- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CNN has the recording.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 11:02 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 6/28/23 at 11:02 am to NC_Tigah
no, I'm talking about whether the judge will allow this testimony into evidence at trial and about what will be presented to a jury about his state of mind - all towards a goal of a trial with the usual "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of guilt.
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 11:03 am
1
Posted on 6/28/23 at 11:39 am to TigerDoc
Apparently you all missed the part where there were no military documents dealing with Iran retrieved from Mar a Largo. Well there goes that evidence.....how many zeros is that now?
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 11:40 am
Posted on 6/28/23 at 11:51 am to MikkUGA
I agree that Trump's attorneys are going to challenge the relevance of this tape and the testimony of the other meeting attendees as to Trump's state of mind with respect to the 31 documents he's being charged for retaining. No arguments there.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 11:56 am to BBONDS25
And we know that it's not one of the 31 documents.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 12:02 pm to jawnybnsc
Right. The judge will have to rule if evidence about similar material (and maybe exact material as NARA may have been seeking this very document) will be relevant to his state of mind about the rest of the charged cache.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 12:40 pm to TigerDoc
As if their case wasn't already an obvious sham. Now it's a sham on a sham.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 12:44 pm to TigerDoc
Oh look, The President has thoughts about his role as THE ONE AND ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER, with the power to engage in such deliberations and decision making. Man . . . you've got him now!
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 6/28/23 at 12:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So you think Trump must have to prove his innocence.
He must refute the evidence presented. Or not, and just let the jury decide without hearing his side after the prosecution presents theirs.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 12:50 pm to jawnybnsc
former president, baw. He himself acknowledges on the tape that he currently lacks to powers he previously had.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 12:56 pm to TigerDoc
You ain't too bright. He wasn't arguing about his power to classify or declassify anything AND it's not relevant if he did. If there is/was some secret plan, is it possible that he's responding to being confronted about something he was materially involved in (in his capacity as CINC) AND that what we're hearing is his incredulity and mockery of Milley's bullshite?
Posted on 6/28/23 at 1:05 pm to jawnybnsc
He keeps coming up with different explanations for it (and I'm sure we haven't heard the last explanation), but he says this (and yes it seems to be about a document about a plan he attributes to Milley):
Then his staffer says "now we have a problem".
The problem he has now is the government will be trying to use this to argue that he recognized the same thing about his powers with relation to all the documents.
quote:
This was done by the military and given to me. See, as president, I could have declassified it. Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”
Then his staffer says "now we have a problem".
The problem he has now is the government will be trying to use this to argue that he recognized the same thing about his powers with relation to all the documents.
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 6/28/23 at 1:09 pm to 94LSU
quote:Trump Attorney: So, did you actually read this supposed document, or confirm it was genuine in anyway?
He must refute the evidence presented.
Witness 1: No sir. President Trump just waved a stack of papers, kind of shuffled them, but we couldn't see the actual document.
Trump Attorney: So, that stack could have been the Trump Corp's latest golf course construction plans?
Witness 1: Yes sir.
----
Trump Attorney: So, did you actually read this supposed document, or confirm it was genuine in anyway?
Witness 2: No sir. President Trump just waved a stack of papers, kind of shuffled them, and we never actually saw the document itself.
Trump Attorney: So, that stack could have been a collection of newspaper editorials critiquing Gen. Milley?
Witness 2: Yes sir.
----
Trump Attorney: So, did you actually read this supposed document, or confirm it was genuine in anyway?
Witness 3: No sir. President Trump just waved a stack of papers, kind of shuffled them, but we couldn't see the individual documents.
Trump Attorney: So, that stack of papers could have been a collection of 94LSU's dumbest TigerDropping Posts for all you know?
Witness 3: No sir. I'd think that would be a thicker stack.
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 6/28/23 at 1:13 pm to TigerDoc
quote:and unless he testifies, that has no particular relevance ... even if true.
He keeps coming up with different explanations for it
Posted on 6/28/23 at 1:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
and unless he testifies, that has no particular relevance ... even if true.
I can't believe his lawyers will want that, but assuming he doesn't, he still has made conflicting statements about his conduct. Those public statements can be admissible and go against his credibility (which isn't much personally obviously, but the presidency gets a lot of deference).
And that cross-examination looks ok, but you're putting words in the witnesses' mouths. They've already published that trump referenced a "4-page" Milley memo in Mark Meadows' book.
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 6/28/23 at 1:25 pm to TigerDoc
When will you stop believing journalists and what they say about trump? This is year 7 of you falling for it. Court doesn’t work like a press room or by some made up crap in hit piece articles and books. The government actually has to prove its accusations.
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 6/28/23 at 1:30 pm to BBONDS25
Exactly.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 1:30 pm to TigerDoc
quote:Trump Attorney: But you specifically reference President Trump showing you a "4-page Milley memo" in Mark Meadows' book?
And that cross-examination looks ok, but you're putting words in the witnesses' mouths. They've already published that trump referenced a "4-page" Milley memo in Mark Meadows' book.
Witness 1: Yes sir.
Trump Attorney: So again, did you actually confirm it was genuine in any way?
Witness 1: No sir. Like I said, President Trump just sort of waved a stack of papers, kind of shuffled them, but we couldn't see the actual document. I assumed it was "a 4-page Milley memo," but thinking back, it could have been anything.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 1:39 pm to TigerDoc
This isn't an argument about what he could or could not classify, dummy. How do you keep missing that?
Posted on 6/28/23 at 1:39 pm to NC_Tigah
Maybe you're right and there will be a reasonable doubt in jurors minds about Trump's state of mind with regard to him considering these documents he was retaining.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 1:40 pm to jawnybnsc
I'm not saying that it is. It's about his state of mind with regard to his conduct in retaining the documents.
Page 27 of 30
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News