Posted on 06/10/2023 7:02:47 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Justice Department’s indictment of former President Donald Trump is still all the rage on the airwaves and interwebs. Members of the chattering class have been chiming in, giving their two cents on the matter. Renowned Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz recently offered his opinion on the case during an appearance on Newsmax in which he indicated that Trump’s situation is precarious, but his fate isn’t necessarily sealed.
According to Dershowitz, the indictment against Donald Trump is partly serious and partly expected, as possessing classified material may not be damning due to potential defenses under the Presidential Records Act. However, Dershowitz considers two paragraphs in the indictment particularly damning, which include transcriptions of tape recordings where Trump acknowledges possessing and showing classified papers, suggesting a potential violation.
The law professor believes that while the overall charges are not significantly different from what others like Hillary Clinton could have been charged with, these two paragraphs present a serious case, and Trump’s lawyers or Trump himself will need to provide an explanation for sharing classified information with someone without security clearance.
When asked whether the indictment against Trump was damning, Dershowitz replied:
“Part of it is, part of it isn’t. The material about simply possessing classified material is not a damning indictment. We knew it was coming. The [Presidential] Records Act probably is at least a potential defense to that. There are two damning paragraphs, just two, paragraph 34 and paragraph 35, where they have tape recordings of the former President basically acknowledging that some of the papers that he possessed and showed to a writer — I’ll just read you — so ‘as President I could’ve declassified it. Now I can’t, you know, but this is still [a] secret.’ …
So, I think this is a serious indictment on these two charges. Everything else I think is exactly what we expected. There’s no difference between that and what Hillary Clinton and others have done, not enough to justify this. It doesn’t meet what I call the Richard Nixon standard, which was very clear obstruction of justice, destroying evidence, paying bribes. This is too close a case to bring against a man running for president against the incumbent president. The only exception to that are these two paragraphs, and we’re going to have to hear an explanation from Trump’s lawyers or from Trump as to how he can justify having shown, to somebody who doesn’t have security clearance, allegedly some information about a plan to attack Iran.”
In an example of how Trump’s lawyers might address the audio recording of the conversation, Dershowitz suggested that they “may claim [Trump] didn’t show it to [the other person], he just kind of waved it in front of him as part of his kind of bragging.”
As silly as it might sound, this just might be one of the best strategies Trump’s team could use. The recording was audio only, so it is not clear whether the former president actually had the other individual read the document, or just “waved it in front of him” as Dershowitz suggested. There is a significant difference between giving someone a document and having them read it and just brandishing it in front of them to show that he possessed the document. The government will have to prove to a jury that the former president actually showed the other person the classified contents in the papers.
Trump was informed earlier this week that he will be indicted by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The special counsel, Jack Smith, who was appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate the former president, charged Trump with offenses related to “gathering, transmitting, or losing” national defense information. The charges reportedly include a violation of the US Code that prohibits such actions. There is also speculation about potential charges of false statements and obstruction of justice.
The charges being considered align with earlier reports that highlighted a recorded conversation between Trump and representatives of Mark Meadows, in which Trump allegedly mentioned a classified government document pertaining to an Iran invasion. Republicans criticized the timing of the indictment, as it appears that the DOJ intentionally delayed the process to ensure that the trial takes place after Trump possibly secures the Republican nomination and also to distract from the bribery scandal involving President Joe Biden.
If the government cannot prove that Trump revealed the contents of a classified document to an unauthorized individual, it might be difficult to win a conviction. The rest of the charges appear to be on the same level as Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, which did not result in so much as an indictment. Indeed, James Comey, who was director of the FBI at the time, publicly exonerated her.
Still, there are many “unknown unknowns” in this caper. Perhaps the DOJ has more damning evidence showing the former president engaged in worse misconduct. It’s also possible that they are throwing whatever they can against the wall and hoping something will stick. I suppose we will find out soon enough.
The recording was audio only, so it is not clear whether the former president actually had the other individual read the document, or just “waved it in front of him” as Dershowitz suggested.
________________________________
It’s likely the prosecution doesn’t even have that “classified document” in the first place.
This latest attempt to smear Trump in Miami is falling like a house of cards.
From twitter:
Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
·
23h
NEW: Special Counsel Smith’s indictment alleges Trump showed off a military paper that he boasted was classified “highly confidential” and “secret,” but the transcript reveals Trump actually said: “like, highly confidential” and “a secret.” Smith omitted the words “like” and “a.”
I’m not particularly fond of Democrats, But I’ll vote for the next guy that eliminates all of them from the government.
“...it appears that the DOJ intentionally delayed the process to ensure that the trial takes place after Trump possibly secures the Republican nomination and also to distract from the bribery scandal involving President Joe Biden.”
Gee, ya think? The very same day conclusive evidence shows Biden took a 5 million dollar bribe - the DOJ comes forward with this indictment.
Paul Sperry
@paulsperry_
·
21h
BREAKING: Sources say Special Counsel Smith does not actually have the supposed “smoking gun” doc Trump is heard on an audio talking about, which means he cannot prove it is classified and thus prove Trump knew it was classified. Prosecutors have no real evidence to show jurors
Add Trumps boring speech today and we might be driving off a cliff.
.
Well he’s just trying to more boring than Desantis
Shut up Alan and go get another murderer off.
Dershowitz should be waterboarded regarding his relationship with Epstein.
C’mon Dersh , do it . Dersh prolly wears a gimp suit.
Go for it but expect the rest of us to do the same.
Trump’s “boring” speeches are better than any speech DeSantis has given in his life.
You can be sure that Smith is sure to omit important words to make his case against Donald J Trump.
My question is, “Did Joe Biden leave classified material in an unlocked garage?
I served our Nation during the “Cold War.” I flew B-52s armed with nuclear weapons. My crew was entrusted with and had Top Secret/crypto clearances.
The crew had, four men of six, armed. Our mission was “ESI, SIOP, NoForn secret.
We were guarding those secrets with our lives.
Would we leave them in a garage with our cars?
I would hate to have Special Counsel Smith answer that question.
He is a rabid leftist lawyer who should be disbarred for his actions in this case.
How do I know he wasn’t showing the outside paper wrapper for toilet paper?
>> particularly damning audio re “secrets”
nothing has yet surfaced giving veracity to this curious claim
nothing has yet surfaced giving veracity to this curious claim
Yes. And it seems in another thread, a credible source--a gov official--makes the case that the President's executive powers to conduct foreign policy (which are independent of the other branches of the Federal government) give him free rein to reveal even classified information with foreign officials if he believes it will benefit the US.
That argument makes sense to me, since the USC does make the three Federal branches co-equal, and gives the President executive powers.
That’s a difference and sounds like a typical Trump brag rather than a cold hard fact
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.