Why Trump's Legal team will not even be able to assert his main defense.

The shade tree profs. and shade tree lawyers will have no input as to the Trump c harges.

Thank the Grand Architect for that.
 
Yakuda said:
Right she just destroyed classified information so no harm no foul right?
Click to expand...

Under the law Trump is charged with you would need to prove the same things for Hillary that would need to be proven for Trump.

First and foremost is you need to prove Hillary knew she had classified information on her server.
In the case of Hillary, nothing on her server was clearly marked classified or was in a folder marked classified.
In the case of Trump, he had over 100 documents that were clearly marked classified and were contained in a folder that was also marked classified.

Then you need to prove that Hillary knew the information was classified or detrimental to the US if transmitted to a person not entitled to see it.
Hillary is on video claiming she didn't have any classified information so you would have to prove she knew beyond a reasonable doubt which is difficult.
Trump is on audio claiming he has classified information and can't show it to people he is with which certainly indicates he knew he had the information. That would be compelling evidence that Trump did know.

Then you need to prove the Hillary retained the classified information after being told about it.
You have just provided evidence that she didn't retain it since you claimed she destroyed it. That would mean she couldn't have violated 19 793(e)
Trump didn't turn classified documents over that were subpoenaed. The only question is whether he purposely didn't turn them over. He clearly kept them since they were found when the FBI did a search.
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
You need to read the Indictment!

I do not speak for the indictment- it speaks for itself.

But, you do need to read it, if you are ever going to know the charges the United States has on Donald Trump!

The left has nothing to so with prosecuting Donald Trump.

This is a legal matter of The United States Government Vs. Donald Trump- Not Trump Vs. the Democrats! :palm:
Click to expand...

"The left has nothing to so with prosecuting Donald Trump."

That's pretty funny, Gecko.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Since there is no document, all we have are Trump's words. Trump's words will be taken as truthful unless someone testifies he was not truthful.
Your argument is that the defense is going to tell the jury:
"You can't believe anything my client says. He lies all the time so you should find him innocent."
Click to expand...
I think everyone knows Trump is prone to hyperbole
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Under the law Trump is charged with you would need to prove the same things for Hillary that would need to be proven for Trump.

First and foremost is you need to prove Hillary knew she had classified information on her server.
In the case of Hillary, nothing on her server was clearly marked classified or was in a folder marked classified.
In the case of Trump, he had over 100 documents that were clearly marked classified and were contained in a folder that was also marked classified.

Then you need to prove that Hillary knew the information was classified or detrimental to the US if transmitted to a person not entitled to see it.
Hillary is on video claiming she didn't have any classified information so you would have to prove she knew beyond a reasonable doubt which is difficult.
Trump is on audio claiming he has classified information and can't show it to people he is with which certainly indicates he knew he had the information. That would be compelling evidence that Trump did know.

Then you need to prove the Hillary retained the classified information after being told about it.
You have just provided evidence that she didn't retain it since you claimed she destroyed it. That would mean she couldn't have violated 19 793(e)
Trump didn't turn classified documents over that were subpoenaed. The only question is whether he purposely didn't turn them over. He clearly kept them since they were found when the FBI did a search.
Click to expand...

You can write volumes it doesnt change the fact that had trump done what the taking pig in pant suit did you would be shitting through your mouth to have him out in jail. Deny it you disingenuous piece of shit.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
You really should do a bit of research so you don’t look stupid all the time

https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...-act-clintons-sock-drawer-defense-2023-06-09/
Click to expand...

The people who look stupid are the ones who think the Socks case applies here. It DOES NOT.

Stupid people keep saying that because in the 'socks case' the court found that a president's diary or his memoires ARE NOT presidential records or classified records therefore nuclear secrets and other government records are not presidential records.

That is an intensely stupid reading so congrats in falling for it.

The socks case was one where a Republican activists sued in court to say 'I want all of the notes Clinton made while working with his biographer as those ARE presidential records too, since he created them while POTUS'.

What the Justices found was that 'NO, in fact not everything the POTUS does while POTUS creates a presidential record that must be accessible to the public. Some are personal and private'.


That is why after a POTUS leaves office he has years to work with the Archives to get back his personal records and separate them from the government stuff, as long as the Archives maintains possession and control of them.
 
Earl said:
She just destroyed classified information...after a subpoena...obstruction of justice.

Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

We shall see if Trump gets equal treatment under the law.
Click to expand...

One small problem with your claim.
The evidence is that Clinton had nothing to do with the server being wiped after the subpoena. One can't obstruct justice by having nothing to do with an act that is considered obstruction. The computer tech was supposed to have wiped the drive 6 months before the subpoena. You can't obstruct justice by ordering evidence destroyed 6 months before it is subpoenaed.

Making up facts doesn't make someone guilty in a court of law. It only makes you look like a partisan fool.
 
Yakuda said:
You can write volumes it doesnt change the fact that had trump done what the taking pig in pant suit did you would be shitting through your mouth to have him out in jail. Deny it you disingenuous piece of shit.
Click to expand...

You can keep spouting bullshit and it doesn't make your bullshit anything but bullshit. In a court of law, bullshit gets called out pretty quickly.

Personally, I look at the facts of the case and not the politics. If Trump had simply turned over the documents there would be no criminal charges. By willfully retaining them he violated the law. Possessing them wasn't a violation it was not returning them that was.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Why would Trump have to take the stand for his lawyers to explain the legality behind what he did?
Click to expand...

He would be asserting a defense, not explaining the legality behind it, that is not his decision to make. Since he claimed he did it, but there is no written record that it happened, the ONLY way for Trump to assert that he declassified the documents is to say so on the witness stand. And since he won't be taking the stand, he won't be able to make that claim. Therefore it cannot be considered by the jury.

Doesn't matter, he's already blown that defense up. The case is not winnable. Trump is toast.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
One small problem with your claim.
The evidence is that Clinton had nothing to do with the server being wiped after the subpoena. One can't obstruct justice by having nothing to do with an act that is considered obstruction. The computer tech was supposed to have wiped the drive 6 months before the subpoena. You can't obstruct justice by ordering evidence destroyed 6 months before it is subpoenaed.

Making up facts doesn't make someone guilty in a court of law. It only makes you look like a partisan fool.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should remind the pendejo that Clinton is not under indictment. Too bad, so sad.
 
Concart said:
He would be asserting a defense, not explaining the legality behind it, that is not his decision to make. Since he claimed he did it, but there is no written record that it happened, the ONLY way for Trump to assert that he declassified the documents is to say so on the witness stand. And since he won't be taking the stand, he won't be able to make that claim. Therefore it cannot be considered by the jury.

Doesn't matter, he's already blown that defense up. The case is not winnable. Trump is toast.
Click to expand...

Just like the collusion case right
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Just like the collusion case right
Click to expand...

No, just like this case. The facts of the case are not even in dispute. Trump is guaranteeing he will be in jail for the rest of his life. Maybe you can go visit him. And the two of you can have a good cry together.
 
Earl said:
"The left has nothing to so with prosecuting Donald Trump."

That's pretty funny, Gecko.
Click to expand...

I am elated that you are so being entertained with the Truth and you find it so humorous.

Thanks for your odd and rare sense of humor though! Outstanding my friend!:good4u:
 
Tinkerpeach said:
And why didn’t they charge him with that also if it happened then?

It means he didn’t show them to anybody and there is zero evidence he did

Just more lie’s from the left
Click to expand...


The liar is you.

This recording of Trump in his own words will be played in the trial and it certainly IS evidence. Moreso, it is PROOF.

 
Phantasmal said:
Did you read the article, it does not say what you’re claiming.

That theory is vigorously disputed by national security experts, including former National Archives litigation director Jason Baron, who is now a professor at the University of Maryland, and Bradley Moss of the Mark S. Zaid law firm.
Both Baron and Moss told me by email that there are clear distinctions between the audiotapes at issue in the Clinton case and the classified records in the Trump criminal case.
The Clinton tapes, Baron said, “were in the nature of a diary or journal in recorded form,” fitting the definition of a personal record in the Presidential Records Act. But the documents with classified markings that were seized from Mar-a-Lago, Baron said, “were official government records that should never have been transferred out of the government's hands.”
Moreover, Moss said, the question of whether the documents were personal or presidential records is beside the point in a case involving the Espionage Act, like the one against Trump.
“Whether as a presidential record or a personal record, the records at issue in this indictment still have classification markings and contain information relating to the national defense,” he said.
Click to expand...
The tapes had classified military information about Somalia and Bosnia. Clinton hid them in his sock drawer because they were generated during his Presidency and he knew the archivist would consider them Presidential records.

Michael Bekesha the lawyer in the Clinton sock drawer case says the two cases are the same .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top