US District Judge Aileen Cannon...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by cluelusshusbund, Jun 16, 2023.

?

How happy do you thank this makes Trump.!!!

  1. Very Happy

  2. Very Unhappy

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,390
    Again, it wouldn't have mattered if he had or hadn't in this case. The Espionage Act deals with the contents of the documents not any classification label they have. Removing the label that says "POISON" from a bottle does not alter the fact that it contains cyanide. If anything, removing that label just makes it more likely that the bottle can be mishandled.
     
    cluelusshusbund and origin like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,876
    I think it is terrible for the US and probably entertaining for the rest of the world. I agree Trump is an arrogant idiot and thanks to that we now have a president who has been charge with felony crimes. It is sad and a real embarrassment for the US.
     
    cluelusshusbund and sculptor like this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,462
    From my reading of The Espionage Act, I think that it would be silly and stupid to try and charge trump under that act.
    It seems that the act relies heavily on intent to aid a foreign government.
    Read it for yourself:
    https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter37&edition=prelim

    Do you seriously believe that any court would convict based on the espionage act?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,436
    BBC
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65910903
    My bold
    Edit:
    From Sculptor's link:
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2023
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,290
    Maybe stick to sculpting and forget trying your hand at amateur legalistics.
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,384
    I don't imagine either the federal grand jury (advised as it will have been, by competent lawyers), or the prosecutors, are likely to be more silly or stupid than you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Do you know what the precise charges are, and which sections of what statutes are said to have been infringed? I think we need to know at least that much before we all start being bar-room lawyers.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,860
    The indictment itself is available from the U.S. Department of Justice↱.

    U.S. v. Trump and Nauta lists the following statutes:

    18 USC § 793(e)↱ — "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information"

    18 U.S. Code § 1512(k)↱ — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

    • 18 U.S. Code § 1512(b)(2)(A) — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

    • 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(1) — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

    18 U.S. Code § 1519↱ — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

    18 U.S. Code § 1001(a)(1)↱ — Statements or entries generally

    • 18 U.S. Code § 1001(a)(2) — Statements or entries generally

    18 U.S. Code § 2↱ - Principals ​

    The charges are enumerated on pp. 28-42, asserting:

    Thirty-one counts under 18 USC § 793(e), "Willful Retention of National Defense Information".

    One count is listed under 18 USC § 1512(k), "Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice".

    One count under 18 USC § 1512(b)(2)(A), "Withholding a Document or Record".

    One count charged under 18 USC § 1519 and 18 USC § 2, "Concealing a Document in a Federal Investigation".

    One count under 18 USC § 1001(a)(1) and 18 USC § 2, "Scheme to Conceal".

    One count under 18 USC § 1001(a)(2) and 18 USC § 2, "False Statements and Representations".

    One count under 18 USC § 1001(a)(2), "False Statements and Representations".​

    One calculation suggests Donald Trump might face seventeen to twenty-two years↱, per count, if convicted under §793, but scoring offenses for sentencing is kind of complicated because it varies, from court to court, what any given judge will accept. For the most part, though, the indictment is straightforward; Donald Trump is indicted on thirty-eight counts by a grand jury in Florida. The thirty-one charges under §793 are not the sort of thing easily brushed aside; charm doesn't change the facts, and willful retention is a pretty basic question of whether it happened.

    It is unlikely a judge, especially Judge Cannon, would apply thirty-one sentences of seventeen to twenty-two. But there are also six charges, by that calculation, with potential nine-year sentences.

    The problem with Donald Trump trying to bargain, at this point, is whether he is actually capable of attending the stations of pleading guilty. But it's also possible to plead Walt Nauta down to about nine to twenty.

    And, remember, this is likely not the only indictment Donald Trump is going to face; what the special counsel is willing to bargain for in, say, Nauta's case, might well depend on what is possible in other jurisdictions, such as D.C or New Jersey.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Aaron, David. "How Much Prison Time Does Former President Trump Face? Applying the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines". Just Security. 12 June 2023. JustSecurity.org. 19 June 2023. https://bit.ly/42S8fSa

    Smith, Jack. "Indictment". United States of America v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta. United States District Court Southern District of Florida. 8 June 2023. Justice.gov. 19 June 2023. https://bit.ly/3NzL3DY

    United States Code. (n.d.) Law.Cornell.edu. 19 June 2023. https://bit.ly/2mYZiIv
     
    exchemist likes this.
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,462
    addendum to Tiassa post #27 (793 was derived from the espionage act)
    §793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
    (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

    (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

    (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

    (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

    (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

    (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,384
    So there we have it. I've highlighted the relevant parts in red. I think a jury could convict on that. Don't you?
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897

    You guys're gon make me cry. Don't get my hopes up. I've been hurt before...
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,462
    as/re:
    "which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,"
    How is the jury to determine this? Will they(and the lawyers and the court recorder and other court personnel) be given clearances and allowed to view the contents of the documents?

    Or...................?
     
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,808
    Can't you figure this stuff out just like the rest of us?
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,462
    Seattle
    You seem to think that you have the answers.
    Please share same.
     
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,808
    All of the questions that you have asked are in the news. Some documents will not be shown, so will be redacted and some can be shown to certain attorneys who have proper classification levels.

    You don't think the issues that you bring up could possibly be a reason to not prosecute someone, right?

    Why even start a poll about how happen this makes Trump?
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,462
    Which leads to ... ... ... .? Drop the charges?
    What is the jury to think during their deliberations if they are not allowed to examine the "evidence"?

    If you were accused of having child porn on your computer; would you be satisfied if the jury were not allowed to examine your computer.
    Would you consider it a fair trial if the jury were simply told that experts have determined that you did indeed have child porn in your possession?

    I submit that only by being allowed to view the evidence could a jury come to a unanimous decision in a fair trial.
    and
    that would seem to complicate matters.

    Do you know what the grand jury was allowed to see?
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,808
    You don't need to "submit" anything. There are attorneys on both sides and both sides have a change to state their cases. Why act as if you know all the details of the legal profession? This is just getting silly.
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,462
    You seem to have not noticed all of the ?(question marks)
    we have
    known knowns
    known unknowns
    and unknown unknowns

    I do not know what will be presented to the jury
    nor how the jury will find

    ergo
    this should prove entertaining

    I do know that we do not have a transparent government nor legal system.

    as/re the O.J. Simpson trial
    those who watched the trial on tv were not surprised by the verdict
    those who got their information about the trial via the new york times were surprised by the verdict

    ostende mihi quod
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,290
    Most likely, witnesses will be called who can attest to the sensitive nature of the relevant classified documents.

    There is no need for any jury to read the documents.

    It is typical in such case that the jury has no access to the computer in question. Instead, police witnesses testify that the relevant illegal material was found on the defendant's computer. Appropriate records of what evidence was found and where will be tendered in evidence, too.
    Yes. Anybody would, unless he believed in some kind of grand conspiracy among the "experts".

    You know that when police enter a crime scene they do things like taking photographs of where pieces of evidence are found, and that kind of thing, don't you?
    They will be allowed to view the relevant evidence. For example, you've probably already seen those photographs of stacks of classified documents that Trump stored in his ball room and bathroom etc. That's what the investigators found after Trump was informed that he needed to hand over all classified material that he was not entitled to have.
    Yes. They were allowed to see the relevant evidence that supported the prosecutors' argument that Trump should be charged with federal crimes. They were also allowed to see relevant evidence in Trump's defence, presented by his lawyers.

    What did you expect?

    I don't see the relevance of that. Please explain.
    Did you watch the trial on TV?
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2023
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,897
    And that's also what redaction is for.

    "Item 4c. We have spies in XX countries, including XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXXX. Three Naval fleets are within nuclear strike distance of XXXXXXX".

    A jury doesn't need to know the exact details of every item of a document to know that it contains very particular, extremely sensitive information that would compromise national security.
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,314
    Surely it should be sufficient just to show that the files were classified. The actual content beyond that is irrelevant. It could be about someone's favourite type of tea, or something even more harmless, but the fact it had been classified is what matters.

    If the jury have to decide in court that the content was potentially harmful, or contains sensitive info, then it's not Trump on trial but the process of classifying a document and the judgement to classify them. They were classified, and Trump's actions are based on that fact, not the nature of the content.
    I'd therefore be surprised if any content, redacted or otherwise, of the documents is discussed in court. A classified file is a classified file.
     

Share This Page