386
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The MAGA-friendly federal judge who keeps siding with Donald Trump in his Mar-a-Lago classified records case has forced prosecutors to make a stark choice: allow jurors to see a huge trove of national secrets or let him go.

U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’sultimatum Monday night came as a surprise twist in what could have been a simple order; one merely asking federal prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers for proposed jury instructions at the upcoming trial.

But as she has done repeatedly, Cannon used this otherwise innocuous legal step as yet another way to swing the case wildly in favor of the man who appointed her while he was president.

Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith must now choose whether to allow jurors at the upcoming criminal trial to peruse the many classified records found at the former president’s South Florida mansion or give jurors instructions that would effectively order them to acquit him.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 66 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

This ignorance alone should get her removed from the case. Dear Lord. There are laws and rules for how classified information must be handled. Wtf?

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 16 points 8 months ago

There are also rules for evidence, which are generally the most important rulings in a criminal trial. Allowing the documents to be left out but also used as evidence is an obvious appeal that likely wins, secret evidence isn't allowed.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 33 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

How the fuck do you prosecute this case then? Read all the jury in just to see the evidence and then back out again?

The jury needs to know if they’re classified. Why do they need to see the contents?

[-] villainy@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago

This is what I'm asking. What do the contents of the documents have to do with the case at hand? How do the contents of these classified documents absolve him of the charges for making false statements and obstruction of justice?

[-] borari@sh.itjust.works 13 points 8 months ago

And if the jury really needs to know the contents of the files, I don’t see any issue with just swearing in a jury of already cleared TS SCI w/Poly Commissioned Officers, or just full send it and let Trump get prosecuted in a military court. I’d love to see a bunch of GWOT brass ream that dudes asshole.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

The government doesn't get to just claim things. If they want beyond all reasonable doubt that files were actually dangerous they have to show the files. They could try just going the expert testimony route, but that is a lot harder to prove. Another option would be getting Trump to agree the documents were classified, but that's a dumb move to agree.

[-] noisefree@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago

Lol, the documents are either marked classified or not - he's not being prosecuted for having "dangerous" (whatever that means) files, he's being prosecuted for possessing and improperly handling classified files and trying to hide evidence of this and refusing to turn them over when asked to do so.

The core of the alleged crime deals with documents that are classified, not the contents of the classified documents, it does not matter why the documents were classified, only that they are classified. Whether the documents should be classified or where to mundane to be classified in the first place is not something for the jury to consider and not what the prosecution is about; any suggestions to the contrary are smoke and mirrors meant to muddy public discourse.

All the jury needs to be able to verify about the documents possessed by Trump is whether they were marked classified or not, which is a matter of record and is generally denoted by the documents being marked as such.

The judge is being absolutely unreasonable here and the only benefit of the doubt she can be granted is that maybe she just doesn't understand the law (which would be pretty much just as bad).

This AP timeline of the events leading up to the indictment is a neutral recounting of the facts surrounding the case that should help provide a better understanding, assuming you're posting in good faith.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago

I'm pretty sure nothing in the law states that only "dangerous" classified stuff counts. The government absolutely has final say in what is classified.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago

Yeah it could be the Navy's secret ice cream recipe and it wouldnt change the consequences.

[-] hobbes_@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago

Everything you just said was wrong

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

Another option would be getting Trump to agree the documents were classified, but that’s a dumb move to agree.

He already did, on tape

“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump says. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/26/politics/trump-classified-documents-audio/index.html

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 11 points 8 months ago

He didn't choose most of these documents because of their contents, just because they're classified to satisfy his power trip, so all the jury needs to know is that they're genuine government documents which are classified which he didn't have the right to take.

If this case had involved what he did with information in it then sure, but it ISN'T

[-] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Secret evidence is literally allowed all the time when dealing with secrets if the document in question is specs of nuclear weapons you redact all the strategically important info and allow them to see the header and subject matter without all the details.

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
386 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers
2861 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS