yes, but that fits the authors argument. You are saying, the DOJ will admit to Americans, that a former elected President is convicted - WITH THIS.
It will be officially confirmed to the world. America has become a FRAUD.
Posted on 06/23/2023 10:24:48 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
But I see it differently: he “boxed in” the Department of Justice, pun intended.
The strongest part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment is the transcript of a recoded conversation with a journalist in which Trump appears to refer to a defense-related document that he says is secret, and that he had not declassified when he left the White House.
Trump told Bret Baier that there really was no such document. The question could be resolved by witnesses. But it might also force prosecutors to produce the document itself.
There might be no legal obstacle, in theory, to prosecutors convicting someone of a crime based on evidence the public is not allowed to see, in some circumstances. But if the evidence is so secret that it cannot be shared with defense attorneys and jurors, who typically lack security clearance, the trial may be open to various procedural challenges.
Most of all, it is going to be very difficult to convince the public that the trial is, in fact, a fair one.
This is the first prosecution of a former president, and a leading opposition candidate. The legal burden of proof is the same, but the prosecution faces an additional, political burden to show that the trial is not an abuse of the justice system for political ends.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
If the mysterious document does, in fact, exist, Jack Smith is going to have to decide whether to show it to the public. If he cannot, or he does not, the prosecution will lack legitimacy.
In the Bret Baier interview, Trump managed to target the key piece of evidence against him in a way that forces the Department of Justice to decide if it really wants to pursue that episode as part of the case. And without that episode, much of the rest of the case is both uninteresting to the public and legally murky for a jury.
Trump may have hurt himself by talking about the case so freely on TV. But he also might have called Jack Smith’s bluff.
This is a specious argument.
The prosecution can easily produce a heavily redacted unclassified version of the document for viewing by the jury and defense, and show only the judge the unredacted document, who can then order that the redacted version is accepted into evidence as a true and accurate representation of the original.
It's been done countless times before. Sometimes the judge must first obtain the proper background clearance, but it's been done before.
So interesting.
It seems that Trump is fine with having the case heard in the court of public opinion. And Trump makes it look easy.
It’s not about a document. It’s about interfering with the election of a man who they perceive to be a threat to their corruption ($ & power) as well as setting a precident to keep other demonrat Presidents, safe from the prosecution of their corruptions. I won’t mention any names.
And Chris Christie is a fat nobody.
If this guy’s argument was true, a lot of classified charges could never stick. The guy is blowing smoke up peoples’ butts.
Except of course that it is, with about 1/3 of the country in support of it.
It is very similar to the issue surrounding Trump's first impeachment - the allegation that his attempt to find out how corrupt the Biden's were wrt Ukraine amounted to "political interference" against his political rival (who hadn't even announced his candidacy at the time!).
The rumor is that there’s no audio, just a transcript. Thus, the strongest argument is hearsay.
yes, but that fits the authors argument. You are saying, the DOJ will admit to Americans, that a former elected President is convicted - WITH THIS.
It will be officially confirmed to the world. America has become a FRAUD.
Also, I am assuming that you meant classified document, as there would be little need to highly redact an unclassified document.
But let's suppose that it is a classified document, and it is highly redacted. Of what benefit do you think would be gained for the jurors to even consider what they have seen as evidence, when the majority of it is redacted?
The only entity that benefits from that is potentially the prosecution. For it may possibly provide an impression that the document was far more than it actually was.
At this point, I don’t underestimate President Trump in what he reveals and how he does it. He is a brilliant man and depends on God. When he appears to ‘step in it’...it usually brings to light more evil that government is doing to the people...who are supposed to be the bosses!!!
God bless President Trump and his family especially for their love of God, family and America. For their patience while evil keeps thinking it is winning but it is actually showing us where they are and how we need to counter.
Make America Great Again...but Make it Truthful and Kind to the rest of the world with our ‘gifts’.
Pollack
Forked tongue
Maybe it’s possible Trump was referring to a story about his plan to attack when he was referring to the attack document as something he could’ve unclassified but didn’t. I assume they would have witnesses saying he in fact had the document and wall papered the room with it for all to see. I am loathe to accept semantic arguments that smell like Clinton “is” definitions. He either actually had the document and shared it and they can show this with the document identified by witnesses or not. Trump probably should shut up about specific allegations.
How does a president declassify something? What is the process? Does he file a form (in triplicate of course), stamp it with an ink pad, holler out to a clerk “declassify this, I’m taking it home”? How is it proven one way or another that a doc has been declassified by Trump?
Which I addressed. The judge may need to first obtain the proper clearance to see the original document, but it can and has been done.
Also, I am assuming that you meant classified document, as there would be little need to highly redact an unclassified document.
No, I said the defense could CREATE a highly redacted UNCLASSIFIED VERSION of the original classified document for use in the public trial, and show the classified document ONLY TO THE JUDGE and if satisfied, the judge can then instruct the jury and the defense that the redacted version is a true representation of the original classified document that they are not allowed to see.
yes, but that fits the authors argument. You are saying, the DOJ will admit to Americans, that a former elected President is convicted - WITH THIS.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
if a crooked judge can include redacted version as evidence, from anonymous witnesses presented to a biased jury (DC/NYC) and take down a political enemy.....we have lost our country
I agree that America has become a fraud, and one only needs to look at how Hunter and Joe Biden were treated by the DOJ vs. how President Trump is treated.
Big difference between the two examples. But your example leaves out one tiny detail: The judge will see the unredacted version, know exactly what was redacted and why, and can stipulate that the redacted version is an accurate representation of the original.
When the government releases your example document in response to a FOIA request, you have no clue what was redacted, and nobody "neutral" has confirmed that the redacted portions needed to be redacted.
I agree. And with the fact of the matter being that whatever jurors are selected will have already heard ad nauseum about the case from the drive-by media, Trump would be a fool to not try to speak his side of the case to the public as well.
You are both arguing that a woke, trump-hating, controlled judge, in league with the DOJ, could make all kinds of rules to keep “evidence” hidden.
Yes, its all possible, and within their power
BUT - how biased and corrupt are they willing to appear to serve their purpose? Are they willing to destroy themselves and their reputation to country and world in the process?
His only hope in any conviction is the Federal appeals courts.
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.