Yes, there was a bit of “D’oh!” as I read the next post…
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Was this Iran attack plan on the list of documents mentioned by the prosecution? Or do we think he’s already handed it back (not that it matters for the case).
Moderating:
You obviously missed the earlier mod notes re hijacking. Go back and make sure you mind them, please. This is a hijack.
You were specifically noted for hijacking earlier. A warning will issue next time for doing it.
This thread is not about Trump’s incidental responses to his prosecutions. It’s about one of the prosecutions’ process and procedure. Take hijacks about Trump’s inane responses elsewhere.
The descriptions of the documents are a bit vague, but it could be #11, or maybe #20, 25 or 26.
I wouldn’t be so confident. I mean, his lawyers are going to have to make some case or other. Is there any better case they could make? When all of the possible defenses are laughable, you can’t rule out a defense on the grounds that it’s laughable.
But there’s no way Trump can make that defense unless he takes the stand. Which is absolutely not happening.
One of Trump’s former attorneys was being interviewed yesterday (day before?) about what he believed Trump’s defense would be. I’m paraphrasing, obviously, but the gist was that Trump’s defense team would focus like a laser beam on the idea that while Trump was president, he had every right to show any classified document to whomever he wished and declassify anything on a whim. To expect him to appreciate the difference between what he was permitted to do when he was president and when he wasn’t is unreasonable.
The attorney made it clear that this defense would be presented to the one juror (if only one there is) who might buy it and cause a mistrial. He also said that whether such an argument could be offered at all was a legal question for the judge, but he felt confident that Cannon would probably allow it.
He emphasized he was only opining on what the trial court defense was likely to be. Not on whether it would be successful.
How about this way? ‘Mr. Trump waved documents during a recorded meeting, claiming they were classified. In the recording, Mt. Trump does not actually show the contents of the documents, but merely shows papers – which could be anything. The prosecution has yet to prove, and we believe cannot prove, that the “documents” Mr. Trump had in his hand were actually classified documents, and not merely a shopping list. The jury must acquit based on this reasonable doubt.’
Oh, come on, he isn’t THAT fat!
But I don’t think that’s what the tape is for. As others commented upthread, it’s not even clear from the indictment if the Badminster papers are part of the case.
The significance of the tape is that it torpedoes the proposed defence that he didn’t know what classified documents meant, and didn’t know that he ceased to have the right to share those docs once he stopped being president.
The tape apparently shows that he knew documents were still classified, that he hadn’t declassified them, and that they still were secret.
That really undercuts a “he was too stupid to know” defence.
I saw one article (can’t remember where) that said the Badminster recording was what tipped the prosecutors into charging him, because it undercuts the “I didn’t know” defence, which is one possible defence under the espionage act. That recording provides clear evidence of his knowledge of the rules, and is crucial to the prosecution showing mens rea.
ETA: responding to @Johnny_L.A, not Chronos.
I blame my injured hand.
There’s so much criminal activity, it’s hard for me to keep up.
Real question and I hope it’s relevant (if not, I apologize), might a person have to type things himself if what’s in it is extremely sensitive?
The reason why it might be relevant, is that I wonder if Trump delegating mundane tasks to underlings involving sensitive materials will come out in the trial or factors into these indictments. He sure isn’t moving these boxes himself, or organizing them, etc.
Holy moly - it’s the Arnold Rimmer defence come to life.
“Your honor, my client is so monumentally stupid, he’s even trying to undermine his own defence.”
But the indictments are about what he did after he was president. Even if as POTUS he could show anything to anybody – a premise I highly doubt – as a private citizen he wasn’t supposed to have it, and refused to return it when requested.
I just want to add my non-legal agreement with the significance of The Bedminster Tape.
He’s being charged with – among other things – Willful Retention under the Espionage Act. “Willful” can be a pretty high bar:
But my strong sense is that Trump DID just make pleading ignorance unavailable to him with that tape. He did – as he so often does – yeoman’s work for the prosecution on this one.
Whether or not he shared any National Defense Information inappropriately … we may very well soon find out.
Did you expect anything less?
You know that, and I know that, but:
You know the old saying… if you can’t dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
The attorney who outlined this defense did not endorse it as effective. He was only describing what he thought Trump’s attorneys’ approach would be in the courtroom.
There were prior media reports that indicate otherwise.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if after he got the subpoena, he realized he had waved this specific document around in front of people, and flushed it down the toilet, which would explain why he’s flailing around so much now with the “it was just newspaper clippings!” strategy.
Is this like saying, “If you have no other choice, fight off the bear with a pointy stick?” You obviously want to do anything possible to not be in that situation, but you’re out of good options, and only bad ones are left.
Or was that a comment on how bad the attorneys are?
Or a bit of both?
Only this.
I had no sense of him disparaging Trump’s attorneys in any way, and I would have been surprised if he had done it.
Even as he offered the description of the potential defense, his expression was one of a person trying to discreetly spit out a bad clam at a dinner party.
Hah, beat you to it.