Trump captured on tape talking about classified document he kept after leaving the White House

a reply to: MrInquisitive

I see a bunch of your posts removed too. You really are shameless aren't you?

No, I don't read long wordy rants.

Im guilty.

Be grateful I let you know so you don't waste your effort on me in the future, 'k?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
It appears that the DOJ has some very incriminating evidence against Donald Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents scandal. According to the article from CNN (link below) there are both witnesses and audiotape of Trump discussing at least one classified document concerning US contingency plans for an attack on Iran. In the taped conversation he acknowledges that he has the document and that he knows that he can no longer declassify it, being that he is no longer president. The persons he discussed this with did not have security clearances, so that in effect he was divulging classified information, which makes him susceptible to prosecution under the Espionage Act. It also undercuts his claim that he declassified all the documents in his possession.

CNN

Federal prosecutors have obtained an audio recording of a summer 2021 meeting in which former President Donald Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran, multiple sources told CNN, undercutting his argument that he declassified everything.

The recording indicates Trump understood he retained classified material after leaving the White House, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation. On the recording, Trump’s comments suggest he would like to share the information but he’s aware of limitations on his ability post-presidency to declassify records, two of the sources said.

CNN has not listened to the recording, but multiple sources described it. One source said the relevant portion on the Iran document is about two minutes long, and another source said the discussion is a small part of a much longer meeting.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the Justice Department investigation into Trump, has focused on the meeting as part of the criminal investigation into Trump’s handling of national security secrets. Sources describe the recording as an “important” piece of evidence in a possible case against Trump, who has repeatedly asserted he could retain presidential records and “automatically” declassify documents.

Prosecutors have asked witnesses about the recording and the document before a federal grand jury. The episode has generated enough interest for investigators to have questioned Gen. Mark Milley, one of the highest-ranking Trump-era national security officials, about the incident.

The revelation that the former president and commander-in-chief has been captured on tape discussing a classified document could raise his legal exposure as he continues his third bid for the White House.

Trump and his attorneys have given several different, often conflicting, explanations for why Trump didn’t intentionally retain classified materials in violation of federal law. 

Initially, Trump allies argued he had a “standing declassification order” so that documents removed from the Oval Office were immediately declassified.  A few weeks later, Trump told Fox News that he could declassify things “just by thinking about it.”

Earlier this year, Trump’s legal team told Congress that classified material was inadvertently packed up at the end of the administration. Most recently, Trump told CNN at a town hall that materials were “automatically declassified” when he took them.

However, there’s no indication Trump followed the legally mandated declassification process, and his attorneys have avoided saying so far in court whether Trump declassified records he kept.

The Jack Smith investigation of Trump appears to be leaving no stone unturned. Hence, there may be yet more very incriminating evidence against the twice impeached president who already is charged with 34 felony counts for financial crimes in NY. This account belies Trump's and his legal teams claims about why these classified documents were withheld in the first place, raising his criminal exposure in the case.

It also makes one wonder what additional information the Feds have on Trump regarding the Jan 6 riot at the capitol, and the attempt to thwart the transfer of power to the newly elected president on that day.

" According to the article from CNN "


Ah Yeah , About that . Your Entire Accusation here is Based on a CNN Report ? You Consider CNN A Credible Verifiable News Source ? ..Hmm... Seems " Someone " has Fallen into the " Fake News " Trap and Cannot Save Face by getting Out Or by Doubling Down Instead..........Anyone who would even Consider the Validity of those Claims is a FOOL........

Holy gawd, where have you been the last couple of days? Did you hear that the indictment was unsealed, and it has confirmed what CNN reported? And in your mind CNN is not a legitimate news site, but all sorts of rando right-wing sites are? LOL!!! Yes, I do consider CNN "A Credible Verifiable News Source" [sic]. Seems it showed you.

I'm a fool for believing this stuff? How about the grand jury that voted for these indictments? How about the judges who allowed the crime-fraud exceptions, forcing Trump lawyers to testify against before said grand jury? You calling a legal indictment fake news???!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? It's what I call a legal document.

Seems " Someone " has Fallen into the " Fake News " Trap and Cannot Save Face by getting Out Or by Doubling Down Instead

and that someone be you. In spades. #risibly pathetic


Clearly you emulate your political hero by your epic self-owning. The depth of it in this post of yours is breath-taking. It's as if you live in your own, separate reality. Really.


Back at'cha, sport:




Game, set, match.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: MrInquisitive

I see a bunch of your posts removed too. You really are shameless aren't you?

No, I don't read long wordy rants.

Im guilty.

Be grateful I let you know so you don't waste your effort on me in the future, 'k?

Yeah, my post sincerely apologizing for misgendering you was removed, along with some others in which I humorously engaged with some folks on the other side of the aisle. How shameless of me.

They're not just for your benefit. I'm calling you out on your sophistry for the world to see -- at least this little world we call ATS. But if you read some of my posts to you, wouldn't go on repeating your refuted arguments.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Following this thread is exhausting and now you know why a large percentage of us here on ATS choose not to start controversial threads in an echo chamber.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Calling people out is a violation of the ToS. You are supposed to be attacking the argument, not the speaker. But you do alot of that.

I apologize if I'm too subtle. Perhaps you confuse sophistry for manners.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Ive already told you I spend none of my time trying to absorb your rants. But you are free to keep on composing them anytime if you've nothing better to do.

Didn't realize you already said that, but thanks for confirming that you don't bother reading what your ideological opponents write, and rather prefer to blithely write off-topic posts. You're really helping your cause.

Are you conflating word count with substsance?


Because that uh, would be awkward.....

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Calling people out is a violation of the ToS. You are supposed to be attacking the argument, not the speaker. But you do alot of that.

I apologize if I'm too subtle. Perhaps you confuse sophistry for manners.

Excuse my imprecise terminology. I'm disputing fallacious arguments made by you or somebody else, particularly when they're off topic and have already been addressed and dealt with multiple times in the thread, and extra particularly when the same person does so repeatedly.

And "attacking" is such an aggressive and ugly term. I like to use "debate" or "argue".

Don't know how you could possibly think I that I could be confusing sophistry with manners when I am addressing yours and others' conflating dislike for a person, or seeking justice to be meted out to a person, with hate.

And speaking of the term, I don't conflate word count with substance, but I do generally expect more than a riposte to make a point about a topic -- to answer a question by another member's post right above this one.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

For those who are interested in a primer on how Trump's classified documents case differs from Biden's, Pence's and HRC's -- thereby avoiding the rehashing of this tired, tedious, whataboutism talking point -- here's the link:

How Trump’s Classified Documents Case Differs From Those Of Clinton, Biden And Pence

Yeah, it's from Huffpost. Deal with it.

a reply to: MrInquisitive
Lol
A primer from huff post?
Fox wasn’t available?


Ps
Were Hillary Pense or bide president for their events?
Thank in advance

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MrInquisitive
Lol
A primer from huff post?
Fox wasn’t available?


Ps
Were Hillary Pense or bide president for their events?
Thank in advance

Why no, if you're talking about when they took the documents. HRC, for that matter didn't take the documents, but received them by email, and none of the three classified emails were marked as such when received. Did any of them, like Trump, refuse to hand them over when requested, or return them on their own? No.

And if you think the fact that Trump was president when he did this makes his case any different, i.e. is a mitigating factor, you're going to be sadly disappointed during the trial.

And once again ... Trump admits his guilt:



Prosecutors will just need to run Trump's latest interview or his most recent Truth Social post, and, basically their jobs will be done.

I do not get why they are so intent on taking him down. I understand his mouth is just foul sometimes, but I can guarantee 98% of the public is the same behind doors. He ran the country like a business man would and the Superior Nation that we are and should be seen as. If we lose control and give in to our enemies, we are in trouble. I personally think he was just draining the swamp of bad apples in the White House that were afraid they would be caught soon.

originally posted by: CaliGirl69
I do not get why they are so intent on taking him down. I understand his mouth is just foul sometimes, but I can guarantee 98% of the public is the same behind doors. He ran the country like a business man would and the Superior Nation that we are and should be seen as. If we lose control and give in to our enemies, we are in trouble. I personally think he was just draining the swamp of bad apples in the White House that were afraid they would be caught soon.

It has nothing to do with his foul mouth, it is about him incriminating himself regarding illegally retaining classified and even declassified government documents.

It's debatable as to whether or not he ran the country well; however, that does not make for a keep out of jail card if he committed other crimes, particularly crimes once he was a private citizen again.

As for draining the swamp in the WH, he poured sewage in. A number of his cabinet officials had big scandals, and others, such as Rick Perry, resigned to avoid investigation.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Its really too bad that everyone tosses out the laws of the land here especially Democrats and the Special Counsel investigating Trump.

Trump was recorded without his knowledge wasnt he?

Or did the Feds in charge wire him via a listening surveillance device or search warrant signed off by a judge? Seems to be that Trump will get off on any and all charges. He made a mistake when he criticized all INTEL when he took office. Anyone can turn into a Nazi in government.

In-person conversations

All parties to any confidential communication must give permission to be recorded, according to Florida’s eavesdropping law. Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d).

Under the statute, consent is not required for the recording of an oral communication spoken by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. § 934.02. For example, a speech made by the mayor at the grand opening of a new city park would not create a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of that communication.

The statute also explicitly excludes communications at public meetings from the consent requirements. Fla. Stat. § 934.02.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

I'm a fool for believing this stuff?

Your way beyond that regardless of your political bias. I try to remain centered and its has been quite obvious to me that the CIA, MSN and Democrats went all in to destroy Trump even before he was elected. It so continues to this day, yet Biden, Clinton and others all skate.

Federal Grand Jurys are nothing more than a kangaroo court. They are spoon fed selected "evidence". Evidence today that may have been created by AI. Established to basically hand the Prosecutor an out regardless of as to whether he / she wins or loses.

I know as I have appeared in one. I also know how the federal system works and its been corrupted to the T going back decades.

Same applies here. I also hate Trump but he's entitled to justice as much as you and I are.

a reply to: Waterglass

Well, here's the thing. The meeting was recorded in NJ. Which does not have the restricting law that Florida does. Another if as noted that this employee often recorded conversations, he may have been aware of it anyway. I mean it's not like he's not been recorded implicating himself. He did it again on Fox. They are actually going to use multiple recordings of himself noted in the discovery being provided to the defense.

a reply to: frogs453

I didn't know that about New Jersey. Thanks

a reply to: Waterglass

Trump did many interviews with journalists who told him they were recording him, yet he still said incriminating things, such as his conversation with Bob Woodward regarding Covid.

As I understand it, the one recording so far admitted as evidence by the Feds was one taken by an assistant to Meadows, who was writing a memoir. If it weren't admissible, I highly doubt the Feds would be putting it forward as evidence. And sure enough on pages 15 of the indictment:

On July 21, 2021, when he was no longer president, TRUMP gave an interview in his office at The Bedminister Club to a writer and publisher in connection with a then-forthcoming book. Two of TRUMP's staff also attended the interview, which was recorded with TRUMP's knowledge and consent.

Sounds like they have the recording as well as four witnesses. No wiretapping warrant required. Seems he is being given the same justice as you or me, except better. When Reality Winner leaked documents to the Intercept, the Intercept sent a copy to the NSA on May 30, 2017 to confirm that the document was real, and the FBI arrested her on June 3rd. A similar expedited arrest timeline was the fate of Jack Teixeira, that Massachusetts Air National Guardsman who leaked classified info.

Whereas Trump takes the documents on Jan 19, 2021; May 6 NARA contacts the Trump team about them. In December that year a Trump lawyer for the first time contacts NARA about a few records found, including

correspondence with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that Trump had once touted as “love letters,” and a National Weather Service map of Hurricane Dorian that Trump had altered with a black Sharpie in a widely mocked attempt to claim he had not been wrong about the storm’s path.

In mid January, 2022, NARA receives 15 boxes of documents from Trump, several days later the FBI 197 documents marked as classified in 14 of those boxes. February through May 10, 2022 an investigation begins. May 11th Trump receives a grand jury subpoena for all other documents marked classified in Trump's possession. Then there's a back and forth between the FBI and Trump lawyers, finally there is a search warrant and search on Aug. 8th. Nov. 15th Trump announces he's running for prez again, and on Nov. 18th Garland appoints Jack Smith as special prosecutor. Then on June 8, 2023 the indictments on Trump are filed, and on June 12 he was arraigned -- no bond and no handing over of passport. Keep in mind that there is an ongoing investigation concerning Trump and the Jan. 6 riot as well, which he has yet to be indicted and arraigned on.

So it's over a year from the grand jury subpoena until the arraignment, 10 months between the search of his premises and the arraignment, and a year and a half since the crime was committed. And who the hell knows what he was doing with those documents in the interim.

You're right, Trump isn't receiving equal justice, he's receiving fat cat justice, which is so much sweeter than what the average person would receive in his place.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

So they end up with only 31 charges for classified docs. I have to assume, out of all those boxes and 200 some suspect classified docs, they only charge him with 31?

From the list, it looked like alot of the classified info had to do with capablilities of other countries.

Their secrets, not ours? Enemys or allies?

a reply to: frogs453

We both know that were he not running for POTUS, he would not have been charged.

This is blatant 'iinfluencing an election'. It's disgusting.

He wanted to personally go thru the boxes because he doesn't trust anyone anymore. No wonder.

He moved boxes in his own house.

Throw him in jail for the rest of his life.

It's disgusting.