Another admission by TFG? In his conversation with Hannity last night, he pretty much admitted that

[Raven]

he sent the classified documents to MAL:

‘It’s declassified,’ even by thinking about it because you’re sending it to Mar-a-Lago or wherever you’re sending it. And there doesn’t have to be a process. There can be a process but there doesn’t have to be. You’re the president. You make that decision. So when you send it, it’s declassified. I declassified everything.”

So, he can't say that these documents left the WH by mistake and he can't blame someone else as he usually likes to do.

[Walleye]

1. I'm interested in finding out the location of wherever

[zuul]

2. Where else did he send them?

On Blockhead's show TFG added "or wherever you’re sending it."

[intrepidity]

3. Yes, he did.

But wasn't under oath

[csziggy]

4. If they manage to drag TFG into court, I'm sure he will plead the Fifth

At which point the prosecutor should pull out the tapes of these kinds of statements. After the prosecutor plays TFG's words and those of his supporters and attorneys, he should go through the legal requirements for de-classifying documents as well as the fact that TFG never had the right to carry any documents out of the White House.

Let TFG and his supporters hang themselves.

[Effete Snob]

6. Doesn't need to be

Admissions are defined as non-hearsay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_admission

The party admission, in the law of evidence, is a type of statement that appears to be hearsay (an out of court statement) but is generally exempted (excluded) from the definition of hearsay because it was made by a party to the litigation adverse to the party introducing it into evidence.

...


Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, such a statement is admissible to prove the truth of the statement itself, meaning that the statement itself is not considered hearsay at all. This is a category of exemptions to the inadmissibility of out-of-court statements. When the term "exemption" is used here, it does not mean that the statement is an "exception" to the hearsay rule. Rather, a party admission is classified as "nonhearsay" by the Federal Rules of Evidence.

The statement is admissible even if the declarant had no basis for knowing the truth of the statement. For example, if an employee rushes to tell the manager of a trucking company that one of his trucks has been in an accident, and the manager says, "oh, we're behaving so negligently, lately," that statement will be admissible – even though the manager had no reason to know that this particular accident was the result of negligence.

[intrepidity]

7. Good! Let his big mouth finally sink him. nt

[Effete Snob]

5. "or wherever"

WTF?

"or wherever"?

That's the scary part.

[Brainfodder]

8. No one should have a nice chunk of the documents in their possession. AND that is his downfall: CM!

Tick tock!

CM=Checkmate

Thinks he can blow off espionage!

[Docreed2003]

9. And he knows damn well that there is a process for declassification

He can't just "make it so" and that's that....

[jalan48]

10. He's the King. He does what he wants.

[Beetwasher.]

11. More Incriminating Interviews, Please!

Idiot can’t help himself.

[csziggy]

12. Salon did an article about the interview that has some great quotes from lawyers

My favorite:

"Omg he's actually invoking the Secret Telepathic Unilateral Preemptive Irreversible Declassification (S.T.U.P.I.D.) defense," quipped Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent and attorney.

https://www.salon.com/2022/09/22/donald-has-the-right-to-remain-silent-experts-say-trumps-bonkers-fox-interview-could-be-evidence/