Patterico's Pontifications

6/27/2023

Released: Trump Audio Concerning “Highly Classified” Document

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:00 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Appearing to undermine his own claim, CNN made public the audio of Donald Trump discussing classified materials in his possession:

From Politico:

Former President Donald Trump appears to have acknowledged keeping national security documents he did not declassify, according to an audio recording obtained by CNN.

In the two-minute recording, Trump can be heard stating, “these are the papers” while referring to something he calls “highly confidential.”

“This was done by the military and given to me,” Trump said in the recording. “See as president I could have declassified it. Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

Trump describes his “big pile of paper” to people in the room and says, “Isn’t it amazing? … They presented me this — this is off the record.”

Trump responded to the release of the audio as you would expect – he claimed that the audio exonerates him:

The Deranged Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, working in conjunction with the DOJ & FBI, illegally leaked and ‘spun’ a tape and transcript of me which is actually an exoneration, rather than what they would have you believe. This continuing Witch Hunt is another ELECTION INTERFERENCE Scam. They are cheaters and thugs!

And this morning:

Good times.

Really, what more can be said about Trump’s reckless handling of sensitive documents, his flippant dismissiveness and denial of the law, his continual flip-flops on what he had in his possession and what he didn’t, as well as the endless layers of lies coming from his mouth, all designed to save himself and confuse (and/or exhaust) the masses. This man has proven that he has absolutely no business being near classified documents, let alone actually getting his grubby little paws on them again. I’m tired, so I’ll just leave it at this: We are indeed electing idiots – and Republicans are posed to do so again:

Because of the situation that we’re in, where we have a major-party candidate who’s trying to unravel our democracy — and I don’t say that lightly — we have to think about, all right, what kinds of alliances are necessary to defeat him, and those are the alliances we’ve got to build across party lines…I really believe, and I’ve never believed something as strongly as I know this, that the single most important thing for the country is that Donald Trump can’t be anywhere near the Oval Office again.

Amen.

–Dana

65 Responses to “Released: Trump Audio Concerning “Highly Classified” Document”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (560c99)

  2. A while back, when the Louisiana governorship was between a convicted bribe-taker and David Duke, the bumper-stickers read:

    Vote for the Crook
    It’s Important!

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  3. Trump has already unraveled the Republican Party.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  4. COULD SOMEBBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE DERANGED, TRUMP HATING JACK SMITH, HIS FAMILY, AND HIS FRIENDS

    Meets the Brandenburg test, I think, and I’m not sure that it even needs to. The government should move for a dangerousness hearing to have Trump detained pending trial with communication allowed only with his lawyers under strictly supervised conditions.

    nk (aa8913)

  5. Meets the Brandenburg test, I think, and I’m not sure that it even needs to. The government should move for a dangerousness hearing to have Trump detained pending trial with communication allowed only with his lawyers under strictly supervised conditions.

    nk (aa8913) — 6/27/2023 @ 4:06 pm

    Uh, no. The Court held in Brandenburg that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”, none of which appears in Trump’s screed. In Hess v. Indiana (1973) the Court said that before an individual’s speech could fall under the unprotected category of incitement to imminent lawless action, the speech must lead to “imminent disorder.” Again, the quoted part of his screed does no such thing.

    As far as the source of the recording, there are two other possibilities besides the government:

    It could also have leaked from its originator. The audio comes from a meeting that Trump held with a publisher and writer who both are unnamed in the indictment. If they worked at CNN, then that explanation would make sense. It’s not clear why the originators would leak it otherwise, though.

    That leaves us with a third option, which is that Trump’s team leaked it. That has been a rather common occurrence over the last few years, and it’s usually done to paint his accusers as unethical. Trump does seem to believe that the audio can be spun as exculpatory, as he argued on Truth Social last night, so perhaps he or his team decided to attack Smith in that direction. The timing works too, at least hypothetically, as Smith just delivered the first tranche of discovery materials to Trump’s legal team — and a judge put a partial gag order in place to cover it.

    Is it just a coincidence that a tape that had been kept secret for months suddenly leaked four days after it was handed over in discovery? Some people may believe in coincidences, but …

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  6. Meets the Brandenburg test

    Unfortunately I don’t agree.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  7. I was watching one of those TV food channel shows where they had chefs doing a blind taste test. Trump is like a heaping tablespoon of Marmite 2-3 times a day since 2016 that is no longer a surprise

    steveg (8eb43c)

  8. The Court held in Brandenburg that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”,

    “His family, and his friends” takes care of the lawless action. What “explanation” do Jack Smith’s family and friends need and why?

    And in a dangerousness hearing the court can take judicial notice of the speech preceding the invasion of the Capitol on January 6. Dog whistle.

    The rules for pre-trial detention are not the same as they are for a criminal conviction.

    And it would make Trump poop his pants.

    nk (ae5085)

  9. I know zilch about dangerousness hearnings, so I take no position. But Brandenburg, I don’t think so. All the prongs look iffy, but imminence is the clearest loser. What’s the barest evidence for imminence? Not that I wouldn’t enjoy making Trump poop his pants, but for all I know he does that anyway.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  10. I won’t insist. 😉

    nk (ae5085)

  11. nk (ae5085) — 6/27/2023 @ 5:14 pm

    Trump made no specific threat of violence or imminent lawless action (or any threat at all) to anyone in his screed, so it would be impossible to make a case under Brandenburg or Hess.

    His speech at the Capitol on January 6th is certainly debatable-it also didn’t include any true threats, or incitement to lawless action. This is why I believe he won’t be indicted for insurrection or seditious conspiracy, but over his attempts to overturn the election results through a conspiracy to defraud the United States, by interfering with the functioning of the United States Congress to certify the results of a presidential election.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  12. I won’t insist. 😉

    Hey, I hope you’re right. I don’t think so, but nothing would make me happier than to be proven wrong.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  13. Catherine Herridge
    @CBS_Herridge
    Iran memo — at the heart of the now-public audio recording — is not part of the 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information charged in the special counsel indictment, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to CBS News

    https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1673840888554876930

    That’s weird.

    BuDuh (55a8c7)

  14. BuDuh,

    If it was then releasing it would’ve been a crime.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  15. Thankfully for Trump, an uncorroborated confession is not corpus delicti. The existence of an actual crime. The government would need to show, at the very least, the existence of the classified document.

    Same as if he had bragged about shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue. The police would need a person with a bullet hole in them.

    Trump’s stable boys might believe his braggadocio, but the law has chosen, for a long time, not to waste its resources on deranged fantasies.

    nk (ae5085)

  16. I understand and appreciate Ms. Cheney’s comment, that “what we’ve done in our politics is create a situation where we’re electing idiots,” but idiots in my party are nominating idiots, and then idiots in general elections are electing those idiots into office, so apparently these elected idiot representatives are serving their idiot constituency. I don’t know how that situation gets uncreated.

    I do note that when I turned to FoxNews tonite, it was a segment about “climate culture communists” (or something like that in the chyron) wanting to ban wood-fired pizza ovens in restaurants, then I switched over CNN where they talked about the subject in this post.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  17. Or maybe it’s the same it ever was.
    In my state, not only was a dim bulb like Patty Murray elected to the US Senate, she’s been reelected five times since.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  18. Paul, the climate culture people here have already banned any future gas stoves, fireplaces and they are ready to make restaurants all use electric stoves ovens, so yeah, no wood fired pizza, no smoked brisket. They have voted to ask for removal of all fireplaces, gas fired hot water, heating, ovens in return for residential remodel permits. I’m more concerned with the local erosion than national corrosion although one could make the case, they are hand in hand

    steveg (8eb43c)

  19. It was an easy topic. Liberal busybodies messing with the production of good pizza is downright un-American.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  20. Meets the Brandenburg test, I think, and I’m not sure that it even needs to.

    This doesn’t even meet the Turing Test.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  21. You could fund the entire DoJ by a PPV live-stream of Trump’s first 2 hours in lockup.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  22. I have been mulling over a dozen or so comments I could make about the “gas vs. electric gaslighting of Fox News-watching morons” and you just read one of the contenders.
    — Third Runner Up: I missed the friendly flicker of deer tallow candles, myself, when people started lighting their homes with whale oil lamps.
    — Second Runner Up: All hope is not lost in the fight against cultural communism in California as long as cops can still beat homeless people to death in Orange County.
    — And the winner is: Fox News is the legal alternative to warfarin-laced marijuana.

    nk (adc934)

  23. I would actually like to see Trump detained for unleashing threats against a prosecutor’s family. That’s evil. Seems to have worked for Putin, though, so I can see why Trump might give it a throw.

    I would have preferred that Trump have done it against a judge. (Maybe the one in his defamation case.) Then we would have seen action.

    Appalled (0b46da)

  24. Trump is dialing everything up, because fear and chaos are his allies. Sooner or later, someone is going to get shot at. I have my preferences.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  25. Trump made no specific threat of violence or imminent lawless action (or any threat at all) to anyone in his screed, so it would be impossible to make a case under Brandenburg or Hess.

    His speech at the Capitol on January 6th is certainly debatable-it also didn’t include any true threats, or incitement to lawless action. ……..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/27/2023 @ 6:05 pm

    The Supreme Court just decided a case that provided a standard for “true threats”:

    The Supreme Court handed down a fractured 7-2 opinion in favor of a convicted stalker Tuesday when it decided that even hundreds of “creepy” Facebook messages including one to a musician that said to “f— off permanently” are protected by the First Amendment.
    ………
    In his defense, (Billy Raymond Counterman) argued that the statement he made via Facebook Messenger did not rise to the level of being “true threats,” and were therefore protected by the First Amendment as free speech. The trial court considered, as required by state law, whether a reasonable person would have interpreted Counterman’s messages as threats.

    Counterman argued on appeal that the proper test was a subjective one that took into account whether Counterman actually intended to harm Whalen. The majority of justices agreed with him and adopted a subjective test in Tuesday’s ruling — albeit one with a relatively low standard.

    Justice Elena Kagan penned the majority opinion. She wrote that in order for speech to rise to the level of a “true threat” that is unprotected by the First Amendment, a criminal defendant must have had “some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.” To satisfy that requirement, though, Kagan said a mental state of recklessness suffices. So long as prosecutors can show that a defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence, the state will not offend the Constitution.
    ………
    Four justices — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — stood in lockstep with Kagan.
    ………
    Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, penned a lengthy concurrence, which began with a look at the purpose of deeming threats outside the realm of protected speech.

    “One paradigmatic example of this would be writing and mailing a letter threatening to assassinate the President,” Sotomayor wrote. “Such laws are plainly important. There is no longstanding tradition, however, of punishing speech merely because it is unintentionally threatening.”
    ………
    Justice Amy Coney Barrett‘s dissent, joined only by Thomas, lent itself as much to Counterman’s case as it might have to the question of Donald Trump’s liability for the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

    “Incitement, as a form of ‘advocacy,’ often arises in the political arena,” wrote Barrett, who said that, “[a] specific intent requirement helps draw the line between incitement and ‘political rhetoric lying at the core of the First Amendment.’”
    ……..

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  26. Both are right:

    Kagan:

    So long as prosecutors can show that a defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence, the state will not offend the Constitution.

    Barrett: “Incitement, as a form of ‘advocacy,’ often arises in the political arena,” wrote Barrett, who said that, “[a] specific intent requirement helps draw the line between incitement and ‘political rhetoric lying at the core of the First Amendment.’”

    Every Constitutional right has some limits. I lean toward Kagan here, which is something I never thought I would say.

    DRJ (fd3827)

  27. Thanks for the link, Rip.

    DRJ (fd3827)

  28. “One paradigmatic example of this would be writing and mailing a letter threatening to assassinate the President,” Sotomayor wrote.

    I, for one, think Kevin’s constant comments, like at 9:10am today, fall just short of this threshold.

    BuDuh (e1ee55)

  29. “One paradigmatic example of this would be writing and mailing a letter threatening to assassinate the President,” Sotomayor wrote.

    I, for one, think Kevin’s constant comments, like at 9:10am today, fall just short of this threshold.

    BuDuh (e1ee55) — 6/28/2023 @ 10:37 am

    I don’t think Kevin M is “threatening” anyone, least of all President Biden. Again, the majority opinion stated that the standard is subjective, not objective:

    in order for speech to rise to the level of a “true threat” that is unprotected by the First Amendment, a criminal defendant must have had “some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements.”

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  30. BuDuh (e1ee55) — 6/28/2023 @ 10:37 am

    At worse Kevin M is engaging in wishful thinking.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  31. Biden committed treason and sold us out to the Chinese. Sure hope we get an update.

    NJRob (f16941)

  32. One side points to the Bidens and sees only corruption and the other side chooses only to see a Fathers love. I was watching TV a few weeks back when it was raining and saw a story of the steep descent of a man who was trying to keep his only son alive and insulated from consequences that would have exceeded the the sons crime. Love of his son led to a long series of poor decisions that forced the law to take actions despite the father’s status

    steveg (df30ea)

  33. #31 — I sure do hope so too, because I would love to understand what you are considering as a sell-out to the Chinese. Last I heard, Hunter was complaining to a Chinese partner about not getting paid and suggested Joe was in the room with him while he did so. Is there more than that?

    Appalled (0b46da)

  34. Biden committed treason and sold us out to the Chinese. Sure hope we get an update.

    NJRob (f16941) — 6/28/2023 @ 12:29 pm

    You will have a long wait since Biden hasn’t committed treason.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  35. There is no new revelation as far as Trump saying he believed that what he had was classified. It was leaked before the indictment and was in the indictment.

    There is some new material – mainly confirmation that it was about a possible attack on Iran and more of the recording is disclosed and we can listen to it.

    rump have a very short version of his defense – which is that the issue if classification is irrelevant to the charges, but it’s (actual not potential) damage to the United States; and that what he had was not an agency record but could only be a presidential record (because it was a copy the president was given and did not belong to the CIA or military) or a personal record, and that the Clinton case judgement meant he could declare anything a personal record – which interpretation ofcourse would totallydestroy the Presidential Records Act of 1978.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  36. “Isn’t it amazing?

    The way he stumbled across it?

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  37. Appalled (0b46da) — 6/28/2023 @ 1:17 pm

    Last I heard, Hunter was complaining to a Chinese partner about not getting paid and suggested Joe was in the room with him while he did so. Is there more than that?

    They did cough up the money, which was distributed (by Hunter?) to 9 members of the Biden family but apparently not Joe.

    Hunter Biden also claimed to have sources in the FBI, but if so he lied. He told one person he would not be arrested in he came to the United States but he was and he told the CEFC boss who was staying in the United Sates that he would be arrested and he left for China but was arrested when he got to Shanghai and disappeared three months later into the Chinese gulag and has not been heard from since.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  38. which is actually an exoneration

    Because there is no indication he ever showed anyone the docuemnt beyond its size and the only secret he revelaed was that,according tohimMark Milley favored warwith Iran.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  39. Biden committed treason and sold us out to the Chinese. Sure hope we get an update.

    Joe or Hunter? If Joe (because Hunter’s irrelevant), what evidence?

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  40. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/27/2023 @ 5:00 pm

    The audio comes from a meeting that Trump held with a publisher and writer who both are unnamed in the indictment.

    But we know from leaks that this was recorded as part of the research for a book by Mark Meadows that was being ghostwritten for him.

    Probably this book:

    https://www.amazon.com/Chiefs-Chief-Mark-Meadows/dp/1737478528

    The Chief’s Chief by Mark Meadows (Author) published in hardcover on December 7, 2021.

    That leaves us with a third option, which is that Trump’s team leaked it. That has been a rather common occurrence over the last few years, and it’s usually done to paint his accusers as unethical. Trump does seem to believe that the audio can be spun as exculpatory, as he argued on Truth Social last night, so perhaps he or his team decided to attack Smith in that direction.

    Even the prosecution agrees. It does ni=ot state a crime.

    Sammy Finkelman (208c64)

  41. Or at least they did not include it as one of the counts, but only to prove obstruction. But Trump says violating the Presidential Records Act , which he says has no teeth at all, is not criminal. But what about defying a subpoena?

    Sammy Finkelman (208c64)

  42. nk (ae5085) — 6/27/2023 @ 5:14 pm“

    His family, and his friends” takes care of the lawless action. What “explanation” do Jack Smith’s family and friends need and why?

    Trump takes the indictment as a personal decision and says that people close to the prosecutor should convince him it’s not a crime.

    What do you know?

    The prosecutor agrees:

    Catherine Herridge
    @CBS_Herridge
    Iran memo — at the heart of the now-public audio recording — is not part of the 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information charged in the special counsel indictment, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to CBS News

    https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1673840888554876930

    L

    And in a dangerousness hearing the court can take judicial notice of the speech preceding the invasion of the Capitol on January 6. Dog whistle.

    The rules for pre-trial detention are not the same as they are for a criminal conviction.

    And it would make Trump poop his pants.

    Sammy Finkelman (208c64)

  43. Because there is no indication he ever showed anyone the docuemnt beyond its size and the only secret he revelaed was that,according tohimMark Milley favored warwith Iran.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/28/2023 @ 2:44 pm

    There are at least two witnesses-the ghostwriter and Trump’s aide who is heard on the tape. It doesn’t matter if the document was included in the indictment or not; the tape goes to Trump’s state of mind. He admitted he didn’t declassify it and he showed it to unauthorized persons. The indictment doesn’t include all of the evidence that the government has and will use.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  44. Hunter Biden also claimed to have sources in the FBI, but if so he lied. He told one person he would not be arrested in he came to the United States but he was and he told the CEFC boss who was staying in the United Sates that he would be arrested and he left for China but was arrested when he got to Shanghai and disappeared three months later into the Chinese gulag and has not been heard from since.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 6/28/2023 @ 2:42 pm

    Sammy,

    He did have people in the FBI. The whistleblowers stated they were going to seize materials from Hunter and somehow he got wind and cleared everything out. Of course it helps when the DOJ says he’s off limits. They run the show.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  45. I don’t need to be appointed by Trump to not allow propensity evidence. And without an identifiable classified document in evidence, that tape will not be allowed into evidence, nor that count (is there a count?) submitted to the jury.

    But CNN can still use it to sell cellular service.

    nk (f957a1)

  46. I don’t need to be appointed by Trump to not allow propensity evidence. And without an identifiable classified document in evidence, that tape will not be allowed into evidence, nor that count (is there a count?) submitted to the jury.

    We’ll see.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  47. It has always seemed like the prosecutor/DOJ/FBI are still looking for something — maybe the Iran document, since they have recordings of Trump talking about it. If they don’t have the document, then I only see two ways the recording(s) get into evidence:

    1. As evidence of obstruction if there is some basis to show Trump (or an aide) destroyed it or hid it, or

    2. In the punishment phase if he is convicted.

    DRJ (fd3827)

  48. Of course, some judges would allow it as showing state of mind. This probably isn’t one of those judges.

    DRJ (fd3827)

  49. As we have seen with the January 6th insurrectionists, the current indictment may not be the last word. There always the chance of a superseding indictment adding new charges.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  50. MUst be coincidence. NY times verifies with third source whistleblowers accusation that david weiss was told by doj not to prosecute hunter with any crimes involving joe biden. (ACE) Merrit garland any comment?

    asset (d55df9)

  51. I, for one, think Kevin’s constant comments, like at 9:10am today, fall just short of this threshold.

    What? I’m just predicting that this will get out of hand. As for my preferences, well, the stirrer of the pot has the greatest risk.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  52. I don’t think Kevin M is “threatening” anyone, least of all President Biden.

    Both of those are true. Biden is just a normal assh0le politician. We’d be at it all day if people like that were targets.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  53. a man who was trying to keep his only son alive and insulated from consequences that would have exceeded the the sons crime

    The best thing a parent can do with an addict child is let the world hit him hard and fast. As long as they keep cushioning his fall, the child is not going to get to the necessary realizations.

    It is only when the addict decides that he MUST change and takes the necessary hard actions that there is any hope for recovery. No one gets sober against their will.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  54. Of course, some judges would allow it as showing state of mind. This probably isn’t one of those judges.

    She will do nothing that would get the case reversed on appeal.

    Kevin M (2d6744)

  55. Trump has has three quarters of a century (literally) to perfect The Art Of The Cowardly Crapweasel. And now a federal law and a Secret Service detail to protect his dental work.

    nk (f0c7bf)

  56. has ^had*

    nk (f0c7bf)

  57. Absent an early present from Georgia, I anticipate little movement over the next month leading up to the first debate. Trump will need to decide whether to attend that debate. It’s a Catch-22. He can expose himself to more self incrimination as he floats out implausible theory after theory. Or he has to sit at home and watch Chris Christie malign him without answer…and stew. Either way, the debate should start to shake things up.

    Now does it matter to the faithful? No, it never did. Trump is them. They eagerly buy into the slop that it’s totally unfair and the swamp never gave him a chance. I’m sure there are an equal number of numbskulls on the other side, they just don’t currently have a champion.

    AJ_Liberty (8c250c)

  58. #57

    Trump will do a rally or a town hall someone (OneAmerica? Newsmax? Tucker on Twitter?) will carry live as counterprogramming. He won’t sit at home.

    Since the GOP seems like a wholly owned subsidiary of Trump, they may cancel the debate or withdraw sponsorship rather than risk his ire.

    Appalled (9e9853)

  59. Kevin M (2d6744) — 6/28/2023 @ 11:33 pm

    It is only when the addict decides that he MUST change and takes the necessary hard actions that there is any hope for recovery.

    For Robert (Hunter) Biden, that was the prospect of ruining his father’s political career, and disgracing him, and/or the possibility that his father could be elected president.

    He agreed he had to straighten himself out, and allowed his family to make the decisions

    For the drug and alcohol addiction he took ketamine (semmi-illegal)

    For the sex, he arranged to marry someone quickly.

    For the money, he let his father’s donors manage that

    Sammy Finkelman (208c64)

  60. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/28/2023 @ 3:32 pm

    There are at least two witnesses-the ghostwriter and Trump’s aide who is heard on the tape. It doesn’t matter if the document was included in the indictment or not; the tape goes to Trump’s state of mind. He admitted he didn’t declassify it and he showed it to unauthorized persons.

    The tape goes to rebut any claim that Trump had intentionally declassified all the documents — however, Trump is no longer maintaining that, so it is a point the prosecution already won.

    Trump still has:

    1) The idea that they were automatically declassified (at least unintentionally)

    2) That classification or the lack thereof is a legally irrelevant point as far as the Espionage Act goes (it could maybe go to show it is not a personal document, but Trump has defenses on retaining documents)

    3) That he was still protecting its secrecy. He said what he had to say was “off the record” and then he didn’t reveal anything of value to an enemy of the United States.

    The indictment doesn’t include all of the evidence that the government has and will use.

    It’s not a count in the indictment.

    Now the government is still looking for this document.

    Possibilities are:

    A) Trump, out of fear, later destroyed it. (fear of legal consequences, and without consulting any lawyers)

    B) Trump gave it back, but the government did not identify it as the one he was waving in front of the people in Bedminster. (Possibly because rump did not describe it accurately — it was series of options with pros and cons, not Milley advocating war with Iran)

    C) Trump still has it.

    I think we can safely assume he didn’t sell it to Iran.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  61. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/28/2023 @ 3:32 pm

    There are at least two witnesses-the ghostwriter and Trump’s aide who is heard on the tape. It doesn’t matter if the document was included in the indictment or not; the tape goes to Trump’s state of mind. He admitted he didn’t declassify it and he showed it to unauthorized persons.

    The tape goes to rebut any claim that Trump had intentionally declassified all the documents — however, Trump is no longer maintaining that, so it is a point the prosecution already won.

    Trump still has:

    1) The idea that they were automatically declassified (at least unintentionally)

    2) That classification or the lack thereof is a legally irrelevant point as far as the Espionage Act goes (it could maybe go to show it is not a personal document, but Trump has defenses on retaining documents)

    3) That he was still protecting its secrecy. He didn’t actually show it to anybody. He said what he had to say was “off the record” and then he didn’t reveal anything of value to an enemy of the United States.

    The indictment doesn’t include all of the evidence that the government has and will use.

    It’s not a count in the indictment.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  62. Now the government is still looking for this document.

    Possibilities are:

    A) Trump, out of fear, later destroyed it. (fear of legal consequences, and without consulting any lawyers)

    B) Trump gave it back, but the government did not identify it as the one he was waving in front of the people in Bedminster. (Possibly because Trump did not describe it accurately — it was series of options with pros and cons, not Milley advocating war with Iran, although Milley (or DOD more exactly) may have written that a surgical strike to destroy Iran’ nuclear program would not work, and that if you wanted to do this you must do such and such.)

    C) Trump still has it.

    I think we can safely rule out that he gave it away to Iran, without even retainig a copy..

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  63. Followup to #59:

    It was at about the time that he was getting his life straightened out and moved to California that Hunter Biden abandoned the laptop files (he never came back to receive the hard disk onto which all his recovered files had been put, and he never returned or paid for the spare keyboard he’d been given for one laptop. There were three laptops he brought in. One was completely ruined, another could work with an external keyboard, and the third one could not boot but most or all files could be read.)

    The files were basically all the same – he used the laptops as terminals for for his Apple iCloud account and synchronized with it. There were probably some files that were obtained by the IRS only with a subpoena for his Apple iCloud account.

    That What’s App message telling a Chinese executive (really a government official) that his father was there with him did not come from the laptop files but only from his iCloud account, so maybe some were not recovered by John Paul Mac Isaac, which makes sense if he could not use the operating system. The data files would be less damaged than the operating system but maybe there was more than one damaged sector and a certain fraction of the files were not recovered.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  64. From Miranda Devine interview today on Cats and Cosby on WABC radio:

    Hunter Biden has been testifying all day today starting at 9 am and it was still going on at 5 pm.

    The deposition is for a lawsuit being brought by John Paul Mac Isaac, the ZDeaware computer repairman, for ruining his reputation and computer repair.

    I’d expect Hunter to be asked if there was anything in the files that was not his and what does he know about who stated this thing about it being Russian disinformation or hacked or stolen. But not so much about any crimes, or income tax evasion.

    In the Navy Roberts case (the illegitimate child) we learned today that part of the settlement was that each year Hunter would give the mother of the child several paintings.

    They could be worth something as the equivalent of autographs

    When someone pays for a painting they are often actually paying for the autograph.

    And Hunter’s patrons may feel motivated to keep the price up for a while to maintain that they are really worth what is being paid for them and are not simply a form of laundering money for a campaign.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  65. Where are the republicans who supported biden in 2020 like todd-whitman or kasich? wondering in the wildnerness. Maricopa county supervisor who stood up to trumpsters trying to steal the election say he won’t run in 2024 so trumpsters can control 2024 election in az.

    asset (9b09a5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1067 secs.