I listened to the podcast opening arguments (759) and the guest said they picked charges that can be proven without Trump trying to spin them.
Also they are federal charges and it's a federal case, even if the court is physically in Florida.
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2023
33 points (97.1% liked)
Politics
561 readers
1 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I didn't mean to imply that they'd be state charges. Federal charges have to have a venue, and venue is generally chosen based on where the crime took place. These would be in a different venue because the crime arguably took place in New Jersey rather than Florida.
Wasn't the wilful retention in Florida? And if they're interconnected, maybe they just bundled it together.
It was. But dissemination wasn't one of the charges in the Florida indictment, which suggests that they're either not going to charge him with dissemination, or they're holding off on those charges for now.
That's possible. My impression is that from the audio alone, it's not clear that he allowed others to actually read the documents. He seems to be showing them to others, but it'd be difficult to prove from the audio alone.
What is clear, however, is that he knew he had the documents, he knew they were classified, he knew he had not declassified them, and he knew that he couldn't do it anymore. He lied repeatedly about these things, and to my knowledge, that's the crux of the case against him. I'm certainly no legal expert, though.
I imagine that having the other parties testify about what he showed them, couple with the audio, would suffice to establish dissemination. It's not clear to me that he would even have to show them. If the audio has him revealing info from those documents, such as the number of troops called for in the attack plan, that may be enough for a guilty charge.
how are you guys reading this; does everyone have a subscription to The Atlantic or do you have some sort of content blocker to bypass the "subscribe to continue reading this article"?
Theres tools to remove paywalls https://12ft.io/
thanks for this, i'll include your name in my will.
Heh, that's a nice thank you reaction to steal. Thanks, I'll include your name in my will.
Https://archive.ph is also great when the ladder doesn't work.
Their website also makes a (surprisingly common) mistake of sending you the entire article and trusting your browser to shorten it. If you turn off JavaScript, or disable it for that website, you can see the whole article.
Also, their RSS feed includes the full text of the article.
view more: next ›