Judge Cannon has blown it.

[WorldWatcher]

I have no idea if Trump thought about declassifying the documents as he sent them to Mar-a-Lago. I do know that if he claims he did, it will be a up to the jury to decide if he did. Judge Cannon will have to instruct the jury - based on case law - that he had the power to do so, and it is up to the jury to decide whether they believe that he is lying. Matter of law, matter of fact.

And if he makes the claim, which I really hope he does, that will open the door for the prosecution to impeach such a claim, see post #298 as an affirmative defense.

And the biggest impeachment is his own action which confirmed he DIDN'T declassify the documents because he still referred to them on audio tape as classified and he accepted the classified nature of the documents as a result of the Federal Court subpoena. He never challenged the subpoena on the basis that he'd declassified the documents and therefore there were no documents to surrender. And his lawyers know how they prosecution will challenge the claim and I'm sure they want to do all they can not to make it in court.

So yes please, make the claim in court.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, this so far is all speculation…I do agree that Trump if this makes it to the end has a mountain to climb. I just don’t think it’ll make it that far…

We'll see my friend, it's going to be a wild ride either way.



WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

And if he makes the claim, which I really hope he does, that will open the door for the prosecution to impeach such a claim, see post #298 as an affirmative defense.

And the biggest impeachment is his own action which confirmed he DIDN'T declassify the documents because he still referred to them on audio tape as classified and he accepted the classified nature of the documents as a result of the Federal Court subpoena. He never challenged the subpoena on the basis that he'd declassified the documents and therefore there were no documents to surrender. And his lawyers know how they prosecution will challenge the claim and I'm sure they want to do all they can not to make it in court.

So yes please, make the claim in court.

WW

You made some good points in # 298 and in this post I’m responding to.

I was only trying to clear up the misconception about presidents having to follow some set procedure to declassify documents. It is a claim often made, but never supported. It is false.

Trump’s legal team will decide whether Trump saying he declassified the documents would be a good strategy or not. I am sure that they will consider the points that you made.

I’m no lawyer, but the most obvious strategy is to introduce the fact that previous presidents - and many other senior officials - have done the same thing without prosecution.

Trump did not want to return the documents, even under subpoena, because he knew he was being singled out to be treated that way because he is Trump. Democrats haven’t done that to Republicans nor Republicans or Democrats in the past because they have all been part of the mainstream establishment.

Trump was singled out because he’s that different guy that wasn’t ever supposed to be president in the first place, because nobody liked him - except the voters.

I know to you that seems like a horrible argument, but unless they systematically exclude any Trump voter, there will be at least three or four people on the jury, who will believe that because they have seen the pursuit of Trump for eight years plus now.

People can understand and sympathize with that kind of unfairness. They definitely will not see the government as an organization that never would be unfair. Even non-Trump supporters may say I don’t like him, so I don’t vote for him, but this is BS.

Of course, that assumes that the judge will let the defense make those kind of arguments. If they’re not allowed to make them, they will have to count on very knowledgeable jurors, who understand what has been going on.

This case should never go to trial, because there is no chance of anything better for the prosecution than a hung jury.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The prosecution has the burden of proof. And you think the only fair outcome is a Trump conviction. You’re not entitled to that.

No.
The prosecution has as much right to have their case heard without interference from the judge as the defendant does.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don’t know why you felt the need to tutor me on classification, but I’ll chalk it up to informing the board, and not me personally…

But, you said he has to tell someone….who? Who does the President, the CiC, have to report to?

It’s a moot argument. Trump has never claimed he declassified anything in any court filing. In fact the evidence shows that he knows he never declassified them.

 

[j-mac]

No.
The prosecution has as much right to have their case heard without interference from the judge as the defendant does.

Then I suppose you’ll be calling for Chutkin to step down, right?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Then I suppose you’ll be calling for Chutkin to step down, right?

Derp…
At least try to make your arguments apple to apple.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Most of you on the right probably haven't figured this out, judging from some of your comments which clearly indicate you do not understand the forces that are in play, i.e.,, what the actual dynamics are, (it's way in Smith's favor, FYI) because they right wing echo chamber isn't telling you, but Judge Cannon fucked up on the law, royally. Jack will file a motion in limine, and if she ignores it, he'll have grounds for a petition for writ of mandamus, and he'll either get the 11th circuit to straighten her out on the law (which she has turned on it's head), or get her ass off the case. She's bitten off far more than she can chew.

Let's see if I'm right. We'll know in a day or two. One thing is certain, Jack's not going to let the last 2 page order where she wrote 'unprecedented and unjust', he's not going to let that slide.

This is really an interesting case, particularly because we have an extremely wet behind the ears judge handling a case who is in way way way over her head. But, that's the system, whoever is next on the rotation, regardless of experience matching, is the one assigned, and she got it. Clearly, the system is ripe for reform.

Ok, you’re a legal mind, apparently, why would smith file a motion to exclude evidence?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ok, you’re a legal mind, apparently, why would smith file a motion to exclude evidence?

Why would you ask that question, when that didn't happen?

 

[j-mac]

Derp…
At least try to make your arguments apple to apple.

So, that’s a no then, hypocrite

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why would you ask that question, when that didn't happen?

That’s what the OP was suggesting smith would do

A "motion in limine" is a pretrial motion that seeks the exclusion of specific evidence or arguments from being presented during a trial. A motion in limine is decided by the judge outside of the presence of thejury.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, that’s a no then, hypocrite

Not a hypocrite. Your whataboutism point was stupid and irrelevant.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s what the OP was suggesting smith would do

A "motion in limine" is a pretrial motion that seeks the exclusion of specific evidence or arguments from being presented during a trial. A motion in limine is decided by the judge outside of the presence of thejury.

"Evidence or arguments"

Nice try. Not really.

 

[ThisIsMe]

"Evidence or arguments"

Nice try. Not really.

Did the op make that distinction? Hence the reason I asked the question.

See, you’re making rebuttal arguments when you don’t even know, yourself, what the op was saying.

Ok, well go with your version…to the op…why would smith file a motion to exclude evidence OR arguments in the case?

That better?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did the op make that distinction?

Not on him.

You really are a bad faith poster.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok, you’re a legal mind, apparently, why would smith file a motion to exclude evidence?

#1 He hasn't filed a motion yet, it's pending action by Judge Cannon.

#2 If she errs in a Question of Law it's not a "exclusion of evidence" it's presenting correct law to the jury. The Judge is supposed to decide Questions of Law prior to trial, the juries job is to decide on Questions of Fact.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not on him.

You really are a bad faith poster.

lol, it absolutely is on him…he’s the one who made the statement. I as the reader don’t have context unless he provides it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

lol, it absolutely is on him…he’s the one who made the statement. I as the reader don’t have context unless he provides it.

And he has more than explained the arguments under attack by smith. You ignored that because you are a bad faith poster.

 

[jc456]

FPOTUS#45 isn't President. He is not charged with any crimes while he was present. His Espionage Act indictments are all for crimes committed after he became a civilian again.

The President is an elected official, (s)he is not an emperor or a dictator, therefore (s)he answers to the law. Just like everyone else. Any special immunities for the position end at the end of the term of office for crimes committed after leaving office.

WW

for what? He declassified all of the documents. Did you miss that one?

 

[Rumpole]

I put your BS in context, and you don't like it. Poor baby.

Congratulations, text book cop out.