Manhattan said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Proving that they were not magazines or golf course plans should be easy. But proving they were classified documents is a completely different story.

Will the other people in the room have personal knowledge of that? Based on the just the tape, I doubt it.

---

Well he named droped Miley, and I'm sure (Trump appointed) Miley would be willing to testify, that the documents described were real and classified.

---

Q. General Miley, you were not in the room when this conversation occurred, were you?

A. no.

Q. You don't know what was in President Trump's hand, do you?

A. no.

you didn't answer the question. you claim the documents have classification marking on it showing it is classified. which document is this one?

With Miley saying the documents exist, Trump describing the documents in a recording, and the people present saying they weren't magazines, there is no reasonable doubt.

BMX Bandit said:

---

you didn't answer the question. you claim the documents have classification marking on it showing it is classified. which document is this one?

---

Read what I said more closely. I didn't say I know that any of the documents have that marking. I said if they are marked and don't have a declassification marking, that serves a strong evidence that the document is classified

BREAKING: DOJ claims Trump is on tape showing classified docs on July 21, 2021, the docs have never been found

But 6 days before on July 15, the New Yorker had an article where Milley accused Trump of wanting to strike Iran

Is it possible he was just holding the article? pic.twitter.com/qt4RNtHLFR

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 28, 2023

here is what you said:

Quote:

---

If the 31 documents in the indictment are marked classified and don't have declassification markings on them, it won't be hard to prove they're classified, as that's some literal "prima facie" evidence that they're classified.

---

so, again, which of the 31 document in the indictment is being discussed by Trump on this tape?

the entire discussion I was having was how it will be difficult to prove the documents talked about by Trump are classified. You jumped in with the above comment, so explain how that pertains to the documents being discussed.

After the count stacking in Bragg's case gainst Trump, have to wonder if many of the specified 31 counts were separate pages of the same document? Particularly the ones which are specifically stated to be undated? The subject matters line up with recitations of matters which would be included in a full briefing. Historical background of capabilities, changes to those capabilities, possible reactions from other countries, including potential for military assistance, etc.

Quote:

---

Is it possible he was just holding the article?

---

Sure, its possible.

But they why would Trump say department of defense presented it to him and it was confidential?

so its possible, but not plausible based on current information.

Secret, he also said secret.

BMX Bandit said:

---

here is what you said:

Quote:

---

If the 31 documents in the indictment are marked classified and don't have declassification markings on them, it won't be hard to prove they're classified, as that's some literal "prima facie" evidence that they're classified.

---

so, again, which of the 31 document in the indictment is being discussed by Trump on this tape?

the entire discussion I was having was how it will be difficult to prove the documents talked about by Trump are classified. You jumped in with the above comment, so explain how that pertains to the documents being discussed.

---

I'm mostly saying its a much-a-do about nothing. As you believe and I believe the same, the audiotape is probably there for general purposes, most likely to cut against the generalized "I declassified everything" claim, and not because they need it to specifically prove any of the 31 documents included in the indictment are specifically classified. If they're marked classified, not marked declassified, that's really strong evidence and they don't need to cobble together something about the audiotape.

I will add, however, that if document referenced in the audiotape is one of the 31 in the indictment, and they actually don't have it, a tape of the defendant saying it "came from the military", "it is classified", and "it is a secret" is still significant evidence that the document was classified/secret. The defense would essentially have to tell the jury "the defendant is full of *****"

Context could also be that he declassified it when POTUS but couldn't now.

I think it's hilarious. Trump talks off the cuff and makes **** up to build whatever he is talking about all the time, and this might be time number 10,547 that the left takes him seriously as a reason they "got him". You'd think you guys would have learned by now...

Manhattan said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

Dems theory of the case: throw enough **** on the wall and some of it will stick.

---

Waving around classified Iran attack plans isn't "**** on the wall"

---

Do they have the document?

jt2hunt said:

---

Context could also be that he declassified it when POTUS but couldn't now.

---

Does someone in normal course say "I could have done something but I cannot now" if they did it back when they could?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

here is what you said:

Quote:

---

If the 31 documents in the indictment are marked classified and don't have declassification markings on them, it won't be hard to prove they're classified, as that's some literal "prima facie" evidence that they're classified.

---

so, again, which of the 31 document in the indictment is being discussed by Trump on this tape?

the entire discussion I was having was how it will be difficult to prove the documents talked about by Trump are classified. You jumped in with the above comment, so explain how that pertains to the documents being discussed.

---

I'm mostly saying its a much-a-do about nothing. As you believe and I believe the same, the audiotape is probably there for general purposes, most likely to cut against the generalized "I declassified everything" claim, and not because they need it to specifically prove any of the 31 documents included in the indictment are specifically classified. If they're marked classified, not marked declassified, that's really strong evidence and they don't need to cobble together something about the audiotape.

I will add, however, that if document referenced in the audiotape is one of the 31 in the indictment, and they actually don't have it, a tape of the defendant saying it "came from the military", "it is classified", and "it is a secret" is still significant evidence that the document was classified/secret. The defense would essentially have to tell the jury "the defendant is full of *****"

---

But isn't there a jurisidctional issue? He is charged with willfull retention in Florida, not New Jersey. And Trump is not charged with dissemination of classified material in the Florida indictment.

Phatbob said:

---

I think it's hilarious. Trump talks off the cuff and makes **** up to build whatever he is talking about all the time, and this might be time number 10,547 that the left takes him seriously as a reason they "got him". You'd think you guys would have learned by now...

---

"Are you talking off the cuff and making **** up now to build up your legal defense in this case?"

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

here is what you said:

Quote:

---

If the 31 documents in the indictment are marked classified and don't have declassification markings on them, it won't be hard to prove they're classified, as that's some literal "prima facie" evidence that they're classified.

---

so, again, which of the 31 document in the indictment is being discussed by Trump on this tape?

the entire discussion I was having was how it will be difficult to prove the documents talked about by Trump are classified. You jumped in with the above comment, so explain how that pertains to the documents being discussed.

---

I'm mostly saying its a much-a-do about nothing. As you believe and I believe the same, the audiotape is probably there for general purposes, most likely to cut against the generalized "I declassified everything" claim, and not because they need it to specifically prove any of the 31 documents included in the indictment are specifically classified. If they're marked classified, not marked declassified, that's really strong evidence and they don't need to cobble together something about the audiotape.

I will add, however, that if document referenced in the audiotape is one of the 31 in the indictment, and they actually don't have it, a tape of the defendant saying it "came from the military", "it is classified", and "it is a secret" is still significant evidence that the document was classified/secret. The defense would essentially have to tell the jury "the defendant is full of *****"

---

But isn't there a jurisidctional issue? He is charged with willfull retention in Florida, not New Jersey. And Trump is not charged with dissemination of classified material in the Florida indictment.

---

A jurisdictional issue with charging him in Florida for retaining a document for which you have an audiotape from Florida, which when taken at face value includes him having the document with him in Florida?

If that's what you're asking, no, I don't see that there would be a jurisdictional issue.

Phatbob said:

---

I think it's hilarious. Trump talks off the cuff and makes **** up to build whatever he is talking about all the time, and this might be time number 10,547 that the left takes him seriously as a reason they "got him". You'd think you guys would have learned by now...

---

But, but, you remember when he asked the Russians for Hillary's emails?

Quote:

---

which you have an audiotape from Florida,

---

So you are saying not the excerpt of the tape CNN released?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

which you have an audiotape from Florida,

---

So you are saying not the excerpt of the tape CNN released?

---

Ah, that's right, that excerpt was from Bedminster.

If they don't have evidence that that document in that excerpt of tape was ever in Florida, there would be a jurisdictional issue charging him for retention of that document in Florida. Further goes to my belief the tape isn't in the indictment to prove up whether any specific document is classified.

Wouldn't make the audiotape inadmissible evidence or anything like that, of course.

Quote:

---

The defense would essentially have to tell the jury "the defendant is full of *****"

---

And you think that's a tough pill for a jury to swallow? I mean…it is Trump.

He very well could have been holding the article and inferring that the plan discussed in the article was absolutely proposed by Milley, not Trump and he is saying that the plan (not the article) was secret / confidential and that he could have declassified the plan but did not.

Its telling that they did not lead with a raid of Bedminster and did not charge him there. If the incident on the tape related to the case against Trump, they would have led with that.

What many of you are falling for are the smoke and the mirrors.

"Look at all the folders on the ground!!"

"Anyone could just walk into M-A-L and sort through documents with national secrets in them whilst they sat on the crapper!!"

"Trump moved all of these boxes from here to there and back to here and then there and over there. Surely that means he is hiding stuff!!"

"Trump is obstructing justice by getting his lawyers to provide him counsel on how to respond to DOJ subpoena!! Hang him!!!"

Bunch of you folks going to look real silly falling for this diversion, just like you did on Russian collusion, pee pee tapes, quid pro quo's and Jan 6th violent coup / insurrection / overthrow of government.

I feel sad and pray for those falling for it. Particularly when they claim to know the laws and the Constitution. I don't pity the libs falling for it, other than their long suffering mental illness of being a lib.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

The defense would essentially have to tell the jury "the defendant is full of *****"

---

And you think that's a tough pill for a jury to swallow? I mean…it is Trump.

---

As a former trial attorney who has had the pleasure of being able to ask a witness, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" I have to admit, juries do find the current testimony in front of them is the truth more often than you'd think.

Quote:

---

I have to admit, juries do find the current testimony in front of them is the truth more often than you'd think.

---

Agree 100% with that! Jurors tend think that being in the courtroom with judge sitting over them make a witness more truthful than something said outside the courtroom.

Though here, I don't think that will be an issue because I don't see Trump taking the stand.

aggiehawg said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

Quote:

---

The defense would essentially have to tell the jury "the defendant is full of *****"

---

And you think that's a tough pill for a jury to swallow? I mean…it is Trump.

---

As a former trial attorney who has had the pleasure of being able to ask a witness, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?" I have to admit, juries do find the current testimony in front of them is the truth more often than you'd think.

---

That must have felt good to be able to say. What was the usual response?

Quote:

---

That must have felt good to be able to say. What was the usual response?

---

Oh they always said they were telling the truth now. In one case, both statements were under oath, to boot.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That must have felt good to be able to say. What was the usual response?

---

Oh they always said they were telling the truth now. In one case, both statements were under oath, to boot.

---

LOL!!!!

The stories you must have, mama Hawg.

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That must have felt good to be able to say. What was the usual response?

---

Oh they always said they were telling the truth now. In one case, both statements were under oath, to boot.

---

LOL!!!!

The stories you must have, mama Hawg.

---

Crap happens when you are at trial. Juries can be cray-cray. A lawyer can be killing it examining a witness but if the jury doesn't understand that, you still lose. And when the subject is impeaching credibility, they often do not without asking the were-you-lying-then-or-are-you-lying-now question to get them to focus on the discrepancy.

And as I have said, even then it doesn't always work if the witness presents a favorable demeanor. Demeanor carries a lot of weight with juries, I have found.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I have to admit, juries do find the current testimony in front of them is the truth more often than you'd think.

---

Agree 100% with that! Jurors tend think that being in the courtroom with judge sitting over them make a witness more truthful than something said outside the courtroom.

Though here, I don't think that will be an issue because I don't see Trump taking the stand.

---

Well, that's part of it, right? The most clear way to explain away the implications of the audiotape would be for Trump get up there and do it himself, but I cannot see him taking the stand even if his own attorneys took the extraordinary step of advising him he should...it seems to go against everything he believes in to allow himself to go get grilled by a "corrupt government lackey."

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I have to admit, juries do find the current testimony in front of them is the truth more often than you'd think.

---

Agree 100% with that! Jurors tend think that being in the courtroom with judge sitting over them make a witness more truthful than something said outside the courtroom.

Though here, I don't think that will be an issue because I don't see Trump taking the stand.

---

Well, that's part of it, right? The most clear way to explain away the implications of the audiotape would be for Trump get up there and do it himself, but I cannot see him taking the stand even if his own attorneys took the extraordinary step of advising him he should...it seems to go against everything he believes in to allow himself to go get grilled by a "corrupt government lackey."

---

I too doubt Trump would take the stand, not without his lawyers being very very successful in their motions in limine severly restricting the subject matter the state could ask on cross. And even then it would be risky with Trump rambling on and inadvertently opening the door and wiping out those pretrial rulings.

At any rate, I think the tape is a really annoying and problematic hurdle for the defense to jump over but, perhaps paradoxically, from a strictly legal standpoint doesn't deserve quite as much attention as it is getting.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I have to admit, juries do find the current testimony in front of them is the truth more often than you'd think.

---

Agree 100% with that! Jurors tend think that being in the courtroom with judge sitting over them make a witness more truthful than something said outside the courtroom.

Though here, I don't think that will be an issue because I don't see Trump taking the stand.

---

Well, that's part of it, right? The most clear way to explain away the implications of the audiotape would be for Trump get up there and do it himself, but I cannot see him taking the stand even if his own attorneys took the extraordinary step of advising him he should...it seems to go against everything he believes in to allow himself to go get grilled by a "corrupt government lackey."

---

I too doubt Trump would take the stand, not without his lawyers being very very successful in their motions in limine severly restricting the subject matter the state could ask on cross. And even then it would be risky with Trump rambling on and inadvertently opening the door and wiping out those pretrial rulings.

---

Even if Trump is innocent as a newborn dove, it still seems he'll find a way pain in the ass for his attorneys.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I have to admit, juries do find the current testimony in front of them is the truth more often than you'd think.

---

Agree 100% with that! Jurors tend think that being in the courtroom with judge sitting over them make a witness more truthful than something said outside the courtroom.

Though here, I don't think that will be an issue because I don't see Trump taking the stand.

---

Well, that's part of it, right? The most clear way to explain away the implications of the audiotape would be for Trump get up there and do it himself, but I cannot see him taking the stand even if his own attorneys took the extraordinary step of advising him he should...it seems to go against everything he believes in to allow himself to go get grilled by a "corrupt government lackey."

---

Na, he will overrule his lawyers' advice, get on the stand and tell it like he sees it. That is his MO. And it has largely worked for him for years. He won't change now. For the same reason he will debate DeSantis when it gets down to it.

He did not take the stand in the recent Jean Carroll civil trial. He also wisely pled the fifth amendment one question by New York authorities over the tax issue.

What is your basis for saying that is his MO to testify?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Even if Trump is innocent as a newborn dove, it still seems he'll find a way pain in the ass for his attorneys.

---

Never heard this saying. Do doves become less innocent as they age? Pigeons I can see leading a life of disgust and violence, but I thought doves were better than that.

This case will be dropped by Merrick Garland's replacement, likely before end of this year.