[CFW]

Of course this is a very very slanted article from Daily Beast via Yahoo (just look at the adjectives applied to Trump and others), but this is a blow to Jack Smith's case in Florida. We will have wait until Julie Kelly or someone of her ilk chimes in with the intricacies of this ruling, but I bet Smith isn't going to like it one bit.

[blackdog]

Crossfire Hurricane operation.

[DesertRhino]

If the evidence to too secret to show to a jury, and the prosecutor refuses to show the evidence, that is classic police state.

[spincaster]

Yahoo is the worst.

[angelsonmyside]

bttt

[lastchance]

“..allow jurors to see a huge trove of national secrets or let him go”

The proper procedure is to leak these to the legacy media then the jury can read it.

A jury is to determine facts. If the question of Trump’s guilt depends on him having mishandled documents which fall on the Espionage Act (which I claim does not apply to presidents)then the jury must see those documents to determine if they are indeed the “huge trove of national secrets.” We all know the docs will be heavily redacted anyway.

[Brown Deer]

Obviously, the documents are not a national security threat. That’s why Trump declassified them.

[Sequoyah101]

Nope, no bias at all from yahoo and db. "documents found" as if they had not been in constant contact with Trump about the documents and didn't know they were there.

"instructions that would effectively render him not guilty" Oh the horror!!!!! Can't possibly have exculpatory evidence being seen by anyone. Whatever the documents are they aren't much at all. What is more, there is no process for the President to declassify except that he can. The act of taking the documents is declassification. Done.

[noiseman]

Although I’m not an attorney, I was involved in many civil trials in my (pre-retirement) employment. And one basic thing I know is that evidence cannot be introduced without a witness testifying to its origin and authenticity. The attorneys can’t testify, nor in a criminal case as with this one, can the prosecutor testify. So it seems to me that in this case someone would have to testify first to the authenticity of the alleged documents and to their level of classification, and I don’t see how that could be done without the jury seeing them. Otherwise, the prosecutor could just fill some file boxes with blank sheets of paper and expect the judge and jury to just assume that they contain the documents he alleges they contain. Even if he put an FBI agent involved in “the raid” on the stand to testify to their legitimacy, you still have to enter the actual documents into evidence (though it could be under a protective order to avoid disclosure to the general public).

I can’t fathom a trial in which the evidence is never seen by the jury (nor presumably, by the judge). “Everybody knows that…” doesn’t fly in court, even for facts that might seem obvious. Nothing more than “Just trust me” from the prosecutor should lead to an automatic dismissal.

[WASCWatch]

When alleged national security-related documents or testimony are involved in criminal cases, the due process rights of the defendant trump the prosecutors desire to keep them away from the jury.

This falls within the definition of “graymail”.

This is very common when prosecuting individuals who are associated with alleged crimes by individuals involving state secrets.

I doubt Judge Cannon just pulled this order out of thin air. Jack Smith and Trump’s attorneys must have known this order was coming out today. Judge Cannon put the ball in Jack Smith’s court and let him make the decision.

You can bet your last dollar that the DOJ and Biden White House knew this order would be coming down.

The case law is clear that the jury must be presented with the documents that allegedly violated a criminal statute. It is so clear, that no Court of Appeals is going to reverse.

[linMcHlp]

References:

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

And replies 4, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36.

[Lockbox]

Jack Smith “Judge, you can’t let the jury see them. They will see everything. They’ll see the big board!” Paraphasing Gen. “Buck” Turgidson… 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[escapefromboston]

Seems like you’d have to show the evidence to the jury. Though I’m not a judge or a yahoo journalist so what do I know

[AndyTheBear]

The writers lament that the judge “MAGA friendly” is a tacit administration that its a political prosecution.

[odawg]

“...where more experienced judges have already overturned Cannon and reined her in...”

“More experienced judges”??? “Reined her in”???

How’s that for objective analysis?

[P.O.E.]

If they’re kept secrit
You must acquit

[Sacajaweau]

I'm guessing the Judge has reviewed these files and know those documents are a big nothing.

There are just so many people who can mark their work as classified...a good example is Comey and his meeting with Trump.

[Ann Archy]

Jack Smith is PURE EVIL!!

[FLT-bird]

Far Left Yahoo whining and crying because the Judge in this case of obviously partisan lawfare against President Trump is actually upholding the law.

She should throw the entire case out for selective prosecution. Biden had more secret docs, stored them in a much more insecure way and unlike President Trump, was not ever entitled to have those documents - yet he is not being prosecuted.

[Chainmail]

There's a simple solution: have every member of the jury pool undergo a thorough background check and then they would be cleared to review Top Secret materials. No problem!

It would only take a year or so to get it done. What's the issue?

[DugwayDuke]

The prosecutor would have to rely upon ‘expert testimony’ where someone estabishes their credentials allowing them to testify that certain material falls within the perview of the Security Classification Guide. IOW, trust me, I’m an expert. While that maybe their only option, it’s not a good one.