Smith's patience has expired.

[Seymour Flops]

View attachment 928462

The point is that once the documents are determined to be personal, it makes sense to send them to his personal home. They don't cease to be personal just because his term in the White House ends.

And of course, once the snippet is examined in context, the rest of the story is that "while in office". FPOTUS#45 isn't in office and is not charged under the Espionage Act for any actions while in office.

You put the phrase "while in office," in quotes, but I don't see that phrasse in the snippet you presented. What part of that ruling says that the documents the president deems personal change to presidential when he leaves office?

All of FPOTUS#45's charges in the documents case stem from after leaving office for his failure to return US Government owned national defense information.

WW

That is the prosecutions claim. To support that claim, they would have to place the alleged national defense documents in evidence, and to give the defense a fair chance to refute that claim, they would have to provide copies of the alleged national defense documents to the defendant's attorneys.

But . . . Smith claims that the jury and Trump's legal team are not trustworthy enough to see classified information. They're gonna pick twelve people and give them the power to over-rule the wishes of the majority of voters as to who should be the next president. But also claim that those twelve people cannot be give security clearances in order to be able to see the evidence? Members of the Bar, Officers of the Court, but they also are not to be trusted?

That's what prompted Judge Cannon to ask for a draft of jury instructions. She was trying to accommodate Smith's rather absurd request not to show evidence central to the case to the jury, by exploring whether it is possible that jury instructions could be crafted that would make it a fair trial, in spite of the defendant not being shown the evidence in order to refute it.

I think she was using a little socratic irony on Smith. She knows that such an evidence-free, but fair, trial is not really possible, and hoped that her challenge to Smith would prompt him to see that for himself. But Smith is an incredibly stubborn person, who can never admit that he is wrong. That's why he has gotten spanked by the courts so many times when going after politicians.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you have any statute or case law that says that the judge has to decide the jury instructions before the jury has heard the case?

That's the mistake. If FPOTUS#45 team HADN'T attempted to inject the PRA in pre-trial motions, then it would have been an issue to decide at trial outside of the juries presence.

However by raising it now, it becomes a pre-trial issue because the Judge issued an order for jury instruction inputs and due to the erroneous interpretation of the law, she has opened herself up for an interlockery appeal and the 11th Circuit baring the action.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

The point is that once the documents are determined to be personal, it makes sense to send them to his personal home. They don't cease to be personal just because his term in the White House ends.

Presidential Records and Classified Documents aren't personal.

You put the phrase "while in office," in quotes, but I don't see that phrasse in the snippet you presented. What part of that ruling says that the documents the president deems personal change to presidential when he leaves office?

§ 2203 of the Presidential Records act requires Presidential Records to be turned over at the end of the term.

Which is irrelevant as classified documents are the property of the United States regardless of the PRA.

That is the prosecutions claim. To support that claim, they would have to place the alleged national defense documents in evidence, and to give the defense a fair chance to refute that claim, they would have to provide copies of the alleged national defense documents to the defendant's attorneys.

Under the CIPA, no they don't. They can enter redacted or summary documents in lieu of the actual documents.

But . . . Smith claims that the jury and Trump's legal team are not trustworthy enough to see classified information.

False, the Defense team already has the clearance they need and have access to the classified documents.

The jury does not need the actually documents based on CIPA and past prosecutions of classified documents cases.

They're gonna pick twelve people and give them the power to over-rule the wishes of the majority of voters as to who should be the next president. But also claim that those twelve people cannot be give security clearances in order to be able to see the evidence? Members of the Bar, Officers of the Court, but they also are not to be trusted?

I don't believe a majority of voters get to decide if FPOTUS#45 violated the Espionage Act. That is the juries job.

His day job is irrelevant to the charges.

That's what prompted Judge Cannon to ask for a draft of jury instructions. She was trying to accommodate Smith's rather absurd request not to show evidence central to the case to the jury, by exploring whether it is possible that jury instructions could be crafted that would make it a fair trial, in spite of the defendant not being shown the evidence in order to refute it.

Which goes back to the Question of Law and Question of Fact issue.

FPOTUS#45 is attempting a smoke screen defense with something not relevant to the case. They injected it, then the Judge appears to be supporting the misapplication of the law.

Smith didn't inject the PRA, that is FPOTUS#45's team.

I think she was using a little socratic irony on Smith. She knows that such an evidence-free, but fair, trial is not really possible, and hoped that her challenge to Smith would prompt him to see that for himself. But Smith is an incredibly stubborn person, who can never admit that he is wrong. That's why he has gotten spanked by the courts so many times when going after politicians.

CIPA cases are not "evidence free" they are based on the documents. Then you have the secondary charges of obstructions and conspiracy which again are not "evidence free".

As a matter of fact, it appears it will be FPOTUS#45 own advisors and staff that will be presenting the most damning testimony.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

That's the mistake. If FPOTUS#45 team HADN'T attempted to inject the PRA in pre-trial motions, then it would have been an issue to decide at trial outside of the juries presence.

However by raising it now, it becomes a pre-trial issue because the Judge issued an order for jury instruction inputs and due to the erroneous interpretation of the law, she has opened herself up for an interlockery appeal and the 11th Circuit baring the action.

WW

Do you have any statute or case law that says that the judge has to decide the jury instructions before the jury has heard the case, if she requests draft instructions before the trial begins?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you have any statute or case law that says that the judge has to decide the jury instructions before the jury has heard the case, if she requests draft instructions before the trial begins?

Go sealion someone else with your question.

There are 250 years of case law concerning trial procedures, judicial Writs of Mandamus, and Interlockery Appeals.

While some would like it to be, this idea that a Judge can be over ruled for making an error in terms of a Question of Law is well established.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

Presidential Records and Classified Documents aren't personal.

That's your opinion. You don't have the authority to make the determination and you haven't seen the records and documents. President Trump had the authority to make the determination and he did see the records and documents.

§ 2203 of the Presidential Records act requires Presidential Records to be turned over at the end of the term.

Which is irrelevant as classified documents are the property of the United States regardless of the PRA.

I know that you really want that to be true, but the case law says that it is up to the president to make the determination, and it never made the distinction between classified and non-classified.

Under the CIPA, no they don't. They can enter redacted or summary documents in lieu of the actual documents.

False, the Defense team already has the clearance they need and have access to the classified documents.

The jury does not need the actually documents based on CIPA and past prosecutions of classified documents cases.

The judge is willing to go along with that, as long as it will still be a fair trial. That's why she asked for a draft of jury instructions.

Smith is throwing his tantrum, because he doesn't want it to be fair, because he would lose.

I don't believe a majority of voters get to decide if FPOTUS#45 violated the Espionage Act. That is the juries job.

His day job is irrelevant to the charges.

My point was that the people who do get to decide should be trusted to see the documents and so should Trump's defense team.

If that's a problem, drop the case. The prisons are overcrowded anyway, so one less than the Democrats hope for won't hurt. No senior politician goes to prison for documents, anyway. It's absurd to think of Trump in prison while H. Clinton, B. Clinton, Pence, and J. Biden get off scott free.

Which goes back to the Question of Law and Question of Fact issue.

FPOTUS#45 is attempting a smoke screen defense with something not relevant to the case. They injected it, then the Judge appears to be supporting the misapplication of the law.

Smith didn't inject the PRA, that is FPOTUS#45's team.

Really? Because I've seen TDS folk on here state that the defense has never brought up the PRA, so why did the judge. When exactly the the defense bring up the PRA before anyone else did?

CIPA cases are not "evidence free" they are based on the documents. Then you have the secondary charges of obstructions and conspiracy which again are not "evidence free".

As a matter of fact, it appears it will be FPOTUS#45 own advisors and staff that will be presenting the most damning testimony.

WW

They can testify as to the accusations of obstruction and conspiracy, and we'll see how they do on cross-examination after reciting the story the prosecution provides them.

It won't be like the TDS Jan 6 committee where they testify behind closed doors and then the committee chooses a few seconds of their testimony to play, and there is no opposition to question the witnesses.

For the charges of having national defense information, if the prosecution "describes" the material instead of showing it, and Trump states that he doesn't remember any documents like that, but if he could see what the prosecution is talking about, he could explain why that was personal, and not presidential, the jury will want him to have that chance.

 

[Marener]

Haha that’s not a motion

Okay dude. Whatever.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Go sealion someone else with your question.

There are 250 years of case law concerning trial procedures, judicial Writs of Mandamus, and Interlockery Appeals.

While some would like it to be, this idea that a Judge can be over ruled for making an error in terms of a Question of Law is well established.

WW

Of course.

But there has to be a Law or case law that the judged missed or erred in applying.

What is it?

 

[Marener]

Do you have any statute or case law that says that the judge has to decide the jury instructions before the jury has heard the case?

That’s how trials work.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Y'all realize that all of Smith's anger at Cannon is because she wants to let the jury - not Smith - decide what relevancy to assign the Presidential Records Act. His serious rebuttal to that is "but . . . but . . . if they acquit him, I don't get to try him again!"

With his record of losses, if he gets this mad every time a ruling doesn't go his way, no wonder he looks like a freaking maniac.

Wrong – this is a lie.

Smith wants very much for a jury to decide; the evidence of Trump’s guilt is overwhelming and compelling.

The problem is Cannon – a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, and partisan judge.

 

[struth]

Okay dude. Whatever.

It’s not. The judicial branch can’t tell the executive who to prosecute

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's your opinion. You don't have the authority to make the determination and you haven't seen the records and documents. President Trump had the authority to make the determination and he did see the records and documents.

No he didn't. The PRA is very clear on defining what are Presidential Records and what are Personal.

I know that you really want that to be true, but the case law says that it is up to the president to make the determination, and it never made the distinction between classified and non-classified.

No it doesn't. The "case law" you are referring to is the Judicial Watch case and has already been shown from the actual decision, the snippet claimed to say something doesn't say that when the full paragraph is looked at.

In the Clinton case the materials were clearly Clintons notes and a historians notes intended for a post Presidential memoir, not Presidential Documents as defined by the law.

The judge is willing to go along with that, as long as it will still be a fair trial. That's why she asked for a draft of jury instructions.

The Judge's decision isn't about a "fair trial" it's about attempting to put before the jury a Question of Law, when that isn't in the juries perview.

For the charges of having national defense information, if the prosecution "describes" the material instead of showing it, and Trump states that he doesn't remember any documents like that, but if he could see what the prosecution is talking about, he could explain why that was personal, and not presidential, the jury will want him to have that chance.

Trump and the Defense team ALREADY have access to the materials. They got special security clearances just for this case. There was a special SCIF setup in Miami just for them to have access.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Of course.

But there has to be a Law or case law that the judged missed or erred in applying.

What is it?

Go sealion someone else with your question.

There are 250 years of case law concerning trial procedures, judicial Writs of Mandamus, and Interlockery Appeals.

While some would like it to be, this idea that a Judge can be over ruled for making an error in terms of a Question of Law is well established.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

That’s how trials work.

Jury instructions come after the presentation of the evidence.

 

[struth]

Wrong – this is a lie.

Smith wants very much for a jury to decide; the evidence of Trump’s guilt is overwhelming and compelling.

The problem is Cannon – a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, and partisan judge.

Cannon didn’t refuse to write jury instructions…that was Smith

 

[Rawley]

FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with anything having to do with retention of Presidential Records.

FPOTUS#45 is charged under the Espionage Act with willful retention of national defense information after leaving office.

The PRA:

• As civil law does not nullify criminal law,
• Even if it did, the documents in question do not fall under the clear definition of "personal records" stated in the PRA.

WW

LOL So this whole nonsense of fucking the President over the Presidential Records act has nothing to do with the Presidential Records Act LOL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Cannon didn’t refuse to write jury instructions…that was Smith

So what?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL So this whole nonsense of fucking the President over the Presidential Records act has nothing to do with the Presidential Records Act LOL

Correct. It's the orange slob and his toadie judge trying to distract to the PRA.

Wow, you finally made it to square one.

 

[Rawley]

No it's not. It's about National Defense Information under 18 USC 793(e).

The Espionage Act are criminal statutes, the PRA is civil.

WW

LOL So the fact the Archives told Trump he's on his own in regard to his Presidential Records in the WH is irrelevant? That's your story?

 

[Rawley]

That's the mistake. If FPOTUS#45 team HADN'T attempted to inject the PRA in pre-trial motions, then it would have been an issue to decide at trial outside of the juries presence.

However by raising it now, it becomes a pre-trial issue because the Judge issued an order for jury instruction inputs and due to the erroneous interpretation of the law, she has opened herself up for an interlockery appeal and the 11th Circuit baring the action.

WW

LOL What is Comrade Smith appealing?