268
this is stupid. I will agree the government has a right to keep things classified but they should be required to drop all charges to do so. Keeping the secrets should mean letting the accused go free.
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
268 points (99.6% liked)
politics
25143 readers
2010 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It depends on what secrets are being kept. Here, I would guess that the accused is asking for information relating to secret service deployments, surveillance, and other information on how he was discovered. That information would be useful to future assassins, but doesn't serve to mitigate his actions or exonerate him.
Just because the accused asks a question with a classified answer does not mean the accused should go free.
But in this case, I'm for it.
I mean that does seem relevant to his case if it specifically on what they were doing in realtion to him. I think the idea future assassins would be able to use it to make assasinations easier to be a bit much. They likely could get things like that from books of retired people.
These hearings were specifically for determining whether the information the defendant is requesting is exculpatory, or if the requests are specious.and irrelevant. If the judge had ruled the opposite way, the government would have to decide whether to declassify the information, or drop some or all of the charges.
It is very likely that if they chose to declassify and publish the information, they would be able to prosecute many additional charges. They have to balance the value of charging every crime committed against the cost of revealing operational information.
Thanks. Although I don't have massive faith in the judiciary currently.
Agreed. Unfortunately, it's all we have.
This particular decision is appealable, if this guy is eventually convicted. And the appeals will be years in the future.
What are the odds that he'll be allowed to appeal without going to jail?
He's already in jail, so zero.
Well, he could have been requesting files on area 51 for all the article says.
this is a good point. I guess I was assuming for things related to his case.
Well in the end the judge decides if it is related to the case. And the article also said they can withhold info that relates to the case if it doesn't help the defendant. And again the judge decides. So if the judge was objective this would work. But that particular judges has shown not to be. Yet just because she isn't completely objective, doesn't mean he didn't ask for stuff that wouldn't help him. In short, I don't think they should have to spill everything requested, but I don't really trust them to be a fair judge of what should be released.
I will agree the government has a right to keep things classified
Can you explain why you think this? I'm not trying to argue or anything, just interested in others reasoning. For context: I am contemplating the contradictions of a government "of, for and by the people", is funded by the people, and that is allowed to withhold information from those same people.
Say there are analysts/agents preventing cyber-warfare by other countries. Their personal information and methods need to be kept secret to continue being effective when charging foreigners that commit espionage or damaging attacks against domestic targets.
Maybe right is to strong a term as that word should only be used for humans. More that its reasonable that some things need to be classified. Military capability comes to mind as a lot of money can be saved by it not being known how extensive capabilities are.
What are they hiding?
Beside Trump raping children? Probably a lot.
They paid the shooter, and staged the whole thing
/s..... Kinda
Judge Cannon, you say?
A.K.A Trump's personal "judge"
You’re right, probably Justice Cannon by 2028
Cannon judges, you say?
...holy fuck, what does it take for people to say, "just becaue you're rich doesn't mean you're immune"...fuck, fuck fuck
Cannon is a compromised judge. Everything she does in an official capacity is draped in subjectivity.
The accused... decided to represent himself, that's uh, certainly a decision of all time
Probably decided when they paid him to lie there
Well the Epstein truther wing of MAGA is just going to eat this up and I'm here for it
She's a piece of shit and I'd shit in her mouth if I could.
Something, something, "How did they know I was there??!??!"