Donald John Trump has been Indicted.

S35

Member
203
262
PNW
Having not seen the charging document, let alone supporting evidence to support those charges, there exists a possibility that in arraignment on Tuesday that the prosecution will bring an argument to deny bail if:

  1. There's material evidence that Trump is believed to still have sensitive information in his possession and/or has been "misplaced"
  2. Evidence that Trump has previously shared, copied or disseminated sensitive information
  3. Compelling evidence that Trump presents an ongoing national security risk for any potential/ ongoing disclosure
I know that this is a remote possibility, but we don't know what we don't know yet.

Regardless - Good thing Trump likes the color orange.

S35
 

Ishmael

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
61,356
18,597
Fuctifino
On CNN, Trump’s lawyer Jim Trusty said that Trump’s legal team had not been shown the indictment itself, but that the summons commanding Trump to appear in court had “some language in it that suggests what the seven charges would be.” He mentioned the Espionage Act, multiple false-statement charges and “several obstruction-based type charges.” Specifically, he mentioned Section 1519 (which relates to obstructing an official effort and was widely expected because it was listed on the F.B.I. search warrant affidavit), but also a new one: Section 1512, which criminalizes witness tampering or other means of obstructing an official proceeding.

Live reporting, no paywall.

 

El Borracho

Bar Keepers Friend
7,701
3,612
Pacific Rim
But he's been immunized. So it's a nothingburger.

So preacher man is saying prayer is not enough to save the mango messiah? God bows to justice? (Prayer, and a platinum visa card, will get you everything you want.) And immunization is a good thing? WTF!
 

shaggy

Super Anarchist
10,415
1,205
Co
One possibility would be to fast track clearances for the jury members. Unconventional, yes, foolproof, no. And then be very selective about which documents are submitted as evidence. Do not allow note taking, and if the document goes into the jury room, have at least two chaperones to ensure it is not being copied. Finally, and they will have heard this a thousand times during the trial, but remind jurors the penalties of sharing classified information.
Sorry, this will never happen. No way in hell they get 2, let alone 12 jurors that can get cleared at that. Level. :)
 
Last edited:

Ishmael

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
61,356
18,597
Fuctifino
There is certainly a flurry of indictments coming suddenly. I hope the blizzard engulfs all his accomplices and enablers.
 

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
the grifter is already fundraising based upon the indictment
1686284885915.png
 

S35

Member
203
262
PNW
Observation:

Trusty was on the news tonight, arguing that the espionage statute implies intent to harm the country (it doesn't).

Seems to me that they're already building a case for leniency in a possible plea deal.

S35
 

Sisyphus

Super Anarchist
1,161
855
Tartarus
The problem is many millions not sequestered in the jury will never believe the government. After the gulf war, I don’t believe government assurances based on classified information. They need to assure conservatives and skeptics that might listen to evidence they really have evidence, not just a Colin Powell willing to lie convincingly.
There is a whole Classified Information Procedures Act that governs the handling of classified information in courts. The court will follow that.

As to the people who won’t believe the government if they don’t get to hear the classified information, those people won’t believe the government anyway. The stop the steal cases were ripped apart in open court, yet people still think that the election was stolen. There will always be an excuse as to how Trump is the victim (the documents are deep state fakes, blah, blah, blah).

The government won’t reveal classified information to appease conspiracy-minded chucklefucks because, to the chucklefucks, there is always a deeper conspiracy.



And the gulf war was different. There it was a one-sided propaganda presentation by the government. Here there is a hopefully impartial gatekeeper (the judge) balancing the rights of the accused with the need to keep classified information secret. It is part of the judge’s function to ensure that whatever summary or redacted version the government gives accurately reflects the underlying classified information and is sufficient to ensure that the accused has a fair opportunity to respond. There is also an adversarial and motivated party, a burden of proof, a jury, and appeals.

Sure the government can do shitty things in cases. But this is one of the most significant criminal cases in U.S. history and Jack Smith has a good reputation. Say I’m naive, but I doubt that in this case, of all cases, the government will mischaracterize the underlying classified information. There is too much scrutiny.
 
Last edited:



Latest posts

SA Podcast

Sailing Anarchy Podcast with Scot Tempesta

Sponsored By:

Top