https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...101ab07c47b2b&ei=127

Chutkan will 'rule quickly' on Jack Smith’s request to unseal Trump dossier
Story by Carl Gibson • 20h • 3 min read

https://www.theatlantic.com/id...l&utm_campaign=share

Almost exactly six years ago, James Comey begot a new mantra for the Trump era: “Lordy, I hope there are tapes.” In most cases, none has emerged: not of the former FBI director’s conversation with Donald Trump about loyalty, not of the fateful call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and not, well, that other fabled tape.

In the ongoing classified-documents scandal, though, the tapes seem to exist. CNN and The New York Times report that Justice Department Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is investigating Trump’s removal of secret records to Mar-a-Lago, has obtained a recording in which the former president discussed his possession of a sensitive document. According to the outlets, Trump indicates that he knows it’s classified and is aware he cannot share it.

The content of the tape is important for any prosecution of Trump, which would have to prove he knew that what he was doing was wrong. But the circumstances of the recording are also revealing about how Trump operates, and the way he seems to understand bad press as a graver threat than criminal prosecution.

You might be surprised. The tape may well show that Trump believed he lawfully possessed the info. Since the POTUS is the final authority on access and classification, if, when it came into DJT’s possession, he was still POTUS, even going out the door and took it with him, the tape might be more exculpatory than damning. But Smith has TDS so logic doesn’t matter to him.

Bullshit. It was explained to trump early on when they tried to get the docs back & he refused. He knew it was illegal from the get-go.

Yep. Bullshit. Once he went out the door, they were no longer his. And he lied later, claiming he had returned all of them. Lying, though, is his forte…

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Yep. Bullshit. Once he went out the door, they were no longer his. And he lied later, claiming he had returned all of them. Lying, though, is his forte…

And wanted his lawyers to lie about it.

He actually thought he could ransom whatever he didn't sell or trade to MBS or Putin, he kept bringing up the money Nixon's family got when the government took his "papers", and nobody in Trump's circle explained to him that Nixon's papers were what prompted the passage of the Presidential Records Act to start with.

Or, it's entirely possible nobody in his circle knew, history, even just going back to the 1970s, isn't their strong point.

Is anyone denying that the POTUS has absolute authority to declassify anything he or she wants? Obama took tons of formerly classified info on his way out the door. The issue still being contested is not whether or not the documents he took are still classified, but does he (or his library) or the national archives own them.

I love the absolutely uninformed speculation as to what the alleged tape reveals. One thing for sure is that Jack Smith will never voluntarily reveal a bit of Brady information. Smith knows full well what the FBI had paid operatives and most probably actual agents who breached the Capital buildings on January 6th.(according to the FBI IG). Why is he intentionally not giving defendants and the nation that information.
Someone tell me why that’s good.

quote:

I love the absolutely uninformed speculation

quote:

and most probably actual

Sometimes you tell the truth.

How do you rate speculation on a scale?
I'll go with alphabetical order of the adjectives you used in your speculations:

"Absolutely"
"most probably"
"Probably actual"
"uninformed"

It's also interesting that you can read Jack Smith's mind.

Your skill with words and ideas is almost as stunning as your conjuring magic.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Yep. Bullshit. Once he went out the door, they were no longer his. And he lied later, claiming he had returned all of them. Lying, though, is his forte…

Total bullshit. The good Judge lives in an alternate universe.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Is anyone denying that the POTUS has absolute authority to declassify anything he or she wants? Obama took tons of formerly classified info on his way out the door. The issue still being contested is not whether or not the documents he took are still classified, but does he (or his library) or the national archives own them.

I love the absolutely uninformed speculation as to what the alleged tape reveals. One thing for sure is that Jack Smith will never voluntarily reveal a bit of Brady information. Smith knows full well what the FBI had paid operatives and most probably actual agents who breached the Capital buildings on January 6th.(according to the FBI IG). Why is he intentionally not giving defendants and the nation that information.
Someone tell me why that’s good.

Did the FBI show up at Obama's house demanding the return of the documents? Did the FBI have to get a search warrant to get any documents back from Obama? Is there really a valid analogy here?

Think, man, think.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
You might be surprised. The tape may well show that Trump believed he lawfully possessed the info. Since the POTUS is the final authority on access and classification, if, when it came into DJT’s possession, he was still POTUS, even going out the door and took it with him, the tape might be more exculpatory than damning. But Smith has TDS so logic doesn’t matter to him.

Declassification involves a process. It is not immediate upon the president's request to declassify.

Also where does it state that a President has personal ownership of classified documents?

I never said the POTUS had ownership of documents. In fact, the 8 year long dispute between Obama and the National Archives is about possession, not classification. If it’s a civil issue for Obama, and should be for Trump.

As to declassification, exactly what bureaucrat can tell Trump, Obama or Biden that they had no authority. A declassification fiat is just that. No minion can overrule the President. He (or she) is the Executive.

And someone’s explanation, that ex post facto, telling Trump his actions were illegal some how make them so is simply bizarre.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
You might be surprised. The tape may well show that Trump believed he lawfully possessed the info. Since the POTUS is the final authority on access and classification, if, when it came into DJT’s possession, he was still POTUS, even going out the door and took it with him, the tape might be more exculpatory than damning. But Smith has TDS so logic doesn’t matter to him.

Declassification involves a process. It is not immediate upon the president's request to declassify.

Also where does it state that a President has personal ownership of classified documents?

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Is anyone denying that the POTUS has absolute authority to declassify anything he or she wants? Obama took tons of formerly classified info on his way out the door. The issue still being contested is not whether or not the documents he took are still classified, but does he (or his library) or the national archives own them.

I love the absolutely uninformed speculation as to what the alleged tape reveals. One thing for sure is that Jack Smith will never voluntarily reveal a bit of Brady information. Smith knows full well what the FBI had paid operatives and most probably actual agents who breached the Capital buildings on January 6th.(according to the FBI IG). Why is he intentionally not giving defendants and the nation that information.
Someone tell me why that’s good.

Well, back when complying with Federal Law was something everybody was required to do (the archaic "No man is above the Law" principle the Roberts Court found an exception to in the Constitution nobody else noticed for 240 years), the Atomic Energy Act, one of those pesky Federal Laws enacted by Congress and signed by a President, specifically laid out the process for declassification of a swath of nuclear weapons-related material, none of which processes included "the whim of a demented traitor".

“declassification of a swath of nuclear weapons-related material, none of which processes included "the whim of a demented traitor".”

You talking about Joe when he was VP, Obama when he gave Iran the cash to fund Iranian terrorism , Penske or Trump.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
“declassification of a swath of nuclear weapons-related material, none of which processes included "the whim of a demented traitor".”

You talking about Joe when he was VP, Obama when he gave Iran the cash to fund Iranian terrorism , Penske or Trump.

Just what kind of "Judge" is it you claim to have been that required absolutely no discernment?

You'd be a poor livestock judge at a 4-H hootenanny.

And yes, I am disputing that a President has the unilateral authority to declassify "anything he wants", Federal Law says otherwise.

I guess the declassification was a private act, then?
Anyway, and this is from memory and I’m about as cognitively impaired as Joe, being just a bit younger…
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission succeeded the AEC in 1974. Executive orders by the POTUS determine the classified status.
I just refreshed a bit.
See role of Executive Orders below:
https://www.nrc.gov/security/i...cation-program.html#

quote:

One thing for sure is that Jack Smith will never voluntarily reveal a bit of Brady information. Smith knows full well what the FBI had paid operatives and most probably actual agents who breached the Capital buildings on January 6th.(according to the FBI IG). Why is he intentionally not giving defendants and the nation that information.
Someone tell me why that’s good.

If you were a real judge, seems to me you'd know it's not a prosecutor's job to release information about a case.

They can get in big trouble from the court and Bar Association for doing so, i.e., attempting to taint the jury pool.

Just thought you might want to consider that, Your Honor.

https://www.justsecurity.org/8...ation-actually-work/

An interesting treatise on declassication.

Do you know what a Brady motion is? It requires the transfer of possibly exculpatory evidence to the defense.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

One thing for sure is that Jack Smith will never voluntarily reveal a bit of Brady information. Smith knows full well what the FBI had paid operatives and most probably actual agents who breached the Capital buildings on January 6th.(according to the FBI IG). Why is he intentionally not giving defendants and the nation that information.
Someone tell me why that’s good.

If you were a real judge, seems to me you'd know it's not a prosecutor's job to release information about a case.

They can get in big trouble from the court and Bar Association for doing so, i.e., attempting to taint the jury pool.

Just thought you might want to consider that, Your Honor.

Now I'm confused. Are you talking about the documents case or the sedition case?

quote:

Do you know what a Brady motion is? It requires the transfer of possibly exculpatory evidence to the defense.

How does the possible presence of FBI "paid operatives" (whatever those are) on January 6 exculpate Trump for stealing classified documents?

Has Trump been charged with sedition?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Now I'm confused. Are you talking about the documents case or the sedition case?

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Has Trump been charged with sedition?

Do you consider Trump guilty of sedition regardless the courts? We have his own words as evidence.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition

So, given this dictionary definition and given Trump's call for the suspension of the Constitution, what's your verdict?

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Has Trump been charged with sedition?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Now I'm confused. Are you talking about the documents case or the sedition case?

I'm supposed to answer your questions, while you ignore mine?

I think you know what case I'm talking about.

First, Trump hasn’t been so charged. The Democrats had a very partisan impeachment (Republicans selectees couldn’t participate as in the past) proceeding and lost the trial in the Senate.

Jack Smith didn’t get a sedition indictment. If there is ever a trial on the pending charges, we’ll see, I guess. Until then, I’ll go with “Innocent until proven guilty” with the caveat that appeals courts often fix judicial mistakes. The N.Y. appeals court is not so thrilled with Trumps civil loss. The immunity rulings put the 34 felonies convictions in doubt. No one yet knows the full effects of the immunity for official acts rulings on all of the criminal proceedings. I’ll not speculate on that.

As to the classified documents trial, please read my references above. Obamas Executive order of 2009 directs that the POTUS can unclassify what he/she wants. An example cited was when Obama released all kinds of classified info when bin Laden was killed. No process. He just used his inherent authority.

Again, I’m not saying Trump owned and could retain documents against the claim of Archives.

Years

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Has Trump been charged with sedition?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Now I'm confused. Are you talking about the documents case or the sedition case?

I'm supposed to answer your questions, while you ignore mine?

I think you know what case I'm talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
First, Trump hasn’t been so charged. The Democrats had a very partisan impeachment (Republicans selectees couldn’t participate as in the past) proceeding and lost the trial in the Senate.

Jack Smith didn’t get a sedition indictment. If there is ever a trial on the pending charges, we’ll see, I guess. Until then, I’ll go with “Innocent until proven guilty” with the caveat that appeals courts often fix judicial mistakes. The N.Y. appeals court is not so thrilled with Trumps civil loss. The immunity rulings put the 34 felonies convictions in doubt. No one yet knows the full effects of the immunity for official acts rulings on all of the criminal proceedings. I’ll not speculate on that.

As to the classified documents trial, please read my references above. Obamas Executive order of 2009 directs that the POTUS can unclassify what he/she wants. An example cited was when Obama released all kinds of classified info when bin Laden was killed. No process. He just used his inherent authority.

Again, I’m not saying Trump owned and could retain documents against the claim of Archives.

Years

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Has Trump been charged with sedition?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Now I'm confused. Are you talking about the documents case or the sedition case?

I'm supposed to answer your questions, while you ignore mine?

I think you know what case I'm talking about.

Jack Smith didn't ask for a sedition indictment. Yet. The DOJ went with the felonies that are more traditional and probably easier to prove.

That said, the proof couldn't be more clear.

As for your ridiculous arguments about the documents.....essentially, you appear to believe that trump can simply decide in his own mind when to declassify documents in order to avoid criminal prosecution. Absurd. There's a process to be gone through per Obama's EO. It's not a matter of the president simply snapping his fingers and declassifying materials so he doesn't go to prison for stealing, retaining and refusing to return those documents.

https://crsreports.congress.go...oduct/pdf/IF/IF12183

Mike,
Did you read the doc in your link?

quote:

The President has the authority to declassify documents in the public interest that originated in any department or agency of the executive branch.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Mike,
Did you read the doc in your link?

quote:

The President has the authority to declassify documents in the public interest that originated in any department or agency of the executive branch.

Did you? I don't question that a President has the authority to declassify documents. The point, which I thought I made, is that there is a process and it doesn't occur only in the innermost recesses of trump's pea brain.

https://www.brennancenter.org/...d-mar-lago-documents

How does declassification work?
Information is usually declassified through a process known as “automatic declassification” (which is, in practice, anything but automatic) that takes place after information has been classified for 25 years. However, information may be declassified sooner if it is marked with an earlier declassification date; if the original classification authority who classified the information, their successor or supervisor, or another designated official determines that it no longer meets the standards for classification; or if the agency head or a designated senior agency official determines that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the need for protection. The decision to declassify is made in consultation with all agencies that have an interest in the information.

Information designated as Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data is subject to separate rules. By statute, Restricted Data may only be declassified by authorized Department of Energy officials. Although the statute is less clear on this point, it has consistently been interpreted to give the Departments of Energy and Defense sole authority to declassify Formerly Restricted Data, an interpretation enshrined in agency regulations. Neither category is eligible for “automatic” declassification.

As with classification, declassification is a two-step process. First, an authorized official must determine that the information no longer requires protection. Second, that determination must be communicated so that the protections are removed. Accordingly, when a decision has been made to declassify information, it must be marked as declassified. If the declassification affects an entire category of information, the agency’s classification guide must be updated accordingly. If it is narrower, the decision may be captured in a declassification guide — although often, the consultation process that accompanies a declassification decision is sufficient to alert the necessary personnel.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I guess the declassification was a private act, then?
Anyway, and this is from memory and I’m about as cognitively impaired as Joe, being just a bit younger…
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission succeeded the AEC in 1974. Executive orders by the POTUS determine the classified status.
I just refreshed a bit.
See role of Executive Orders below:
https://www.nrc.gov/security/i...cation-program.html#

The quality of your memory is on par with the quality of your reasoning:

quote:

Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.

In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said.

Link

The President may, by the terms of the relevant Executive Order, classify/declassify "National Security Information", which encompasses everything NOT otherwise protected by Statute, like information pertaining to nuclear weapons, for example, some of which was apparently among the material he stole and unlawfully retained.

The first part of the OP is about the insurrection. Neither of these cases will move forward until after the election, and if Trump loses.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...101ab07c47b2b&ei=127

Chutkan will 'rule quickly' on Jack Smith’s request to unseal Trump dossier
Story by Carl Gibson • 20h • 3 min read

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Smith submitted the 180-page dossier under seal to Chutkan earlier this week, which reportedly gives summaries of what witnesses told Smith's team of investigators regarding the former president's actions in the days leading up the January 6, 2021 insurrection. The special counsel argued to Judge Chutkan that the details of the document are in the public interest, and that he's willing to redact names of witnesses outside of former Vice President Mike Pence.

The D.C. case suffered a setback after the Supreme Court ruled in July's Trump v. United States decision that presidents have absolute broad immunity from criminal prosecution for all "official acts." But the Court left it up to lower court judges (like Chutkan) to decide how to define "official acts" protected by the immunity ruling vs. unofficial acts a president carries out as a private citizen.

Smith entered a new superseding indictment following the immunity decision. Wine-Banks opined that it is likely to survive Trump's attempts to toss it out, and that his new dossier likely includes "a pretty good summary of what the facts are that relate to the superseding indictment and why the things that he still has in the charges are all either completely unofficial acts, personal acts of candidate Trump, or why they are rebuttable official acts."

Chutkan has given Trump's lawyers until Tuesday to submit their response to Smith. Depending on how Chutkan ultimately rules, the dossier could become at least partially unsealed by mid-October, giving voters several weeks to learn more about why Smith decided to indict the 45th president of the United States on multiple felony charges.

The January 6th case is just one of two federal cases against the former president. In the Southern District of Florida, Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon threw out Smith's 37-count indictment of Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents after he left office.

Cannon cited Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' argument in his concurring Trump v. United States opinion that Smith's appointment was unconstitutional to justify her dismissal of the case. Smith has appealed her decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has ruled against Cannon twice — with both of those decisions pertaining to Trump-related cases.

Should Trump win a second term in the White House this November, it's likely he'll have his appointed attorney general dismiss both federal cases against him. His last remaining criminal case in Georgia could also be put on hold for four years, as his attorneys have argued the trial should be put on hold until January of 2029 if Trump is victorious this fall.

===============================================

Here's an interesting and relevant part of the debate:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...Kvw?ocid=socialshare

Walz asked Vance if Trump lost the 2020 election. Hear how Vance responded

Vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance (R-OH) responds to questions about the January 6, 2021, insurrection and Trump’s false claims that he won the 2020 election.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...cid=socialshare&t=79

'The most damning moment': Vance seals debate loss by botching January 6 answer

Former Senator Claire McCaskill talks with Alex Wagner about the skill and facility with which JD Vance is able to tell lies, but notes that ultimately where he really fell apart in the debate with Governor Tim Walz was when he couldn't admit that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and mischaracterized the January 6 insurrection.

==================================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...ff10db51fa65cf&ei=61

Trump makes last effort to keep hidden January 6 case evidence before election
Story by Hugo Lowell in New York • 15h • 3 min read

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I never said the POTUS had ownership of documents. In fact, the 8 year long dispute between Obama and the National Archives is about possession, not classification. If it’s a civil issue for Obama, and should be for Trump.

As to declassification, exactly what bureaucrat can tell Trump, Obama or Biden that they had no authority. A declassification fiat is just that. No minion can overrule the President. He (or she) is the Executive.

And someone’s explanation, that ex post facto, telling Trump his actions were illegal some how make them so is simply bizarre.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
You might be surprised. The tape may well show that Trump believed he lawfully possessed the info. Since the POTUS is the final authority on access and classification, if, when it came into DJT’s possession, he was still POTUS, even going out the door and took it with him, the tape might be more exculpatory than damning. But Smith has TDS so logic doesn’t matter to him.

Declassification involves a process. It is not immediate upon the president's request to declassify.

Also where does it state that a President has personal ownership of classified documents?

He is not allowed to have them [classified or not] except while performing his official duties. Once he left the office they needed to be turned over to the archives folks since they are still Government property.