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.
Like when Sandy Berger walked out of the National Archives with documents hidden in his underwear.
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
This is what happened. The prosecutor walked into the grand jury and said, indict Trump. They said ok.
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.
* Complicit.
Fact
* Contributory
Fact
* Boxes, not safes
Fact
* Transport
Fact
* Daylight
Fact
"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.
Thanks for the image in Post 1
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a/compiledact-96-456
“The court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete specified items of classified information from documents to be made available to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a/compiledact-96-456/section-4
“(a)Notice by Defendant.—
If a defendant reasonably expects to disclose or to cause the disclosure of classified information in any manner in connection with any trial or pretrial proceeding involving the criminal prosecution of such defendant, the defendant shall, within the time specified by the court or, where no time is specified, within thirty days prior to trial, notify the attorney for the United States and the court in writing. Such notice shall include a brief description of the classified information....”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18a/compiledact-96-456/section-5
“....his counsel, Lloyd Cutler, asked me point blank one day when I made the mistake of just stopping by to say hello, if I was keeping a diary with the president. So somebody in the White House told him, and he felt honor obliged to disclose that to the special prosecutor, who was then up and running, not the fact that we were a diarist but to disclose it to the lawyer, David Kendall, who was handling those matters for both Clintons.”
“And David had to listen to some of the tapes, so he knew about them. And he had to respond to the subpoenas, asking for pertinent information in the president’s possession about these topics that they were investigating. And we were on pins and needles, that is the president and I and eventually Hillary, about whether those submissions that he made would tip off the special prosecutor’s office that the disclosures that, the little items that he picked out that he said were responsive to the subpoenas, comments about Whitewater or whatever, were part of a larger project and that that would leak. But fortunately it didn’t happen. And I don’t really know very much about Kendall’s interaction with the special prosecutor except to say that we never got a subpoena for them, and I never got a subpoena about this project. So we escaped somehow.”
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/113269412
“Ultimately, plaintiff conceded that even an order deeming the materials to be Presidential records and directing the defendant to make an effort to retrieve them would not bind the former President to produce them, Tr. at 60:14–20, and it would not make them magically available under FOIA”
I’m not a lawyer and I can’t absolutely state that the quote is relevant.
If the Socks don’t fit, you must acquit!
Trump’s lawyers letter to Congress, well worth the read. It sounds as if NARA was setting him up.
If the jury was not informed of the law how could they rule on the evidence? Case dismissed by Judge Cannon.
Trumps attorney client privilege was destroyed, as they said the lawyer was part of the crime. But Cheryl Mills, the Hillary attorney actually smashed cell phones with a hammer, and they didn’t dare interview her.
They should play “Send In The Clowns” theme when the DOJ shows up for this trial.
What’s the law got to do with it?
Absolutely NOTHING.
The United States of America has become an AUTHORITARIAN state ruled by an ILLEGITMATELY installed regime.
Trump is simply making his COMMON SENSE arguments to the court of public opinion who are also legitimate voters IF legitimate votes really matter.
The polls tell me Trump arguments are WINNING in the court of public opinion.
Trump’s strongest argument was one of the first he made.
The major purpose of the indictment at least the timing of the indictment was to DISTRACT from the real crimes of Biden which are MINOR compared to the acts of TREASON committed by Big Brother to cover-up those crimes.
Biden is a small fish compared to those like Mike Morrell in the CIA who committed crimes to see that Biden was illegitimately installed through the completion of a coup.
.