- 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 10:28 am to TigerDoc
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:28 am to TigerDoc
quote:
“I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this – this is off the record but – they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.”
and?
1
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:29 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
They do not need it, in theory.
Dude. To prove the charge we are discussing they do need it. Arguing “in theory” is silly. I’m sure you’re an excellent attorney, but this issue is simple to any litigator. Certainly anyone that’s ever tried a criminal case.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:30 am to NC_Tigah
And they'll ask them which specific document he was talking about. They'll will have asked them this independently. They'll describe something similar or they won't. It'll be about national security info or it won't.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:31 am to TigerDoc
quote:
And they'll ask them which specific document he was talking about.
If they didn’t see it, how would they know this? That calls for speculation.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:32 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
So again, who did he hand the docs off to, to allow for their examination?
We don’t know specifically because they’re not talking. Who is advising them is the better question. Prosecution or defense.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:32 am to BBONDS25
quote:
Dude. To prove the charge we are discussing they do need it. Arguing “in theory” is silly. I’m sure you’re an excellent attorney, but this issue is simple to any litigator. Certainly anyone that’s ever tried a criminal case.
Sigh.
Would there be other ways for them to corroborate Trump's audio confession?
Any other way at all?
Are you arguing that:
Trump could do what he said on audio, actually show them all the alleged document(s), realize his error, throw the documents into a paper shredder, and there is no way for him to be charged?
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:33 am to BBONDS25
Who says they didn't? We don't know what they testified to.
Keep in mind this, though - they already wrote the Meadows book:
The Chief's Chief
Keep in mind this, though - they already wrote the Meadows book:
quote:
Meadows’ autobiography includes an account of what appears to be the same meeting, during which Trump “recalls a four-page report typed up by (Trump’s former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Mark Milley himself. It contained the general’s own plan to attack Iran, deploying massive numbers of troops, something he urged President Trump to do more than once during his presidency.”
The Chief's Chief
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 10:35 am
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:34 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Meadows’ autobiography includes an account of what appears to be the same meeting, during which Trump “recalls a four-page report typed up by (Trump’s former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Mark Milley himself. It contained the general’s own plan to attack Iran, deploying massive numbers of troops, something he urged President Trump to do more than once during his presidency.”
I did not know this tidbit
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:36 am to Fun Bunch
Yes, and Meadows has testified before the grand jury too. He wasn't at that meeting, but he'll have been asked about what he was told about that info that's supposed to have been written by him (but actually written by the ghostwriters).
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:39 am to TigerDoc
I think a good trial lawyer could probably destroy a first hand account of what's actually in a document. But that is interesting to say the least.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:39 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Would there be other ways for them to corroborate Trump's audio confession? Any other way at all?
Without the document? No.
quote:
Trump could do what he said on audio, actually show them all the alleged document(s), realize his error, throw the documents into a paper shredder, and there is no way for him to be charged?
As I said, I’m sure you’re a great lawyer. But you’re clearly not a criminal litigator.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:40 am to TigerDoc
quote:
but he'll have been asked about what he was told about
So hearsay?
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:41 am to Fun Bunch
As of now Trump has not been charged for any documents that he may or may not have brought to Bedminster. So it just doesn’t make sense that the prosecution would offer the recording as evidence that he actually possessed the document at Bedminster. Why would they need to offer that as evidence of such if he is not being charged for it? This assumes he didn’t make a copy of one of the charged docs found at MAL.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:42 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Who says they didn't? We don't know what they testified to.
So you’re saying trump lies on the tape? When do we know he is lying and when he isn’t on that tape? Seems awfully convenient. Not a great argument for a beyond a reasonable doubt burden.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:43 am to Fun Bunch
That may be true, but these two writers put it in their book. The Feds will have asked them about the book and what their source is for the passage that references.
This is why I say it will come down to witnesses.
This is why I say it will come down to witnesses.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:44 am to TigerDoc
quote:Perhaps that's what they would have asked.
And they'll ask them which specific document he was talking about. They'll will have asked them this independently. They'll describe something similar or they won't. It'll be about national security info or it won't.
BUT what a jury would require is different.
Requirement for proof has to do with whether any of the witnesses can confirm the specific document he was talking about was actually what they presumed was being represented. In other words, did Trump show them a pile of docs and insinuate they were something which they weren't, or did he pass the specific document to any of them for review and confirmation.
The recording implies Trump waved a pile of docs, claimed they were classified (therefore no one in the room would have been given access), and instead briefly summarized the supposed contents.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:44 am to TigerDoc
quote:Perhaps that's what they would have asked.
And they'll ask them which specific document he was talking about. They'll will have asked them this independently. They'll describe something similar or they won't. It'll be about national security info or it won't.
BUT what a jury would require is different.
Requirement for proof has to do with whether any of the witnesses can confirm the specific document he was talking about was actually what they presumed was being represented. In other words, did Trump show them a pile of docs and insinuate they were something which they weren't, or did he pass the specific document to any of them for review and confirmation.
The recording implies Trump waved a pile of docs, claimed they were classified (therefore no one in the room would have been given access), and instead briefly summarized the supposed contents.
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:47 am to BBONDS25
You really should shoot your shot, Bonds. Trump could use you (just watch your back and keep good memos-to-file).
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:51 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The recording implies Trump waved a pile of docs, claimed they were classified (therefore no one in the room would have been given access), and instead briefly summarized the supposed contents.
I really think if this ends up getting adjudicated, Trump will have to do something like this, claim that he was just using classified info (or supposedly classified info) as props for dramatic effect, sort of like he lays "Trump steaks" out at press conferences.
ETA: the Meadows book is pretty specific, though - "4-page document".
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 10:55 am
Posted on 6/28/23 at 10:58 am to TigerDoc
quote:So you think Trump must have to prove his innocence.
I really think if this ends up getting adjudicated, Trump will have to do something like this, claim that he was just using classified info
Page 26 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News