Let me introduce you to inmate No. P01135809

[Baptist Believer]

Judge in Trump Mar-a-Lago classified documents case demands to know why the DOJ wants to use a grand jury from out of state as she hands Jack Smith multiple blows | Daily Mail Online

Judge Cannon asks about legality of using DC grand jury in Florida-based Mar-a-Lago case

You haven't kept up with the news...

The stories you cited are from a few weeks ago when Judge Cannon asked for more information as to why Smith was using an out-of-district grand jury to raise the need for a Garcia hearing (a hearing to evaluate conflicts of interest by attorneys to ensure that defendants received proper representation). Smith has responded.

Here are summaries of the response that you should compare to Jack Smith's filing (so you can be certain that the reporting is accurate) which explain why:

"Devastating facts": Experts say Jack Smith filing exposes Judge Cannon's "inexplicable" ruling

"Sounds very much like organized crime": Witness in Trump's documents case recants false testimony

Beware of media sources that only present one side of complex issues.

 

[Revmitchell]

When someone has to post from Salon to try and prove their bias and hatred they have lost the argument

 

[Baptist Believer]

I was talking about evidence, not testimony.

Testimony is evidence.

So far there has not been evidence presented.

It has not been presented to THE PUBLIC, except in very limited ways. The defense already has the evidence (at least, the evidence that is not classified) at this time, and will receive the classified evidence once the attorneys complete the clearance process.

Evidence is presented at trial, so it is quite unreasonable to demand evidence at this point.

But what we see is the judicial system being lowered and used for political purposes.

You keep making that claim. You need to hold off of that assumption until you actually see and hear the evidence at trial. The government is not trying this case in the court of public opinion (although Trump and his supporters are attempting to do just that). Instead it will be tried in a court of law where there are rules of evidence and sworn testimony.

That said, if evidence actually exists then they should go forward.

And you should be please that they are attempting to do so, while Trump's defense is doing everything they can to try to delay his day in court.

At least with Biden there was a laptop and correspondence from his son.

If the allegedly incriminating content on the notebook computer was legitimate (and there's lots of reasons to believe it is not), Rudy Giuliani and others destroyed the chain of custody for the notebook computer and likely made any legitimate evidence unusable in a court of law.

...With Nixon there was a bug in the hotel. With Bill Clinton there was a dress. With Hilary there were emails.

With Trump there are boxes and boxes of government documents he claimed he didn't have (or that they were planted, or that they were his property, or that they was all declassified, or that they were classified but everyone does it, etc.) as well as all sorts of other documents, audio, video, and testimony documenting his actions. If you have been paying attention to the investigations, you have seen and heard quite a bit of evidence.

But again, you are demanding the evidence that is normally presented at trial, yet criticizing prosecutors for trying to put Trump on trial by claiming there is no evidence... That circular logic.

Have you read the indictments? The purpose of an indictment is to explain what a prosecutor believes they can prove in a court of law with the evidence they have. In the process of presenting an indictment, they reveal the existence of certain evidence, but it is NOT the presentation of the case or the evidence in any detail.

 

[Baptist Believer]

When someone has to post from Salon to try and prove their bias and hatred they have lost the argument

No, I wanted you to read the actual filing, which I hyperlinked TWICE in my response. I also posted the first articles I could find quickly that reliably detailed the federal filing since some people have an harder time understanding the full context of what the filing was about.

Ignore the Salon links and just review the filing from Smith. After you read the filing, you can go back and read the Salon articles and see that they are reporting accurately.

Otherwise you are just judging books by their covers and insulating your mind from anything that you don't want to be true.

 

[JonC]

He had attorneys advising him he could challenge the electors. Others told him no.

Surprise!! Attorneys disagree on the law at times.

Taking bad advice from an attorney is not a crime. The attorneys having novel views and theories on existing law is not a crime. If it were, these prosecutors could face criminal charges themselves if DT wins.

They ultimately lost in court and VP Pence stood on rock solid integrity and refused to throw the country into a constitutional crisis.

peace to you

That was one issue Trump had several times (not knowing what he could and could not do). But he was not a politician....until he was (until he ran for political office), but that wasn't his background.

 

[JonC]

Testimony is evidence.


It has not been presented to THE PUBLIC, except in very limited ways. The defense already has the evidence (at least, the evidence that is not classified) at this time, and will receive the classified evidence once the attorneys complete the clearance process.

Evidence is presented at trial, so it is quite unreasonable to demand evidence at this point.


You keep making that claim. You need to hold off of that assumption until you actually see and hear the evidence at trial. The government is not trying this case in the court of public opinion (although Trump and his supporters are attempting to do just that). Instead it will be tried in a court of law where there are rules of evidence and sworn testimony.


And you should be please that they are attempting to do so, while Trump's defense is doing everything they can to try to delay his day in court.


If the allegedly incriminating content on the notebook computer was legitimate (and there's lots of reasons to believe it is not), Rudy Giuliani and others destroyed the chain of custody for the notebook computer and likely made any legitimate evidence unusable in a court of law.


With Trump there are boxes and boxes of government documents he claimed he didn't have (or that they were planted, or that they were his property, or that they was all declassified, or that they were classified but everyone does it, etc.) as well as all sorts of other documents, audio, video, and testimony documenting his actions. If you have been paying attention to the investigations, you have seen and heard quite a bit of evidence.

But again, you are demanding the evidence that is normally presented at trial, yet criticizing prosecutors for trying to put Trump on trial by claiming there is no evidence... That circular logic.

Have you read the indictments? The purpose of an indictment is to explain what a prosecutor believes they can prove in a court of law with the evidence they have. In the process of presenting an indictment, they reveal the existence of certain evidence, but it is NOT the presentation of the case or the evidence in any detail.

So you think he should be tried on undisclosed statements other people made?

I disagree that testimony warrants conviction, especially when politics is involved. But it does warrant arrest in our judicial system.

I could say you hired me to kill a coworker. You could be arrested. You would even be convicted if I had enough friends to go along with my story.

I agree hearsay is legal evidence (I worded my objection poorly). I am saying it is not actual proof.

But I admit that I have not cared enough to dive into the charges. I read your link, and that's about it.

I'm going to start a thread for my benefit, just looking at the charges and how they are supported.

 

[JonC]

You keep making that claim. You need to hold off of that assumption until you actually see and hear the evidence at trial.

Yes, both you and I are coming to conclusions based on the facts thus far disclosed and not what has yet to be revealed.

That is one reason why I keep including that if proof of wrongdoing exists then he needs to be convicted.

When you complain about people coming to conclusions without knowing what has not been disclosed, keep in mind that you seem to have determined his guilt.

My chief complaint is that this is political (even if he is guilty). When it comes to politics I don't believe in coincidence.

 

[canadyjd]

suppose this initial case - he is found guilty - would you apologize then or wait until the appeal to the SCOT?US -- if he is found guilty - there is no doubt that Trump will appeal that decision! ........................

First, don’t believe DT can appeal someone else’s conviction.

Second, the SCOTUS is not likely to hear a state case. Chief Justice Roberts avoids these kinds of cases.

Third, this attorney that is demanding a speedy trial is not stupid. He is confident these charges will collapse under judicial scrutiny, otherwise he wouldn’t be demanding a speedy trial.

However, I stand by my promise. If this man is convicted under “rico” I will apologize to BB for being completely clueless concerning this case.

peace to you

 

[Salty]

Second, the SCOTUS is not likely to hear a state case. Chief Justice Roberts avoids these kinds of cases.

BUT this kind of case involves a President of the USA

 

[Scarlett O.]

Moderator Note: Keep everything civil, folks.

 

[canadyjd]

BUT this kind of case involves a President of the USA

The charges are state charges (Georgia) Any convictions will be state convictions that would go through lengthy state appeals.

After lengthy state appeals, the case could be appealed to federal circuit in Atlanta, but that is years away, if there is a conviction.

Chief Justice Roberts does not like to interject in state matters, thus the SCOTUS did not hear DT’s appeals of rulings in the 2020 election, but let state court rulings stand.

peace to you

 

[Baptist Believer]

Yes, both you and I are coming to conclusions based on the facts thus far disclosed and not what has yet to be revealed.

Actually, no. I'm basing my opinions on the facts of the case that have been revealed in public reporting or legal documents I have personally reviewed. I've read every indictment as well as a number of the court filings. I try to be careful to use the word "alleged" when referring to the crimes with which Mr. Trump has been charged.

The indictments look quite solid (and legal experts I trust have said the same thing), so I have confidence in them. However, Mr. Trump gets his time in court and the right to a vigorous defense.

That is one reason why I keep including that if proof of wrongdoing exists then he needs to be convicted.

Sure. I take that as a given. You don't need to keep repeating it on my account.

When you complain about people coming to conclusions without knowing what has not been disclosed, keep in mind that you seem to have determined his guilt.

I have not. However, there are a number of regular posters here who characterize everything I say about Donald Trump as being laced with "hate." That's a product of their overactive imaginations. Mr. Trump is a tragic figure, but that does not make him above the law.

My chief complaint is that this is political (even if he is guilty).

How could it not be political. He is charged with political crimes. He was a politician that has decided to launch a campaign in the midst of significant legal troubles. He is trying to pretend that he is a victim, like he always does.

 

[Baptist Believer]

That was one issue Trump had several times (not knowing what he could and could not do). But he was not a politician....until he was (until he ran for political office), but that wasn't his background.

But he had competent government attorneys who advised him against many of the things that he did. He apparently shopped for attorneys who would tell him what he wanted to hear and ignored legal counsel warning him against doing so. He also allegedly took the advice of attorneys who advised him they are doing illegal things.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially when you have an abundance of legal counsel available to you as the President of the United States.

 

[Salty]

Actually, no. I'm basing my opinions on the facts of the case that have been revealed in public reporting ...

What about the facts that have NOT been released

 

[Baptist Believer]

So you think he should be tried on undisclosed statements other people made?

Some of it is undisclosed only to THE PUBLIC at this stage. He was indicted by a GRAND JURY of ordinary citizens who have HEARD the testimony that is not public yet. The defense has been given all the information as part of discovery, so he will not be unprepared. At trial, testimony will be public. That's how trials work.

I agree hearsay is legal evidence (I worded my objection poorly). I am saying it is not actual proof.

Hearsay is NOT legal evidence. It is rarely admissible in court. Much of the testimony comes from people who were in the room and worked directly with Trump or his co-conspirators. Moreover, much of the testimony will apparently be to establish context for documents and recorded actions. Very little, if anything, will hinge solely on the testimony of a few witnesses.

But I admit that I have not cared enough to dive into the charges. I read your link, and that's about it.

That's probably why we disagree so much. If you are going to discuss the matter and separate truth from the massive amount of spin, you have to read the actual court documents.

 

[JonC]

Actually, no. I'm basing my opinions on the facts of the case that have been revealed in public reporting or legal documents I have personally reviewed. I've read every indictment as well as a number of the court filings.

I as well. You and I just have different standards of what constitutes "proof", I guess. Perhaps you can provide something I missed.

 

[Revmitchell]

What about the facts that have NOT been released

Good point and not only that but just because charges have been brought doesn't mean the charges are factual. They are simply accusations that have yet to be proven. Reading the charges by the DA does not equal reading factual claims. Not sure why that needs explaining to some.

 

[Baptist Believer]

BUT this kind of case involves a President of the USA

No, he's not. He is a private citizen. He is a former President of the United States.

What about the facts that have NOT been released

Those come out in court. That's what trials are for. Trump supporters should be excited about the opportunity for Trump to refute the charges... unless they think he is guilty.

 

[JonC]

But he had competent government attorneys who advised him against many of the things that he did. He apparently shopped for attorneys who would tell him what he wanted to hear and ignored legal counsel warning him against doing so. He also allegedly took the advice of attorneys who advised him they are doing illegal things.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially when you have an abundance of legal counsel available to you as the President of the United States.

He did have advisors. I don't disagree. He should have listened to them. At the same time there were plenty of voices advising conducting things.

Regardless, it is not necessary that one listen to advisors. It is the smart thing to do, but not illegal to ignore them.

What election crime was committed and what proof is offered?

 

[canadyjd]

…

He also allegedly took the advice of attorneys who advised him they are doing illegal things..

I do appreciate the research you have done. Please provide link to his attorney that told him that what they were doing is illegal.

Please don’t make me read 100 documents. Please provide the exact quote and then the link that varified his attorney told him what they were doing was illegal.

Thanks again for your research

peace to you