SC Jack Smith is Using Subterfuge Tricks with Donald Trumps Upcoming Documents Trial.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: WeMustCare

Special counsel Jack Smith will appear before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Wednesday morning. Cannon said in a paperless order filed in federal court on Jan. 11 that the hearing will be held to evaluate classified filings by Smith, being sought by Trump and his co-defendants.

Does everyone see the word 'classified' above? Enough said.

so classified documents cannot be used in court? What is this even about then?

This, I suppose:

Each of CIPA's provisions is designed to achieve those dual goals: preventing unnecessary or inadvertent disclosures of classified information and advising the government of the national security "cost" of going forward.

www.justice.gov...

It's classified - why question whether or not it should be classified? Boggles the mind.

sweet, Trump is off the hook on this one. I'm sure this is news to you, but his entire issue has to do with classified documents regarding this case. If they can't be used as evidence, as you have definitively stated, then there is no evidence to present, and he cannot be charged, let alone convicted. You solved this one Columbo! Well done!

I suppose they could ask the government if they can use one classified document and then the government can put the necessary safeguards in place, then declassify it for submission. Who knows, they are still trying to figure out what to do.

Yes , they could Ask , and More than Likely without a Very High Security Clearance , they Will receive something like this .......

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

There's actually thousands of pages. The PRA is very clear that all Presidential records become property of the US government when a President leaves office.

No proof he stole anything. All biased conjecture. Sieg Heil 😀

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WingDingLuey

There's actually thousands of pages. The PRA is very clear that all Presidential records become property of the US government when a President leaves office.

If thats the case,Obama,clinton also did the same.

Especially Biden who has admitted it. 😀

a reply to: WingDingLuey

Question, if the PRA states all the docs must be retained by the PRA at the end of his term, and he lies on the attestation for the subpoena that they have been turned over, after he asked his attorney to not turn some over, hide, or destroy the "bad ones", and when the lawyer will not do so, he then moves them before partially complying,so they will not be found, that is not a crime? He was not the President at the time, heck, he wasn't even granted any intelligence briefings after office. And it's hard to argue Nat Sec, human Intel and Nuclear docs are "personal records".

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: WingDingLuey

Question, if the PRA states all the docs must be retained by the PRA at the end of his term, and he lies on the attestation for the subpoena that they have been turned over, after he asked his attorney to not turn some over, hide, or destroy the "bad ones", and when the lawyer will not do so, he then moves them before partially complying,so they will not be found, that is not a crime? He was not the President at the time, heck, he wasn't even granted any intelligence briefings after office. And it's hard to argue Nat Sec, human Intel and Nuclear docs are "personal records".

Can you clarify that a little better Kamala? TIA 😀

And show some real proof of whatever you're trying to convey 😃

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: WeMustCare

Special counsel Jack Smith will appear before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Wednesday morning. Cannon said in a paperless order filed in federal court on Jan. 11 that the hearing will be held to evaluate classified filings by Smith, being sought by Trump and his co-defendants.

Does everyone see the word 'classified' above? Enough said.

so classified documents cannot be used in court? What is this even about then?

This, I suppose:

Each of CIPA's provisions is designed to achieve those dual goals: preventing unnecessary or inadvertent disclosures of classified information and advising the government of the national security "cost" of going forward.

www.justice.gov...

It's classified - why question whether or not it should be classified? Boggles the mind.

sweet, Trump is off the hook on this one. I'm sure this is news to you, but his entire issue has to do with classified documents regarding this case. If they can't be used as evidence, as you have definitively stated, then there is no evidence to present, and he cannot be charged, let alone convicted. You solved this one Columbo! Well done!

I suppose they could ask the government if they can use one classified document and then the government can put the necessary safeguards in place, then declassify it for submission. Who knows, they are still trying to figure out what to do.

Yes , they could Ask , and More than Likely without a Very High Security Clearance , they Will receive something like this .......

Exactly, and what does all that vetting tell us? Classified much?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: WingDingLuey

Question, if the PRA states all the docs must be retained by the PRA at the end of his term, and he lies on the attestation for the subpoena that they have been turned over, after he asked his attorney to not turn some over, hide, or destroy the "bad ones", and when the lawyer will not do so, he then moves them before partially complying,so they will not be found, that is not a crime? He was not the President at the time, heck, he wasn't even granted any intelligence briefings after office. And it's hard to argue Nat Sec, human Intel and Nuclear docs are "personal records".

HE was president until Biden was swore in on the 21st. Before then they moved boxes of papers and docs. he was president when they were moved.

a reply to: WingDingLuey

You have seriously missed the affadavit released when he was charged and posted here 100 times? You know with quoted testimony, pictures, text messages, etc?

ETA: Links

Link
Additional less redacted pdf download Link

Trump indictment pdf download
Link

Happy reading!

a reply to: yuppa

The boxes that were hidden from DOJ investigators were moved in the spring of 2022. He was not President at that time.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: WingDingLuey

Question, if the PRA states all the docs must be retained by the PRA at the end of his term, and he lies on the attestation for the subpoena that they have been turned over, after he asked his attorney to not turn some over, hide, or destroy the "bad ones", and when the lawyer will not do so, he then moves them before partially complying,so they will not be found, that is not a crime? He was not the President at the time, heck, he wasn't even granted any intelligence briefings after office. And it's hard to argue Nat Sec, human Intel and Nuclear docs are "personal records".

Not comprehending / understanding / denying the simplicity of this.

Boggles the mind.

a reply to: frogs453

Ah yes. Again I keep forgetting the new system of guilty until proven not guilty by reasons of not proving a negative. 😀

And no one expects you to show the proof either anymore. 😀

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: WeMustCare

Special counsel Jack Smith will appear before U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Wednesday morning. Cannon said in a paperless order filed in federal court on Jan. 11 that the hearing will be held to evaluate classified filings by Smith, being sought by Trump and his co-defendants.

Does everyone see the word 'classified' above? Enough said.

so classified documents cannot be used in court? What is this even about then?

IMO - Documents that incriminate Barack-Biden-FBI and others, are being treated differently by Smith. He's saying they are classified, even though U.S. President Trump declassified them on 1/19/2021.

Some more info on the Smith-Cannon meeting yesterday: www.newsweek.com...

originally posted by: frogs453
I think she wants more info on his last filing that states Smith knows why Trump stole them, what he was doing with them, and will prove it in court. Possibly she wants to try to prevent him from putting the info into any other filings that will be public, or she will feed it back to Trump through intermediaries. Maybe? Maybe it is just about the Nat Sec documents. Unsure. We will see I suppose.

The House Judiciary Committee is trying to find out from Special Counsel Robert Hur what he has learned about the many documents Joe Biden stole over a 12 year period of time. How some of the classified info ended up in a letter from Hunter to a Ukraine CEO when "The Big Guy" was Obama's Vice President.

But Robert Hur is not responding....or Committee Chairman Jordan has been told not to share anything with the public. We shall see.

a reply to: frogs453

I see now.

You're confusing an allegation (indictment) with facts.

Thus your perspective is skewed. It could true, it could not.

Assuming it's true however is where you're faltering in spinning your tale.

a reply to: JinMI

Well, Trump’s attorneys can argue in court, about whether this is a crime, but the things I mentioned? The testimony of his attorneys, which is noted and we know they gave it because the courts ruled to pierce the crime fraud exception, we know the texts noted exist as they were taken directly from phones, and we know the surveillance video exists and we know the documents exist.

I mean, I'm sure you'll argue that these things do not exist,but I'm not quite sure how you'll spin it. They are facts. Now, you don't believe any of that is criminal, but those things were all obtained and are real. Not an allegation.

These things are the evidence presented to the Grand Jury who voted to indict. They can allege the crime committed with this evidence, but the evidence itself is not an allegation.

a reply to: frogs453

Well, Trump’s attorneys can argue in court, about whether this is a crime, but the things I mentioned? The testimony of his attorneys, which is noted and we know they gave it because the courts ruled to pierce the crime fraud exception, we know the texts noted exist as they were taken directly from phones, and we know the surveillance video exists and we know the documents exist.

Sorry Frogs, you don't know. You only know that you were told that they know, or rather think they know.

I mean, I'm sure you'll argue that these things do not exist,but I'm not quite sure how you'll spin it. They are facts. Now, you don't believe any of that is criminal, but those things were all obtained and are real. Not an allegation.

No, I'm arguing that you don't know they exist. Only that they are alleged to exist. They could exist and be very much true and to your description.

These things are the evidence presented to the Grand Jury who voted to indict. They can allege the crime committed with this evidence, but the evidence itself is not an allegation.

Have you sat on a GJ?

Have you heard the common phrase "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich?"

The evidence is just that, evidence. It's not proof and has not at this point been met with any adversarial process.

a reply to: JinMI

Oh, I knew you would still try to come up with something.

So you're saying that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury is a lie and doesn't exist or it allegedly exists? Not proven to exist?

Allegedly: used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof.

Now, here is the process for federal charges:

For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury. Witnesses may be called to testify, evidence is shown to the grand jury, and an outline of the case is presented to the grand jury members. The grand jury listens to the prosecutor and witnesses, and then votes in secret on whether they believe that enough evidence exists to charge the person with a crime. A grand jury may decide not to charge an individual based upon the evidence, no indictment would come from the grand jury.

Justice.gov

So you are saying the evidence presented to the Grand Jury and in the indictment only allegedly exists? Seriously?

Now, what the defense will do is defend that the evidence does not constitute a crime, but again they presented evidence to the GJ which was noted in the indictment.

Which by the way not one person has stated " those are not my text messages", "that is not my testimony", "there is no surveillance video". They would be screaming from the rooftops. Trump has stated none of that. Only that those were "his docs" and he "could do what he wanted" with them.

Now warm up before your next reach. I understand the blinders you have on, but yikes.

a reply to: frogs453


Have you sat on a GJ?

Do you know what is and isn't allowed?

Do you know it's scope, point and purpose?

Because if you knew, these questions and opinions you have would be settled.

My common sense doesn't need a warm up but thanks for caring.

a reply to: JinMI

I have not sat on a grand jury, only regular.
But feel free to browse this link to gain better insight into what is allowed, the process, etc.
Justice Department

It is similar to a regular jury, however with power to subpoena witnesses they wish to hear from.

The rules of evidence still apply, just as they do in any other criminal or civil proceeding.

A prosecutor must not mislead the grand jury and should remain fair following the rules of evidence. The prosecutor's office is not permitted to present evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. However, a grand jury can issue subpoenas and has broad power to see and hear almost anything the members would like.

Link

Common sense? Even if found guilty, I've no doubt it will be, "the judge was crooked", " the jury was radical dems", "the judge is racist or sexist" "the witnesses were deep state plants" or whatever. I mean Trump has said multiple times that he had the right to take them. Yet you believe that the evidence the prosecutor presented to the GJ and quoted in the indictment is just an "allegation".

We agree to disagree.