386
Mar-a-Lago Judge: Jury Sees Top Secret Files or Trump Wins
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
386 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19118 readers
2485 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Cannon is a partisan hack that needs removed, NOW. She has deliberately ignored the CIPA system used to substitute summations for classified materials.
I don't understand how anyone can see someone who was appointed by one of the people involved in the case, and stands to benefit further if said person wins the case, is not a conflict of interest.
I've seen lawyers drop a case over a distant family member they haven't spoken to in decades having once lived with the sitting judge in college. Something that as far as I can see has no bearing on current events at all.
I've seen locals get angry at a judge because they were seen eating in the same restaurant as someone involved in a case, on different sides of the building. With the partitions and seating arrangements, it's likely neither of them even knew the other was there until someone pointed it out.
But this is totally fine. It's fine. Everything's fine. We're all fine here, now. Thanks.
How are you?
It very much is a conflict of interest!
The issue is that there doesn't appear to be anybody both willing and able to do anything about it.
I'm feeling F.I.N.E.
Fuck Is Not Enough
Why the fuck would Juror's need to see the files?
The content within them is irrelevant to the case, other than to determine whether if they are/were Top Secret or not, and Juror's aren't able to make that distinction.
You need an expert/qualified person to deem whether the content was top secret.
Then the juror's decide on the case whether they should have been there or not.
Well it sounds like it could create another lengthy appeal before trial, so that might be the entire reason...
If it comes up, she can, for example, order the documents be provided to the defense as part of discovery. I would not be shocked to learn she has the power to do something similar with the jury - but this sounds like an undeniable excuse for Smith to ask for her to be overridden by her superiors, like he did earlier in the case.
That's exactly why she's doing it. To make the prosecutors appeal like last time, which takes time. Trump just wants to delay all his cases until after the election so he can drop them all when he's president. This is potentially the most serious case against him, as the government doesn't mess around with classified info, but since it's a federal case, he'll have the most power to drop it once he's president.
Yes. But the prosecutors could just redact all classified material. The contents are irrelevant to the case, just the fact that they are classified. Prosecutors can just redact every line and paragraph that's portion marked classified.
Or Biden has the ability to allow anyone to see any classified material if they need to go that far.
Then the terrorist base would start dishonestly whining about Biden interfering in the case.
To be clear, I don't give a shit about their whining, but all indications are that Biden still doesn't realize democracy is in a fight to the death and still thinks appearances matter.
And even then many of these are SCI. Just having a TS is not enough.
Smith needs to call the bluff. If jurors see what's inside, it'll surely shock them that Trump was brazen about spreading it around. She hasn't thought this through.
I thought it was only illegal for people with security clearance to improperly handle or view documents. Otherwise a journalist that published a story based on leaked documents could be prosecuted for looking at the documents.