Trump says he should be exonerated because jury was not informed about law or Clinton case

Just the News ^ | Updated: June 13, 2023 - 11:54am | Madeleine Hubbard

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday said that he should be exonerated of the federal charges he faces relating to his handling of classified materials because the grand jury in the case was not informed about the Presidential Records Act or about another case involving former President Bill Clinton's storage of presidential materials in his sock drawer.

"THE GRAND JURY WAS NEVER TOLD ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT OR THE CLINTON SOCKS CASE, BOTH EXONERATING!" Trump posted in all capital letters on Truth Social as he is scheduled to appear in a federal court in Miami later in the day for his arraignment on 37 counts for allegedly mishandling classified documents.

The grand jury issued the indictment containing the more than three dozen counts against Trump last week.

Trump has said that he is protected under the Presidential Records Act, which he argued allows him to continue negotiating with the National Archives about which materials he could retain from his time in the Oval Office. The National Archives has said this claim is "false." 

The Clinton sock drawer case started when historian Taylor Branch revealed in a 2009 book that he and Clinton had made hours of audio recordings during Clinton's presidency. The tapes were stored in the White House sock drawer.

Judicial Watch, a legal watchdog group, filed a lawsuit to compel the Archives to forcibly seize the Clinton tapes. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson rejected the case by stating that the Presidential Records Act did not include a provision allowing the Archives to seize materials from former presidents.

But Jackson's ruling included some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

This tells you everything you need to know about the "classified document" hoax:

[CA Conservative]

Sadly, I don’t think the prosecutor is required to present exonerating evidence to the grand jury. The grand jury process is very one-sided. Trump can present the PRA and Clinton socks case in his defense, but I’m not sure the case can be thrown out just because the grand jury was not informed. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is set up.

[thegagline]

The Grand Jury doesn't hear adverse case law. Also, the Grand Jury typically doesn't hear facts adverse to the prosecution's case. This is yet another example of not knowing the function of a Grand Jury.

[Jess Kitting]

Clinton socks case

Like when Sandy Berger walked out of the National Archives with documents hidden in his underwear.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Robert Barnes did a pretty comprehensive outline of all the defenses available to Trump. Here is a Rumble link

[MAGAthon]

some relevant stuff from Bongino today. he’s on fire:

Rumble: Dan Bongino Show: They’ve Got Tapes (Ep. 2030) - 06/13/2023
https://rumble.com/v2txxx0-theyve-got-tapes-ep.-2030-06132023.html

[roving]

This is what happened. The prosecutor walked into the grand jury and said, indict Trump. They said ok.

[noiseman]

This ridiculous circus is yet another indicator that we’re living in a post-constitutional society. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” And that’s it. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the President IS the executive branch. There is not one word anywhere about the authority of the President ever being subordinate to bureaucratic rules, regulations, procedures, or even statutes, as such pertain to the administration of the executive function. Yet that’s what most today believe, that a rat’s nest of procedures, policies, and traditions somehow trumps the clear language of the Constitution, which is absurd.

Frankly, the Constitution gives the President absolute power to create or abolish any departments of the government that fall under the executive, which is the vast majority of them (while funding them is the purview of Congress). But look up the question of whether the President can merely reorganize the executive branch departments and you will find a maze of ridiculous legalistic nonsense that claims the President can only do so under very limited circumstances, and only after jumping through numerous regulatory hoops and gaining the permission of dozens of his subordinates. What utter crap. Remember, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Doesn’t say, “…in unelected bureaucrats”, doesn’t say, “…if the deep state approves”, and doesn’t say, “…if you’re not Donald Trump.”

Those rules, regs, and statutes exist, but they’re all completely unconstitutional to the extent that they in any way limit the authority of the President to exercise his executive power, which is absolute. Of course, probably 95% of the federal government as constituted today is unconstitutional. Just because weasel lawyers and activist judges have incrementally twisted the law and moved us far away from the original intent of the Constitution doesn’t change the fact that none of those contrivances can overrule the plain language of the supreme law of the land.

This Trump case would be a perfect opportunity to start hammering that point home. His attorneys should place a copy of the Constitution in front of every prosecution witness, and challenge them to point to where it gives anyone other than the President the authority to question or overrule ANY decision made, or action taken, by the President as it pertains to the organization or operation of the executive branch. They won’t find it.

[Varsity Flight]

* Complicit.

Fact

* Contributory

Fact

* Boxes, not safes

Fact

* Transport

Fact

* Daylight

Fact

[Varsity Flight]

✍️

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Fact: You want it both ways.

1. He was forced to take the documents by NARA because they were his.

2. He can be prosecuted for taking the documents because they were not his.

You have perfected Orwell's doublethink.

You must be highly intelligent.

[linMcHlp]

To clarify a portion of that photo's caption:

"the fact that the NARA dumped those documents in the parking lot of the White House for Trump to deal with"

10-page letter written by Parlatore Law Group, April 26, 2023, representing President Trump.

The letter was addressed to Chairman Mike Turner, House Permanent Selection Committee on Intelligence.

Pg. 1, EXCERPT:

[NARA] did not take custody of the documents and this made necessary the transfer of boxes of documents to President Trump's heavily secured home at Mar-a-Lago. To be clear, had NARA offered President Trump the same assistance that it had provided to all previous Presidents, he would have accepted the offer and there would have been no reason to transfer the documents to Mar-a-Lago.

[linMcHlp]

The NARA reply re the April 24, 2023, letter from Parlatore Law Group:

National Archives Records Administration (NARA)

Press Statements in Response to Media Queries About Presidential Records - April 27, 2023 Statement

EXCERPTS:

The April 24, 2023, letter from Timothy Parlatore, John Rowley, James Trusty, and Lindsey Halligan to House Permanent Selection Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner incorrectly states that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) “declined to provide archival assistance to President Trump’s transition team.” In a February 10, 2023, letter to House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (which is available online), NARA General Counsel Gary M. Stern clarified a response that he had given during his January 31, 2023, interview with the Committee:

I stated at the interview that it was my recollection that NARA had not provided such assistance. Following the interview, I checked with my colleagues, and I was informed that, in fact, NARA did send staff members to the White House in the final weeks of the Trump Administration to assist with the move of the physical records (including artifacts), in coordination with the DOD team that NARA employed to transport the records from the White House complex to the National Archives.

It is my understanding that this support was logistical in nature and did not involve providing records management guidance. In addition, NARA staff provided on-site transition support to the National Security Council. (The transfer of the electronic records was done by a different process that did not necessitate NARA staff to be onsite.)

Mr. Stern’s letter also described how this assistance was similar to the assistance that NARA had provided to the White House during the three previous Presidential transitions.

The packing of boxes and transfer of records from the White House to NARA at the end of each Administration is always managed and controlled by White House and NSC officials. While NARA routinely provides assistance, the NARA staff work under the direction of the White House.

[Skwor]

Correct but the persecutor does know both in is expected to not bring cases before the GJ when the law obviously was not broken.

The persecutor in this case is so far past unethical as to warrant actual criminal charges against him, if for nothing else then charges relating to the use of the “color of the law”

So what is your point other than TDS? Shouldn’t you be worried about the persecution of an innocent man more than politics here?

[ptsal]

Thanks for the image in Post 1

[mewzilla]

Grand juries are allowed to see/hear Brady material.

[mewzilla]

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-5000-issues-related-trials-and-other-court-proceedings

But not for Trump.

Go figure.

[navymom1]

Can the case still be thrown out before trial? A little confusing here.

[Brian Griffin]

“place a copy of the Constitution...”

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have power...To make rules for the government...”

[napscoordinator]

So true. Kinda strange to even bring up. I don’t think anybody brings up other criminal behaviors of others during their issues. A guy who stole can’t say, but charley also stole and wasn’t charged 6 years ago. He’s just throwing out stuff hoping something sticks.