Accepting such an argument would be “pure fiction,” the special counsel argued.

Special counsel Jack Smith, responding on Tuesday to the judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case, urged her to reverse course on entertaining the idea that Trump had any personal ownership over the classified materials he has been charged with unlawfully possessing.

In a late-night filing replying to an order last month from Judge Aileen Cannon requesting proposed jury instructions that appeared to accept at face value what legal experts have argued is one of Trump’s most fringe defenses – that the former president had unchecked ability to claim all classified records as his personal property – Smith argued that accepting such an argument would not only be “pure fiction,” but “meritless and fatally undermined” by all the evidence gathered by the government as part of their case.

Among that evidence, according to Smith, are interviews with Trump’s own Presidential Records Act representatives and “numerous” high-ranking officials from the White House, none of which “had heard Trump say that he was designating records as personal,”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    37 months ago

    A) he said he doesn’t

    B) he’s not the declassification authority on all classified information

    • Sybil
      link
      -27 months ago

      B) he’s not the declassification authority on all classified information

      can you cite that?

    • Sybil
      link
      -37 months ago

      A) he said he doesn’t

      he’s not a constitutional lawyer

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 months ago

        OK so normally when you are accused of a crime, you hire a lawyer who advises you not to talk about the charges. Why? Because then you say dumb shit like “well it was manslaughter because he robbed me” when your defense was focused on casting doubt it was you who pulled the trigger.

        In this case, Trump may not be an authority, and that’s the point, it speaks to his INTENT. His intent was clearly to circumvent rules. Why is this even a discussion? This has all been thoroughly parsed.

        • Sybil
          link
          -17 months ago

          Why is this even a discussion? This has all been thoroughly parsed.

          i don’t hang on every bit of news about trump.

        • Sybil
          link
          -37 months ago

          OK so normally when you are accused of a crime, you hire a lawyer who advises you not to talk about the charges. Why? Because then you say dumb shit like “well it was manslaughter because he robbed me” when your defense was focused on casting doubt it was you who pulled the trigger.

          this felt a little condescending, but i suppose some people might need to understand this.