Special counsel blasts judge’s jury instruction request in Trump documents case

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Biden did not willfully retain classified documents. His lawyers returned the documents as soon as they were found.

 

Which makes you befuddled.

Who could expect a befuddled old man to remember he had been stealing classified documents for thirty years and that he had them stored haphazardly in five separate locations, even though he had bragged about them and let his ghost writer some of them in 2017.

 

He just forgot all about them until he decided to have Trump prosecuted, and then all of the sudden they were "discovered", wink-wink-nudge-nudge. 

 

Got it

[impulse]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The law is very clear on a former President having to hand over all Presidential records to NARA. Trump knew the law, which is why he tried to hide presidential records.

 

More to the point, a jury cannot determine the law, only whether someone broke the law. If Judge Cannon is unclear on basics of the law, the 11th Circuit court will educate her, or take her off the case.

 

You may want to look at Judge Cannon's possible jury instructions (that are the topic of this thread), which include this second option:

 

A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision. Although there is no formal means in the PRA by which a president is to make that categorization, an outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.

She may be over-ruled on appeal.  But I'm pretty sure she knows the subject matter better than any of the wannabe legal experts spouting off here.

 

The source I got that from isn't an approved link.  But Google (or Bing) that entire paragraph and you'll see it all over the MSM.  Most of which is blocked here in China, so I can't provide an "acceptable link".  WaPo, MSNBC and several others come up on page 1 of a Bing search.

 

Then quit arguing with the guys agreeing with her here on AN, and argue the topic with her.  Let us know how you do.

 

 

 

Edited April 7 by impulse

[ThailandRyan]

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Right

So you don't believe it.....you folks really amaze me 

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

So you don't believe it.....you folks really amaze me 

There is a recording of him bragging about them letting he ghost writer see them in 2017. 

 

Why were they found all of the sudden? 

 

Stealing classified documents and then turning them over when you realize you are going to get caught is still a crime. 

 

Folks that don't understand that really amaze me. 

[candide]

9 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

But both cases were of the same "crime"... having the classified documents in the first place... trump claims a right to have them... joe claims forgetting about them... not withstanding that trump "refused" to return them and joe (when found out) apologized and returned them... the initial "crime" remains the same... but the prosecution is not equal.

Not at all! As I wrote before in another post, if Trump had given back the documents when asked, there would have been no prosecution.

 

One reason being, as the Republican prosecutor made clear, that it is very difficult to prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.

 

The other reason is the the NARA would probably not even have notified the DOJ if it had got the documents back. The NARA notified the DOJ, after waiting for one year, only because Trump did not give back the documents.

 

And Trump got indicted only after he was caught hiding documents and lying about it. This not only added new "crimes" to the initial one, but also proved beyond any reasonable doubt that that there was an "intent" for the "initial crime"

[candide]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

You may want to look at Judge Cannon's possible jury instructions (that are the topic of this thread), which include this second option:

 

A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision. Although there is no formal means in the PRA by which a president is to make that categorization, an outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.

She may be over-ruled on appeal.  But I'm pretty sure she knows the subject matter better than any of the wannabe legal experts spouting off here.

 

The source I got that from isn't an approved link.  But Google (or Bing) that entire paragraph and you'll see it all over the MSM.  Most of which is blocked here in China, so I can't provide an "acceptable link".  WaPo, MSNBC and several others come up on page 1 of a Bing search.

 

Then quit arguing with the guys agreeing with her here on AN, and argue the topic with her.  Let us know how you do.

 

 

 

She did not state this second option is valid, she just asked the two parties to provide alternative arguments.

 

I also doubt she knows better than the NARA, who's job is to apply the PRA, among others. (Source provided before)

There's nothing written in the PRA that says that an outgoing President has the authority to convert Presidential records (as defined precisely in the PRA. Source provided before) into personal records. It also specifies that sorting the documents must happen before the outgoing President goes.

[candide]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nope.

 

They wanted to get Trump so they conflated a minor administrative case into a major legal case. The entire situation has been very badly done political theatre IMO.

The court case has not yet concluded, so you are unable to say for sure that he refused, or just wanted to have a discussion about them before handing them over or not.

Ridiculous, he was caught hiding documents and lying about it!

[Danderman123]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Who could expect a befuddled old man to remember he had been stealing classified documents for thirty years and that he had them stored haphazardly in five separate locations, even though he had bragged about them and let his ghost writer some of them in 2017.

 

He just forgot all about them until he decided to have Trump prosecuted, and then all of the sudden they were "discovered", wink-wink-nudge-nudge. 

 

Got it

Yep.

 

Biden's staff realized that they should take a look, found a handful of classified documents and turned them in.

 

A reasonable approach, unlike Trump who willfully retained classified documents.

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

You may want to look at Judge Cannon's possible jury instructions (that are the topic of this thread), which include this second option:

 

A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision. Although there is no formal means in the PRA by which a president is to make that categorization, an outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.

She may be over-ruled on appeal.  But I'm pretty sure she knows the subject matter better than any of the wannabe legal experts spouting off here.

 

The source I got that from isn't an approved link.  But Google (or Bing) that entire paragraph and you'll see it all over the MSM.  Most of which is blocked here in China, so I can't provide an "acceptable link".  WaPo, MSNBC and several others come up on page 1 of a Bing search.

 

Then quit arguing with the guys agreeing with her here on AN, and argue the topic with her.  Let us know how you do.

 

 

 

Judge Cannon is an idiot who will be overruled on this issue.

[impulse]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Judge Cannon is an idiot who will be overruled on this issue.

 

Joe Walsh was right.

 

[jerrymahoney]

Judge Blocks Trump’s Lawyers From Naming Witnesses in Documents Case

The special counsel had asked that the names of about two dozen government witnesses be redacted from a public version of a court filing to protect against potential threats or harassment.  April 9, 2024

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/us/politics/trump-documents-witnesses.html

 

Photo caption: Jack Smith, the special counsel, flying back from a court hearing last month. As has become common, Judge Aileen M. Cannon took a shot at him in her ruling even as she agreed with him

 

 

 

[mogandave]

How old Jack-off Smith? He looks pretty rugged…