384
Mar-a-Lago Judge: Jury Sees Top Secret Files or Trump Wins
(www.thedailybeast.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
384 points (97.5% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2028 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can she really do that, force the jury without security clearance to view top secret documents? Seems bullshit to me.
But what are the options? Obviously she says to let Trump go if the jury can't see the docs. If he gets the jury see the docs, do they have to get security clearance? They have to sign an NDA of some sort?
Hopefully they can appeal and just provide summaries or redacted documents. Or get security clearance for jurors, sure.
There has to be a way to convict someone for stealing state secrets without sharing those state secrets publicly.
If it's illegal to share classified documents, including to jury members, and the jury can't convict without seeing all the info on the classified documents, then it is just legal to share classified documents, you would be unable to prosecute. That would be crazy.
I think that's the point
I know right? What circular reasoning this is. The government is concerned about keeping our secrets safe, so they ask for the former president to return them and must force the issue when he doesn't, but to keep the secrets safe the judge wants them to divulge the secrets?
I do not see the relevance of the actual contents. It could have been a government encryption device or a cell phone or something.
As an alternative couldn't they redact the crucial parts? Ex. "Submarine x, with a periscope depth of xxx is to be deployed in a xxx configuration to secure the xxx area." Pretty easy to see the reason for the secrecy without giving the details. Although there are probably situations where this wouldn't work.