Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Rimbo 25928]

38 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Incredulity?

[The Dog 44044]

Judge Tanya is having none of Trump's shit:

 

[jimmyjazz 45926]

RAC1ST!  dERAGNED!

[tx ind 7013]

do we believe that he and his team are capable of not violating that?

[Biff Tannen 45682]

1 minute ago, tx ind said:

do we believe that he and his team are capable of not violating that?

I just watched a Netlix doc on John Gotti and one of the ways he beat a case was simply to pay off a juror.  I'm not sure why anyone would believe dotard, his cronies, and/or the republicans wouldn't try the exact same thing.

[Js1 85325]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I just watched a Netlix doc on John Gotti and one of the ways he beat a case was simply to pay off a juror.  I'm not sure why anyone would believe dotard, his cronies, and/or the republicans wouldn't try the exact same thing.

I'd take the money and then literally be on every fucking news channel, TikTok channel, Youtube streaming show, etc. about how Donald Trump and his lawyers bribed me, with receipts and everything.

[RomaVicta 29907]

17 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I'd take the money and then literally be on every fucking news channel, TikTok channel, Youtube streaming show, etc. about how Donald Trump and his lawyers bribed me, with receipts and everything.

An astonishingly beautiful woman.

[Hookah Horns 3083]

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I'd take the money and then literally be on every fucking news channel, TikTok channel, Youtube streaming show, etc. about how Donald Trump and his lawyers bribed me, with receipts and everything.

I'd think most of the payment would come after the hung jury. But then again, it's Dotard and his clown car legal team. 

[Brisketexan 105128]

2 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

I'd think most of the payment would come after the hung jury. But then again, it's Dotard and his clown car legal team. 

Yeah....if they try to bribe ANY juror who has been paying the slightest bit of attention to anything.....get the cash, ALL OF IT, up front.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

2 hours ago, TexasEd said:

It is still not up to a defendant or a judge to determine that but the ORCON.  In addition, the things that he reportedly took or that have been speculated on are not up for debate like how we would approach an attack on Iran's nuclear research facility, the operational capabilities of our nuclear submarines, lists of foreign intelligence sources/operatives, the extent that we know individuals in the US are compromised by the Russians, the details or sources on Mohammed bin Salman.  All of these are at the highest level.

 

 

We're kind of talking past each other here.

The offense with which Trump is charged is 18 USC 793(d).  That statute doesn't even use the word "classified information."  instead it uses the term "information relating to the national defense."

So, the issue then at trial is not whether he possessed "classified information," but whether he possessed "information relating to the national defense."  There is a correlation in that most classified information relates to the national defense, but again "classified" is not the element of proof.  Some information relating to the national defense is probably not classified. Similarly, some information that is classified does not relate to the national defense.

You start with the proposition that every criminal defendant in the United States is constitutionally entitled and permitted to examine, along with attorneys, every item of evidence that is to be used against them.

Got a problem with that?  Hope not.

So, when the government needs to use classified information to prove a criminal case, it has a problem:  waive its confidentiality at trial completely, or violate the defendants' constitutional rights.

CIPA tries to strike a balance there that permits the government to prosecute cases using classified material without placing it in the public record of a trial.  So, a defendant and/or the defendant's counsel, are going to be permitted to examine, to some degree, the contents of a classified document in order to determine if it is, in fact, information relating to the national defense.  It's up to the judge, and the court of appeals, to figure out where to strike that balance.

The odds are pretty good in most of those cases that it is, but to completely deny the defendant (or counsel) access to the documents means "just take the government's word for it." And that is not the way we do things in the US of A in criminal cases.

 

 

[TexasEd 8067]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

We're kind of talking past each other here.

The offense with which Trump is charged is 18 USC 793(d).  That statute doesn't even use the word "classified information."  instead it uses the term "information relating to the national defense."

So, the issue then at trial is not whether he possessed "classified information," but whether he possessed "information relating to the national defense."  There is a correlation in that most classified information relates to the national defense, but again "classified" is not the element of proof.  Some information relating to the national defense is probably not classified. Similarly, some information that is classified does not relate to the national defense.

You start with the proposition that every criminal defendant in the United States is constitutionally entitled and permitted to examine, along with attorneys, every item of evidence that is to be used against them.

Got a problem with that?  Hope not.

So, when the government needs to use classified information to prove a criminal case, it has a problem:  waive its confidentiality at trial completely, or violate the defendants' constitutional rights.

CIPA tries to strike a balance there that permits the government to prosecute cases using classified material without placing it in the public record of a trial.  So, a defendant and/or the defendant's counsel, are going to be permitted to examine, to some degree, the contents of a classified document in order to determine if it is, in fact, information relating to the national defense.  It's up to the judge, and the court of appeals, to figure out where to strike that balance.

The odds are pretty good in most of those cases that it is, but to completely deny the defendant (or counsel) access to the documents means "just take the government's word for it." And that is not the way we do things in the US of A in criminal cases.

 

 

Which is why his lawyers should get a list of document control numbers, redacted titles and and a brief description along the lines of "Document pertaining to the national defense and nuclear arsenal capabilities of [redacted]".   Not the documents.

[Foggy Notion 1202]

 

[TwiceHorn 31463]

3 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Which is why his lawyers should get a list of document control numbers, redacted titles and and a brief description along the lines of "Document pertaining to the national defense and nuclear arsenal capabilities of [redacted]".   Not the documents.

Not sure anyone is saying they should get the documents themseives, especially not Trump himself, but what you propose amounts to "taking the government's word for it."

Also, the CIPA processes not only govern what the defendants get but what gets shown to the jury.  The government is in a tough spot in choosing between exposing sensitive material and trying to ask a jury to "take our word for it."

Edited November 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45926]

3 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Which is why his lawyers should get a list of document control numbers, redacted titles and and a brief description along the lines of "Document pertaining to the national defense and nuclear arsenal capabilities of [redacted]".   Not the documents.

This is in line with what I was suggesting . . . they would literally have to challenge the idea that those documents with those registry numbers were not actually classified, and that would be impossible to prove.  I don't see why the content matters at all.

[tx 3 putt 76947]

What’s with the obsession with the law clerk in the Ny case ?

is that their defense strategy, keep going after the law clerk ?

[TwiceHorn 31463]

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is in line with what I was suggesting . . . they would literally have to challenge the idea that those documents with those registry numbers were not actually classified, and that would be impossible to prove.  I don't see why the content matters at all.

Because the legal issue for proof is not that it is "classified," it is that it contains national defense information.

Of course the odds that a properly classified document does not contain national defense information are small.

But in criminal defense, you can't leave a stone like that unturned, even if the odds of it being exculpatory are low.  Any criminal defense attorney worth a shit will be fighting tooth and nail to get as much of the classified documents as possible.  Failure to do so may even constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

What's supposed to happen in the Section 4 CIPA hearing is that the defense explains to the judge ("ex parte"), and maybe to the government ("adversarial"), what its theories are as to why the content of the classified document is relevant and forms an element of defense of the case, and the government explains to the judge why redactions, summaries, or substitute statements are adequate for the defense's purposes.  And in some cases, maybe most, the judge can't look at the documents in their entirety either.

It's a bit of a delicate thing for the judge and you want them to get it right and err in favor of the defense, in the general case.

Put it this way, if the process is too cavalier about the defendant's ability to review documents that are essential to the proof of the case, it's grounds for a very solid appeal with better than average odds of reversal.

Edited November 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Gil Bang 25954]

10 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

What’s with the obsession with the law clerk in the Ny case ?

is that their defense strategy, keep going after the law clerk ?

She's got a photo on insta with Chuck Shumer.

[Jatrain 288]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

She's got a photo on insta with Chuck Shumer.

Considering the photos of him and Epstein, the Dotard might want to reconsider this particular bit of #trumplogic.  

[jimmyjazz 45926]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Put it this way, if the process is too cavalier about the defendant's ability to review documents that are essential to the proof of the case, it's grounds for a very solid appeal and at best a reversal, at worst an outright dismissal.

Does Trump still have a security clearance that would allow him to view those documents?  Do his attorneys?

[atomheartbevo 89660]

2 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

Considering the photos of him and Epstein, the Dotard might want to reconsider this particular bit of #trumplogic.  

[TwiceHorn 31463]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Does Trump still have a security clearance that would allow him to view those documents?  Do his attorneys?

His attorneys were required to get one at the outset.  That's a subsidiary issue:  it is often easier to justify disclosing to counsel only, than to the defendant himself.

But the default condition in American courts is defendants, themselves, get to see everything.  Any deviation from that constitutionally-required scheme can be viewed with suspicion.

[The Dog 44044]

 

[jimmyjazz 45926]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

His attorneys were required to get one at the outset.  That's a subsidiary issue:  it is often easier to justify disclosing to counsel only, than to the defendant himself.

But the default condition in American courts is defendants, themselves, get to see everything.  Any deviation from that constitutionally-required scheme can be viewed with suspicion.

I'm sorry, but that's total horseshit.  I get it, "it's the standard".  If someone is thought to have illegally possessed and disclosed classified information that they had no right to possess or disclose, then the idea that the law demands they get to peruse it "just because" is fucked to the highest order and it's exactly the kind of shit that pisses all of us off when you go into your meemaw voice.

[Degenerate Gardner 4085]

20 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

In an era of deepfakes, this photo needed no embellishment. It’s really quite extraordinary if you can set aside the horror. 
 

It may be better than dogs playing poker.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Degenerate Gardner

[TwiceHorn 31463]

30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, but that's total horseshit.  I get it, "it's the standard".  If someone is thought to have illegally possessed and disclosed classified information that they had no right to possess or disclose, then the idea that the law demands they get to peruse it "just because" is fucked to the highest order and it's exactly the kind of shit that pisses all of us off when you go into your meemaw voice.

I mean, I get why you're mad, I guess.  

But you do understand the general importance in 99.9% of criminal cases that a defendant, and his lawyers, get to see all of the evidence the government intends to use against them, right?

It's not "just because."  It's a deviation from the constitutional standard.  That's not lightweight shit that you get to dismiss because you hate Trump. We don't have exceptions to the 4th, 5th or 6th Amendments just because the defendant is an extraordinary shithead.

That's why we have this CIPA thing and that's why it has to be handled with some nuance.

ETA:  Also, fuck your "meemaw voice" bullshit.  I'm sitting here trying to explain complicated shit that has its foundation in constitutional criminal procedure.  Things that protect us all from the government and that don't need to be eroded, even for a fuckhole like Donald Trump.

Edited November 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Beau Vine 54223]

11 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

I do like how Habba just sits there with perpetual fish lips like she is posing for selfie.   May not win the case but should get plenty of likes.

Well, she's not getting paid, so...

[jimmyjazz 45926]

It has nothing to do with hating Trump.  The idea that a person w/o clearance who is accused of (paraphrasing) illegallly possessing classified documents gets to view those documents is absurd.  I'm sure I've committed a grievous error in my language, and I beg your forgiveness in advance.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

23 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It has nothing to do with hating Trump.  The idea that a person w/o clearance who is accused of (paraphrasing) illegallly possessing classified documents gets to view those documents is absurd.  I'm sure I've committed a grievous error in my language, and I beg your forgiveness in advance.

For the record, I'm not personally advocating that Trump see them himself.  I think it's probably important that his lawyers see them to some extent.  It's not like going out and doing something illicit with them is penalty-free at this stage.  The lawyers have security clearances and are subject to the usual penalties and most of much of this stuff can't be removed from a SCIF or other secured facility (in stark contrast to how this stuff seems to be handled around the White House).

And there's also the "cat of out the bag problem."  Ostensibly Trump has already seen this stuff and done whatever he did with it. So, it's not really that absurd to grant him, or certainly his lawyers, some access to the materials under closely controlled conditions.  If he hadn't already seen this stuff, seems like maybe his guilt is a bit in doubt, no?

But the other issue here is what Trump/his lawyers get to see is what gets shown to the jury.  Whatever that is needs to  be sufficient to convince a jury that he violated the statute by impermissibly handling information relating to the national defense.  

Because the offense doesn't deal specifically with "classified information," it's probably insufficient to just wave around a bunch of documents and tell the jury "see that stamp"?  There has to be some information or testimony to indicate that is is in fact information relating to the national defense.  And that's probably going to take more than a witness saying, "well it's classified, of course it relates to national defense" or "I've read it in its entirety and can tell you that it relates to the national defense, but I can't tell you what it says."  How the hell can you cross-examine that guy?  This is where it starts to become "take our word for it."

Constitutionally, we don't really want the government to be able to just say "take our word for it," but more practically important is there has to be enough to sustain a conviction by convincing the jury that this wasn't just Putin's brownie recipe with a bunch of ominous stamps on it (a bit of a joke).

Edited November 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[dcbc 14482]

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, no one has ever said she was a very good judge.  She hasn't been on the bench long enough, period, to make a decision either way.  She is also fairly underqualified despite the ABA's evaluation.

I might have said I expected her to hit the mean as far as attempting to do justice fairly.  But, at this point, I'm not seeing that.

[atomheartbevo 89660]

2 hours ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

In an era of deepfakes, this photo needed no embellishment. It’s really quite extraordinary if you can set aside the horror. 
 

It may be better than dogs playing poker.

If it was offered in a large velvet wall hanging...

[TwiceHorn 31463]

12 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I might have said I expected her to hit the mean as far as attempting to do justice fairly.  But, at this point, I'm not seeing that.

It would be massively interesting to get an in-depth interview with her clerks from this period at some point in the future.

[dcbc 14482]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It would be massively interesting to get an in-depth interview with her clerks from this period at some point in the future.

I'm guessing they'd be low comment until they found their golden parachutes.

Edited November 3, 2023 by dcbc

[SydneyCarton 48099]

8 hours ago, Foggy Notion said:

 

I don’t really understand the purpose of releasing a video like this while the trial is still underway? It’s not changing anyone’s minds, and it just perpetuates the idea she’s going after trump for just political reasons. It’s not much different than trump holding press rounds right outside the courtroom. I guess it will likely enrage him, that’s something. 

[Bookman 4639]

8 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

That's fake news. That document clearly says "Do not write below this line" and there are clear markings below that line.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

On the idea that Trump and lawyers get to see the top secret docs, it makes no sense.

say I break into the Pentagon and a subsequent safe in the Joint Chief’s office. I see a folder labeled “Top Secret - nuclear codes.” It’s the codes that cannot be changed to launch the nuclear weapons.  I grab it, without opening the folder, and as I exit out the window, I’m tackled by security and arrested.

Now I can understand that the defense and jury are allowed to see a photocopy of the folder itself that is clearly labeled Top Secret but they shouldn’t get to peruse the contents of that folder just because the defendant stole it. 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

 

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

4 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Can’t those Saudi billions pay for a private jet to get her to NYC? Perhaps she shouldn’t have been involved in fraud and she wouldn’t be required to testify to it in 2023.

[RomaVicta 29907]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Things that protect us all from the government and that don't need to be eroded, even for a fuckhole like Donald Trump.

[Biff Tannen 45682]

On 11/1/2023 at 9:53 AM, SilasCoade said:

I would love to see the case for who was worse. Trump alienated allies, reduced global influence, mishandled a public health crisis, actively strove to divide the citizenry, and, yeah, attempted a coup in the laziest most slap dash way possible.

“Mishandled” is extremely generous 

[conVINCEd 21469]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

“Mishandled” is extremely generous 

“Denied the existence of” work better for you?

[Biff Tannen 45682]

4 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

“Denied the existence of” work better for you?

And then subsequently made worse by vilifying Fauci, telling people to inject bleach and eat horse paste. 

[RomaVicta 29907]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

And then subsequently made worse by vilifying Fauci, telling people to inject bleach and eat horse paste. 

And. They. Did. It.

 

I.W.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don’t really understand the purpose of releasing a video like this while the trial is still underway? It’s not changing anyone’s minds, and it just perpetuates the idea she’s going after trump for just political reasons. It’s not much different than trump holding press rounds right outside the courtroom. I guess it will likely enrage him, that’s something. 

Definitely a little odd and kind of gratuitous.  In a criminal case, I think it would be against most local rules to comment on pending litigation like that, but things are a little less cautious surrounding civil cases.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

I am.

Absolutely.

Our courts should err on the side of protecting us from the criminal investigative and prosecution power of the government every single time, regardless of the identity of the defendant or the grievousness of the crimes.

The usual suspects up at 1 First Street, NE have some of these rights under assault even as we speak.  We don't need the ostensible good guys doing it too in a case of expediency because we believe the cause to be righteous.  This is the "good guys" version of leopards eating faces.

But most of all, people objecting to Trump's legal team receiving information about the classified documents aren't making any specific objection related to the likelihood of his conviction.  Doing this right, erring on the side of disclosure, is not going to get him acquitted.  It is, however, going to make it easier to affirm any conviction on appeal if the courts err in his favor, rather than the government's.

Edited November 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27664]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But most of all, people objecting to Trump's legal team receiving information about the classified documents aren't making any specific objection related to the likelihood of his conviction.  Doing this right, erring on the side of disclosure, is not going to get him acquitted.  It is, however, going to make it easier to affirm any conviction on appeal if the courts err in his favor, rather than the government's.

Galaxy brain to suggest giving classified documents to someone under investigation for espionage and improper handling of classified documents. Truly breathtaking. 

You are lending credibility to trump to suggest that there is some good faith reason for him to ask for this, and laundering it against a broad slippery slope argument for a defendant that is one of one. 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don’t really understand the purpose of releasing a video like this while the trial is still underway? It’s not changing anyone’s minds, and it just perpetuates the idea she’s going after trump for just political reasons. It’s not much different than trump holding press rounds right outside the courtroom. I guess it will likely enrage him, that’s something. 

Prosecutors aren't expected to be impartial toward those they accuse of crimes/fraud. The mountain of damning evidence tells anyone with half a brain the "political persecution!" narrative is regarded. As long as we're (stupidly, imo) making law enforcement officials elected politicians, I have no problem with stuff like this. 

[RomaVicta 29907]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am.

Absolutely.

Our courts should err on the side of protecting us from the criminal investigative and prosecution power of the government every single time, regardless of the identity of the defendant or the grievousness of the crimes.

The usual suspects up at 1 First Street, NE have some of these rights under assault even as we speak.  We don't need the ostensible good guys doing it too in a case of expediency because we believe the cause to be righteous.  This is the "good guys" version of leopards eating faces.

But most of all, people objecting to Trump's legal team receiving information about the classified documents aren't making any specific objection related to the likelihood of his conviction.  Doing this right, erring on the side of disclosure, is not going to get him acquitted.  It is, however, going to make it easier to affirm any conviction on appeal if the courts err in his favor, rather than the government's.

I'm on your side. Just a little humor to lighten the law dog throwdown in here.

[Dnaguy 11959]

12 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

[RomaVicta 29907]

11 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

[MissingInAction 25069]