I’ve cited this source earlier in the thread – it’s a 24pg PDF on the DoD’s site. Bolding mine:
National defense information in general is protected by the Espionage Act,21 18 U.S.C. §§ 793–798, while other types of relevant information are covered elsewhere. Some provisions apply only to government employees or others who have authorized access to sensitive government information, but the following provisions apply to all persons. 18 U.S.C. § 793 prohibits the gathering, transmitting, or receipt of defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation. Violators are subject to a fine or up to 10 years imprisonment, or both, as are those who conspire to violate the statute. Persons who possess defense information that they have reason to know could be used to harm the national security, whether the access is authorized or unauthorized, and who disclose that information to any person not entitled to receive it, or who fail to surrender the information to an officer of the United States, are subject to the same penalty. Although it is not necessary that the information be classified by a government agency, the courts seem to give deference to the executive determination of what constitutes “defense information.” Information that is made available by the government to the public is not covered under the prohibition, however, because public availability of such information negates the bad-faith intent requirement. On the other hand, classified documents remain within the ambit of the statute even if information contained therein is made public by an unauthorized leak.
All the news shows, needing to get some images of Trump since no cameras were permitted in the courtroom, broadcast his stop at Miami restaurant Versailles in Little Havana.
From what I understand, it is still up to her whether to allow it. Going against those other judges does not appear to me to be more outside the boundaries than her previous rulings in the documents case. That’s why I fully expect her to disallow it, and will be pleasantly surprised if she goes the other way.
What would it take to convince you? If I was shown some government documents, like the ones at issue in this case, I wouldn’t know how to tell if they were real or not. They could be forgeries, or Hollywood props; I couldn’t tell. They could be outdated; something that became common knowledge years ago with the defense community, and are no longer secret. As an element of the prosecution’s case, they must demonstrate should not have been in Trump’s possession. I’d want to hear from someone with direct knowledge that the documents were genuine, and contained defense information. I don’t know that I’d gain anything more by seeing them for myself.
Did the whole motorcade go through the drive-thru?
There was no information. And if there was, the FBI planted it. And if they didn’t, it was declassified. And if it wasn’t, he was allowed to have it because of Clinton’s socks!
Don’t forget the Presidential Records Act, which states that not every document the president deals with is the president’s personal property. Which Trump the Lying Criminal contends states that every document the president deals with is MINE!
** throws pacifier on the floor **
I’d expect the government to have an expert witness to testify to the veracity of those documents.
That’s generally what you do in trials. Experts explain the facts to the jury, they don’t expect the jury to be experts on a particular subject. You don’t show the jury the rate of decomposition of a body so they can decide if the time of death fits with the time the accused has no alibi. They let the coroner or whoever testify, because that’s the expert. Similarly, the jury doesn’t look over the documents to decide the sensitivity of the information, someone with expertise and the clearance to look at the documents will testify to it.
Sometimes the defense will have their own expert witness to counter, though I’m not sure how you’d do that in this case.
(This is based on what I’ve read, not a lawyer, and haven’t sat in on a real court case outside of traffic court.)
Trump’s already admitted they were, at one time, classified, which means — not forgeries.
But I guess the defense theory could evolve there.
As for what it would take to convince me, one way or the other — listening throughout the trial and then going through a careful deliberation process with an open mind.
I’m not auditioning to be a holdout juror, or any kind of juror. But if the proof is a bit weak, I see no harm in a guilty politician going free (a complex claim that I guess could deserve its own thread).
That’s the way they do it on Law & Order, too. They’ll have a gun or a knife in an evidence bag and show it to the jury. Someone will testify about where the weapon was found. Someone else will testify that it is, or is consistent with, the murder weapon. Those are important facts to establish in proving the case. Actually holding the gun (or reading a document) doesn’t tell me anything more in deciding the defendant’s guilt.
I don’t generally quote them though. I watch enough real lawyer videos to know that they get SO MUCH wrong on shows and movies that I don’t trust them. Real trials don’t make for good entertainment. Well, not usually.
The cool part is how the classification level isn’t part of the charges the the government brought! It’s just a Trump strawman.
(But since many of the documents reportedly are quite classified, and naturally would still be to this very moment, the court will have to find a way to present the evidence to the jurors.)
