If you want to know the boring details, more specifically, I'm an appellate lawyer. I see my job as articulating legal concepts/arguments in a way that both judges and laypersons can usually grasp. The days of archaic writs employing lots of Latin should be in the past.
You can use it or not. And if you see corrections, let me know. I just thought it was helpful because of what was released. I also would note that not all of us know what SI may mean. Or what NOFORN means. If you have knowledge, spread the knowledge.
At this stage? It would be very difficult. Even if she granted a motion to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 (b) (3) (B) (a motion based on a defect in the indictment), the prosecution would be able to cure. The only way (off the top of my head) she could cut a case off the knees at this early stage would be to grant a motion to suppress the evidence. But it's doubtful this search was bad (she'd get overruled by the 11th if she did so, just like they slapped her down earlier) and I would have thought Cheeto's counsel would have already filed such a motion by now if they thought it was viable.
What's been released for which a description of document markings is helpful? I'm not criticizing -- I'm wondering what's going on. Are there news stories referring to documents with an ORCON dissemination control marking without explanation, for example?
I'll get crazy and go out on a limb. I don't think Roberts, Kavanaugh, or Gorsuch would rule that a President can pardon himself.
No, appellate courts don't issue advisory opinions. There would have to be an actual case in controversy.
Those are listed with the charges. For example (snipped from the pdf of the indictment): I was assuming everybody looked that the actual charges. I meant it as a reference rather than having to look up everything for each charge.
Some talking head said he was holding them to show off and/or settle scores. There has been liddle mention of what he was doing or intending to do with them all.
Yes, totally the same thing pic.twitter.com/5OWwbffg3F— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) June 9, 2023
Not to mention SCI: "Sensitive Compartmented Information" which encompasses a lot of what you have noted above.
It's important to note that the average American has no clue about that distinction. They don't have the time or inclination to understand the nuance. This reality is to the GOP's benefit.
IMO, for our purposes, all that matters is the level of classification, which is defined as: CONFIDENTIAL -- disclosure is considered likely to damage national security. SECRET -- disclosure is considered likely to cause serious damage to national security. TOP SECRET -- disclosure is considered likely to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security. Most of the rest of the information in classified document markings should not be considered as indicating the importance of the information contained within, or how bad things would be if it got out. That's the job of CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET or TOP SECRET. But just because you have a TS clearance doesn't mean it's OK for you to see anything and everything at that level. So most of the rest of the information in document markings -- SCI channels, dissemination caveats, etc. -- is meant to narrow the pool of people to whom it can be distributed. That's not because anything is "more secret than Top Secret" or anything like that, but simply because regardless of the level at which some info is classified, if there's no need for someone to look at something, then it's better if they don't -- the fewer people that know about something, obviously, the lower the likelihood of improper disclosure, whether intentional or accidental.
Only three of the things he listed are SCI channels; and if you're trying to understand document markings, "SCI" isn't really used as a document marking. If a document is to be handled within one or more SCI channels, identifiers for those specific channels will be included in the document markings. For people who are really interested in this for some reason, a 2012 version of the CAPCO guide is unclassified and posted on the DNI's website; it's the first result on a Google search.
I didn't see SCI as listed in the indictment, so that is why it is not there. I did gather from a relatively brief reading that most of the is, in some regards, is limited in who can see it... ...And this is more or less what I understood. But, in terms of looking at this with more than an overview, it is interesting as to the specifics of the charges. For example, to me, 26 and 30 say a foreign national was being monitored regarding military activity. Is this somebody which has been in the news? Is this somebody Trump was specifically asked about (IOW, to retrieve information)? Is No. 7 about the Helsinki Summit? If so, how much will be redacted (if anything is released) considering it is "only" Secret? I get what you are saying about the Confidential/Secret/Top Secret labeling, but there are bread crumbs, and people will follow them.
Has the Supreme Court ever gone head to head against the president? I think it was in Marbury v. Madison where the court was worried if they ordered the president to do something and he ignored it, it could show the court as having no actual authority over the president. So in the ruling was basically "while we have the authority to order the president to do xyz, we have decided not to". Basically asserting they have authority, without actually testing that assertion. So let's say Trump gets back in power, pardons himself, the court says no....what happens? If Trump still insists that he has the power to pardon himself, who wins? Would the Supreme Court actually be willing to fight back, knowing if they lose they'll lose any impression that they're an equal part of the government?
New Trial/Pre-trial PBP thread https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/trump-espionage-obstruction-trial-thread.2126219/ Please DM me for additions/amends to the first reference post (e.g people in the trial, handy references) if you want a better name for the thread - Pete/ASF have to change it
That's a true believer meeting. That's what my old boss called it. Anybody that schedules a meeting for late in the day Friday is really bad seeing who's going to find the way not to be there and who's going to be focus on the project and show up. Whoever that person is has power issues and is a complete asshole
“If” Trump is found guilty. I assume the judge imposes sentencing. Will community service work for him. ????