Trump indicted: Espionage Act

[Confluence]

Did the others share the classified docs and refuse to turn them over having aides hide them from investigators?

How the **** would anyone know? Communications about documents are completely different than possession.

That's why Hillary had a server with 33,000 emails about classified docs.

 

[Troglodyte]

How the **** would anyone know? Communications about documents are completely different than possession.

How does the DOJ know about Trump’s communications?

 

[SanDiegoSteeler]

metaphorically speaking..

that woman is the govt. and their BS. Trump threatened it. Why he got indicted. You know it.

We are gonna run out of track soon.

my opinion? Trump wants to stop that train.To me, it is obvious.

 

[Confluence]

How does the DOJ know about Trump’s communications?

Great question.

Apparently, they plan to pierce the veil of attorney/client privilege.

Imagine what could happen to American society if this new ability became "trendy"

 

[Ron Burgundy]

How does the DOJ know about Trump’s communications?

Great question.

Apparently, they plan to pierce the veil of attorney/client privilege.

Imagine what could happen to American society if this new ability became "trendy"

The NSA knows everything about everyone. Like the rest of the government they only use it against Republicans though.

 

[Booted]

 

[diver]

Narrator: Yes, ZonaBurgh. That's exactly what this is about. Highly confidential military and nuclear secrets Trump stole and hid in his mother **** ing bathroom. Did you not read the indictment?

Oh, c'mon. Look at actions. What has our government before this indictment done to prove to you that they are so concerned with confidential military and nuclear secrets? Some 21 year old kid wanting to be popular lets stuff out in an online chatroom. Whew, they were on top of that one. Some damn Chinese ballon just floats over the country for a while. No big deal. We could go on and on. The Southern border is wide open. What about national security there?

The sad thing is there are enough people out there who actually think this is about national security. It's because you WANT to believe it, not because it's true. And for me this is far less about Trump than the stupid arguments used. I wish Trump would just fade away, but national security my ***.

 

[Superman]

How the **** would anyone know? Communications about documents are completely different than possession.

That's why Hillary had a server with 33,000 emails about classified docs.

yoga, recipes and grandchildren photos are not "classified docs"

 

[Superman]

How does the DOJ know about Trump’s communications?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility. As a result, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court. However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, which are explained below.

The first exception to the hearsay rule is the "excited utterance" exception. This exception applies when someone makes a statement during a startling event, in the heat of the moment, potentially providing an unguarded and accurate piece of information. This exception is most applicable in criminal cases, as the rationale behind it is that during or immediately following a criminal act, a person is not likely to have the presence of mind to lie or give false statements. In order for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance, it must have been made in conjunction with an event that would be so overwhelming as to discount the possibility of fabrication.

The second exception to the hearsay rule is the "statements against interest" exception. This exception applies to statements or actions that adversely affect the party who made the statement. These statements do not need to be formal admissions. The theory behind this exception is that a person would not fabricate a statement that is adverse to their own best interest. However, the witness offering the hearsay testimony may not be telling the truth, but that goes to credibility, not admissibility.

See: Federal Rules of Evidence 804(b)(3)

The third exception to the hearsay rule is the "matter of record" exception. This exception allows for official government records, private business records, prior court decisions or documents, and prior testimony of an unavailable witness to be admitted as evidence. In order for these records and documents to be admissible, they must be verifiable in some way, such as with a notarized original or a witness who can attest to their authenticity.

For federal trials, the rules for hearsay are contained within Article VIII of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 801-807.

• Rule 801(c) of the FRE defines hearsay.
• Rule 802 prohibits the admissibility of hearsay.
• Rule 803, Rule 804 and Rule 807 list exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
• Rule 805 discusses hearsay within hearsay.
• Rule 806 discusses the credibility of the declarant of the hearsay.

See: Federal Rules of Evidence › ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY › Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

• Although hearsay rules differ by jurisdiction, many state hearsay rules are modeled after the Federal Rules of Evidence.

It is important to remember that even with these exceptions, the judge has the discretion to determine whether or not to admit hearsay evidence.

 

[Troglodyte]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of whatever it asserts, which is then offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter. The problem with hearsay is that when the person being quoted is not present, it becomes impossible to establish credibility. As a result, hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in court. However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, which are explained below.

The first exception to the hearsay rule is the "excited utterance" exception. This exception applies when someone makes a statement during a startling event, in the heat of the moment, potentially providing an unguarded and accurate piece of information. This exception is most applicable in criminal cases, as the rationale behind it is that during or immediately following a criminal act, a person is not likely to have the presence of mind to lie or give false statements. In order for a statement to qualify as an excited utterance, it must have been made in conjunction with an event that would be so overwhelming as to discount the possibility of fabrication.

The second exception to the hearsay rule is the "statements against interest" exception. This exception applies to statements or actions that adversely affect the party who made the statement. These statements do not need to be formal admissions. The theory behind this exception is that a person would not fabricate a statement that is adverse to their own best interest. However, the witness offering the hearsay testimony may not be telling the truth, but that goes to credibility, not admissibility.

See: Federal Rules of Evidence 804(b)(3)

The third exception to the hearsay rule is the "matter of record" exception. This exception allows for official government records, private business records, prior court decisions or documents, and prior testimony of an unavailable witness to be admitted as evidence. In order for these records and documents to be admissible, they must be verifiable in some way, such as with a notarized original or a witness who can attest to their authenticity.

For federal trials, the rules for hearsay are contained within Article VIII of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rules 801-807.

• Rule 801(c) of the FRE defines hearsay.
• Rule 802 prohibits the admissibility of hearsay.
• Rule 803, Rule 804 and Rule 807 list exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
• Rule 805 discusses hearsay within hearsay.
• Rule 806 discusses the credibility of the declarant of the hearsay.

See: Federal Rules of Evidence › ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY › Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

• Although hearsay rules differ by jurisdiction, many state hearsay rules are modeled after the Federal Rules of Evidence.

It is important to remember that even with these exceptions, the judge has the discretion to determine whether or not to admit hearsay evidence.

An audio recording of Trump speaking of sharing the documents is hearsay?

 

[Superman]

An audio recording of Trump speaking of sharing the documents is hearsay?

you know for a fact it's Donald J Drumpf or could the possibility be of someone else? did OrangeMan know he was being recorded?

 

[Troglodyte]

you know for a fact it's Donald J Drumpf or could the possibility be of someone else? did OrangeMan know he was being recorded?

Good grief. The recording was made as part of an interview Trump was doing for a Mark Meadows autobiography.

 

[Superman]

so this is what you're furiously jerking off to?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/trump-tape-classified-document-iran-milley/index.html

 

[Iron95]

so this is what you're furiously jerking off to?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/trump-tape-classified-document-iran-milley/index.html

LAME!!

 

[Troglodyte]

so this is what you're furiously jerking off to?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/trump-tape-classified-document-iran-milley/index.html

You’ll notice the date is over two weeks ago. It’s old news to anyone remotely aware of current events.

 

[Superman]

You’ll notice the date is over two weeks ago. It’s old news to anyone remotely aware of current events.

is that a yes or is that a no?

 

[Iron95]

is that a yes or is that a no?

I guess he has been going at it for two weeks.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

is that a yes or is that a no?

I guess he has been going at it for two weeks.

That's why his right hand can crush a Volkswagen and his left can't pick up a pencil.

 

[Tibs]

Anyone catch ex-President Doofus on FoxNews last night, in the interview with Bret Baier?

Look up the definition of a trainwreck, and you'll get the Cliff Notes version.

Kudos to Bret Baier, btw, for not assuming the fetal position in this interview. And also to Brit Hume, for doubling down. FoxNews is done with Trump. Credit where credit is due.

Donald Trump’s night goes from bad to worse as FOX News host Brit Hume humiliates him live on the air over his disastrous interview with his fellow FOX News host Bret Baier, declaring that Trump’s rambling defense of his charges for violating the Espionage Act was “on the verge of incoherent.” But it gets worse for Trump… First, the FOX host began by congratulating his colleague Bret Baier in front of millions of FOX viewers for pushing back against Trump and not letting him get away with lying about the indictment and his culpability. Then, Hume set his sights on Trump, declaring, “I will say a couple of things. His answer on the matters of the law seem to me to verge on incoherent. He seemed to be saying that the documents were really his, and that he didn't give them back when he was requested to do so by a subpoena because he wasn't ready to because he hadn't sorted them and separated the classified information or whatever from his golf shirts, whatever he was saying." Hume concluded his brutal rant by putting Trump on notice that he has MAJOR problems waiting for him when the trial begins, declaring that Trump “seems to believe that the documents were his and that he had declassified them, when there was evidence to the contrary. And therefore, he could do whatever he wanted with them. Which I don't think is gonna hold up in court." That’s right. Even FOX News knows that Trump is TOAST.

 

[steel dino]

Morning--

Watched the interview with B.B.

And it made me remember something my Pops told me long ago...

He said..."Son....never pass up the opportunity to just shut the f*ck up"...

 

[diver]

I didn't see the interview. I have always had trouble listening to Trump. He is consistently rambling and sometimes incoherent.

But again, the laughable hypocrisy. The guy who posts about the interview supports the clearest and constant example we have of rambling incoherence, Joe Biden.

 

[Troglodyte]

Anyone catch ex-President Doofus on FoxNews last night, in the interview with Bret Baier?

Look up the definition of a trainwreck, and you'll get the Cliff Notes version.

Kudos to Bret Baier, btw, for not assuming the fetal position in this interview. And also to Brit Hume, for doubling down. FoxNews is done with Trump. Credit where credit is due.

It was such a disaster that nobody is talking about how Trump also said he “never made any bones” about not being President.

Wait, WHAT?!?!?

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

It was such a disaster that nobody is talking about how Trump also said he “never made any bones” about not being President.

Wait, WHAT?!?!?

Where is your concern about the man IN OFFICE who is even less comprehensible when he speaks? Rip Trump all you want but let's be honest between Trump, Biden and Fetterman, Trump is the best speaker. Not great but better than those two. I would like to see a competency test for all federal level jobs. I don't give a **** if that offends an old person or someone like Fetterman but we need bright alert people with some basic cognition running this country. Not a bunch of senile old power mongers and drunks.

 

[Stewey]

I didn't see the interview. I have always had trouble listening to Trump. He is consistently rambling and sometimes incoherent.

But again, the laughable hypocrisy. The guy who posts about the interview supports the clearest and constant example we have of rambling incoherence, Joe Biden.

Him speaking makes me cringe.
Aside from the hypocrisy you stated there's the hypocrisy of the two-tiered system of enforcing laws the demonrats have put in place...one for Trump and one for demonrats.

 

[Tibs]

Yup, coming soon to a town or city near you. That sound you hear is the air escaping from the Trump bubble, as millions around the country slowly wake up from a years-long, collective psychosis. Welcome back, fellas. Nice to see you slowly returning to the right side of sanity. We’ve missed you.