

Im Gipper said:

---

It's not the complete interview, but I don't know how long the whole thing is.

---

So out of context and people were laughing, because it sounded like he was joking? Without the full context, hard to determine very much.

How has he violated a "gag order"?

The way things are going so far, we might well see Trump jailed for violating the judicial process. We might not even sniff at a conviction before Trump is put behind bars.

You cannot enforce a gag order on a POTUS candidate. Clear 1st amendment violation.

It may be the case SCOTUS has to take. You are going to jail your rival political candidate to keep him from talking about the corrupt abuse of power by current POTUS directing his DOJ to prosecute his opponents and not prosecute his son?

That's not the America any of us want to live in.

Trump broke no laws. This was known before MAL was ever raided. You are colossally dumb or corrupt yourself to buy the case Smith is trying to sell.

He definitely could be joking. Does not sound like it, but as you said we don't have the full tape. That's a better way to play it than "exonerated".

Im Gipper said:

---

How has he violated a "gag order"?

---

You seem to still believe that laws and rules are applied to Trump without prejudice.

Im Gipper said:

---

He definitely could be joking. Does not sound like it, but as you said we don't have the full tape. That's a better way to play it than "exonerated".

---

What charges listed in the indictment does the tape relate to?

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

How has he violated a "gag order"?

---

You seem to still believe that laws and rules are applied to Trump without prejudice.

---

So can you answer the question? How has he (allegedly) violated any "gag order"?

Im Gipper said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

How has he violated a "gag order"?

---

You seem to still believe that laws and rules are applied to Trump without prejudice.

---

So can you answer the question? How has he (allegedly) violated any "gag order"?

---

Gag order on Trump is unconstitutional on its face, so impossible for him to violate. HTH.

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

He definitely could be joking. Does not sound like it, but as you said we don't have the full tape. That's a better way to play it than "exonerated".

---

What charges listed in the indictment does the tape relate to?

---

One of the documents in 1-31 is the assumption. They are using this tape to inflame passions (not technically permitted, but happens in every case) and to show he knew it was not declassified.

As I explained to you previously, and you now have explained to others, Trump isn't even charged with improperly disclosing anything. That worth pointing out again for anyone new that may show up and not dig back through pages and pages!

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

He definitely could be joking. Does not sound like it, but as you said we don't have the full tape. That's a better way to play it than "exonerated".

---

What charges listed in the indictment does the tape relate to?

---

Ship goes into this.

The issue will be does this particular audio connect to any particular document that is relevant in the case.
Was Trump referring to one of the 31 documents that have been charged?
The reporting SEEMS TO SUGGEST the answer is "no" -- whatever he was showing to the reporter is… https://t.co/VUATC7oqqV

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) June 27, 2023

Add the gag order to the list of constitutional issues in this case.

Anybody keeping track?

What are we up to now, or does it even matter?

Im Gipper said:

---

He definitely could be joking. Does not sound like it, but as you said we don't have the full tape. That's a better way to play it than "exonerated".

---

And in court, there is the concept of completeness. The state cannot just play one cherry picked excerpt and exclude the rest of the context.

There is also the question of "on background" or off of the record. Haven't read Meadows' book. Is this conversation referenced with quotes attributed to Trump?

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

How has he violated a "gag order"?

---

You seem to still believe that laws and rules are applied to Trump without prejudice.

---

So can you answer the question? How has he (allegedly) violated any "gag order"?

---

Gag order on Trump is unconstitutional on its face, so impossible for him to violate. HTH.

---

It helps to show me you aren't really up to speed on what the Order says.

Trump has done nothing that comes anywhere close to violating any "gag order."

You should call Trump to be his lawyer. You know more than his team does about the constitution! HTH! LOL!

Correct. Just like all the boxes in bathrooms and storage closets has nothing to do with the case.

Sort of like how classification status of the documents has nothing to do with the case.

This has all be known since before August 2022. Of course, I'm Gipper is now somehow saying he explained this to me which is sort of funny.

Im Gipper said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

How has he violated a "gag order"?

---

You seem to still believe that laws and rules are applied to Trump without prejudice.

---

So can you answer the question? How has he (allegedly) violated any "gag order"?

---

Gag order on Trump is unconstitutional on its face, so impossible for him to violate. HTH.

---

It helps to show me you aren't really up to speed on what the Order says.

Trump has done nothing that comes anywhere close to violating any "gag order."

You should call Trump to be his lawyer. You know more than his team does about the constitution! HTH! LOL!

---

I don't need to waste my time reading a "gag order" when enforcement of it explicitly violates Trump's first amendment rights. Again, happy to educate you on these things.

Quote:

---

An in court, there is the concept of completeness. The state cannot just play one cherry picked excerpt and exclude the rest of the context.

---

Yep. No way this clip is played for jury unless Team Trump gets to play the part it wants also!

Quote:

---

There is also the question of "on background" or off of the record. Haven't read Meadows' book. Is this conversation referenced with quotes attributed to Trump?

---

Has anyone read that book? loll.

I don't know what the book says, just know what it says on the tape. Can you explain what difference that makes here? Are you saying that if "off the record" it leans towards Trump kidding around? I could see that.