this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
384 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2662 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The MAGA-friendly federal judge who keeps siding with Donald Trump in his Mar-a-Lago classified records case has forced prosecutors to make a stark choice: allow jurors to see a huge trove of national secrets or let him go.

U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’sultimatum Monday night came as a surprise twist in what could have been a simple order; one merely asking federal prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers for proposed jury instructions at the upcoming trial.

But as she has done repeatedly, Cannon used this otherwise innocuous legal step as yet another way to swing the case wildly in favor of the man who appointed her while he was president.

Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith must now choose whether to allow jurors at the upcoming criminal trial to peruse the many classified records found at the former president’s South Florida mansion or give jurors instructions that would effectively order them to acquit him.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 45 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Can she really do that, force the jury without security clearance to view top secret documents? Seems bullshit to me.

But what are the options? Obviously she says to let Trump go if the jury can't see the docs. If he gets the jury see the docs, do they have to get security clearance? They have to sign an NDA of some sort?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I sort of think that showing them the secrets would actively harm Trump because it would become obvious just how dangerous the material is. I don't think she's really thought this thing through.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Is the gambit here that they weren't actually that bad?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

No, I think that they are actually that bad. I also think that the judge is dumb enough to have actually now placed these super important documents in the hands of 12 jurors plus some alternates in an effort to bow to her orange master. My take: she's not actually that smart but thinks she is and she thinks she just did a "gotcha". I believe that a jury seeing them would be shocked at what was left in a bathroom for anyone to steal.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

Genuine question - do we know enough to know these were that bad?

I'd definitely believe what you're saying too but curious how much we know about the contents.

Edit: lol at the downvotes, lemmy

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

do we know enough to know these were that bad?

We do: Trump is facing a criminal trial over them. They wouldn't be classified if they weren't sensitive.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I truly underestimated how deep the movement that's using Trump's cult of personality for its own means runs.

We're so very fucked.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago

Jury selection will take forever… Step 1, reject everybody without a security clearance…

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately we're too close to the election at this point. I don't see any case that isn't just a monetary settlement being delt with before he takes office and makes his DOJ dog wipe it all away....

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

NY criminal case regarding the Stormy Daniels hush money should start next month.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Its also the weakest case, most inconsequential, and puts Trump at no real risk. And even in that case, the judge and da seem willing to bend over for him.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 8 months ago

Showing TOP SECRET and HIGHER documents to random people on the street HELPS American National Security!

[–] [email protected] 81 points 8 months ago

It's unprecedented. I know what the supporters would say "so is prosecuting an ex president ". There's a difference. A fast food CEO killing a dozen people and serving them up in 15 different locations is unprecedented. A judge wouldn't say that the jury has to try the burgers though.

[–] [email protected] 167 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

Either “a jury is permitted to examine” every record a former president swipes and claims as “personal” to determine whether it is, or jurors must be told that “a president has sole authority… to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency.”

Can't categorize files as personal after you vacate office. Classified files are by law government property and cannot be owned by anyone. Can't declassify files after leaving office.

This hack needs to be impeached and this trial appealed and the judge replaced posthaste.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

and you can't just handwave classification away. There is a legal process involve.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The government doesn't really do consequences for conservatives to well.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 8 months ago (2 children)

"Hey random person! How's about you read this document and tell me if it sounds Top Secret."

"Okay, but in your uninformed opinion, is this document one or two levels more secret than those other declassified files?"

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago

Judge: ignore any markings on the filed indicating top secret, classified, human intelligence, and make your own decisions on each file!

[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Another option for the prosecution is to redact classified info. It doesn't actually matter what is in the document, just that it's classified because a former President is disallowed to possess classified material.

For more info: classified documents have extensive ~~markets~~ markings. The header and footer of every page with material is marked either, Unclassified (if present in docs with higher), CUI, Secret, Top Secret, etc. In addition, the document will have markings for each paragraph on if that particular paragraph or line contains classified material and at what level. So the prosecution could definitely just redact everything above Unclassified and the remainder of the text should paint a fairly clear picture of what the document contains without revealing specific classified details.

Of course this treasonous judge would probably interpret as you did because she belongs behind bars not a bench.___

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Playing a bit of devil's advocate.

We have a tendency to over classify things in general. When I was in a TS SCIF, we would mark things S/TS because we were lazy and didn't want to go through the process to see if something was subject to disclosure.

Assuming, with a great heaping serving of salt, that there is validity to Trump's claim, I can sort of understand putting to a jury to see if the files that Trump took were in fact classified. I can see him stealing the documents simply because it had a cover sheet and not because it was valuable. While I'm sure that he absolutely took sensitive and classified information, I'm equally sure that there is probably a take out menu or two in those boxes.

The problem is that the run of the mill citizen isn't equipped to properly classify a document. I don't know what probative value exists in giving the documents to jurors outside of forcing the prosecution to put them in the public record.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

Jurors provide no value beyond the markings even if they are over-classified. I mean I guess you could beat out the security classification guides and a derivative classification course... But even so, the president is only an OCA while in office so the point is kinda moot. I don't think the specific document content matters, just whether or not updated SCG exists with same content, yeah?

Basically, "this line is referencing this item in the guide, the guide still says classified, ergo this is a spill".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

classified documents have extensive markets

The markets for these ones were Saudi Arabia, Russia, and maybe China.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Lol. Damn Freud up in my typos.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Face it, you want to fuck classified documents, which are also your mother.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Yo pops, that's a real nice dong you got there. Sure would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›