Biden's Fingerprints

[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.

[George K]

Staged photos.

Tampered evidence.

Fake cover pages.

https://www.declassified.live/p/the-dojs-doctored-crime-scene-photo

“[Thirteen] boxes or containers contained documents with classification markings, and in all, over one hundred unique documents with classification markings…were seized. Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. (Emphasis added.) See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the ‘45 office’).”

The DOJ’s clever wordsmithing, however, did not accurately describe the origin of the cover sheets. In what must be considered not only an act of doctoring evidence but willfully misleading the American people into believing the former president is a criminal and threat to national security, agents involved in the raid attached the cover sheets to at least seven files to stage the photo.

Classified cover sheets were not “recovered” in the container, contrary to Bratt’s declaration to the court. In fact, after being busted recently by defense attorneys for mishandling evidence in the case, Bratt had to fess up about how the cover sheets actually ended up on the documents.

During the raid, agents took a box in its entirety if it contained papers with classified markings; the box usually contained other items, which is how the FBI ended up with so many of Trump’s personal belongings.

So, in order to flag the location of the alleged classified record in the box, agents, as Bratt noted, used the cover sheets as placeholders. (The classified records were then placed in a separate secure file.)

But now defense attorneys claim, and the special counsel concedes, that some placeholders do not match the relevant document. “Following defense counsel’s review of the physical boxes…and the documents produced in classified discovery, defense counsel has learned that the cross-reference provided by the Special Counsel’s Office does not contain accurate information,” attorneys representing Trump’s co-defendant Waltine Nauta wrote in a May 1 motion.

The motion forced the special counsel to admit the error. “In many but not all instances, the FBI was able to determine which document with classification markings corresponded to a particular placeholder sheet,” Bratt wrote.

In other words, in their zeal to stage a phony photo using official classified cover sheets, FBI agents might have failed to accurately match the placeholder sheet with the appropriate document. This is a potentially case-blowing mistake, particularly if the document in question is one of the 34 records that represents the basis of espionage charges against Trump.

And the judge is going to address the validity of Jack Smith's appointment later this month.

[George K]

Jordan wants answers about the "ethical impropriety of Jack Smith":

[LuFins Dad]

That’s a significant breach, it seems to me. It is very possible that this case gets tossed for prosecutorial misconduct. If that happens, the usual suspects will just blame the judge…

[LuFins Dad]

Weird to think that the case with the most actual teeth might have been the debate over the value of the Trump assets.

[Jolly]

Again...If all three of the lawfare cases fall apart, what political impact does that have?

[George K]

@Jolly said in Biden's Fingerprints:

Again...If all three of the lawfare cases fall apart, what political impact does that have?

See @LuFins-Dad's comment above.

[LuFins Dad]

@Jolly said in Biden's Fingerprints:

Again...If all three of the lawfare cases fall apart, what political impact does that have?

None. The same as if all 3 came back guilty.

[Jolly]

@LuFins-Dad said in Biden's Fingerprints:

@Jolly said in Biden's Fingerprints:

Again...If all three of the lawfare cases fall apart, what political impact does that have?

None. The same as if all 3 came back guilty.

Surely it would move some independents?

[LuFins Dad]

@Jolly said in Biden's Fingerprints:

@LuFins-Dad said in Biden's Fingerprints:

@Jolly said in Biden's Fingerprints:

Again...If all three of the lawfare cases fall apart, what political impact does that have?

None. The same as if all 3 came back guilty.

Surely it would move some independents?

No such critter when it comes to Trump and the cases.