Biden's Fingerprints

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:

So, on one hand, President Biden in a mentally incompetent person, and on the other hand, he is smart enough to do these complicated conspiracy plans.

You really think Biden is driving this bus?

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:

@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:

So, on one hand, President Biden in a mentally incompetent person, and on the other hand, he is smart enough to do these complicated conspiracy plans.

You really think Biden is driving this bus?

I dont and I have said that before. But I do think that he has handlers that keep him inside the guardrails. President Trump has no such thing and the chances of him going outside the guardrails are many times a higher chance if he is president.

(And many of his close associates have pretty much said the same thing)

[taiwan_girl]

@Jolly said in Biden's Fingerprints:

And I notice you didn't address the issue.

I dont really know enough about the legal right and wrong and what exactly are the Department of Justice outlines when it comes to looking at/investigating things. Maybe something like a former President is something that would be within their scope. :woman-shrugging:

[George K]

I can't find Kelly's tweets at the moment.

Last weekend she tweeted that the NARA had, in its possession many boxes of documents. Among them were classified papers.

At the insistence of the DOJ, these documents were moved to Mar-a-Lago without Trumps approval or knowledge of the contents of the boxes. Then, guess what: "We found classified documents."

This information was redacted by (alleged) Special Counsel Smith, and unreacted by order of the judge. It's almost as though they were hiding it.

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:

a former President is something that would be within their scope.

Absolutely.

How about a former Vice-President?

Or a Senator?

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:

@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:

a former President is something that would be within their scope.

Absolutely.

How about a former Vice-President?

Or a Senator?

I dont disagree, but I think it is a false argument to excuse bad behavior just because "someone else did it and nothing happened to them"

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:

I think it is a false argument to excuse bad behavior just because "someone else did it and nothing happened to them"

Andy McCarthy made the same point a long time ago. Bad behavior by X is not a reason to justify bad behavior by Y.

But...when bad behavior by X goes unpunished AT THE SAME TIME that Y's behavior is being prosecuted, that tells you something. And, if true, Y's alleged bad behavior can be attributed to bad behavior by X, that tells you even more.

[George K]

Judge Cannon authorized unsealing of motion to dismiss because of selective prosecution:

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:

@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:

I think it is a false argument to excuse bad behavior just because "someone else did it and nothing happened to them"

Andy McCarthy made the same point a long time ago. Bad behavior by X is not a reason to justify bad behavior by Y.

But...when bad behavior by X goes unpunished AT THE SAME TIME that Y's behavior is being prosecuted, that tells you something. And, if true, Y's alleged bad behavior can be attributed to bad behavior by X, that tells you even more.

Again, I dont disagree.

I dont think your last sentence will be prove true. Hasnt President Trump arguement with the classified information that he has not denied taking/having it, but that he was entitled to it because he declassified it? Why would he say that if someone "planted" it at his house?

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in Biden's Fingerprints:

Hasnt President Trump arguement with the classified information that he has not denied taking/having it, but that he was entitled to it because he declassified it?

He's said a lot of things, because Trump. What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court. If Kelly's reporting is accurate, based on the unredacted testimony/transcripts, it tends to poison the tree.

Why would he say that if someone "planted" it at his house?

See my comment above.

[Axtremus]

@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:

What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court.

Really?
Is that how you judge every one, or you only apply that to Trump?
Is that now you want the court to treat everyone, or only apply that to Trump?

[George K]

@Axtremus said in Biden's Fingerprints:

@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:

What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court.

Really?

Yeah, really. Because this is a trial, not a press conference. If he didn't say it under oath, it's irrelevant in the trial.

Unless I missed that that's part of his testimony.

Is that how you judge every one, or you only apply that to Trump?

Every. Single. One.

Is that now you want the court to treat everyone, or only apply that to Trump?

I'm sure that very fine people on both sides can agree to that.

[Jolly]

@Axtremus said in Biden's Fingerprints:

@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:

What he says, however, is not important. What's important is what is said in court.

Really?
Is that how you judge every one, or you only apply that to Trump?
Is that now you want the court to treat everyone, or only apply that to Trump?

Tell me about your court experience.

[Axtremus]

@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:

If he didn't say it under oath, it's irrelevant in the trial.

See 18 U.S. Code § 3501 - Admissibility of confessions
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501

"Confessions" in this context include "any self-incriminating statement made or given orally or in writing." There is no requirement that these be made under oath.

[Jolly]

Hang your legal hat on that one, Perry Mason.

[Axtremus]

Put Trump aside and think this through:

A person committed a crime and blabbed about it to his friends and/or on social media.

You want to say the court/jury cannot consider any of that blabbing because he was not under oath while blabbing to his friends and/or social media?

[George K]

@Axtremus said in Biden's Fingerprints:

Put Trump aside and think this through:

A person committed a crime and blabbed

A fair point. He claims he had authority to declassify and, as a matter of law, he probably didn't.

and blabbed about it to his friends and/or on social media.

Yup. He should never have told his ghostwriter about the box of classified documents upstairs.

[George K]

Evidence tampering.

"We altered the order of the documents."

Smith’s team said that the order of documents in some of the boxes of memos that were seized by the FBI from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was altered or jumbled, leaving two different chronologies: one that was digitally scanned and another the physical order in the boxes.

“Since the boxes were seized and stored, appropriate personnel have had access to the boxes for several reasons, including to comply with orders issued by this Court in the civil proceedings noted above, for investigative purposes, and to facilitate the defendants' review of the boxes,” Smith’s team wrote in a new court filing to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

“There are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans,” the prosecutors wrote.

"And we lied to the court about it."

Smith’s team in a footnote also conceded it had misled the court about the problem by previously declaring that the evidence had remained in the exact state it had been seized.

“The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court,” the footnote said.

Da Dersh:

“Prosecutors and investigators should never tamper with or alter evidence in their possession, including the order of documents in a box because one never knows what may become relevant or crucial to a court or jury later in a case,” Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said.

[Jolly]

@George-K said in Biden's Fingerprints:

He claims he had authority to declassify and, as a matter of law, he probably didn't.

But...That's not a confession. That's a legitimate point of law. Presidents do have the authority to declassify documents, the question here is whether Trump did it properly, or if there is a hard and fast law or rule specifying how it is done.

What is very clear, is that Senators or Vice-Presidents do not have the ability to declassify documents. There is no Corvette Proximity Rule.

[George K]

Judge indefinitely delays Trump’s classified documents trial

Donald Trump’s Florida trial for allegedly mishandling classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them has been pushed back indefinitely, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon ruled Tuesday, increasing the chance that Trump’s New York criminal trial may be the only one to happen before the November election.

The judge had originally set the trial date for late May and heard arguments on March 1 about when the trial should be — with Trump’s lawyers pushing to start after the presidential election, in which he is the presumptive Republican nominee, or no earlier than August.

Prosecutors urged Cannon to pick a date in early July.

But in her ruling, the judge said there are too many complicated legal rules and deadlines surrounding the use of classified evidence in public criminal trials that need to be considered before she finalizes a court date. She said she would schedule the trial date at a future time.

“The Court also determines that finalization of a trial date at this juncture—before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA issues remaining and forthcoming—would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court, critical CIPA issues, and additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury,” Cannon wrote.

And not one word about how the evidence was fooled with.