Proof Of Jack Smith's Bias

[Independentthinker]

Surprise, surprise, Jack Smith refers to the audio recording of Trump's defense department's memo on Iran in his indictment of Trump of which they claim as proof that Trump did not declassify that particular document, pretty much admitting that Trump could declassify all of the other documents but hadn't declassified that particular one at the time of the Bedminster Golf Club incident. So, it shows up in his indictment of Trump. But, guess what? Trump wasn't actually charged for that particular memo, even though Jack Smith referred to it in his indictment of Trump. Why would Jack Smith refer to it in his indictment of Trump and yet not charge Trump for that incident? So, I guess after admitting that Trump could declassify all of the other documents but that one, they are charging Trump for all of other other documents that were declassified by Trump, except for that one. They have lost their case right out of the gate.

The document and recording are described in the indictment Smith's team secured against Trump earlier this month, recounted as an alleged meeting with "a writer, a publisher, and two members of" Trump's staff, "none of whom possessed a security clearance."

But according to a source familiar with the matter, Trump was not charged with unlawfully holding onto the Iran-related document discussed in the recording.

Iran memo not among 31 records underlying Trump federal charges

Former President Donald Trump was heard in a July 2021 meeting discussing "highly confidential" information he admitted he could no longer declassify.

www.yahoo.com

 

[excalibur]

Lawfare.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Surprise, surprise, Jack Smith refers to the audio recording of Trump's defense department's memo on Iran in his indictment of Trump of which they claim as proof that Trump did not declassify that particular document, pretty much admitting that Trump could declassify all of the other documents but hadn't declassified that particular one at the time of the Bedminster Golf Club incident. So, it shows up in his indictment of Trump. But, guess what? Trump wasn't actually charged for that particular memo, even though Jack Smith referred to it in his indictment of Trump. Why would Jack Smith refer to it in his indictment of Trump and yet not charge Trump for that incident? So, I guess after admitting that Trump could declassify all of the other documents but that one, they are charging Trump for all of other other documents that were declassified by Trump, except for that one. They have lost their case right out of the gate.

The document and recording are described in the indictment Smith's team secured against Trump earlier this month, recounted as an alleged meeting with "a writer, a publisher, and two members of" Trump's staff, "none of whom possessed a security clearance."

But according to a source familiar with the matter, Trump was not charged with unlawfully holding onto the Iran-related document discussed in the recording.

Iran memo not among 31 records underlying Trump federal charges

Former President Donald Trump was heard in a July 2021 meeting discussing "highly confidential" information he admitted he could no longer declassify.

www.yahoo.com

I would guess it was included in the indictments because it shows that Trump knew that documents were classified (not declassified just before he left office) and that he knew he was unable to declassify the documents after his presidency was over.

This contradicts some of his many different claims; that he didn't know they were classified or that he could declassify them whenever he wanted...and probably also that the FBI didn't plant them.

Let me reiterate that this is just my opinion and I am not lawyer.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Lawfare.

In what way?

 

[Independentthinker]

I would guess it was included in the indictments because it shows that Trump knew that documents were classified (not declassified just before he left office) and that he knew he was unable to declassify the documents after his presidency was over.

This contradicts some of his many different claims; that he didn't know they were classified or that he could declassify them whenever he wanted...and probably also that the FBI didn't plant them.

Let me reiterate that this is just my opinion and I am not lawyer.

It does the exact opposite. They are showing that that particular document Trump had admitted to that he did not declassify, which implies that Trump could declassify the others. Then they wind up not charging Trump with the very one they claim shows proof that Trump had not declassified at the time and then charge him with the others.

 

[candycorn]

He's biased toward the rule of law. No wonder you hate him.

 

[excalibur]

He's biased toward the rule of law. No wonder you hate him.

The Supreme Court must hate him as well when they smacked him [Jack Smith] down 8-0.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It does the exact opposite. They are showing that that particular document Trump had admitted to that he did not declassify, which implies that Trump could declassify the others.

I don't see this angle. He says in the recording that he could have declassified as president but now he can't because he is no longer president.

If you are talking about declassifying before the end of his presidency, of course he could do that but that isn't in contention nor do I think it applies to any of the existing indictments....but I haven't read it in a few days so maybe I'm forgetting something.

Then they wind up not charging Trump with the very one they claim shows proof that Trump had not declassified at the time and then charge him with the others.

This, again, is above my pay grade, I'm no laywer but I have read here and there that the reason he would not be charged for that is because that alleged crime happened in New Jersey and potentially different charges could be brought in New Jersey in the future.

 

[Independentthinker]

I don't see this angle. He says in the recording that he could have declassified as president but now he can't because he is no longer president.

If you are talking about declassifying before the end of his presidency, of course he could do that but that isn't in contention nor do I think it applies to any of the existing indictments....but I haven't read it in a few days so maybe I'm forgetting something.


This, again, is above my pay grade, I'm no laywer but I have read here and there that the reason he would not be charged for that is because that alleged crime happened in New Jersey and potentially different charges could be brought in New Jersey in the future.

Bottom line is, why does Jack Smith need Trump's testimony as to the legalities of declassifying? I mean, that's their proof - Trump's words? What about the written law?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Bottom line is, why does Jack Smith need Trump's testimony as to the legalities of declassifying? I mean, that's their proof - Trump's words? What about the written law?

If none of the indictments have to do with classification level of the documents, why does that matter?

 

[Independentthinker]

If none of the indictments have to do with classification level of the documents, why does that matter?

So, you're saying the documents weren't even classified or classified at a low level?

 

[Catsnmeters]

So, you're saying the documents weren't even classified or classified at a low level?

No, I am saying I believe the classification of the documents is a moot point because none of the indictments depend on any levels of classification.

Obstruction? Classification doesn't matter. Even if they were declassified, they weren't his.

Espionage? Again, the classification of the documents doesn't matter. The law applies to even unclassified documents.

"Trump is facing 31 counts on the Espionage Act alone, with a breakdown of the documents detailing that most of them dealt with intelligence collected on foreign countries or American military capabilities. The law prohibits improper retention of national defense information and does not require the documents be classified."

Trump indicted on 37 counts in Mar-a-Lago case

Donald Trump has been charged with 37 counts in relation to the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago as well as his efforts to block the government from recovering the documents. An ind…

www.google.com

I think conspiracy is the final indictment, which again, has nothing to do with the classification of the documents.

 

[Independentthinker]

No, I am saying I believe the classification of the documents is a moot point because none of the indictments depend on any levels of classification.

Obstruction? Classification doesn't matter. Even if they were declassified, they weren't his.

Espionage? Again, the classification of the documents doesn't matter. The law applies to even unclassified documents.

"Trump is facing 31 counts on the Espionage Act alone, with a breakdown of the documents detailing that most of them dealt with intelligence collected on foreign countries or American military capabilities. The law prohibits improper retention of national defense information and does not require the documents be classified."

Trump indicted on 37 counts in Mar-a-Lago case

Donald Trump has been charged with 37 counts in relation to the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago as well as his efforts to block the government from recovering the documents. An ind…

www.google.com

I think conspiracy is the final indictment, which again, has nothing to do with the classification of the documents.

There is zero proof of espionage. That is completely made up to get Trump. As far as obstruction goes, Bill Clinton obstructed justice regarding Monica Lewinsky. He got off. Hillary obstructed justice by deleting 30,000 emails against a subpoena and purposely damaged devices to wipe them clean and Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute that, proving that the prosecutors in the Trump case are unreasonable.

 

[Catsnmeters]

There is zero proof of espionage. That is completely made up to get Trump. As far as obstruction goes, Bill Clinton obstructed justice regarding Monica Lewinsky. He got off. Hillary obstructed justice by deleting 30,000 emails against a subpoena and purposely damaged devices to wipe them clean and Comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute that, proving that the prosecutors in the Trump case are unreasonable.

You don't have access to all the evidence and testimony so not sure how you can make this claim. Do you think the indictment is a lie?

Bill Clinton was President at the time and impeached for it.

Hillary claimed she and aid deleted personal emails and any work related emails that may have been deleted was accidental. It helps she is not on tape telling her friends that she purposely deleted work emails to avoid a subpoena.

Here is a quick blurb from the Washington post.

"Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-final-2016-presidential-debate/fact-check-trumps-claim-clinton-destroyed-emails-after-getting-a-subpoena-from-congress/

Your arguement seems to have fallen back on false equivalencies. Honestly I am not sure anything really compares to what Trump has allegedly done.

 

[Independentthinker]

You don't have access to all the evidence and testimony so not sure how you can make this claim. Do you think the indictment is a lie?

Bill Clinton was President at the time and impeached for it.

Hillary claimed she and aid deleted personal emails and any work related emails that may have been deleted was accidental. It helps she is not on tape telling her friends that she purposely deleted work emails to avoid a subpoena.

Here is a quick blurb from the Washington post.

"Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-final-2016-presidential-debate/fact-check-trumps-claim-clinton-destroyed-emails-after-getting-a-subpoena-from-congress/

Your arguement seems to have fallen back on false equivalencies. Honestly I am not sure anything really compares to what Trump has allegedly done.

They are weaponizing the DOJ for political purposes. Hillary could have been charged with 30,000 plus charges, one for each email she deleted against a subpoena. But, they didn't even charge her with one. And yet Trump must be charged. If Trump had done that he would have been indicted for 30,000 charges.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The MAGAt lawfare fails.

Trump confessed on the tape that it was secret and classified. Trump said that.

 

[Catsnmeters]

They are weaponizing the DOJ for political purposes. Hillary could have been charged with 30,000 plus charges, one for each email she deleted against a subpoena.

Did you not read my post regarding Hillary? It clearly starts the distinction.

But, they didn't even charge her with one. And yet Trump must be charged. If Trump had done that he would have been indicted for 30,000 charges.

They didn't charge her with one because of the reasons I provided in my post.

If you can refute those reasons I would love to see your perspective backed by linked substantiation.

 

[Billiejeens]

I would guess it was included in the indictments because it shows that Trump knew that documents were classified (not declassified just before he left office) and that he knew he was unable to declassify the documents after his presidency was over.

This contradicts some of his many different claims; that he didn't know they were classified or that he could declassify them whenever he wanted...and probably also that the FBI didn't plant them.

Let me reiterate that this is just my opinion and I am not lawyer.

You're braindead.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You're braindead.

What part do you disagree with?

Please be specific.

 

[Billiejeens]

What part do you disagree with?

Please be specific.

Your entire body of work.