A Deeply Fractured US

[brihard]

The burden of proof is on the ones saying it was a true document, not for Trump to prove it wasn't.

Trump has a new explanation for classified documents audio

While speaking with ABC News and Semafor, the former president said his audio clip was "bravado" and that he was not holding a classified document.

www.newsweek.com

More. They don't have the document from the sounds of it.

Iran memo not among the 31 records underlying charges in Trump federal indictment

Former President Donald Trump was heard in a July 2021 meeting discussing "highly confidential" information he admitted he could no longer declassify.

www.cbsnews.com

There’s no burden of proof issue here, because he’s not charged with dissemination of the documents. The 31 counts pertaining to the documents themselves are for unlawful retention. They don’t need to prove what document he was waving around in that particular interview because the contents or nature of that document don’t constitute an element of any of the counts charged. Remember, they took over 100 classified records back; they’ve only charged 31 of them- likely the ones they could get agreement from the originators to use for court purposes.

The real value of that interview will be showing his mindset, and, particularly his comments showing that he knew he lacked declassification authority post-presidency. That last bit is a powerful contribution to establishing the mens rea of the offences, and pre-emptively slamming the door shut on any attempts he might make to repeat his oft-stated claim that the documents were declassified, or that he had authority to unilaterally declassify them simply by the act of taking them with him out of office. In the text of the indictment, this recording and the interview it took place in are grouped with another similar such event that investigators have testimony on.

Though a sensational news story, this recording is just one small, if bright, tile in the much larger mosaic that is this investigation. Not much on its own, but it bolsters and corroborates other things.

Just updating this line of discussion from a few weeks ago: it appears from para 35 of the new indictment that this specific document that was allegedly shown to a book writer has now been identified, is in the prosecution’s possession, and that they have added an additional charge of wilful retention of defence information (count 32 on the new indictment) pertaining to it. It appears to be a Top Secret//NOFORN presentation. This is the specific document for which there is an audio recording of Trump admitting knowledge that it’s secret and that he did not / could not declassify it. The fact that prosecutors can now close the loop on they specific entire transaction will be helpful to them and will pose a challenge to the defense.

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684755352238084096

 

[dapaterson]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684755352238084096

I'm just wondering about the hashtag - Lick Him Up...

 

[KevinB]

I'm just wondering about the hashtag - Lick Him Up...

Lol. I hope that was a typo

 

[kkwd]

The full transcript of the Biden court appearance. It was going along swimmingly until line 9 of page 40 when the judge started asking about the plea agreement. Then it all fell apart from there. Included in the transcript are Biden's earnings from foreign entities.
Story Link

9 THE COURT: Has anyone made you any promises

10 that are not contained in the written agreement?

11 MR. CLARK: Your Honor, with the exception of

12 the Diversion Agreement --

13 THE COURT: We're not making an exception. I

14 want to know, has anyone made you any promises that are not

15 contained in the written Memorandum of Plea Agreement?

16 MR. CLARK: Yes, there are promises from the

17 government in the Diversion Agreement, Your Honor.

18 THE COURT: And sir, are you relying on the

19 promises made in the Diversion Agreement in connection with

20 your agreement to plead guilty?

21 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

22 THE COURT: And if the Diversion Agreement were

23 not valid or unenforceable for any reason, would you enter

24 into the Memorandum of Plea Agreement?

25 THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

 

[KevinB]

Meanwhile on the Trump multiple felony fiasco

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684895354142035968

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Meanwhile on the Trump multiple felony fiasco

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684895354142035968

'Alleged' multiple felony fiasco. Nothing has been proven in court.

 

[shiska]

Interesting that they seem to have evidence that potus is intentionally using other people's phones to obfuscate who is ordering what. That would be pretty damning if proven. It's one thing to be incompentent or careless but this would show intent.

 

[brihard]

Interesting that they seem to have evidence that potus is intentionally using other people's phones to obfuscate who is ordering what. That would be pretty damning if proven. It's one thing to be incompentent or careless but this would show intent.

Directing the deletion of security video is also suggestive of intent.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Interesting that they seem to have evidence that potus is intentionally using other people's phones to obfuscate who is ordering what. That would be pretty damning if proven. It's one thing to be incompentent or careless but this would show intent.

How would anyone know that without leaks from inside the DOJ? I'll reiterate again, nothing in all of these cases has been proven in court. Nothing is for sure. Right now, it is nothing but rumour, innuendo and strategically released government leaks. Until he has his day in court, nobody can say anything with certainty.


I have a video security system for my home. The video is mine. I can do whatever I want with it, include deleting it. You can draw whatever misplaced conclusions if I do, but too bad, it's mine, not yours, not the governments, but mine to do whatever I want with.

 

[suffolkowner]

Just invite President Trump on a talk show and he'll probably self incriminate

 

[brihard]

How would anyone know that without leaks from inside the DOJ? I'll reiterate again, nothing in all of these cases has been proven in court. Nothing is for sure. Right now, it is nothing but rumour, innuendo and strategically released government leaks. Until he has his day in court, nobody can say anything with certainty.

Because it’s literally in paragraph 32 of the indictment that you still won’t read. Does that mean it’s proven to the point of a criminal conviction in a court of law? No. Does it mean we know it to be an allegation that prosecutors are bringing to court, sufficient for the purposes of this discussion? Yes we do.

That’s not ‘a leak from inside DOJ’, it’s a public court record; a category of information you seem allergic to or afraid of when it comes to the Donald Trump classified documents prosecution. It’s like you’re trying to argue with someone about a book review while refusing to read the book.

Also you told us many months ago you likely won’t accept any verdict of guilty anyway, so why continue to insult our intelligence by pretending ‘proven in court’ is a threshold you personally consider relevant to this topic? It seems you’re willing to make reference to it only when it’s supportive of your position, without accepting the reality that it could go a way you don’t like and will be just as valid either way.

I have a video security system for my home. The video is mine. I can do whatever I want with it, include deleting it. You can draw whatever misplaced conclusions if I do, but too bad, it's mine, not yours, not the governments, but mine to do whatever I want with.

And if you delete it while knowing that it may be evidence in an ongoing investigation, and with the intent to hinder same, police in most western jurisdictions, including those enforcing US federal criminal law, can still charge you with obstruction of justice offenses for doing so… And then they can probably still successfully retrieve the video anyway if it’s important enough because truly deleting data is a lot harder than laypersons appreciate.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Multiple Banks Filed Over 170 Suspicious Activity Reports on the Bidens

Hmm: Multiple Banks Filed Over 170 Suspicious Activity Reports on the Bidens

townhall.com

 

[Brad Sallows]

The SARs are kind of "old news"; I suppose some specifics of "who" and "how much" may be emerging.

 

[dimsum]

Ted Cruz claims removing AM radios from cars silences conservatives​

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz is leading a push to force manufacturers to keep AM radio receivers in cars as automakers begin to phase them out of newer electric models.

Mazda, Tesla, Volkswagen and BMW are among several major car companies that have started removing analog AM radio from their cars, which manufacturers have said can interfere with the vehicle batteries.

Cruz, however, claims manufacturers' true goal is to silence conservative talk radio. "I think there’s a reason big car companies were open to taking down AM radio, which is AM radio is where a lot of talk radio is found, and talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. And let’s be clear: Big business doesn’t like things that are overwhelmingly conservative," Cruz said, according to the Houston Chronicle's Benjamin Wermund.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/ted-cruz-am-radio-texas-18144279.php

 

[Fishbone Jones]

His reason might be wrong, but the rest is true. Top 40 and Talk Shows are the forte on that band.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

DOJ Denies USSS Protection to RFK Jr

'Despicable': Social Media Users Stunned by What DHS Just Denied RFK Jr.

townhall.com

 

[lenaitch]

His reason might be wrong, but the rest is true. Top 40 and Talk Shows are the forte on that band.

And religious programming.

 

[brihard]

DOJ Denies USSS Protection to RFK Jr

'Despicable': Social Media Users Stunned by What DHS Just Denied RFK Jr.

townhall.com

Well of course not. By law he’s nowhere close to being entitled to it yet.

The USSS’ protective authorities are established in federal law, 18 USC 3056: 18 U.S. Code § 3056 - Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service

Relevant sections quoted below:

(a)Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the following persons:
(1)
The President, the Vice President (or other officer next in the order of succession to the Office of President), the President-elect, and the Vice President-elect.
(2)
The immediate families of those individuals listed in paragraph (1).

(7)
Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and, within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses of such candidates. As used in this paragraph, the term “major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates” means those individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the other members of the committee. The Committee shall not be subject to chapter 10 of title 5.

So Kennedy’s demand is grossly premature. If he’s considered a ‘major candidate’, the law allows for him to be provided with protection four months leading up to the election. That would be early July, 2024.

 

[KevinB]

DOJ Denies USSS Protection to RFK Jr

'Despicable': Social Media Users Stunned by What DHS Just Denied RFK Jr.

townhall.com

Have you actually looked at the requirements for a Presidential candidate to get USSS Protection?
I’m guessing no.

Edit @brihard beat me to it.