XPost: alt.security.espionage, alt.politics.trump, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics   
   From: nospam@ix.netcom.com   
      
   Former President Donald Trump has been charged with a variety of crimes,   
   including violation of the misnamed Espionage Act.   
      
   That 1917 statute is misnamed because it covers a great many offenses that   
   don’t involve spying or giving secrets to the enemy.   
      
   In fact, over the years it has been used extensively against patriotic   
   Americans who have opposed wars and dissented from other government   
   actions.   
      
   In Trump’s case, he is being accused primarily of unlawful possession of   
   allegedly classified material.   
      
   But because he has been charged under the Espionage Act, many people have   
   been misled into believing the accusations against him have something to   
   do with espionage, spying or even treason.   
      
   The use of the term espionage is extremely prejudicial to Trump in the   
   court of public opinion. It would be even more prejudicial in a court of   
   law if the jury were to hear that word in connection with his case.   
      
   Accordingly, Trump’s lawyers should immediately move for what’s called a   
   motion in limine prohibiting the use of the word espionage by prosecutors,   
   either inside the courtroom or outside it, but especially in front of the   
   jury.   
      
   “Espionage” has no relevance to the upcoming trial. It associates Trump   
   with some of the worst offenses imaginable.   
      
   Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for espionage. Several former   
   government officials have served long terms for espionage.   
      
   Those defendants actually provided classified and other secret information   
   to our enemies.   
      
   Trump should not be painted with that invidious brush, based on the   
   evidence in his case.   
      
   It’s common for judges to prohibit prosecutors from using prejudicial   
   terms in front of the jury.   
      
   The judge generally weighs the probative versus the prejudicial impact. In   
   criminal cases, judges should always err on the side of protecting the   
   rights of defendants.   
      
   This is not a hard case for barring the use of the term espionage, since   
   it has little or no probative effect and a vast potential for prejudice.   
      
   That the name of the statute uses the word is no excuse to let the   
   prosecution use it. Often statutes have broad names that have little or   
   nothing to do with the charges in a particular case.   
      
   Imagine this hypothetical: Congress passes a statute and entitles it “The   
   Protection Against Child Molestation and Insider Trading Act.”   
      
   Should prosecutors be allowed to mention the first part of that statute in   
   a case that does not involve child molestation? Of course not.   
      
   Nor should the prosecution in this case be allowed to mention the word   
   espionage, even though Congress misnamed the statute with that loaded   
   term.   
      
   For this case, the law should be referred to only by mentioning the   
   allegedly unlawful possession of classified material.   
      
   That is the essence of this prosecution, and the defendant should not be   
   prejudiced by reference to other aspects of the statute that have no   
   direct bearing on this case.   
      
   It’s not too early for the defense to file this motion or for the court to   
   grant it. Already, Trump has been prejudiced by media references to the   
   law’s “espionage” title.   
      
   The court can’t stop the media from using that word, but by explicitly   
   ruling it out of the trial, it can have an impact on public opinion and   
   thus on the potential jury pool.   
      
   Espionage is a word that denotes some of the most evil intentions on the   
   part of those accused of it. The impact could be subtle, even unconscious,   
   but it is real.   
      
   The government would suffer no prejudice from a ban on the term in court.   
   It can still argue Trump’s actions may have endangered our national   
   security, but it won’t have the help of a misnamed statute.   
      
   True, any improper possession of highly classified material may pose some   
   danger to national security if it gets into the wrong hands.   
      
   But that would be true as well of the improper possession and use of   
   classified material by others who have not been charged, such as President   
   Joe Biden, Vice President Mike Pence and former presidential candidate   
   Hillary Clinton.   
      
   The American public has the right to judge how serious these dangers were   
   in each case, but its judgment shouldn’t be influenced by prosecutors   
   throwing around the word espionage just because it’s in the statute.   
      
   Indeed, the media themselves should be more responsible and explain that   
   the charges are under provisions of the statute that have nothing to do   
   with spying.   
      
   In any trial of Donald Trump, there will be prejudice on both sides. He is   
   hated and loved by people who have already chosen sides.   
      
   It’ll be hard enough to select jurors who are able to consider the   
   evidence without predispositions and prejudices.   
      
   he court should go out of its way to reduce those risks to a fair trial.   
      
   Among the ways to do that is to eliminate all reference to the word   
   espionage in the courtroom.   
      
   Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the author   
   of “Get Trump,” “Guilt by Accusation” and “The Price of Principle.” Andrew   
   Stein, a Democrat, served as New York City Council president, 1986-94.   
      
   Paul azar   
   5 hours ago   
      
   1) The BS Indictment never mentions the 1978 Presidential Records Act. The   
   Clinton Sox case expanded that act so Trump has every legal right to those   
   documents. That's why the BS Indictment never mentions it.   
      
   2) The BS Indictment hinges on a phone call between Trump and his lawyer.   
   That lawyer was threatened by the BS prosecutor to reveal its contents.   
   This is a clear violation of lawyer/client confidentiality. Its grounds   
   for dismissal.   
      
   3) The BS Indictment uses the 1917 Espionage Act. Why wasn't that act used   
   against numerous other presidents who took presidential documents before   
   the 1978 Presidential Records Act? Some put them into their presidential   
   libraries. Why are they still there if this law was made in 1917? Why was   
   this law never enforced - until Trump? Doesn't this type of enforcement   
   clash with the 1978 Presidential Records Act?   
      
   4) Biden as a Senator and VP and Clinton clearly violated the law by   
   taking documents. Only a President can do that. Why were they not   
   prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act?   
      
   5) This judge should DISMISS this case. Jack Smith should be dis-barred.   
      
   https://nypost.com/2023/06/18/trumps-prosecutors-shouldnt-get-to-use-the-   
   word-espionage/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)