Liberal Dershowitz agrees with BMW:bmw wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:17 amSo I've finally had a chance to read through most of the indictment. Here are my thoughts:
-Considering that only 31 documents are in question, I'm not sure why so much is made of the various boxes, including photos of rooms full of boxes. The vast majority of the documents in those boxes are not at issue in this indictment, and as such, this looks more like fodder for the media than anything else.
-Counts 1 through 31 are NOT going to stick. These are basically all the same count (just each one count being for a different document) and allege that Trump engaged in espionage. Here's the relevant section of US Code:
What is fascinating here is that the question of whether Trump was authorized to possess the documents cited is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT because if you look at section (d) in Section 793, the same exact language exists, except the word "authorized" is in place of "unauthorized." In other words, GUILTY or NOT GUILTY has nothing to do with whether your possession of said documents was authorized or not. The key question here is whether you conveyed the information to others not entitled to receive it. Assuming that some of the statements of fact in the affidavit are proven to be true, this would appear to be the case. However, there's one final element, and that's the one that's going to be impossible to prove (unless there's more on the tapes than what is quoted in the affidavit), and that is intent. The prosecution is going to have to prove that Trump not only conveyed information to others not entitled to receive it, but that he did so knowing that the information he conveyed could be used to injure the United States. And I don't know how that question can even be answered without the jury actually being able to review the classified documents in question. The prosecution appears to be relying on past executive orders that define various classification markings and is going to generically argue that any document with a "secret" or "top secret," by definition, meets the criteria. But I don't think it is that simple. For example, the information in the documents that Trump showed others could be outdated and thus no longer a threat to national security. Without seeing the actual contents of the documents, the threat they pose to national security is unprovable.(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
==================
The remaining counts all have to do with obstruction. I will say this - some of the lawyer memos certainly look damaging. But at this stage, it all amounts to hearsay.
I'm sure I have more to add to this, but it is getting late and I've had a BUSY work week, so I'm mentally done for the day.
EDIT - one other thing I wanted to add here - if you read through 18 USC Chapter 37, the language in most other sections applies specifically to people doing things WITH THE INTENT of damaging the US and helping the enemy. 793(d) and (e) are the exception to this as they more vaguely only require that the information conveyed could damage the US, not necessarily that the person conveying said information did so with ill-intent towards the US. In Trump's case, it appears his only motive here was one of bragging. I don't think he showed anybody the stuff he did with the intent of those people taking that information and conveying it to the enemy. So taken in its broader context, this Chapter of US Code appears to have been written for the purpose of punishing those actively engaged in espionage, which, IMO, Trump was not.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... r-AA1cmc6s