Trump lawyers go on offense in documents case

 The Federalist Wire:

...

Former President Donald J. Trump’s legal team is taking the offensive in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, mounting a multi-pronged assault aimed at dismantling the prosecution’s narrative and asserting Trump’s innocence.

In a recent “motion to compel discovery,” they paint a picture of a former president acting in good faith and within his rights, while alleging political motivations behind the investigation.

The crux of Trump’s legal argument hinges on the assertion that he possessed the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago with a “good faith and non-criminal states of mind.”

This directly challenges the prosecution’s narrative that Trump willfully retained sensitive information, a key element of the charges against him.

Adding a significant wrinkle to the case, Trump’s lawyers claim he maintained an active “Q” clearance from the Department of Energy even after leaving office.

This clearance grants access to highly classified information, potentially mitigating allegations of unauthorized possession.

While the Energy Department reportedly attempted to remove Trump’s name from the clearance list after the indictment, the filing accuses them of tampering with evidence and obfuscating an “inconvenient truth.”

Trump’s team isn’t just defending; they’re going on the offensive.

They’ve requested extensive discovery from special counsel Jack Smith’s office, demanding access to communications between prosecutors and the Biden administration.

This aims to expose potential political bias and weaponization of the Justice Department against Trump, a frequent accusation from his camp.

The motion also challenges the prosecution to provide concrete evidence regarding the harm allegedly caused by Trump’s possession of the documents.

Critics argue that the classification levels of the documents have been exaggerated, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

While media reports initially claimed one document at Mar-a-Lago pertained to nuclear codes, subsequent analysis revealed it was no longer classified and marked “formerly restricted.”
...

The defense arguments appear to have merit.  It will be interesting to see what the courts think about it.  I suspect the case will reach the high court eventually. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more