384
Mar-a-Lago Judge: Jury Sees Top Secret Files or Trump Wins
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
384 points (97.5% liked)
politics
31238 readers
2126 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Another option for the prosecution is to redact classified info. It doesn't actually matter what is in the document, just that it's classified because a former President is disallowed to possess classified material.
For more info: classified documents have extensive ~~markets~~ markings. The header and footer of every page with material is marked either, Unclassified (if present in docs with higher), CUI, Secret, Top Secret, etc. In addition, the document will have markings for each paragraph on if that particular paragraph or line contains classified material and at what level. So the prosecution could definitely just redact everything above Unclassified and the remainder of the text should paint a fairly clear picture of what the document contains without revealing specific classified details.
Of course this treasonous judge would probably interpret as you did because she belongs behind bars not a bench.___
Playing a bit of devil's advocate.
We have a tendency to over classify things in general. When I was in a TS SCIF, we would mark things S/TS because we were lazy and didn't want to go through the process to see if something was subject to disclosure.
Assuming, with a great heaping serving of salt, that there is validity to Trump's claim, I can sort of understand putting to a jury to see if the files that Trump took were in fact classified. I can see him stealing the documents simply because it had a cover sheet and not because it was valuable. While I'm sure that he absolutely took sensitive and classified information, I'm equally sure that there is probably a take out menu or two in those boxes.
The problem is that the run of the mill citizen isn't equipped to properly classify a document. I don't know what probative value exists in giving the documents to jurors outside of forcing the prosecution to put them in the public record.
Jurors provide no value beyond the markings even if they are over-classified. I mean I guess you could beat out the security classification guides and a derivative classification course... But even so, the president is only an OCA while in office so the point is kinda moot. I don't think the specific document content matters, just whether or not updated SCG exists with same content, yeah?
Basically, "this line is referencing this item in the guide, the guide still says classified, ergo this is a spill".
Im just trying to understand your experience there. So being lazy, documents could be marked S/TS. And then following on to allowing the jurybto see whether they were classified.
This sounds to me you’re suggesting the jury should verify these documents, and assuming some are marked S/TS, come to a decision as to whether it should actually be that classification and not some lower classification allowing more general disclosure?
The markets for these ones were Saudi Arabia, Russia, and maybe China.
Lol. Damn Freud up in my typos.
Face it, you want to fuck classified documents, which are also your mother.
Yo pops, that's a real nice dong you got there. Sure would be a shame if something were to happen to it.