Audio Of Trump Conversation About Secret Iran Attack Plan Contradicts His Denial
The audio makes clear that Trump had a specific document in his hand prepared by the Defense Department that was still secret and had not been declassified by him, contrary to his denial in an Bret Baier interview that he just had a stack of news clippings.
One of the most important charges against Donald Trump in the Florida case is that he showed secret U.S. Military plan to attack Iran during an audio recorded interview, and on the tape admitted that he never declassified the document.
During an interview with Bret Baier from Fox News, Trump asserted that there was no document, that he merely was referencing a stack of news clippings and similar such documents. I covered the indictment allegations and Trump’s denial in Trump Denies Having Or Showing Iran Attack Plans, Contrary to Indictment.
Trump said (via Mediaite)(emphasis added):
Baier noted that the indictment alleges that at “Bedminster on July 21st, 2021 after you’re no longer president, you were recorded saying that you had a document detailing a planned attack on another country that was prepared by the U.S. military for you when you were president. The Iran attack plan.”
“You remember that?” Baier asked.
“It wasn’t a document. I had lots of paper. I had copies of newspaper articles. I had copies of magazines,” Trump said, denying the contents of the tape as Baier read him the exact quote from the indictment.
“This is specifically a quote, you’re quoted on the recording saying the document was ‘secret,’ adding that you could have declassified it while you were president, but, quote, ‘Now I can’t you know, this is still secret, highly confidential.’ And the indictment cites the recording and the testimony from people in the room saying you showed it to people there that day,” Baier clarified.
“It was just the opposite,” Trump shot back.
“You say on tape you can’t declassify. So why have it?” Baier pushed.
“When I said that, I couldn’t declassify it now because I wasn’t president, I never made any bones about that. When I’m not president, I can’t declassify,” Trump replied.
Bret shot back noting again what Trump said on the tape, to which Trump replied, “No, no.”
“Bret, there was no document,” Trump repeated, adding:
That was a massive amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or made up, but that was not a document. I didn’t have a document per se. There was nothing to declassify. These were newspaper stories. Magazine stories and articles.
“I’m just saying what the indictment says. According to the recording and the people in the room,” Baier clarified.
Trump then pivoted to attacking the prosecutors, calling them “very dishonest people, they’re thugs. They’re thugs.”
I noted in that post, that Trump’s explanation did not comport with the partial transcript released by the prosecution:
We haven’t heard the tape or seen the entire transcript, but Trump’s claims seem contrary to the partial transcript (highlighted above) where he clearly seems to be talking about a specific document “done by the military.” We don’t know the testimony of the persons present as to what they did or didn’t see. The feds have the information, and presumably will call those people as witnesses.
The feds can play the tape at trial. But the only way Trump gets into evidence his side of the story as told in the interview is to testify, which it’s extremely unlikely he will do. He can’t show the Bret Baier interview, but the feds can if they think it helps them.
Whether this interview helps or hurts Trump legally remains to be seen, when we find out what else the feds have about the incident to prove what the document was.
We now have a better idea of what was said on the tape, as it was aired tonight by CNN (emphasis added):
The recording obtained by CNN begins with Trump claiming “these are bad sick people,” while his staffer claims there had been a “coup” against Trump.
“Like when Milley is talking about, ‘Oh you’re going to try to do a coup.’ No, they were trying to do that before you even were sworn in,” the staffer says, according to the audio.
The next part of the conversation is mostly included in the indictment, though the audio makes clear there are papers shuffling as Trump tells those in attendance he has an example to show.
“He said that I wanted to attack Iran, Isn’t it amazing?” Trump says as the sound of papers shuffling can be heard. “I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this – this is off the record but – they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.”
The indictment includes ellipses where the recording obtained by CNN shows where Trump and his aide begin talking about Clinton’s emails and Weiner, whose laptop caused the FBI to briefly re-open its investigation into her handling of classified information in the days before the 2016 election she lost to Trump.
Trump then returns to the Iran document, according to the audio recording and indictment transcript.
“I was just thinking, because we were talking about it. And you know, he said, ‘He wanted to attack Iran, and what…,’ ” Trump says.
“These are the papers,” Trump continues, according to the audio file.
“This was done by the military and given to me,” Trump continues, before noting that the document remained classified.
“See as president I could have declassified it,” Trump says. “Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”
“Now we have a problem,” his staffer responds.
“Isn’t that interesting,” Trump says.
While that’s the last line included in the indictment, the audio recording obtained by CNN includes several additional lines from the conversation:
Trump: “It’s so cool. I mean, it’s so, look, her and I, and you probably almost didn’t believe me, but now you believe me.”
Writer: “No, I believed you.”
Trump: “It’s incredible, right?”
Writer: “No, they never met a war they didn’t want.”
Trump: “Hey, bring some, uh, bring some Cokes in please.”
Presumably the prosecution already has grand jury testimony from the people present as to what the document looked like. They will testify at trial. The prosecution will then play the Bret Baier interview in which Trump contradicts the audio and other witnesses.
That’s one of many reasons why talking about it in an interview just made things worse.
CNN now has the Trump recording where he was showing secret documents related to Iran. I don’t think it actually effects the case much, but why would you go on Baier and lie about this when you know the recording is going to come out?https://t.co/HwtF0K1F3U
— AG (@AGHamilton29) June 27, 2023
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So let’s stipulate this.
It means that somebody has proved that Trump had ONE document equivalent to the DOZENS of documents Biden had in his garage, his vacation home, and the office space he shared with America’s greatest enemy.
Also Pence.
And Hillary.
And Obama.
And Hunter, who plagiarized Dad’s and sent them to Ukraine, or China, I don’t even remember which anymore.
Democrats don’t get to scream “what difference does it make” when their party is in power, then pretend it makes a great deal of difference when they’re not.
Sure except for the little problem with an ideological DoJ headed by an AG with motivation for personal animus to Trump and the investigation and indictment over in part classified docs that Trump:
1. Admits to possession of the classified doc
2. Displayed or held up to another person which means that person had ‘unauthorized access’ to the classified doc (yes being in the same room with loose docs above your clearance and need to know is access)
3. Admits he did not declassify the doc
4. Seems to regret he didn’t declassify the doc
5. The person in the room points out ‘we have a problem’, seemingly referring to lack of declassification
That’s gonna be a real obstacle to overcome at trial IF what we are stipulating to in fact occurred like this. It is CNN reporting this and it isn’t as if they have pure and unbiased motives about Trump.
A prosecutor is in possession of allegedly seriously incriminating evidence in a high profile case involving supposedly “national defense” secrets always leaks portions of that evidence out of context because, of course, that only strengthens his case. Or maybe the underlying documentary evidence doesn’t really exist. and the best way to score ;political points is to release such out of context audio when the defendant who is bound by court order can’t effectively respond. It should be noted that whatever documents may be at issue, they were either personal or presidential documents, classified or not. If the archives were entitled to it fine, as an administrative, not criminal matter, return it to them (which may have happened who knows? that whole out of context self serving leak thing is quite an impediment to accuracy). And as an aside, it may be the case broadly speaking that, as a matter of constitutional and/or statutory
…law, that whatever the president takes with him is by that action declassified. No one should expect a president to be an expert on such nuances of law, Up to this time in history everyone respected presidential prerogatives when leaving office. But that was before the Biden corruption of law enforcement.
The last line of your concluding paragraph is the one you should expend more focus upon. ‘…before Biden corruption of Law Enforcement’, add to that an aggressive AG and a DoJ hell bent on securing a successful prosecution.
Big IF, IF this went down as alleged it will be a significant obstacle for the defense to overcome at trial. Maybe it didn’t go down advertised by CNN. They ain’t exactly neutral.
Presidential Records Act allows a former President unrestricted access for him AND anyone he designates to records made during his Presidency:
2205. Exceptions to restricted access
Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208 of this title—
(3) the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative.
IMO you are reaching on the questions of:
1. Clearance and need to know of the unnamed person who was provided ‘access’
2. Whether this person was in fact affirmatively designated a representative by Trump. At some point the verbal b/c I said so arguments will fail to convince. Maybe Trump put it writing?
The problem here is magnified by an Ideological DoJ and a Prosecutor hell bent to ‘get Trump’.
A sitting POTUS can, IMO, do nearly whatever he wishes with classified information. A FORMER POTUS is obviously less free to disregard procedures and safeguards that bind everyone except a sitting POTUS.
I hope this ‘transcript’ CNN put out is flawed and that it didn’t go down as described. Failing that I hope y’all are correct about the efficacy of the PRA as an impenetrable shield for Trump from charges related to retention, mishandling or granting improper access to classified info.
I don’t think y’all are correct but we will have a couple bites at the apple to find out. First in motions to dismiss based on PRA, second on Judge instructions to Jury about the law and finally the jury gets to decide. Only need one successful bite of the apple for Trump to walk.
“So let’s stipulate this.”
Let’s not. It doesn’t matter who else broke the law. They’re not on trial. I don’t disagree that they should be, but they aren’t. And when you stipulate that he had ONE such document, you admit that he’s guilty as charged. Maybe you’d like to reconsider that stipulation.
It was hypothetical. Not a lawyer, ain’t got an edit button or an insurance policy at the FBI.
He’s only guilty of disclosing something if the other person can actually read it. Waving it about doesn’t count, nobody can read 12 point font at 10 feet, let alone do so while the paper is moving. Unless it’s perfectly still few could read that at 5 feet.
So if a person says “I killed him” and the dead guy isn’t in the room it doesn’t count?
Would you take anyone’s word for it based solely on the absurdity of the claim? 🙄
It appears that the DOJ has illegally leaked confidential information to
imply that DJT illegally leaked confidential information.
I don’t think the commenter realized what he was saying when he used the term “Others did it too”. That has never been a good defense because it means that you or your client is guilty of the charge. Or from biblical times, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.
Because it shows the differing standards when it comes to who is and is not targeted by “the law”. The law should be blind as to who the who is but it’s only blind when it’s a Democrat in question.
Exactly. I was suggesting that the penalty here be informed by the penalty meted out to those others — namely, no penalty at all.
Biblical times?
With HRC, it was thousands of documents that were sent to Anthony Wiener’s computer.
The charging document is strange in what it leaves out. It appears that Trump showed the document to Woodward but did not let him examine it.
Woodward is known for keeping copies of documents he uses in his books. He did not have a copy of this which suggests that Trump never gave it to him.
Lastly, Woodward was a deep state shill for FBI Director Mark Felt during Watergate. He is a deep state shill for the FBI today. He clearly approached them on this issue. He went to the FBI. They didn’t come to him.
Unless of course, Woodward is a paid informant of the FBI.
Where’s the rest of it?
Rule 106. Remainder of or Related Writings or Recorded Statements
If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other writing or recorded statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_106
Last Refuge
“ …beyond the absurdity, there’s a problem that explains why Jack Smith gave CNN the audio.
Despite the grand pontifications and breathless pearl-clutching by the CNN narrative engineers, the audio will NEVER be used at trial – if there is even a trial – which is highly unlikely, because it cannot be admitted into evidence. That’s why Jack Smith gave it to them. The audio is useless, except for the value in promoting the lawfare narrative engineering effort.
Why? Because the documents that are claimed to be heard in the audio are nowhere to be found. That’s right, the DOJ and FBI never found any “classified” or “super-secret” documents as described in the audio. As a result, the audio represents nothing, a literal nothingburger, because without the documents the audio is inadmissible.
You cannot submit evidence in court of a person talking about documents without the documents the audio is supposedly talking about. Can you see the issue now? As a result, the audio is nothing more than President Trump talking about something the prosecution cannot identify or prove. “
Did you really just cite the Conservative Nuthouse? Sundance doesn’t have the slightest idea how federal criminal practice actually works and he uses his tinfoil hat in place of actual susbtantive analysis grounded in proper procedure and rules of evidence.
Yes I did
That site has been right about a lot of things and they are right about this
And here is a perfect example. Sundance couldn’t be more wrong.
“the audio will NEVER be used at trial – if there is even a trial –”
“You cannot submit evidence in court of a person talking about documents without the documents the audio is supposedly talking about”
WRONG and WRONG . The audio is coming in and they don’t need the documents with Trump’s admissions.
Rule 801 (d)(2)(A)
(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801
Rule 804 (b) (3)
Statement Against Interest. A statement that:
(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and
(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804
Imagine I claimed that I murdered somebody. That is not hearsay, but it is mere distasteful boasting unless you have actual evidence of a murder. Similarly, Trump claims to have a classified document. Unless the witnesses can give evidence as to the contents of the document what Trump said is a boast not evidence of a crime, because the crime of disclosing classified documents requires the existence of an actual classified document. That is a fact that must be established, not merely assumed based on the statements of an interested party.
Trump may have been “exaggerating” the status of the document for the purpose of drawing the interest of the listener. He may also have been referring to the document as “still classified” because it had not be de-classified in writing, as he had done for certain other documents. Was he unaware at the time of this conversation of his authority as POTUS, that by merely removing documents from the Oval Office at the end of his term he effectively declassified it? Was he under oath when he made the claim the doc was still classified? The document is “presumptively declassified” because he removed it from a secure location. If Trump was not aware of this fact, what bearing would that have on the classification status of the document? Can the prosecution prove that Trump did not, in fact, declassify the document by removing it from a secure location while still POTUS?
you missed this.
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1997 Amendment
Rule 801(d)(2) has been amended in order to respond to three issues raised by Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987). First, the amendment codifies the holding in Bourjaily by stating expressly that a court shall consider the contents of a coconspirator’s statement in determining “the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered.” According to Bourjaily, Rule 104(a) requires these preliminary questions to be established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Second, the amendment resolves an issue on which the Court had reserved decision. It provides that the contents of the declarant’s statement do not alone suffice to establish a conspiracy in which the declarant and the defendant participated. The court must consider in addition the circumstances surrounding the statement, such as the identity of the speaker, the context in which the statement was made, or evidence corroborating the contents of the statement in making its determination as to each preliminary question. This amendment is in accordance with existing practice. Every court of appeals that has resolved this issue requires some evidence in addition to the contents of the statement. See, e.g., United States v. Beckham, 968 F.2d 47, 51 (D.C.Cir. 1992); United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1181–82 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 2714 (1994); United States v. Daly, 842 F.2d 1380, 1386 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 821 (1988); United States v. Clark, 18 F.3d 1337, 1341–42 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 152 (1994); United States v. Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 1344–45 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Silverman, 861 F.2d 571, 577 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Gordon, 844 F.2d 1397, 1402 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Hernandez, 829 F.2d 988, 993 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1013 (1988); United States v. Byrom, 910 F.2d 725, 736 (11th Cir. 1990).
Third, the amendment extends the reasoning of Bourjaily to statements offered under subdivisions (C) and (D) of Rule 801(d)(2). In Bourjaily, the Court rejected treating foundational facts pursuant to the law of agency in favor of an evidentiary approach governed by Rule 104(a). The Advisory Committee believes it appropriate to treat analogously preliminary questions relating to the declarant’s authority under subdivision (C), and the agency or employment relationship and scope thereof under subdivision (D).
GAP Report on Rule 801. The word “shall” was substituted for the word “may” in line 19. The second sentence of the committee note was changed accordingly.
It doesn’t exist!
Iran most certainly deserves an ass kicking. It is a shame that Iranians have not been up to taking their country back, Also a shame that there has been over 40 years of indoctrination, and now we can’t trust any of them.
?
Since the Shah, he means.
The audio makes clear that Trump had a specific document in his hand prepared by the Defense Department that was still secret and had not been declassified by him
No, it doesn’t. Trump could have just been telling the reporter that it was still classified because he didn’t want it written about in detail. Trump could have had any number of reasons to say that it was still classified. But if took it with his papers then he declassified it, by that very action.
Why are you so intent on jumping on Trump to prove this pathetic show trial. Do you understand what you are doing?
On the more general point, unrelated to Trump, as to showing actual, contemporary classified documents to reporters, my understanding is that the courts and the left have made it very clear that anyone can show anything to reporters and reporters are the ultimate arbiters of American national security in what should be published and what shouldn’t.
This is a Soviet show trial of the worst sort that is being used, not just to get Trump, but to gain acceptance for the idea of persecuting conservatives via government and making the Executive branch nothing but the military and propaganda wing for the left. That is what this is. Everything that has been done in constructing these charges has been criminal, un-American, insane, and the most dangerous sorts of actions we have ever seen our federal government take. And, yet, there are people who are trying so hard to show they are “reasonable” in assessing the “evidence” in this trial that never should have happened and for which those who constructed and brought this should ALL be jailed and tried for treason.
People need to start getting some perspective on what is happening in this country.
Or else.
“Or else” meaning that otherwise, this country is headed into a truly ugly place that will not have much of a historical precedence. Not even what the Soviet Union was or North Korea will compare to what we are going to be subjected to if the left is allowed to finish its work, which it is getting very close to doing.
It sort loses its effect when you have to explain your implied threat.
It was a warning, not a threat, which is why I explained it.
Ironic: “Literacy is so passe’”
One person’s “warning” can be a “threat” from another’s perspective, especially if you’re the one being warned.
TY Mr. Pair
Why are you so intent on jumping on Trump to prove this pathetic show trial. Do you understand what you are doing?
There is a definite “preference” at LI, I saw it clearly in 2016, and I see it now. I keep that in mind. But your question is more emotional than legal. I absolutely trust the Professor’s legal opinion. I don’t like it.. Many people bitch and moan about a two tiered justice system. That is false, because either it is a level system, or it does not exist. Basically he is saying that justice, as a concept is dead, and we have to deal with the debris. I think it is terrible.
“But if took it with his papers then he declassified it, by that very action.”
You keep saying this. I suspect the American public is not going to give a lot of credence to a “declassification procedure” that has even less ritual than a Muslim divorce.
Yep, definitely worth 400 years! Glad to see the criminal justice system is in good hands.
More Stasi stuff, down to the leak. Don’t look at that man behind the curtain.
Can’t get too bent until the real harm has been shown. While Biden’s lapses as NON-president, dating to the 1970s, is neglected. One of those Biden documents appear to have made it into a Hunter Biden email in Burisma. And how many actually hacked Clinton’s private server. Anthony Weiner? The whataboutism helps to show this continued persecution of Trump is first and foremost an attack on the election and American democracy itself. By the criminal-in-chief!
Hopefully, the overkill of these Inquisitors will be their downfall, including legal overkill. That matters little to a Stasi like outfit solely out to destroy, however. The message must be sent: The proceedings against Trump are a sham and should always be approached in that context, as illegitimate.
“More Stasi stuff, down to the leak. Don’t look at that man behind the curtain.”
Meaning, on the heels of the Biden text, and the stonewalling and lies about it and the criminality of the Bidens, and the blatant double standards. The man behind the curtain is laughing.
One hopes that in the fullness of time, Biden’s crimes (and those of his subordinates and family) will be properly adjudicated (assuming he lives that long) and appropriately punished. This isn’t about that.
But it is.
“Hopefully, the overkill of these Inquisitors will be their downfall, including legal overkill.”
That applies to the wrongful prosecution and to the political actors that inspire it.
The actual facts are unclear. The reason why it is illegitimate is CLEAR. Let the process unfold in ALL dimensions, rather than accept something leaked, perhaps illegally, for a specific purpose, to further prejudice the matter and interfere with the American electoral process.
It is clear that the GOPe is just as motivated to prosecute Trump, J6 Protestors, Pro Life Protestors, Parents objecting to leftist indoctrination of kids at school board meetings as the lunatic left is.
Barr knew of the laptop from hell and never exposed it or followed up. He knew of the FBI report on Biden corruption and never followed up. He dismissed any election integrity issues in the 2020 election without a single investig
The elites have been in collusion for decades to strip American citizens of their rights and now their financial security and future for their children. Back in the day these grifters like the Bushes, Barr and Romney were called Rockefeller Republicans.
Goldwater’s quote back then is still applicable today.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Like THAT will ever happen. YOU have more faith in our justice system than I do.
“One hopes” doesn’t indicate faith in the system. “Hope springs eternal”, even when the situation is hopeless.
I think you have a few leaks
So you were there Professor? You SAW and
read the paper?
DeSantis is NOT going to win one state!
Who knows how many states DeSantis may win or not?
Trump will lose the general election
Only if it’s stolen…AGAIN!!!
It will be stolen …AGAIN there, fixed.
I disagree. I know many independents and moderate democrats that are now wide eyed and voting Trump 2024. Biden went after their kids folks and that changed them 100%. And last poll I saw is it’s up to 62% of Americans now think 2020 was stolen.
We all said things like this back in the midterms and looked at what happened. Remember the red tsunami? Biden has wrecked the economy, destroyed our schools, opened our borders, runaway inflation, and fuel and food prices at their all-time high. What happened to the wide-eyed independents then? Don’t believe it.
“And last poll I saw is it’s up to 62% of Americans now think 2020 was stolen.”
The irony is that that if they are right and elections ARE stolen, that number can grow as high as you like and it won’t make a damn bit of difference.
Assuming that Trump did hold up the document. Did he he hold it up so that the reporter could only see the backside?
Never mind the fact that the DoJ just illegally leaked the recording while Trump is under a gag order about it.
This is a joke.
If they actually believed that he was guilty they wouldn’t be playing these games.
If I read the gag order right both parties are under its instructions.
Seems to be a shit gag order if stuff is being leaked at will eh?
Funny how all these leaked stuff only ever comes from one direction 🤔
We can always depend on you to introduce your vulgar language, can’t we?
Funny how you’re more outraged by mean words than the corruption of Justice eh. Pretend conservatives are part of the problem.
They’re preparing the battlespace because they apparently believe it needs preparation. That is to say, the leak is an indication in the government’s lack of confidence in their ability to successfully prosecute the issue.
“Presumably the prosecution already has grand jury testimony from the people present as to what the document looked like.”
Is that enough to authenticate beyond a reasonable doubt? To support an indictment? Or is it just a way to pervert justice.
There are reports that they never found these alleged classified documents. Go figure!
That’s why they leaked it… they never found it and so can not be used in court.
Really pissed them off, just a smear campaign
But dear old Joe? He admitted he’s been selling state secrets.. unbelievable…
An interesting legal question: I just heard the tape the very first thing Trump says is ” this is off the record”. Can any of this be used in court? I’n thinking precidents begining with Ellsberg.
Oh course it can.
The real problem is this should never have been a case from beginning. But here we are with Democrats absolutely determined to maintain control and very few people willing to hold them accountable.
Well, then…
Seeing how the left loves “vox populi” and the court of public opinion I will offer the Blood of YOUR Tyrant and Boogeyman Trump. Throw his orange Trumpus Rumpus in jail with the Jan 6 protesters and shoot…er, take them shopping.
87 million plus another 87,000,000 fence sitters will see the last straw being plucked from the tree of liberty and become Johnny Appleseeds for Freedom.
MEANWHILE….
BIDEN (last week): “I sold a lot of state secrets and a lot of very important things…”
https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1673448822628818944?s=20
And CRICKETS from the media and the DOJ, FBI, and GOPe.
Trump waved a piece of paper in a private interview and Biden announces in a public forum “Sold State Secrets”
How messed up is that>?
Saw on twitter someone suggesting that Trump was talking about a New Yorker article that came out a few days before this was taped that originally leaked and revealed Miley’s plan to invade Iran to the public. If so, there is no classified document.
It is true that an article was published that discussed Trump, Milley, and an attack on Iran. And that that article was published days before the leaked recording is alleged to have been made.
Strikes me that Trump was also trying to shape public opinion/ set the record straight. And it is possible that multiple things can be true: 1) Milley had prepared a plan to attack Iran, and 2) Trump was bluffing when he claimed he had that plan in hand.
July 15, 2021 – https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-bidens-washington/youre-gonna-have-a-fucking-war-mark-milleys-fight-to-stop-trump-from-striking-iran
July 21, 2021 – recording
I see it now being widely reported that whatever it was Trump was referring to–document or papers or New Yorker article–is NOT EVEN THE SUBJECT OF A CHARGED COUNT IN THE INDICTMENT. So this tape was released to FALSELY smear Trump.
By the time of this interview, Trump was fully aware of his hostile environment, but his childishness keeps driving him in strange, self-defeating directions. OK, the real bad guys are way worse, but that should make him more wary, don’t you think?
IF the real bad guys are way worse how’s about you hold them accountable instead of attacking their target? I know right…quite a novel idea.
It’s impossible for Ricky to keep the family solvent while Lucy keeps signing predatory contracts with the door-to-door salesmen.
I think you have found Trump’s biggest flaw, his mouth. As with many of us, we say things we later wish we hadn’t. Trump has been doing this in spades and seems to not have learned a single lesson from his past mistakes. The latest gaff is the interview with the Never Trumper Baier on fnc. Why would he do that? It was a huge mistake and he only made things worse. He scored a big hit on the cnn townhall interview only because that silly girl had no idea what she was doing. A tough person could have made him look silly. I am sure his lawyers are pulling their hair out knowing he on the loose and may be on TV at any moment.
Imagine someone in politics being consistent in what he says eh. Now THAT is something new.
Sadly for everyone this will never catch on!
txvet2: It doesn’t matter who else broke the law.
Selective prosecution defenses almost never succeed.
gonzotx: Why? Because the documents that are claimed to be heard in the audio are nowhere to be found.
That makes it worse, much worse. It means that Trump was in possession of a classified document which was later subpoenaed but not returned, containing information clearly relating to the national defense per the Espionage Act, and still apparently not located.
randian: He’s only guilty of disclosing something if the other person can actually read it. Waving it about doesn’t count, nobody can read 12 point font at 10 feet, let alone do so while the paper is moving. Unless it’s perfectly still few could read that at 5 feet.
Modern cameras can easily resolve text at even greater distances. Nor is that a defense for obstructing a court ordered subpoena or for possession of information relating to the national defense.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair: my understanding is that the courts and the left have made it very clear that anyone can show anything to reporters and reporters are the ultimate arbiters of American national security in what should be published and what shouldn’t.
While journalists can publish classified information they have received, the person entrusted with the classified information willfully providing it to the journalist can be prosecuted, and the journalist can be prosecuted if they in any way aided the theft.
Olinser: Never mind the fact that the DoJ just illegally leaked the recording while Trump is under a gag order about it.
Who leaked the recording isn’t known. It could have been the person who recorded it.
thad_the_man: An interesting legal question: I just heard the tape the very first thing Trump says is ” this is off the record”. Can any of this be used in court? I’n thinking precidents begining with Ellsberg.
Yes. Any private agreement between Trump and the reporters is not binding on the prosecution. Even then, reporters are not obligated to be a party to an alleged crime of such a magnitude. “Off the record, I always hated my wife” is quite a different animal than “Off the record, I murdered my wife and buried her under the hydrangeas.”
That makes it worse, much worse. It means that Trump was in possession of a classified document which was later subpoenaed but not returned, containing information clearly relating to the national defense per the Espionage Act, and still apparently not located.
You appear to be unaware that Trump wasn’t the target of the subpoena for records. The target was one of Trump’s offices or organizations.
DaveGinOly: You appear to be unaware that Trump wasn’t the target of the subpoena for records. The target was one of Trump’s offices or organizations.
The subpoena was served to the “Office of Donald J. Trump,” accepted by Trump’s attorney, M. Evan Corcoran, and demanded the following: “Any and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings.”
I couldn’t care less.
We’re splitting legalistic hairs about a meaningless comment by a powerless ex-President as the current president openly and treasonously runs pay-for-play extortion schemes with our enemies.
And people talking about this as if it’s a legitimate case does nothing for those peoples reputation.
There is nothing legitimate about this whole case.
It is a waste of time defending Trump. He is a total jerk. DeSantis is too easily vilified. We need somebody new.
So that somebody can be shredded as well?
Well what these never ending witch hunts have shown us is that Trump was probably the cleanest fucker to have ever sat in the White House.
And probably one of the most effective Presidents achieving shit that Barry, peace be upon him, could only wish to have achieved (consequential things like jobs for all, meeting with little rocket man or getting the Saudis to speak to the Juices and forcing the Chinese to roll out the red carpet and allowing Trump the dignity of not exiting AF1 out its arse hole like Barry did 😂).
But yeah man, thank god Bidens Gestapo is locking up its political enemies to protect us all from his mean words 😂
I like the way you wrote that
President Trump IS the cleanest fucker to EVER be President and the ONLY one who’s ancestors never owned slaves
Including Obama
Obama will need to be making those reparations lol
Always appreciate WAJ’ effort to provide: 1) a summary at the start of a lengthy posting, and 2) a careful analysis based on the facts.
I am surprised that he wrote this: “The audio makes clear that Trump had a specific document in his hand prepared by the Defense Department that was still secret and had not been declassified by him, contrary to his denial in an Bret Baier interview that he just had a stack of news clippings.”
Strikes me that Trump claimed in the audio to have a document prepared by the Defense Department. Not sure how that verbal claim is proof of what he actually had in his hand – or in his possession. Plus, not sure anyone else in that audio clip corroborated that he had that Defense Department document in hand.
Also, not sure that leaks of alleged evidence – without full context or controls – is the most reliable way to form an informed opinion. Recognizing that it is useful for shaping public opinion.
Keep up the good work WAJ.
I like the way you wrote that
President Trump IS the cleanest fucker to EVER be President and the ONLY one who’s ancestors never owned slaves
Including Obama
Obama will need to be making those reparations lol
It’s a set up. This is a garbage case intended to sabotage any efforts on Trump’s part in 2024. Smith has been leaking information (a felony) and nothing is done.
It’s a complete travesty and anyone taking it seriously should think again.
The people you shouldn’t trust are the ones telling the obvious lies.
Trump: ““He said that I wanted to attack Iran, Isn’t it amazing?” . “I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up.
“I HAVE A BIG PILE OF PAPERS”
What did he say in the interview about this?
Trump: ““It wasn’t a document. I had lots of paper. I had copies of newspaper articles. I had copies of magazines,
Tell us, Mr. Jacobson, what is the ‘lie’?
He said he had lots of paper when he didn’t know he was being recorded, and he said he had lots of paper when he DID know he was being recorded.
The LIE is you, and your leftist fellow travelers insisting that Trump was somehow, in this audiotape, admitting to waving a specific still classified document in the faces of people who weren’t allowed to see it.
If you listen to what he says he admits that he has proof that Milley wanted to invade Iran. He says it hasn’t been declassified and he can’t do it now. All of this back and forth and what papers he waved mean nothing compared to what he said. He said the document about invading Iran was still classified. That means that he is either lying about the document or Milley’s plan to attack. Once again it is his mouth that is going to be the problem. If you were on the jury and heard this audio, I do not think you would say, show me the paper or I don’t believe it.
“If you were on the jury and heard this audio, I do not think you would say, show me the paper or I don’t believe it.”
There is a sequence, in Heinlein’s ‘Stranger in a Strange Land” in which Anne, who is a Fair Witness, a professional observer, is asked about the color of a barn on a hill.
She replies that the barn is red on the sides she can see.
It never occurs to her to infer the color of things she can’t see.
I hear noises on a tape. I hear Trump say he has a lot of papers.. But without seeing those EXACT papers, and having a verifiable chain of evidence that unquestionably proves that these are those papers, I cannot know what was in that stack of papers without seeing it for myself.
The only other evidence I have is that the people telling me to accept what they say about the papers have repeatedly, demonstrably lied to me in the past.
There are sufficient breaches of due process by the central tyranny to warrant much of the evidence be thrown out as fruit of the poisonous tree. This is not to mention Soviet Show Trial drama like the raid on Mar-a-Lago or the drip, drip, drip of Blue Cheka (fka FBI) and State Prosecutor (fka DOJ) leaks; nor twisting a civil statute (Presidential Records Act) into a criminal prosecution. I’m not interested in any discussion of legal technicalities in a Soviet-style system where the FBI director ducks questions about a botched raid on an innocent couple by claiming it would constitute giving information about an “on-going investigation.” Congressional oversight is an obvious joke and there is no rule of law—just rule of leftist sophistry.
Professor Jacobson, what happened to you? Your site was a great champion to the wrongly accused. Zimmerman, Oberlin College and the false accusations about you.
This is a piece of junk talking point BS attack on Trump and you are giving it legs. What a disappointment.
Adam’s at the Boston Massacre:
https://www.loc.gov/resource/llscd.00060469763/?sp=262&st=image&r=-0.308,0.91,1.301,0.76,0
“The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady, undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes’ imaginations and wanton tempers of men. “
No matter what is claimed by Smith, it is a minor process crime, if even that since he was the President. To make an issue out of the political backed DeSantis (Anti Trump Ryan) Fox news and Bret Baier is plain to see. Why not just post Mika and Joe or the View as your source. Don’t waste time.
Just come out and endorse DeSantis so the love fest can begin is full bloom. All legal Insurrection is gone.
I mean we are facing corruptions of arms deals, fake pandemics run by our military and election fraud through the roof and you can’t even defend the stupid process crime they have put out there. This is not about Trump and never was. It was about the Conservative values that we fight for.
The elite are doing everything they can to cover up the sex trafficking and this is what is presented to us.
The audio makes clear that Trump had a specific document in his hand prepared by the Defense Department that was still secret and had not been declassified by him, contrary to his denial in an Bret Baier interview that he just had a stack of news clippings.
SO WHAT? Who cares? What does it prove? Just like his “Grab em” statement. That all it is. If you want to use the rule that was he says is the truth, then there are a lot of things that he has said that need to be taken seriously. You just can’t cherry pick.
As for attacks on The Conservative Tree House I have seen here, people have some guts and debate the issue. I found Legal Insurrection from a link on the Treehouse during the Zimmerman trail. I have never seen Sundance slam LI or for that matter anyone posting over there doing that.
As for Hunts “It is a waste of time defending Trump” , sorry, but DeSantis does not do it for me. Trump has a better chance of delivering what I want political that DeSantis. He did it with all he was up against. “He’s a Jerk” WTF is that argument. Personally I am not too fond of him either and would love someone new, but DeSantis does not come across as the fighter I am looking for. His position on the Ukriane War is all over the board. I want us to be out. I don’t believe DeSantis is there and his money backing is with another useless war.
I don’t think anything happened to us. We follow the facts. The fact is that Trump’s explanation to Bret Baier doesn’t hold up. I’ve expressed the view repeatedly on multiple posts and videos that it can both be true that Trump has been unfairly and maliciously targeted, and that he may have handed the witch-hunters just what they wanted. The Bret Baier interview was a mistake, a big mistake. If readers want someone who wallows in pity and “what about Biden” all day, while ignoring the reality of Trump’s situation, they can get that elsewhere.
I don’t wallow in the Biden all day. The fact is:
1. What Trump supposedly did was a process crime if even that.
2. If we were to make the assumption that he showed “Secret” documents in a private conservation, the intent is laughable and the risk would be a cat scratch.
3. The government has stomped on both the 4th, 5ht and 6th amend. on this:
. Where is the outrage? I would expect that here. Defender of the Constitution.
Apologies Mark but fat fingers on a small phone has resulted in a down vote instead of an up vote!
You are basing your opinion on a NOISE heard on an audiotape.
Nothing in the interview contradicts what was said in the audiotape.
Yet you, and others like you, contend that that noise (of rustling paper) proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Trump showed still classified documents to people uncleared to see such.
When we ask ‘what happened to you?’ perhaps we should realize that you’re not going to give a straight answer to this question any more that you demonstrate straight thinking on the issue.
It took before I could finish:
4th Unreasonable search
5th Proper Due Process
6th Confront the Accuser
&
1st Limiting his speech under the “Secret” BS
This is so black and white. There is no crime here. Oh Orange man bad so he must be stopped.
We follow the facts….sure. What Trump said is in disagreement with what he told Bret. Yea, and the sun came up today too. Really that is news?
Come on, you are doing great stuff with CRT and Woke. Ok, got it Orange Man bad!
We need to stay focused on what the issues are. It it your blog so I guess you can make Orange Man Bad the theme, but our system is broken and this Baier interview is a squirrel sighting. I guess I am use to seem better here.
*seeing – I got to start using preview.
Three quick thoughts:
1) The Dog Did Not Bark. Folks in this post are not questioning your analysis of the BB interview. They are questioning your analysis of the tape.
2) In your BB interview analysis, you unsurprisingly noted: a) “We don’t know the testimony of the persons present as to what they did or didn’t see. The feds have the information, and presumably will call those people as witnesses.”, and b) “Whether this interview helps or hurts Trump legally remains to be seen, when we find out what else the feds have about the incident to prove what the document was.”
3) Strikes me that this is now something that the folks at Power Line would write too: “I don’t think anything happened to us.”
Keep up the good work WAJ.
I like the way you wrote that
President Trump IS the cleanest fucker to EVER be President and the ONLY one who’s ancestors never owned slaves
Including Obama
Professor you simply hate President Trump, somehow it’s personal with you and clearly many others who write here, post comments
It’s really very very strange indeed
Let’s not fall for the titillating bait of a partial transcript. Baier took the bait and then offered bait to Trump who took it, unfortunately.
There is little point in writing anything on this until we hear the entire transcript.
Until then, this is little more than DoJ doing its usual disinformation or partial information psy/ops manipulation.
Yet another leak out Jack Smith / FBI / Do(In)J.
Pretty convenient there is no transcript. Note that what has been released so far sounds like the Milley et al was trying to goad Trump into attacking Iran. Trump may have kept the document as protection against that charge. Cheers –
This is getting ridiculous. I know some people here are very anti-Trump, but when even CNN Cooper says “as if” holding documents maybe legalinsurrection should not claim there is “proof” of Trump holding a specific document containing what the unconscionable Biden-henchman Smith has cooked up.
By the way, how is it in any way part of a fair trial when the prosecution poisons the well by these selctive leaking of “evidence”?
“The audio makes clear that Trump had a specific document in his hand prepared by the Defense Department that was still secret and had not been declassified by him….” No. The audio certainly does not make any such thing clear.
Here, in a nutshell, is what you need to know.
When a president leaves the White House, everything he takes, or directs to be moved to any new chosen location, becomes unclassified. Automatically. He needs no administrative process or approval by anyone, even if some someone pops up and asserts they are following legislation which specifically governs his behavior. It doesn’t. And any assertions to the contrary are false. Demonstrably so. By court decision and by reference to Bill Clinton’s sock drawer. Even better, because such has been so for every president since George Washington left 6th & Market Streets in Philadelphia, when there wasn’t even a White House to leave. Moreover, this reality holds even if the president says that, “as president, I could have declassified it…Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.” Sorry. The former president is, in this instance, wrong. Very wrong. If he moved something out of its secure lock and key location, or caused it to be moved, then he declassified it. Even if he wasn’t aware of doing so or if he didn’t mean to do it. Perhaps it was a “Hold My Beer” moment. Doesn’t matter.
He did it just the same. Officially. And what’s done is done. It’s no longer a secret no matter how much he jokes about it. It’s just all plain declassified. Whether it’s a Pentagon battle plan or a stray news clipping, that question being only of interest to critics who have nothing better to lead with or who are desperately looking to continue fussing over the matter.
So there is no way to accuse Trump of having stolen classified documents. If he had them, he was entitled to them. Thus, there is also no way of convicting him on obstruction of justice charges because there was no crime. What there was was a quite common disagreement over where the documents would reside, at a place of Trumps’s choosing or with the National Archives. Either location would provide a secure environment, although questions could legitimately be raised about the Archives because the record there has been dubious ever since secrets walked out in Sandy Berger’s socks/pants. And Sandy was no lone purloiner. The National Archives have quite a record of unauthorized document withdrawals. Google it. And once you do, check to see where the Trump documents would go if the National Archives ever got them. Why, to the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library. All they have to do is build it first. And might I suggest an appropriate location for the newest library? How about Mar-a-Lago? That way all those documents won’t have to make so many round trips.
“Moreover, this reality holds even if the president says that, “as president, I could have declassified it…Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.” Sorry. The former president is, in this instance, wrong. Very wrong. If he moved something out of its secure lock and key location, or caused it to be moved, then he declassified it.”
Is an alternate explanation possible?
Trump has a “pile of papers” on his desk — newspapers.
He picks one up.
It has a lurid headline on it saying something like, “Exposed: Trump wanted to invade Iran!”
He attempts to communicate to the interviewer (in an unfortunately disjointed and elliptical fashion):
“Do you see this shit? This wasn’t me! Milley (quoted in the article) assembled this whole plan and presented it TO me! I had it (the plan document) and could have declassified it while I was president, to expose the little bastard, but I never did.”
He’s not talking about the papers in his room because they’re all newspapers.
It’s just that his references to “it” are unfortunately nonspecific and rely on visual context.
And it seems to square perfectly with his later explanation.
Given Trump’s often chaotic communication style this is a possibility. It’s also a possibility that the ‘transcript’ reflects the worst case; Trump with still classified info in hand. ‘Access’ to classified info is being in the same place with the info. If the unnamed person present didn’t have clearance and need to know and was granted access, that’s also a violation.
Big IF. IF this is as advertised by transcript it is going to be a difficult obstacle to overcome for Trump. The insistence on the part of some commenters that the PRA is a magic shield that makes an ex POTUS invulnerable simply isn’t so.
It helps sure, it offers an arguable defense on that theory but IMO the it won’t work. The context is important. The archives wanted the docs. Trump in essence said pound sand I will get around to it when I can. Archive got the DoJ involved who then got a CT order to return the docs. Trump still dragged his feet.
All this seems to demonstrate that Trump was acting out of ego or bad advice that as an ex POTUS he didn’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else when he left office. IMO, this is what will sink him at trial, his arrogance on this point. It’s hard to argue
innocent victim of process crime when being aggressively uncooperative during the episode.
Having once held a high security clearance in the military, I don’t think this audio proves anything other than that Smith is grasping for straws in an attempt to make his indictment stay afloat. Classified documents, which can be anything from a note to a technical order, are just that, DOCUMENTS, and a conversation about an allegedly classified document means nothing. If anything, this is akin to the Pentagon Papers when classified documents were actually released to the press and published, and the Supreme Court ruled prosecution violated the First Amendment. I’m not a lawyer but I’m not stupid and if I was sitting on a jury and a prosecutor brought this up I’d probably burst out laughing. The reality is that Smith has no solid evidence to prove his case. Incidentally, the 31 classified documents Smith claims Trump had are merely the handouts he received for his daily briefings, which would have automatically become part of his personal papers. The information might have been classified but the documents would not have been returned to the briefer. They are allegedly classified because they were from CIA but CIA classifies EVERYTHING because they have this high exalted opinion of themselves that they only answer to themselves.
Piper112: When a president leaves the White House, everything he takes, or directs to be moved to any new chosen location, becomes unclassified.
That’s obviously false. The president certainly may take classified documents to his private residence to work. However, they don’t become automatically classified. Otherwise, the nuclear codes, which follow the president wherever he goes, become declassified.
Regardless, Trump was subpoenaed by a court to surrender all documents marked classified as part of a grand jury investigation. He had a legal obligation to comply or to contest the subpoena in court. Instead, he allegedly obstructed the investigation.
Piper112: By court decision and by reference to Bill Clinton’s sock drawer.
No. The recording at issue in the Clinton case was already deemed personal property by the Archives, akin to a diary specifically excluded from presidential records.
Piper112: So there is no way to accuse Trump of having stolen classified documents.
Trump isn’t accused of having stolen classified documents, but for illegal retention of documents relating to the national security, and for defying a subpoena for return of documents marked classified.
Piper112: What there was was a quite common disagreement over where the documents would reside, at a place of Trumps’s choosing or with the National Archives.
No. Agency records belong to the government under the Federal Records Act. They must be immediately surrendered to the Archives.
Piper112: Either location would provide a secure environment
A bathroom and ballroom at a resort are not secure locations. There is even a text message from an aide about an oops where the contents of a box were spilled, uncovering classified information. They knew it was there.
SamC130: Incidentally, the 31 classified documents Smith claims Trump had are merely the handouts he received for his daily briefings, which would have automatically become part of his personal papers.
No. They are government product, and therefore, government property under both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act.
SamC130: They are allegedly classified because they were from CIA but CIA classifies EVERYTHING because they have this high exalted opinion of themselves that they only answer to themselves.
Under the Espionage Act, the criteria is not classification, but whether the documents are relating to the national defense, which the government must prove in court. However, the subpoena was for documents marked classified, and that statute would apply regardless of the contents of the documents.
Face it, the documents he has is embarrassing to the swamp. It busts them. It has zero to do with State Security and protecting our interest.
Really, Trump is a threat to US Security? Look who the President is now!
What a joke the Espionage Act. Ok, men are women and women are men and kids are furries.
Step back and see how stupid this is. We’re lost.
I am serious thinking of RFK because he at least fights. He is a flaming liberal in about every area I am against, but at least he could break the system. Maybe he can get even for the intel community killing his dad and his uncle.
“I am serious thinking of RFK because he at least fights. He is a flaming liberal in about every area I am against, but at least he could break the system.”
That Adolf fellow looked like a much-needed reformer as well.
Let’s learn from the Weimar peasantry instead of becoming them.
I don’t think Adolf’s book was about the government (specifically DOD) forcing the world population into a science experiment.
That’s a lot of words to say that had you had two brain cells they’d both be lonely 😂
MarkSmith: Face it, the documents he has is embarrassing to the swamp. It busts them. It has zero to do with State Security and protecting our interest.
To convict under 18 U.S. Code § 793(e), the government will have to show proof that the documents are relating to national security. The documents reportedly include information on the weapons capabilities of the United States and foreign powers, which would clearly be relating to the national defense.
To convict under the 18 U.S.C. § 1519, the government will have to show proof that Trump knowingly concealed classified documents under subpoena.
What planet did you come from? There is public NATO annual reports about weapon capabilities. Check out Youtube and see what our defense contract are doing. Search the government contract rfp’s. It is all there.
We have seen what the government can do with making up stuff. What do you think GPS Fusions job is?
Maybe watch the Christmas Story and find out what Ovaltine is.
MarkSmith: There is public NATO annual reports about weapon capabilities.
Under 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) the information would have to be non-public information, or it wouldn’t represent information that “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation”. This would have to be proven in court, of course, but there is little doubt that the documents include information not in the public domain.
No. They are government product, and therefore, government property under both the Presidential Records Act and the Federal Records Act.
There are personal papers, and Presidential papers.
The final say belongs to the President.
Unless you can find an officer, or agent that has superior Constitutional power.
iowan2: There are personal papers, and Presidential papers.
Most of the documents at issue are agency records governed by the Federal Records Act, not presidential records governed by the Presidential Records Act.
iowan2: The final say belongs to the President.
No. Under that preposterous theory, the president could claim private ownership of nuclear weapon designs and legally sell them on the open market. The law clearly distinguishes between personal records and government records. Read the statute, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 22, and tell us where you think it says that.
But all of that is irrelevant under the Espionage Act, which is based on whether the information is relating to the national security; and is also irrelevant under the obstruction statute for not returning documents marked classified persuant to court order.
iowan2: Unless you can find an officer, or agent that has superior Constitutional power.
The President isn’t a monarch but is constitutionally required to execute the laws of the United States.
Jack Smith is not a truth seeker, he is anfool and his many reversals are the proof of tht statement., Thah the is allowed to pracice at alny level is simply a reflection on the sad state of the legal profession in the USA.
The Presidential Records Act allows a former President unrestricted access for him AND anyone he designates to records made during his Presidency:
2205. Exceptions to restricted access
Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208 of this title—
(3) the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative.
Even if Trump showed someone writing his memoirs or anyone else some documents, this should easily fall within the statute as legally permissible, regardless of the content of the record shown – classification is not even relevant.
Question. Do you believe that Trump can produce a written appointment as ‘designated representative’ for whomever was in the room? Perhaps he can, I sure as hell hope so.
If he can’t and his defense raises arguments similar to other commenters that Trump can exercise all these PRA related issues and declassification of info verbally or by inference via mere action the Judge and Jury may not buy that argument.
Well, maybe he lied to Bret Baier, but that doesn’t make it a crime.
That aside, as a law professor, what do you think of the prosecution leaking to the press a recording that no judge has ruled is admissible in court? It seems both illegal and unethical to me,
This is NEVER going to be presented in court.
There is no document to use as evidence. Without “THE” document, there is NO EVIDENCE.
Even with “The Document” it is not a crime!
Does this make Woodward a foreign spy,then this all makes sense. CIA plant is a spy.
So, retraction coming?
Apology?
CBS is reporting that none of this is part of the indictment. This entire thing is irrelevant.
Except that it’s been reported as if it’s a smoking gun for the indictment.
Which it isn’t.
please review the relevant episodes of the Mark Levin Show of the past four weeks for a very good analysis of the larger issues. thank you.