166

Trump’s access to classified information restricted as he heads to trial in documents case, federal judge rules (www.cnn.com)

submitted 1 year ago by deconstruct@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Former President Donald Trump will be restricted on how and when he can look at, and talk about, classified information, a judge decided Wednesday after a sealed hearing the day before.

The decision appears to largely be in line with restrictions special counsel Jack Smith sought to protect classified information that may be evidence in the case against Trump, which accuses him of criminally mishandling sensitive national security secrets at his Florida club and residence after he left office.

The development is one of the first times the court has set terms around classified information in a case where Trump’s team has tried to downplay the seriousness of how records were handled. Trump’s legal team had wanted more leeway on the locations where they could discuss classified records with him, including at the Mar-a-Lago club and his Bedminster, New Jersey, residence.

Judge Aileen Cannon warned in her order of the consequences should any classified or otherwise sensitive information be improperly revealed to the public, pointing out such disclosures may violate the law.

She added that even if classified information “enters the public domain,” both Trump and his team will still be “precluded from making private or public statements” regarding the classified status of information or suggesting that their own access to information confirms or contradicts what’s in the public domain.

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Squizzy@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Or his shitty lawyers, to be honest.

The shitty lawyers that didn’t tell him he needed to give them back… and helped shuffle them around.

[+] Yearly1845@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

[deleted]

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

First, latin phrases don't make you sound smart. they make you sound pretentious.
Secondly, there is the "Advice of Counsel" defense- saying, basically, that you were told by your lawyer that a given thing was legal. in Trump's case, it doesn't apply, largely because many of the people who were counseling him... weren't in fact his lawyer at the time that they were giving that advice; and I'm pretty sure you'd have to also make an argument that you didn't have any reason to know.

[-] Fondots@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Latin terms are frequently used when discussing law, and that's one of them. It's maybe one of less commonly used ones among us laypeople compared to something like "habeas corpus," but it's still an actual term used to discuss a specific concept.

Lots of fields have terms of art that are maybe a bit unusual or unfamiliar to the average person, but using them doesn't mean the person is trying to sound smart, they're just using the proper terminology. Would you give someone shit for using the word "mortise" instead of something like "slot” or "hole" when discussing woodworking? Or for using baker's percentages when sharing a bread recipe? Somehow I doubt it, so why give people shit for using legal terms when talking about law?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I agree, and I think the person above you was a jerk about it, but 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' is a much more common way of phrasing it in English.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ordinarily you'd be right, but Americans do have the right to see what evidence is being used to accuse them. If you're accused of improperly handling Document A1, you have to reasonably know what that document is, otherwise the government could accuse you of any crime and hide the evidence under the guise of "it's classified, trust us bro!"

Also, he's (probably) already seen these documents, so there's no further damage that could be done allowing him to examine them again in a reasonably secure location (provided he doesn't talk about them, of course).

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

To be clear, no one is saying Trump can’t ever see what is in these documents. They’ve just limited where and how his legal team can discuss the documents with him.

[-] bamboo 6 points 1 year ago

provided he doesn’t talk about them, of course

We all know he's clearly incapable of doing that.

[-] ensignrick@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago

Fwiw clearance holders have a two year period where their clearance is still valid after leaving a cleared job however having continued active access to the classified material is entirely different and not very likely at all.

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago

Well Putin’s not going to like this..

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Putin doesnt care, he and MBS have already bought copies

[-] TwoGems@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Very likely Trump already sold all our secrets to Russia, China, and whomever.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The development is one of the first times the court has set terms around classified information in a case where Trump’s team has tried to downplay the seriousness of how records were handled.

Trump’s legal team had wanted more leeway on the locations where they could discuss classified records with him, including at the Mar-a-Lago club and his Bedminster, New Jersey, residence.

Cannon held a sealed hearing about the handling of classified information in the case on Tuesday in South Florida, according to multiple sources familiar with the proceeding.

Cannon also asked for additional briefing on the rules Nauta and de Olivera should be subject to under the relevant law, the Classified Information Procedures Act.

The original article contains 815 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

🙃

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023

166 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19072 readers

3426 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

• 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