...that the onus is indisputably on the prosecution to prove its case, and to do so it must show that Trump WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY possessed national defense-related docs that he had NO AUTHORITY to possess.

As a side note, it will be challenging enough for Smith even to prove Trump even possessed such docs -- regardless of authority -- since there is no way that he will let the jury actually see the alleged evidence, and there is little chance, in my opinion, that a Florida jury is going to take the word of a known, corrupt-as-fuck prosecutor running a lawfare train on a president that presumably half the jury supports (while they all also know that Joe Biden was just let off for doing the exact same thing). But let's stipulate that Smith can prove that Trump possessed such docs. Now, the question comes down to the "willfull", "knowing" and "unauthorized" elements of the Espionage Act.

So, Trump gets to put on a defense. The PRA -- which uniquely applies to Trump and no other past defendant in an Espionage case -- explicitly (and, IMO, the Constitution implicitly) allows the president 1) to retain his personal records and 2) to determine by himself what those records are. His defense will therefore be that he was AUTHORIZED to have these documents, regardless of content, based on the PRA (and Constitution), so the Espionage charge fails by definition regardless of whatever is in the documents.

To overcome this defense, Smith MUST prove that these documents were not personal (again, without allowing the jury to view them, which is fatal to his case, IMO). Now, it's fine for you or him to have the opinion that they weren't personal, but Smith has to PROVE it beyond a reasonable doubt. And to prove it, he has to prove that 1) the president doesn't have unfettered authority to declare as personal whatever he likes, and 2) they actually weren't personal (again by convincing the jury to take his word for it). To do that, he MUST name someone somewhere in the government with higher power than the president over the president's own documents. He won't be able to do this. I just don't see how you can dispute that this chain of events will absolutely occur in any hypothetical trial.

I'll leave your comments about atomic energy alone because 1) I'm unfamiliar with the specifics and 2) it's not relevant to the Trump case. I understand that you are citing it to claim that there is some possible limit on the president, and that's fine as a general claim, but you have to specify what that limit is in the case at hand, and the Atomic Energy Act isn't it. Smith is going to have to identify it eventually as it pertains to this case.

[Post edited by Los Angeles Hoo at 04/06/2024 4:58PM]