Kash’s Corner: What’s Next in Trump Classified Docs Case? What Should the Defense Strategy Be?
What happens now after the arraignment of former President Donald Trump in the classified-documents case? Will there be pre-trial motions? What will the government do? Is the defense team fully formed, and who should be on it? Why should the defense wait before filing a motion to dismiss?And what do we know about the audio recordings of conversations between the Bidens and the owner of Burisma that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has been talking about?We discuss all this and more on this week’s episode of Kash’s Corner.
We hope everyone tuned in last week for our live show of Cashers Corner from Arizona.
It was a heater of an episode.
If you didn't see it, please tune in to Epoch TV and you can catch it live stream anytime.
Jan, what are we gonna do on the heels of that great episode?
Well, I I want to highlight why it's really valuable to watch it, because we went through all sorts of nuance around the Trump indictment.
Right?
And of course, no, not a few days later, just on Tuesday, where if we're filming this show Wednesday here, Trump was arraigned.
He gave a speech explaining what his plan was now, and I think we want to dive into that.
Like, what does that actually mean?
What is this logistically mean?
What can happen here?
Let's dive into that.
Just so our audience knows, you know, I was in attendance last night, Tuesday night at Bedminster, and I heard uh the former president and current candidate give his equivalent of a rebuttal to uh or response to the indictment.
Um, informally, of course, since he gave the formal one in court.
But I think you're talking about more to the opinion or more to the facts of what happens now procedurally, what's next, um lots of things.
Uh President Trump was arraigned in the Southern District of Florida, my former home shop where I was a federal public defender for a long time.
And so an arraignment is simply you either enter a plea, not guilty or guilty.
I've almost never seen someone just walk in and say they're guilty on the first day because you want due process to go, even the prosecutors want that, the defense attorneys want that, the evidence, etc.
So uh President Trump entered his not guilty plea to all 37 counts, I think it is.
And so there's a couple of things that start to happen.
One, discovery is supposed to start coming in from the government, discovery being evidence.
So in this case, it seems from the indictment that we covered the evidence is quite voluminous.
And a lot of documents, a lot of paperwork, but then are they gonna get it in true form, unredacted form?
Is the government gonna claim um state secrets, or are they gonna say it's classified, we can't show the defense attorneys, X, Y, or Z, do the defense attorneys have clearance?
That's a whole nother issue, right?
Because of course the president maintains his security clearance for life.
But counsel, while you have a unlimited right to counsel uh per the constitution in terms of your criminal defense, they have to be given a security clearance because most people don't have them.
Most lawyers don't have them.
98% of lawyers don't have a security clearance.
So that process has to be worked out between the defense attorneys and DOJ, and if the court has to get involved in the court, but really it's an awkward situation because the executive branch controls security clearances, not the judicial branch.
So the judge couldn't even order one if for some reason DOJ says to one of the lawyers in the case, oh, we're not gonna give you one.
This is a problem, right?
You get to pick who your attorneys are in this case.
So let's see how that shakes out.
But we've seen how security clearances have been handled for people in the past, and we've seen some of them revoked for political reasons.
We've some seen a lot of people denied flat out for somewhat political reasons.
And to me, that would be a way that the government in this case sort of uh, you know, takes a stab at due process, really.
So what what were examples of that out of curiosity where clearances were denied for political reasons?
Sure, I I know a number of people that applied to the FBI, and um to be a special agent, you have to have a security clearance, you have to go through the process.
And uh they were supporters of one political movement versus the other, and they had a perfect background, no criminal history, no credit problems, no issues of residency or anything like that.
And they were basically told, oh, uh, you know, at this time you don't meet the mark for uh a security clearance.
Please try back.
And when you see it over and over and over and over again, you're like, well, these are really good people, these are great candidates.
Um then you see the people who are supposed to have their security clearances revoked if they do commit a crime or lie to the American public, like a clapper or a Brennan who've gone into Congress and call me and lied under oath.
Um, not to mention leaked sensitive information during and after their tenures.
So again, you're sort of seeing the two tier system of justice in the apparent in the administrative state of security clearances.
So those are just a few examples.
But it's gonna be interesting to see.
I don't think we yet fully know the final composition of Donald Trump's entire defense team.
I imagine it's going to be more than one person.
It probably should be.
And so we're gonna have to see how that one shakes out.
It could require some litigation, and I've had to go through it, you know, when I was a federal public defender when we handled national security cases.
You know, there's only very few people in my office who would receive either a temporary or partial security clearance, you know, secret instead of top secret, um, to handle the discovery, the evidence in the case.
But this is a very extensive matter.
And as the government has portrayed, involves some very sensitive, highly classified materials.
So I don't know how they're gonna meet the due process burdens in this case.
It's gonna be pretty tricky.
Well, and this is another, this may be a nuance, right?
But given that the classification of those documents is in question.
Right.
Yeah, that's a great point.
So what does that mean?
Well, that's the thing, right?
President Trump's attorneys can go in there and say, wait a second, they didn't charge my client with anything about unlawfully possessing classified documents.
Covered that extensively last week.
So if they're not charging him with classified documents being possessed unlawfully, then why don't you just turn them over, right?
It would seem logical.
But I don't know what the government's gonna claim.
They might claim no, they're still classified.
Then you have to go before the court and say, you gotta litigate it.
It's it's I think it's gonna be one of the many pretrial motions, we'll talk about those in a minute, that are gonna come up.
And you could have a pretrial motion over every single document.
Thousands and thousands of documents.
Should we do this one?
Should we do this one?
Did the government overly redact on this one or not?
Is this one classified or no?
What about the next stat?
And you know, this can take time.
So I don't know what the government's approach is.
When I was a national security prosecutor, in order to bring a prosecution involving classified information, you as the prosecutor first had to do the intergovernment process to have that declassified beforehand, before you went to the grand jury, right?
Because you can't show grand jurors, this is a good reminder, they can't ever be shown classified information.
None of them have a clearance.
So you would think at least the documentation they showed to the grand jury was declassified at least in part.
What I mean by that is, and not to like really geek out, but CEPA, Classified Information Procedures Act, governs the dissemination and adjudication of classified information in criminal proceedings.
And the government can go ahead and get substitutes, they can get summaries of the document of the classified information.
So say there were something on, you know, North Korea launching an arsenal of attacks in an in-depth intelligence report.
And the collection was so sensitive and so limited that we didn't want it out in any way, shape, or form.
The government could petition the judge to say, look, we think this summary substitutes sufficiently for this information.
Please go ahead and issue that.
And I understand the mechanisms and the reasoning behind the CEPA statutes, and a lot of times it works, it does protect sensitive information, but in a case as overly political as this one, and as going to be examined by literally the world, people are going to say, wait a second.
This DOJ and FBI have a track record, and these prosecutors have a track record of withholding evidence of innocence, Brady information, overly redacting information.
How are they the prosecutors supposed to know what the defense needs to prepare defense in this case?
That's supposed to be on the defense attorney, not dictated by the prosecutor.
So there's a whole lot that's going on, and the SEPA stuff usually happens after, you know, during the pretrial litigation and all that.
But then the defense attorneys have their turn.
If they are given all the documents, right?
And the government still says they're classified or classified in part when they want to use the document in the defense of their client, they have to go petition for that document to be declassified either in whole or in part or in substitute.
So you can see how just having one criminal prosecution with national security implications with, say, one document, could take months to litigate and months to get the interagency governmental approval necessary for the D-class or the summary substitution or what have you.
Because it's not just that, oh hey, let's call the CIA and just see if this is classified and can we can use it.
It's every agency that has an equity in that document.
Usually it's a multitude of agency, right?
It's it's the FBI, it's the CIA, it's the NSA, maybe it's a DOD if it's a military matter, you know, all these other cyber capabilities we have, if it's uh surveillance collection.
So everybody's got to sign off on it.
Not like at the lower level, this has to go to the director or the cabinet secretary level of each agency and department to sign off on because DOJ is requesting that use, or the defense attorneys are requesting that use.
And that's how the CEPA, the statute works for production of information for both the prosecution and the defense in this case.
You know, so it could be a very long time, but I'm very curious how you think this works out strategically for both the defense and the prosecution.
Like what do who wants, do they want a speedy trial?
Do they want a protracted trial?
It feels like people could make them go in one direction or the other.
Yeah, I think it goes either way for either side.
I'm sure politics will weigh into it, even though they say they won't.
You know, do they want President Trump off the campaign trail for a 45-day trial next year?
Do they want that to happen this year?
Do they want to try and convict him earlier rather than later?
That's from the prosecutorial standpoint.
From the defense standpoint, do we do we want do they want the exoneration earlier?
Do they want the exoneration later?
Do they want the pretrial motions to go out extensively so they can uh inform the media as they come up with their findings and rulings from the judge to say this is fair, this is not fair.
Look at what's being kept from our client.
We don't have access to these documents.
There's no right, these are answers that you have to take as the individual case comes.
We face the same issues when I was a federal public defender.
Sometimes it was very advantageous to go right to trial.
Just knowing, based on the position of the government, the pipe, the pieces of evidence they had, witness problems or something like that, we'd say, Yep, we're ready pretty much right now, judge, just give us a week and we'll go.
Other times, I was in there for two years before I said, judge, I'm ready for trial.
Because I just had to do a whole host of stuff to figure out how to best defend my client.
And sometimes it was in the middle.
And sometimes, actually, a lot of times, in federal court especially, a judge will be like, you get one continuance per side, 30 days and 30 days.
After that, we're going to trial.
And the Southern District of Florida is known for being what we call a rocket docket.
They don't slow roll criminal cases.
They move them.
Now, this is, of course, everyone will say it's a different case, and it is.
It's a former president who's running to be president again.
So I don't know that those seasonal rules will apply in this case, but it will be interesting to see what positions the defense and the prosecution take as to who wants a fast one, who wants a slow one, who wants to do a lot of pretrial motions, who doesn't want to do a lot of pretrial motions.
Um, you know, the the clock actually hasn't even really started yet.
Um let me tell you why.
So people might forget that President Trump has a co-defendant in this case.
So we've all heard of this thing called speedy trial.
In federal court, unlike state court, state courts have an actual number, most of them.
State law says speedy trial must occur within, and I'm making up the number, 180 days of arraignment.
If it does not, and there's no good cause for a delay, the case is thrown out.
In the federal system, pursuant to the constitution, there is no number assigned to speedy trial.
There is a constitutional right for the defendant to have a speedy trial, but that delay is not defined by the courts.
It's more on a case-by-case basis.
Is there undue delay by the prosecution?
Did they say they were ready?
Then they had a witness problem.
Do they lie about evidence?
Do they withhold evidence?
Did they not produce everything?
So that speedy trial clock doesn't start in any co-defendant case until all co-defendants are arraigned.
And as far as I know, yesterday in Miami, only President Trump was arraigned.
I don't believe the co-defendant was ranged at the same time.
So who knows when that's set for?
Right?
Could be a month, could be two weeks.
So the clock doesn't Even really start, which I think, in essence, maybe the prosecution will use that to say the clock doesn't really start for our discovery obligations, you know, now you get into all this stuff.
You know, where's our information?
Oh, well, we'll start when you know everybody's arranged.
So, yes, we've started, but we really haven't.
No, that's really fascinating.
Well, so you know, you mentioned some of the possible pretrial motions that will be so walk us through those.
Well, as a former public defender, what I would recommend personally is an extensive pretrial motion order from the defense.
Because in order to vigorously defend your client, in this instance, the president of the former president of the United States who's up for real uh re-election or election again, um, there's just too much at stake to sort of rush it, right?
And there's so much information in a 37-count indictment, they're talking about however many documents, we don't know if it's hundreds or thousands, photos, different places, right?
Different states are involved in terms of geographic location of information and witnesses that you gotta go find, um, locate, and then use this court process to get them in there if you want them as a defense.
And that that process in and of itself takes time.
You have to put together, you know, the appropriate defense team in this case.
And in my opinion, there's criminal, everybody knows there's civil cases and criminal cases, right?
But what most people don't know is that a national security case is different.
Yes, it's a criminal case, but it has to do with a whole different set of laws and classified information, etc.
that we've been talking about.
So it's sort of this almost third animal.
So you do need a brilliant criminal defense lawyer, but you need a national security expert who's litigated SEPA and these pretrial motions, and you need someone who's very good at the classified information procedures act, because they're going to need to be involved to litigate this stuff along the way.
I don't really know too many singular people that can perform all those duties at the A plus level.
I think there's a couple, and maybe they go find that one person and maybe they become President Trump's attorney.
But it's a massive lift.
Then you got to go review all the documents, right?
You can't even start filing pretrial motions.
You know, I heard people are like, oh, we're gonna, you know, there should be a motion to dismiss right away.
Okay, if you've got good cause for one, you know, sure, but you want to make that motion when you've done all your homework, in my opinion.
You want to go in there and see what they got.
Because you also want to look at with the um substantiated allegations of prosecutor misconduct by some members on this team.
You want to look at if they did it before, did they do it again?
You know, that's not at all improper if you're the defense attorneys in this case.
And so that's a different sort of line of effort to follow than just the straight pretrial motions based on discovery and due process, etc.
This is a whole nother branch that shoots out to say, judge.
Not only did they fail to produce the proper discovery and overly redact and withhold a witness or whatever, I'm just making stuff up, but the prosecutor is unethical.
That's a whole, you know, wow.
It unfortunately it happens.
It's happened to some of the prosecutors on this special counsel team.
So those questions should be raised in my opinion, not just the evidentiary ones.
And then you get to motions to suppress evidence.
Judge, Mar-a-Lago was unlawfully raided.
Okay, tell me why.
Fourth Amendment search and seizure, everybody knows the basics.
You know, you have the right to privacy in your home against your effects and persons and things and all that, unless there is a measure met by the government to say they no longer have that right because they are committing a crime or have evidence of crime, and that's a probable cause standard.
But if the agents or lawyers lied on the application, if they omitted relevant evidence, it happens not too infrequently on that motions to suppress evidence, and I've I've litigated hundreds of them.
I would probably say 15% of mine were granted in some form or in full.
And that means the evidence that the government got from that unlawful search and seizure is out.
And I'm not saying this is going to happen, but just let's say, for instance, the judge rules that the rate at Mar-a-Lago is unlawful.
Well, everything found at Mar-a-Lago is now out.
It's excluded from the trial.
It's as if it's never existed and cannot be used against Donald Trump and the co-defendant in the prosecution.
So that's one instance.
Then you have all the other locations.
I think there was, I think they went to Bedminster, they being the government and the feds.
I think they, I thought there was a third location somewhere, but I can't really remember.
And then there's a whole NARA component to it, right?
We haven't got any lucid details from NARA as to what they have and what they gave back in terms of all this documents.
And I would litigate to in a pretrial motion fashion to get a definitive answer for answer from NARA because part of the defense is going to involve both the Presidential Records Act, I believe, and or at least that's what I would say it should involve is the Presidential Records Act, coupled with legal precedent from NARA involving the Clinton Socks case, which we've discussed before, involving Sandy Berger from the DOJ, which we've discussed before.
So you want definitive positions from the other components of government involved in this case.
And the good thing about being in federal court is you could put it all before a federal judge and they gotta decide.
So that's sort of when the rubber meets the road.
But I think this pretrial motion calendar could be very extensive, in some instances should be, but that's a trial tactic that the defense attorneys must decide with their clients.
You know, with respect to the Mar-a-Lago raid, there was also all sorts of documents taken which were, I suppose, not relevant.
And so there's a question about whether it was okay to take those, I think, right?
I think what the government will say, usually what they say is we take everything and then we'll give you the stuff back that we don't use or don't end up needing.
So yes, most of the stuff they took, I think it's safe to say won't be used in this prosecution.
I mean, right now we know they're using 32 pieces of evidence.
Don't know how long those pieces of evidence are to substantiate the first 32 counts.
So it doesn't match up with what we've been told publicly about the boxes and boxes and boxes of evidence, but they took it all.
So the other thing that, you know, a number of commentators that we've spoken to at Epoch Times, there was a discussion that it seems like a lot of the complaint or a lot of the indictment, pardon me, is has to do with material which was thought to be under attorney client privilege.
Well, yeah.
Is that like how how do you understand that?
How does that become an issue or not?
Well, we touched upon that last week, and I think you raise a great point.
That should be one of the first motions, in my opinion.
Because as you don't have to go to law school to know there is an attorney-client privilege, civil, criminal, national security, whatever.
Even if you just go in and consult an attorney, you're saying, I want to open a business, or I think the government might come after me for my money, or they might actually charge me with a crime.
That's all attorney-client privilege.
Those conversations are sacrosanct.
They can't be found out by the prosecutor except for one exception.
If the attorney and the client get together to commit a crime, right?
Hey, let's go rob a bank.
Okay, well, you're my attorney, here's 10 bucks.
So the government can never know what we're doing.
Obviously, that's the whole purpose of the one exception to the attorney client privilege.
In this instance, I mean, you know, if the stakes weren't, you know, couldn't be any higher already, you now have a district court judge, the chief judge here in DC, or the former chief judge here in DC Howell, they're responsible for all the grand jury issues.
So they litigated this before her when she was chief judge.
And basically, one of President Trump's former attorneys was brought before her, and the judge, upon ruling upon motion by the government, said, yes, I'm going to allow you to break attorney client privilege and look at conversations, and I don't know what types, if there were notes or conversations or recordings.
Um we don't really fully yet know all the substance of that.
But she allowed the government to go get them.
That is shocking.
It almost never happens.
And so I would challenge that very motion immediately, out of the gate.
You know, how can you break attorney client privilege when people are going to say he was working in consultation with his lawyer to discuss his options?
I mean, unless they have all that.
I haven't seen it in the indictment, what they presented to me in the indictment And the world doesn't look sufficient to break attorney client privilege.
They could have more.
They probably do, but I don't know.
But it would be a drastically chilling effect on the American legal system entirely if this is the precedent DOJ is setting when they just want to get a target and have a judge that goes their way.
So this judge, I believe, can review that pursuant to a defense motion and say, nope, that was improper.
It's not because remember, this is the trial judge.
So a little side note, the trial judge makes the trial record.
The trial judge does not have to accept any rulings that came before them.
They can be reviewed, with very minor exceptions.
And one of these motions involving attorney client privilege is of such great consequence to the trial.
The trial judge's job is to protect the trial record.
So when the case like this, which will eventually go up on appeal, almost definitely go up on appeal, the trial judge, their job is to produce a record that cannot be overturned because they issued all the rulings properly based on law and they reviewed all the facts and evidence and they got both lawyers from both sides to produce all their motions in a timely fashion and didn't forget to do something or rule polar.
Remember, federal judges, they don't like one thing, being overruled by the appellate court.
It's pretty simple.
Doesn't matter if you're appointed by a Democrat or Republican.
None of them like being overruled.
When I overturned federal judges on appeal and I reappeared before them for resentencing or retrial or remotion, none of them were happy with me.
It wasn't personal.
They just got they made a mistake.
So and the appellate courts said you made a mistake, fix it.
And so in this instance, just think about all the motions that could come in, and every one of those could be an appellate issue for the defense.
And so with rare exception, the government doesn't really have the opportunity to appeal because then it's sort of vi it basically goes in direct contrast with double jeopardy.
Like you can't keep trying someone over and over and over and over again, right?
You get one shot at it.
With very, very rare exceptions can they appeal certain rulings during the trial process.
So most likely will come from the defense if there's a conviction.
If there's no conviction, there's no appeal.
And then that's it.
Well, but there's this material now that has you know been taken out of attorney client privilege.
And I it's not clear to me that the lawyer in question has been charged with anything, or have they been?
Not that I know of, but we don't know.
Right.
So it's so this is something the defense would presumably get some kind of eyes on to understand and yeah.
I mean, you would think that if in this instance, since it's already a co-defendant case, that they would have charged that attorney in this case because it's a continuation or an aggregating factor to the conspiracy.
But they could have charged him separately and earlier, and he could have pled out and he said I promised to cooperate.
I have no idea.
I don't know how they did that.
You know, we don't know yet.
And so one of these pretrial motions will help shed light on that.
Well, and there's also this question there's calls, of course, for Judge Eileen Cannon to recuse herself, right?
Because just but but here's the thing, right?
Like, let's say that Canon does rule that this attorney client, but it was wrong to waive this attorney client privilege.
That's a massive thing.
But just imagine what will happen uh in the legacy media.
Right.
I haven't seen calls from the government for recusal.
I haven't seen calls from the defense.
Those are the only two people.
No, no, so these are these are these are calls from the calls from the uh peanut gallery, let's say.
So okay.
I mean the rule's pretty simple.
If for some reason a federal judge in his pos in a position that they cannot be neutral in an uh uh in in a fact, no, not a fact-finding, but uh if they cannot be a neutral arbiter of the law and the facts in this case because, say they have a personal relationship with the defendant or the prosecutor, and I just mean like friends or their neighbors and they go away on vacation together every year with all their kids, or they have a financial stake in the bank that's in front of them on a fraud charge.
Those are those are recusals, those are righteous recusals.
But I don't know of a situation where judges, federal judges who are appointed by presidents and presidents alone, recuse themselves because a matter appeared before them That involved the president that appointed them.
Now, of course, there hasn't been a case like this really before, but I don't think that's an appropriate precedent to set because then you're allowing other judges to be subjected to the same ruling.
Oh, you were appointed by Obama.
Well, you know, that guy, he's best friends with Obama and he was his business partner, so you no longer can be the judge.
That would never be a recusal.
It would never amount to a recusal.
Ever.
So I think in this instance, it's uh it's your right, it's a peanut gallery legacy media talking point.
I don't know that it gets far.
If the government makes that motion in this case, um, yeah, I don't I don't know what the basis would be.
It can't just be President Trump appointed you, you have to you have to recuse.
And let's remember, Judge Cannon was the federal judge in President Trump's case involving the Mar-a-Lago raid and the special master.
So she didn't recuse then.
Why would she recuse now?
Mm-hmm.
It's a very good point.
Well, so I I guess we're in for a long ride.
Is that what you're telling me?
I think so.
I think so.
But we'll see.
Well, so and the other thing that's on my mind, and maybe we can cover this a little bit, um, is that uh Senator Grassley is saying now, and he seems to be pretty good on the things that he says publicly, that that there's 17 recordings um in this uh, like that this Russian oligarch basically had uh some sort of quote quote unquote insurance policies and took recordings of discussions allegedly with uh President Biden.
Yeah, so look, we've talked about um the FBI FD 1023 before, but basically how we got here was there was first a request by Congress to say Congress somehow got, you know, Congress has investigators and staff, just like everybody else, say we're doing an investigation and we found out about this document, please give it to us, you, Chris Ray, as director of the FBI.
Chris Ray initially said nope, doesn't exist.
Then a whistleblower comes forward and says, Well, actually, this document does exist.
Then it's proven to exist, and then Congress issues subpoena, and then there's a whole back and forth, there's a possibility of holding director Ray in contempt, which got literally to the 11th hour.
And then there was what was interesting to me as a as the guy that did Russia Gate, and first in in congressional history that I know of, subpoenaed the FBI for 1023s, obviously not these, the ones relating to Christopher Steele and other source reporting from back then, was the fashion in which the FBI mounts their defense almost to this constitutional oversight.
And first they say no, then they say we can't give it to you, then they provide a heavily redacted copy, then they lift some redactions, then they say, okay, the chairman and ranking, and we'll go meet them, and they can have some of it, but not all of it, but we'll give them briefing.
And there's all sorts of variations they layer in there.
It's sort of one of the problems I have with just institutional response to congressional oversight, period.
And in this instance, it's now been publicly reported, not just that these 17 possible recordings is it, 17 recordings exist, but sort of who they involve.
They involve people uh from overseas ventures and the president and possibly the president, the president Biden and his family.
But whatever your position is on that, what's important to me is that it's now been revealed that the FBI redacted the portion of the 1023.
I mean, I know where it is because I know where to look and it it's a little different, but no none of these folks really have that kind of federal prosecutor national security experience.
Um they redacted the portion that revealed that these recordings existed to the committees when they finally turned over this document at the end.
And then it was later revealed that they lifted that redaction finally just for Chairman Comer and Senator Grassley.
And then Senator Grassley comes forward and says this is in the document.
So it'll be interesting to see what Congress does.
I imagine they will go get those uh recordings or try to.
I imagine that won't be a pretty big fight, um, just like we saw with the production of the document itself.
But to me, there's gotta be a way whether those recordings get out to the public, and I, as just a guy wanting to know, wants to know what's on them, like pretty much everybody else.
But to meet constitutional oversight responsibility from committees of jurisdiction, either the FBI and DOJ and all other agencies for that matter, submit to that constitutional oversight, or they don't.
They, the agencies, can't be the ones to pick and choose which oversight they submit to.
That's not how it works over there.
So it'll be interesting to see where this goes.
I imagine it'll probably be covered in the media as the as the week goes along here.
Even probably by the time the show airs on Friday, there'll probably be more information on it.
So Cash, so how do you know that there's some sort of recording attached to uh 1023?
Right, so that's a great point.
So you if you look at the general from their perspective, they were looking at a partially redacted document.
So you can see sort of sometimes just from the outbuild, like, well, A's talking to B and they're in this room and sounds like they were setting up a recording, or sounds like it was like a confidential human source.
If you run sources like I have, you can sort of read into the materials and say, well, that's kind of how we do it.
Um but also there's specific parts in the paperwork that are called sections A, B, or C. And you gotta think of it like this.
You've got to rewind the clock historically a little bit.
But remember when you used to go to the library and they had those big wheels uh on the bookcases, and when you turned them, the big wheels would move back and forth because they wanted to make space for all the extra books.
So when the FBI first started doing 1023s, you can't staple a cassette tape to a piece of paper or a VHS tape to a piece of paper.
You know, you can't pin the uh computer drive to the sheet.
And so there's different classifications of the different types of evidence.
And you have to picture, you go into the FBI depository, uh repository, and you get the file, and then it tells you on the file, oh, okay, hey, go to the corresponding location to get the piece of evidence, videotape, cassette, computer hard drive.
Now, it sounds archaic a little bit, or antiquated, I guess maybe is the better term, but as now pretty much everything is digitized.
But similarly, they're usually not sticking drives uh to the sheets of paper.
They'll reference them and they'll say they have a portion A, B, or C. At least that's how we used to do it, unless they updated the system.
I'm pretty that's the best way that you're able to glean if this information exists.
All right.
Well, Cash, I think it's time for our shout-out.
So this week's shout-out goes to Richard Lauro.
Thanks so much for watching our live presentation of Cash's Corner last week from Prescott, Arizona.
We appreciate the audience there that was in person, but we also, of course, as always, appreciate our audience that viewed online live and later on the replay.
And if you missed it, please tune in for last week's special episode.
But thanks, Richard, for your comments.
We thank everybody for their comments on the board of Cash's Corner.
And don't forget, the weekly live chat keeps growing and growing and growing.
