this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024

328 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19072 readers

4359 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

328

Mar-a-Lago Judge: Jury Sees Top Secret Files or Trump Wins (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

109 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The MAGA-friendly federal judge who keeps siding with Donald Trump in his Mar-a-Lago classified records case has forced prosecutors to make a stark choice: allow jurors to see a huge trove of national secrets or let him go.

U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’sultimatum Monday night came as a surprise twist in what could have been a simple order; one merely asking federal prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers for proposed jury instructions at the upcoming trial.

But as she has done repeatedly, Cannon used this otherwise innocuous legal step as yet another way to swing the case wildly in favor of the man who appointed her while he was president.

Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith must now choose whether to allow jurors at the upcoming criminal trial to peruse the many classified records found at the former president’s South Florida mansion or give jurors instructions that would effectively order them to acquit him.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 167 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

Either “a jury is permitted to examine” every record a former president swipes and claims as “personal” to determine whether it is, or jurors must be told that “a president has sole authority… to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency.”

Can't categorize files as personal after you vacate office. Classified files are by law government property and cannot be owned by anyone. Can't declassify files after leaving office.

This hack needs to be impeached and this trial appealed and the judge replaced posthaste.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 68 points 7 months ago (2 children)

"Hey random person! How's about you read this document and tell me if it sounds Top Secret."

"Okay, but in your uninformed opinion, is this document one or two levels more secret than those other declassified files?"

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 24 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

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.___

[–] CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (3 children)

classified documents have extensive markets

The markets for these ones were Saudi Arabia, Russia, and maybe China.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

Judge: ignore any markings on the filed indicating top secret, classified, human intelligence, and make your own decisions on each file!

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 7 months ago (10 children)

The government doesn't really do consequences for conservatives to well.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The judge was appointed by trump and should be automatically recused from the case.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[+] Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 102 points 7 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

[deleted]

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 109 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Cannon is a partisan hack that needs removed, NOW. She has deliberately ignored the CIPA system used to substitute summations for classified materials.

[–] Transporter_Room_3@startrek.website 25 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't understand how anyone can see someone who was appointed by one of the people involved in the case, and stands to benefit further if said person wins the case, is not a conflict of interest.

I've seen lawyers drop a case over a distant family member they haven't spoken to in decades having once lived with the sitting judge in college. Something that as far as I can see has no bearing on current events at all.

I've seen locals get angry at a judge because they were seen eating in the same restaurant as someone involved in a case, on different sides of the building. With the partitions and seating arrangements, it's likely neither of them even knew the other was there until someone pointed it out.

But this is totally fine. It's fine. Everything's fine. We're all fine here, now. Thanks.

How are you?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

I don’t understand how anyone can see someone who was appointed by one of the people involved in the case, and stands to benefit further if said person wins the case, is not a conflict of interest.

It very much is a conflict of interest!

The issue is that there doesn't appear to be anybody both willing and able to do anything about it.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ShadowRam@fedia.io 73 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why the fuck would Juror's need to see the files?

The content within them is irrelevant to the case, other than to determine whether if they are/were Top Secret or not, and Juror's aren't able to make that distinction.

You need an expert/qualified person to deem whether the content was top secret.

Then the juror's decide on the case whether they should have been there or not.

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 35 points 7 months ago

Why the fuck would Juror’s need to see the files?

Well it sounds like it could create another lengthy appeal before trial, so that might be the entire reason...

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes. But the prosecutors could just redact all classified material. The contents are irrelevant to the case, just the fact that they are classified. Prosecutors can just redact every line and paragraph that's portion marked classified.

Or Biden has the ability to allow anyone to see any classified material if they need to go that far.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If it comes up, she can, for example, order the documents be provided to the defense as part of discovery. I would not be shocked to learn she has the power to do something similar with the jury - but this sounds like an undeniable excuse for Smith to ask for her to be overridden by her superiors, like he did earlier in the case.

[–] ignirtoq@fedia.io 18 points 7 months ago

That's exactly why she's doing it. To make the prosecutors appeal like last time, which takes time. Trump just wants to delay all his cases until after the election so he can drop them all when he's president. This is potentially the most serious case against him, as the government doesn't mess around with classified info, but since it's a federal case, he'll have the most power to drop it once he's president.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Cantankerousnuts@sh.itjust.works 100 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Trump's lawyers got the prosecutor on another case fired for going on a date and we keep putting up with this woman????

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 7 months ago

Different rules depending on whos intereste you signal you're going to serve.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 93 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Grounds to have her replaced? Most people know that top secret means security clearance.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 54 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's like demanding to see the contents of a snatched purse that clearly didn't belong to the defendant.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 24 points 7 months ago

That's some pretty old-fashioned thinking. That purse could now be owned by anyone named Property of US Govt: Top Secret

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 81 points 7 months ago

It's unprecedented. I know what the supporters would say "so is prosecuting an ex president ". There's a difference. A fast food CEO killing a dozen people and serving them up in 15 different locations is unprecedented. A judge wouldn't say that the jury has to try the burgers though.

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 66 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (12 children)

This ignorance alone should get her removed from the case. Dear Lord. There are laws and rules for how classified information must be handled. Wtf?

load more comments (12 replies)

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 47 points 7 months ago (7 children)

I can only hope that the DOJ is investigating her for corruption.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 45 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Can she really do that, force the jury without security clearance to view top secret documents? Seems bullshit to me.

But what are the options? Obviously she says to let Trump go if the jury can't see the docs. If he gets the jury see the docs, do they have to get security clearance? They have to sign an NDA of some sort?

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 28 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hopefully they can appeal and just provide summaries or redacted documents. Or get security clearance for jurors, sure.

There has to be a way to convict someone for stealing state secrets without sharing those state secrets publicly.

If it's illegal to share classified documents, including to jury members, and the jury can't convict without seeing all the info on the classified documents, then it is just legal to share classified documents, you would be unable to prosecute. That would be crazy.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 31 points 7 months ago

Showing TOP SECRET and HIGHER documents to random people on the street HELPS American National Security!

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 30 points 7 months ago (11 children)

I sort of think that showing them the secrets would actively harm Trump because it would become obvious just how dangerous the material is. I don't think she's really thought this thing through.

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] Raykin@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Could this be the first judge to go to jail for Trump?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Atom@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Maybe they should move the case to DC then so there are enough active Top Secret clearances to create a healthy jury pool.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 24 points 7 months ago

Wasn’t this one of the main reasons for delaying the case to begin with? They had the “special examiner” review all the files to verify they were indeed top secret. I don’t understand why that person can’t just provide a summary to the jury. Letting them see the files seems like massive judicial overreach and probably illegal. Can she be disbarred for this?

[–] ganksy@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

Well, can't say she's not effective. The case made it past the election.

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

Jury selection will take forever… Step 1, reject everybody without a security clearance…

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I truly underestimated how deep the movement that's using Trump's cult of personality for its own means runs.

We're so very fucked.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

It's just Aileen Cannon. Again.

This does underscore a critical weakness in our government: if a corrupt federal judge gets in position, they can cause all sorts of havoc. The judicial branch of the government needs an overhaul.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 22 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think this might get her thrown off the case

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 49 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It would delay things further unfortunately, but this is so egregiously wrong and in such a long list of mistakes and/or illegitimate moves meant to provide cover for Trump, I don't think there's any recourse but for Jack Smith to move to have her taken off the case. Even more when you consider her involvement prior to these charges when she got improperly involved with the search warrant bussiness before a higher court told her off and dismissed the whole thing. Shame she's the one assigned to the strongest and least legally controversial criminal case against him.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah this does feel like a bit of a rubicon moment for her. “Show this SCI/TS/NOFORN stuff (that Trump stole) to random yahoos from ~~the public~~ Florida who are not vetted or security cleared.” That’s incredibly fucking stupid.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Unfortunately we're too close to the election at this point. I don't see any case that isn't just a monetary settlement being delt with before he takes office and makes his DOJ dog wipe it all away....

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments