Here are a few other good legal analysis for those who haven't been following this shit show
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
384 points (97.5% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2711 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
First summary I've seen that's so digestible. Thanks for sharing!
Wasn’t this one of the main reasons for delaying the case to begin with? They had the “special examiner” review all the files to verify they were indeed top secret. I don’t understand why that person can’t just provide a summary to the jury. Letting them see the files seems like massive judicial overreach and probably illegal. Can she be disbarred for this?
This ignorance alone should get her removed from the case. Dear Lord. There are laws and rules for how classified information must be handled. Wtf?
There are also rules for evidence, which are generally the most important rulings in a criminal trial. Allowing the documents to be left out but also used as evidence is an obvious appeal that likely wins, secret evidence isn't allowed.
He didn't choose most of these documents because of their contents, just because they're classified to satisfy his power trip, so all the jury needs to know is that they're genuine government documents which are classified which he didn't have the right to take.
If this case had involved what he did with information in it then sure, but it ISN'T
Secret evidence is literally allowed all the time when dealing with secrets if the document in question is specs of nuclear weapons you redact all the strategically important info and allow them to see the header and subject matter without all the details.
How the fuck do you prosecute this case then? Read all the jury in just to see the evidence and then back out again?
The jury needs to know if they’re classified. Why do they need to see the contents?
This is what I'm asking. What do the contents of the documents have to do with the case at hand? How do the contents of these classified documents absolve him of the charges for making false statements and obstruction of justice?
And if the jury really needs to know the contents of the files, I don’t see any issue with just swearing in a jury of already cleared TS SCI w/Poly Commissioned Officers, or just full send it and let Trump get prosecuted in a military court. I’d love to see a bunch of GWOT brass ream that dudes asshole.
I can only hope that the DOJ is investigating her for corruption.
view more: next ›