Mar-A-Lago Search Warrant Materials Now Unsealed

They appear to be here (the order to unseal is here).

UPDATE: This only includes the warrant and the receipt, which is apparently all that the Justice Department asked to unseal. Third parties have apparently also asked for unsealing of the warrant application and the affidavit used to justify the warrant; presumably that remains pending.

Comments

[F.D. Wolf]

“Any government and/or Presidential records created between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021”.

How narrowly tailored. That should put the “fishing expedition” allegation to rest.

[Zarniwoop]

Almost as if it's for government docs and presidential records created during the Trump administration that are covered by the Presidential Records Act, and were retained at Mar-a-Largo in contravention of the act.

[DaivdBehar]

Dems on Twitter are calling foe the execution of Donald Trump. These are not just voters but commentators on major news networks. I have not seen any Dem officials do so.

Welcome to North Korea.

[DaivdBehar]

Need the affidavit with all the fake claims.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How many government docs and presidential records do the Obamas still hold after five years that are due to the National Archives?

Any?

[Nige]

Absolutely none, liar.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/10/crisis_at_the_national_archives_137241.html

whoopsie doodles!

[Nige]

Liar.

[jb]

Do you think that contradicts what Nige wrote? Because it does not.

Taking the article at face value, the Obama administration may have destroyed records or evaded record-keeping requirements, but it doesn't assert that he has a bunch of documents sitting at his house.

[JesseAz]

One of the claims in the warrant is hidden or destroyed records....

[Darth Buckeye]

They are willfully blind and impervious to reason. They have no sense of justice.

[Sarcastr0]

Your sense of justice always seems to support Trump. What an incredible and partisan moral compass you have!

[Sarcastr0]

A warrant for destroyed stuff seems rather fruitless.

[jb]

Cool fact.

On the other hand, the discussion here is BCD's question about whether or not Obama has any Presidential records at his home, so not sure why you think it's relevant.

[Social Justice is neither]

Given the breadth of the warrant the entirety of the contents of the Obama presidential library would qualify.

[jb]

No shit.

That's the whole point of a Presidential Library (which is run by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the former president). They keep all of the presidential records there, as required by the Presidential Records Act. They don't keep them at the houses of the former presidents, which is the problem here.

[damikesc]

"Taking the article at face value, the Obama administration may have destroyed records or evaded record-keeping requirements, but it doesn't assert that he has a bunch of documents sitting at his house."

One of the criminal statutes used to justify the raid was destroying documents and records. Just sayin'.

[Sarcastr0]

They had evidence of that. Probable cause even. You have a bare assertion.

[Dan Schiavetta]

None. The National Archives has confirmed it.

[Mr. Bumble]

...to you, personally?

[Nige]

To anyone who bothered to look.

[SRG]

To the world

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2022/nr22-001

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records when President Barack Obama left office in 2017, in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA). NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the PRA, former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration.

Yet the Trumpsuckers were so quick to believe their Beloved Leader

[Life of Brian]

Are you trying to convince us that the above text, which says nothing at all about whether the 30 million pages were all of Obama's records or whether NARA even looked or cared if there were stragglers, somehow speaks to whether Obama might still have docs?

Or are you trying to convince yourself?

[Nige]

That's quite the retrenchment from Trump's 'Obama has millions of classified documents, some of them nuclear, probably why not?'

[Life of Brian]

You didn't hear that from me, and I predict you didn't hear it from anyone. Paste it in and prove me wrong.

[Nige]

Oh yeah, and he also said the Feds planted nuclear weapons in Mar A Lago. You are out of the loop.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are a lot like Ricky Shiffer, Life of Brian. Except he wasn't an entirely all-talk wingnut. That might be the only distinction.

There is nothing wrong with you that replacement won't solve.

[bernard11]

Trump made the claim.

You people just get lower and lower. Now Fox is broadcasting doctored photos that purport to show the judge with Ghislaine Maxwell.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No level of certification, no level of proof, will convince you that Obama did not somehow, mysteriously, destroy or remove documents.

[Nige]

Death threats for the agents, death threats for the judge, and I expect there'll be death threats for the National Archivist. Someone else is going to get hurt.

[Life of Brian]

Yup -- 5 responses so far, and just more rhetoric without a single word of actual quoted text. Sadly predictable.

[Nige]

Nobody wants to see the light in your eyes die as you realise for the first time what an execrable liar Trump is.

[Life of Brian]

Nige, you're quite literally nothing but a troll, and not a particularly imaginative one. Sayonara.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Trump made the claim.

So then he's responding to something that nobody here claimed.

[damikesc]

"You people just get lower and lower. Now Fox is broadcasting doctored photos that purport to show the judge with Ghislaine Maxwell."

The one Hannity said was doctored within moments of it being on screen. The one that came from, and I quote, "what.i.meme.to.say"?

[Sarcastr0]

Why would Hanners decide to do that, I wonder?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Life of Brian,

What a great point! No one can prove that Obama, or Hillary, or Life of Brian doesn't have one or two pages of classified documents. All they'll ever be able to show is that the millions of document Trump claimed Obama took were not taken by Obama and were always moved and stored in accordance with NARA standards. But that doesn't mean Obama doesn't have a classified document in his shoe right now and no one can prove otherwise!

You are brilliant, Life of Brian.

The only relevant facts here:

Trump lied about Obama taking millions of documents without authorization.

There is no evidence Obama took or mishandled any classified information when he left office.

But that won't stop you from speculating and convicting him of imagined crimes!

[Life of Brian]

Dear God, what a blazing field of straw men!

Cap'n said: "[Obama has] None. The National Archives has confirmed it."

SRG pasted a bunch of text supposedly supporting that proposition.

I simply pointed out that confirms nothing of the sort.

And I really suspect you get all that, otherwise you wouldn't have had to go into full-on frothing spray mode over a bunch of stuff I didn't say or even infer.

Or, as evidenced by our other exchange below, maybe you just don't read very well before barging into threads.

Either way, have a pleasant evening.

[Sarcastr0]

No no, the funny part is you saying 'the text doesn't explicitly declaim stuff I make up - prove these awful things aren't true!'

It's textbook prove a negative, and you just leaned way into it.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Given you like to keep threads clean, this one was about Trump's false claim that Obama had millions of documents, referring to the 30 million documents held by the NARA.

Maybe start a new thread about how nobody in these comment threads can prove Obama doesn't have other documents from his time as President that he isn't authorized to have.

[Life of Brian]

this one was about Trump's false claim that Obama had millions of documents

Now you've squarely stepped over the line from incompetence to malice.

The only one that said anything about that was you. One post ago. In your sad little attempt to put words in my mouth/change the subject to anything other than what I was actually discussing.

Take the L.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Given you like to keep threads clean, this one was about Trump's false claim that Obama had millions of documents, referring to the 30 million documents held by the NARA.

Uh, no...this sub-thread arose from the following question:

How many government docs and presidential records do the Obamas still hold after five years that are due to the National Archive

The Trump claim was introduced as a straw man/red herring by others who are disingenuous assholes just like you.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The Trump claim was introduced as a straw man/red herring by others who are disingenuous assholes just like you.

This is delicious.

"Of course the statements of the guy we're defending are ludicrous and not to be believed. It's bad faith to bring them up, even if they are the only specific allegations anyone has made that could possibly be disproved!"

I guess we can strike off the list of your defenses of tfg that you are unaware what a lying sack of shit he is.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Life of Brian,

"No one made any specific allegations, but I demand you disprove them!"

But Trump did make specific allegations which were laughably false on their face. Given this is a post about Trump being raided, context suggests people are parroting his lies in a dedicated whataboutism effort. Only, they realize how stupid Trump's allegations are, so they retreat to vague "how do you know Obama doesn't have documents too?"

You're so good at this, Life of Brian. Glad you're winning in your own head.

[Life of Brian]

I ackshully didn't demand you disprove anything, merde-for-brains. I just politely asked you to stop shoving words in my mouth. I guess you just don't have it in you.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Life of Brian,

Abandoning substance and resorting to, "well, I never said anybody needed to prove a negative, I just said disproving what Trump alleged didn't disprove something no one has alleged."

What do you add to these conversations?

[Randal]

Meaning we're all still agreed that the answer is "none." Great thread, guys!

[Sarcastr0]

LOL Great show, LoB! Amazing play!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Kicking these gape-jawed right-wing dumbasses around is not very difficult . . . but still somewhat entertaining, and a civic service.

That any strong law school would want to hire a movement conservative for anything other than a housekeeping position seems inexplicable, though.

[Scooter]

NPC Alert.

[jb]

"exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential Records" means no one else has them, no? What's your alternative reading of that phrase?

[AmosArch]

Even if everything you say is true simply having some documents from your time as president that belong in the some other repository bureaucratic matter, which countless other politicians running around and condemning trump are 'guilty' of. Not as if Trump was photographed hauling in sacks of photos of him taking bribes into Mara Lago like the Dems are trying to make it seem.

[Nige]

If you or anyone else you know had secret official documents that the FBI searched your house to recover, you would go to jail. Now maybe that's a bad thing and you're a heroic whistleblower, but I don't remember you guys standing up for Reality Winner, and some of you guys only started championing Julian Assange after he leaked those DNC emails, if even then.

Trump's no heroic whistleblower.

[Bob from Ohio]

Winner and Assange released documents. Did Trump do likewise?

The copies were made and shipped to Florida while Trump was fully authorized to have them made and shipped, because he was president. The question [for which I do not know the answer] is if he could then keep them.

Do you think indicting Trump for a process crime will end well for the nation?

[Nige]

Do you think treating Trump as above the law will end well for anyone but Trump?

[Nige]

Oops. Of course you do. You think it will end awesome for Republicans, fuck everyone else.

[Goju]

Did Treating Hillary as above the law end well for anyone but her?

[Nige]

Good thing they didn't do that.

[epsilon given]

They didn't? So Hillary spent time in prison for the mishandling of classified documents after all?

[Bob from Ohio]

He's not as being treated as above the law if he didn't break it.

Do you dispute that he could have anything he wanted copied while president?

Assuming you don't dispute it, as I said, the question [for which I do not know the answer] is if he could then keep them.

[Nige]

But you are demadning he be treated as above the law if he did.

He obviously was not allowed to keep them, in the minds of the FBI, the DOJ and the National Archives, at any rate, and they seem quite sure of themselves, and they are the experts. Also obviously, he can argue otherwise in court, but right now he seems to be smearing the Feds by claiming they planted nuclear weapons in Mar A Lago and lying about Obama.

[JesseAz]

May want to take a glance at Navteq vs Egan 1987 since the warrant regards NSI and not NARA.

[JesseAz]

Navy*

[David Nieporent]

Assuming you don't dispute it, as I said, the question [for which I do not know the answer] is if he could then keep them.

If you "do not know the answer," it's because you don't want to know the answer. No, he couldn't keep them. He couldn't keep them if they were classified. He couldn't keep them if they were declassified. He couldn't keep them even if they were never classified, unless they were purely extra copies made solely for convenience and marked as such.

[Darth Buckeye]

Trump should not be above the law...but he should not be beneath the law either.

[Randal]

Even the president can't take top secret documents to his Florida home.

[David Nieporent]

I don't believe you're correct about that. But Trump isn't the president, and ex-presidents have no rights beyond those of the rest of us.

[Krayt]

Nobody is above the law.

However, that is a subset of everyone is equal before the law, which means not using the law against political opponents.

We should know soon whether this is a serious crime, or the former.

[Josh R]

Or, perhaps the search is justified because of Trump's refusal to cooperate while at the same time no crime being charged is justified.

[bernard11]

This is actually a plausible outcome, ISTM.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It's the Espionage Act, Bob from Ohio.

Ask a legitimate lawyer to try to explain it to you.

[bernard11]

The question [for which I do not know the answer] is if he could then keep them.

Let me help you out. The answer is, no, he can't keep them. And he was well aware of that.

Are you in the pretzel business?

[Life of Brian]

Let me help you out. The answer is, no, he can't keep them.

Sorry, what's the thought process that makes you so confident he couldn't keep copies?

[NOVA Lawyer]

What's the thought process that leaves you with any doubt about that? On what grounds can an ex-President keep highly classified (Top Secret) documents that the National Archives and the FBI ask him to return?

Presidents aren't kings. They don't win exemption from the law.

[Toranth]

Former Presidents still have security clearances, get classified briefings, and their homes contains SCIFs. In addition, the President can declassify anything, at any time, for any reason, just by deciding that it is no longer classified.

So, no, it isn't clear that what the FBI refers to as "sets of classified documents" were actually classified, or that Trump was not allowed to keep them.

At this point, there is so little actual information that you cannot make any determinations.

[JesseAz]

They all think the DoJ is the original classification authority for some reason.

[Don Nico]

'the President can declassify anything, at any time, for any reason, just by deciding that it is no longer classified."
That is incorrect. It only applies to materials classified under President Executive Order 13526. Restriced Data and Formerly restricted data are classified under the Atomic Energu Act of 1954and its Amendments . The proceedures and officials with declassification authority are specified by law not by Executive Order.

[David Nieporent]

Former Presidents still have security clearances,

Presidents never had security clearances in the first place, so they can't "still" have them. (Unless they had them by dint of a previous job. Game show host, of course, is not such a job.)

get classified briefings,

For obvious reasons, Trump does not get classified briefings.

In addition, the President can declassify anything, at any time, for any reason, just by deciding that it is no longer classified.

No. There's a process to be followed. The president "deciding" things doesn't do anything. (To be clear, I am not saying that a president can't declassify anything he chooses to declassify. I am saying that making such a choice is not a self-executing action. After he makes that choice, he has to take actual steps to declassify it.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Former Presidents still have security clearance

No, they don't. They have historically been given access to classified briefings and information as a courtesy. It isn't a right and it isn't a security clearance. One assertion, and it's wrong twice. Not a good start.

the President can declassify anything, at any time, for any reason

Sure.

just by deciding that it is no longer classified

You're gonna need a citation for that. He can't just think it, not tell anybody, and then later claim he decided something was declassified but didn't tell anyone. That's just not a sensible system or interpretation. And it's not the system we have. There is a process.

The President can change the process, but it requires more than secretly deciding without telling anyone. "Merely proclaiming a document or group of documents declassified and doing nothing more would not suffice." - Bradley Moss, a Washington, D.C.-based lawyer dealing in national security issues.

But don't take an exert's word for it, the Trump administration also has made the same claim. When Trump tweeted that he declassified the Crossfire Hurricane documents, his people were quick to tell everyone that that didn't actually declassify anything. He later actually declassified some of them, but deciding while tweeting that they should be declassified did not, in fact, declassify them.)

At this point, there is so little actual information that you cannot make any determinations.

Well, all your misinformation about security clearances and how classification works is not particularly relevant, even if true. Even if it were true that Trump could just decide, without telling anyone, that the documents were declassified, had them packed up and sent to Mar-a-Lago, his retaining the documents would still be in violation of the law. Several of the laws cited don't turn on whether the documents were classified or whether the person who takes them were authorized to look at them, it's whether they were allowed to possess them and take them from the place they are supposed to be kept. The evidence that we have indicates he was not authorized to possess them.

But, of course, there is much we don't know. So, no, we can't make a determination of whether he committed a crime. There is plenty of evidence that he couldn't keep the records, though. (He had presidential records, the law says they belong to the government.)

[damikesc]

"But don't take an exert's word for it, the Trump administration also has made the same claim. When Trump tweeted that he declassified the Crossfire Hurricane documents, his people were quick to tell everyone that that didn't actually declassify anything. He later actually declassified some of them, but deciding while tweeting that they should be declassified did not, in fact, declassify them.)"

1/19/21 memo from him shows he did declassify. That is all that is required, otherwise, bureaucrats ACTUALLY have the final say in classification/declassification which is an absurd position.

[TW]

Well if the ex-President ordered them to be declassified while he was President, then they're no longer classified or bound by any laws regarding the treatment of classified material.

[Sarcastr0]

That's a load-bearing if.

[Don Nico]

See my comment above concerning RD and FRD nuclear information.

[David Nieporent]

Except he didn't order them to be declassified. And the Espionage Act applies even if he had; he still can't keep them!

[NOVA Lawyer]

Big if. And a problem for Trump is that several of the laws don't turn on whether the documents were classified. So even if declassified, it wouldn't necessarily help Trump in this case.

[Life of Brian]

On what grounds can an ex-President keep highly classified (Top Secret) documents that the National Archives and the FBI ask him to return?

There are plenty of other threads going about classified materials. If you take a moment and actually read this one before wading in, you'll find the discussion here is about whether he could keep copies of “[a]ny government and/or Presidential records created between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021" that he created while in office.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Glad you're out here policing what gets posted in which thread. It helps!

/sarc

[Life of Brian]

It does indeed help clarify when people like you just fling your talking points like simian feces into every thread regardless of whether they actually fit.

At the risk of stating the bloody obvious, if you had anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion, you wouldn't have to do that.

[NOVA Lawyer]

And yet here you are, arguing about whether my comment fit in this thread, while six other people made substantive responses and/or counters to those responses. Seems you're the only simian throwing feces.

[Life of Brian]

"Hey, I can't rub enough brain cells together to respond to what you're actually saying, so here's a bunch of partisan template shit. Oh, and some other people actually responded to you... somewhere. Derpy derp."

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're not saying anything. You avoid the substance in every thread as soon as it's clear to even you that you have no substantive point. This whole subthread is about your presumed authority to police the content of a thread. Meanwhile, the grownups are discussing the substance.

Maybe just sit in the corner and be quiet unless you have something of substance to add.

[Randal]

Stop taking LoB's bait. He's only here to distract and confuse.

[David Nieporent]

Do you think indicting Trump for a process crime will end well for the nation?

Do you think that calling every bit of lawbreaking done by every sociopathic Republican a "process crime" will end well for the nation?

[epsilon given]

And do you think that executing and overly-broad warrant on a former President who had already returned requested documents would end well for the nation, when, even if President Trump were withholding documents, a subpoena would have been a more appropriate next step to getting those documents?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Unless you're Hillary Clinton, naturally.

[Nige]

She was investigated by Trump's DOJ. They found nothing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol

[Nige]

Well, quite.

[JesseAz]

They found plenty. Then they changed the wording from grossly negligent to not intentional to avoid the straight reading of the law. She had both TS and compartmentalized information on her server.

[Sarcastr0]

There was nothing "unauthorized" about her using a personal email server for government business. Frankly, there should be a rule against it, but there wasn't. Which is why her predecessors had done the same. (Yes, yes, theirs were commercial servers rather than a personal one. Which makes no legal difference.) The only rule is that these documents are government records and have to ultimately be turned over.

Of course, classified material should not have been sent to the account, but then, classified material should also not have been sent to her official SOS account, which she was using this in lieu of. There's an entirely separate system for classified emails.
...
No; as your link shows, they did a highly competent search,¹ which is why out of tens of thousands of emails, people have only identified a handful of work-related ones that she failed to turn over — none of which have been shown to be substantive, or you can bet that the GOP would have trumpeted them.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/08/10/thursday-open-thread-96/?comments=true#comment-9644797

[Brett Bellmore]

"Of course, classified material should not have been sent to the account, but then, classified material should also not have been sent to her official SOS account, which she was using this in lieu of."

There's record of her actually ordering security headings stripped off classified documents before having them sent to her insecurely.

[bernard11]

There's record of her actually ordering security headings stripped off classified documents before having them sent to her insecurely.

You are lying, Brett. Just plain lying. From your link:

... in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

It's unclear whether the talking points themselves contained classified information. Typically, talking points are used for unclassified purposes (e.g. speaking with the media). But in some cases, the material contained in such memos may still be sensitive -- especially if the report originates from intelligence agencies.

On Friday, the Clinton campaign's press secretary, Brian Fallon, denied that the information was classified.

"It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," Fallon told CBS News' Nancy Cordes.

IOW, there is a small chance that some of that might have been classified. But there is no "record of her actually ordering security headings stripped off classified documents before having them sent to her insecurely."

You are seriously distorting the news report.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
"Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.""
For anyone else with a clearance that would be a security violation if actually done.
As they print across the commercial "Kids, don't try this at home."

[bernard11]

Don,

Could be. Would it be a crime if the document itself were not in fact classified, or she thought it wasn't?

And does that make what Brett said true?

More important, how does it compare with taking documents and keeping them at home, despite numerous requests to turn them in, after one is out of office?

The point being, we talk about Clinton did or didn't do this or that, but she wasn't keeping nuclear secrets in her home filing cabinet in 2018.

It's a ridiculous excuse for Trump, who, as you know, violated security right and left even while in office - using unsecured cell phones, for example.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
If the document were a State department document, there may be an argument that as a primary classification authority, she could decide that the document was unclassified. However, if an authorized derivative classifier had stamped a document and given it a classification header, she still would have had to follow appropriate declassification procedures. Simply ripping of (or having someone else do so) would still be a violation of the relevant rules concerning the declassification and handling of documents classified under Presidential Executive Order 13526.

Having said that, I am sure that such actions had been taken many times before by other cabinet officers.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
One other thing: The "receipt" for not specify that any box contained RD or FRD documents. What the phrase "nuclear secrets" means could be anything ranging from procedures for using the football, to basing and storage information as classified by the DoD or other things related to the military's use, storage and protection of nuclear devices.
I expect that many commenters think that "nuclear secrets" refers to "how to build a bomb" or design specific information. From the receipt, I think that is highly unlikely, but none of us KNOW.

[bernard11]

Don,

As I understand the news report it is not clear that the document was ever classified, or should have been. It was apparently a set of talking points, which normally don't contain state secrets.

Does the fact that it had some kind of "header" mean it definitely was classified?

In any case, again according to the report, it was ultimately sent via a secure fax.

But in the worst case, claiming that this is comparable to what Trump has apparently done is just absurd.

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
Regarding the header for a fax, it may often read
Protect as Secret or TS. That may be qualified by RD or SCI. It may also have a distribution restriction at the bottom of the page.
Such a head indicates that the page(s) have not paged a definitive classification review by a designated classification authority.
Even so it would be improper to tear off the header and send through an unsecured channel.

[jb]

Isn't the entire premise of "Lock Her Up" based on Clinton mishandling classified material? No one was arguing that she wasn't supposed to have access to the e-mails on her server or that she shared them with foreign governments or anything, just that she had an e-mail setup that wasn't sufficiently secure.

I have no idea what your opinion on the Hilary e-mails are, but I see a lot of people here saying "what about Hilary?" by people who clearly think what Clinton did deserves jail time whereas Trump clearly does not, but I am having a hard time understanding how anyone could think that based on the information we have so far. (To preempt: maybe it will turn out that the case against Trump is no stronger than against Clinton; in which case I'd say probably neither of them should be prosecuted. We have yet to hear the FBI or a prosecutor make the case as to why Trump's behavior is more serious so don't know if there is in fact a difference in seriousness.)

[Harvey Mosley]

I thought Hillary should have been locked up. That means if Trump had classified materials stored in violation of the law he should be locked up.

But-
Hillary wasn't locked up and we were told ad nauseum that it was a big nothing burger. So Trump shouldn't be locked up even if he had classified material he shouldn't have because we have been assured that such a thing is a nothing burger. Any other outcome is politicizing the DOJ and that is worse than anything Trump has been accused of doing.

[Nige]

Where did this idea come from that this current case's outcome has to be determined by the outcome of a completely different case involving one of his political oppoenents? Is this how you actually want the law to work, not based on the facts of a particular case but on the facts of some other completely different case?

[Don Nico]

Lots of sloppy language in this exchange.
No one commenting here knows whether the documents were stored in an improper or illegal manner. Trump's home did have appropriate storage facilities for classified materials. Were the boxes in those approved areas of the home? I have seen no documented evidence of that on the "receipt."

What we do know is that the documents and other materials were not turned over to the appropriate custodian (National Archives) promptly upon an official request from said custodian.

[MoreCurious]

More lies. For about the millionth time: it doesn't matter how secure the storage area at Mar-a-Lago was because the damn documents had no business being there. Man, if this is the best defense Trump can come up with, he's going to be spending a lot of time at the supermax in Colorado.

[Don Nico]

MC,
You truly fail at reading. F.
There are NO lies in my comments except in your feeble understanding thereof. None at all.
Point out the explicit lie.
"What we do know is that the documents and other materials were not turned over to the appropriate custodian (National Archives) promptly upon an official request from said custodian."

Your entire comment is an Anti-Trump screed.
"What we do know is that the documents and other materials were not turned over to the appropriate custodian (National Archives) promptly upon an official request from said custodian."
Whether that is sufficient for a jail sentence in a supermax (your hallucinations are getting very strong) is highly doubtful.

[Don Nico]

More Curious,
By the way. how do you know that the storage facility was insecure?
Of course, you don't. You just react instead of thinking.
If you think my comment was a defense of Trump, think again (or think for a change). It was not and was not meant to be.
Maybe you have a telepathic connection to Garland's brain. (At least you think that you do.

[jb]

"No one commenting here knows whether the documents were stored in an improper or illegal manner."

We don't know this for sure, but given the warrant is looking at violations of the Espionage Act, it seems like the concern is more significant than just whether or not the records should have been in the National Archives or not. (i.e., it seems a reasonable inference that the FBI at least doesn't think that the documents were being stored securely--remember that the original referral from the National Archives to the FBI was because they found that classified information was amongst the documents that were returned to them by Trump).

[Don Nico]

" it seems a reasonable inference that the FBI at least doesn't think that the documents were being stored securely"
Maybe.
But we do know that Trump violated an official and appropriate request from the appropriate custodian of the documents. That fact alone should justify the search.

[epsilon given]

It's important, because one political side of the country is getting heavily slammed by heavy enforcement of law, while the other side gets off with slapped wrists, if that.

It's not good to have a two-tiered system of justice. That kind of thing leads to civil war.

Indeed, one major reason many people doubt the FBI's claims about the Mar-a-Lago raid, is because of the FBI's role in spying on President Trump, and their role in agitating violence on January 6th, and their turning a blind eye to things like the attempted bombings of Washington DC DNC and RNC headquarters, and their disinterest in Hunter Biden and his crimes. It doesn't help that the FBI, when executing the warrant, ordered Trump's lawyers to leave, and requested that security cameras be turned off.

IF President Trump really were guilty of something particularly heinous, and IF the FBI didn't have a history of trying to frame Trump, and IF they had pursued charges against at least Hunter Biden with even a touch of rigor, then maybe we would trust the FBI. But as it currently stands, the FBI and the DOJ have both violated the trust of millions of Americans, Americans who used to be predisposed to support them, and they aren't doing anything to earn that trust back.

[F.D. Wolf]

"Almost" is right.

It's not a crime for a President to possess government records after his term expires. You maty have heard that Obama currently possesses 30 million records he intends to digitize for his presidential library. (So far, none have been digitized). Why no raids on Obama? Because the Archivist is a hysterical anti-Trump kook who threw a shit-fit about Trump having documents. Obviously, he couldn't give two shits about any documents his lord and savior Obama might have. He probably helped pack them.

I know, I know, that's totally different because reasons and Orange Man Bad.

But Trump had already turned over boxes of documents voluntarily. He was asked to store the rest under lock and key, which he did. (Locks the FBI cut during its raid). Why didn't they take all the documents then? They didn't even take them all this time. Because it is obvious, to those not struck retarded by Trump-hate, that it's just a fishing expedition, hoping against hope for some incriminating document, using the Presidential Records Act as a pretext.

[bernard11]

You maty have heard that Obama currently possesses 30 million records he intends to digitize for his presidential library.

And you may have heard that that's a complete fucking lie told by Trump. But you believe it, because you're a gullible idiot. I guess you sent Trump money for his big election integrity fund or what ever he called that scam.

[Nige]

Thee are lies and you know it. Obama does not posess 30 million records, they are in the care ot the National Archive at the Obama Library.

Trump had multiple opportunities and ample time to return those documents. he didn't. So they took them back. Turns out he can't just do whatever the hell he wants, and now you all feel thwarted and threatened by intimations of limits and accountability.

[MoreCurious]

Do you ever stop lying? How will we know?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" You maty have heard that Obama currently possesses 30 million records he intends to digitize for his presidential library. (So far, none have been digitized). "

You, F.D. Wolf, are an aggressively ignorant, no-count bigot whose replacement can not occur quickly enough.

Thank you for being one of the right-wingers who have made defeating conservatives in the culture war so easy.

[epsilon given]

Considering the amount of time the FBI spent on spying on President Trump because of a dossier Hillary's campaign made up from whole cloth, it's rich that you and your ilk are all suddenly concerned about lies!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Violating the Presidential Record Act isn't a criminal offense, it's civil. You couldn't get a search warrant of the type the FBI had for such an offense.

[David Nieporent]

That's not really true. The penalties are not found in the Presidential Records Act, but there are several criminal statutes that would apply. 18 U.S.C. §§ 641 and 2071 come to mind.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Those are different criminal statues.

One would need to be found guilty of violating those statues, not the Presidential Record Act, for a criminal penalty.

[David Nieporent]

See, separate statutes can work together. The Presidential Records (not Record) Act defines what presidential records are, and who owns them. (The government.) And then other statutes say what happens if one mishandles government property and records.

[Armchair Lawyer]

They can work together...but in this case, they don't. Not like you insinuate in any case.

Those statues you cite are about "stealing" or "destroying" the records. Not "mishandling" them. And Trump did not "steal" them...at the time, he had every right to them as President. And he clearly did not "destroy" them (unlike certain other people did).

[Randal]

He certainly "removed" and "concealed" them.

[Armchair Lawyer]

But did he UNLAWFULLY remove them?

No. He was president when they were removed. He had a lawful right to remove them.

Did he "conceal" them. You might have a better case there, but they weren't really hidden. Everyone knew he had documents. They weren't tucked away in a secret compartment. They were right where he said they were.

What you really want is for the statues to say he unlawfully "possessed" the documents. But...neither do that.

[Randal]

Something can be concealed even if its location is known. "Concealed from the public" doesn't imply that the public doesn't know where it is. "Hidden" would be closer, but even that might not have the meaning you're looking for, which is more like "secreted away."

[David Nieporent]

Except, you're wrong as always. Even if your interpretation of "conceals" was not absurd, § 793 forbids "willfully retain[ing]" them, which he did do.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Re: Concealed.

Take it up with law dictionary.

"To hide; secrete; withhold from the knowledge of others. The word “conceal,” according to the best lexicographers, signifies to withhold or keep secret mental facts from another’s knowledge, as well as to hide or secrete physical objects from sight or observation. Gerry v. Dunham, 57 Me. 339"
https://thelawdictionary.org/conceal/

Re § 793.

You've really got to cite the entire section. Just willfully retaining a document is not illegal under 793. You need to willfully retain it AND fail to give the document to an approved government agent under demand.

For example, under section d) "Whoever, lawfully having possession of...willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."

It's not really about retaining or possessing the documents, but failing to deliver the documents upon demand.

Did the FBI or other agency actually demand the specific documents that Trump held? Did Trump "willfully retain them?" If an agency said "We need that letter to Kim Jong Il"...then Trump would need to hand it over. If the agency just said "we need all classified documents about defense" and there was something Trump had declassified or was vaguely related to defense...then it may not be willfull retaining. Trump believed he had handed over the demanded documents.

We know Trump was responsive to at least two requests/subpoenas for documents. The records of exactly what was demanded here and what was turned over, and what was found here are important. 793 also is generally national security related...not just all classified documents.

So...it may be a push pretty far.

[David Nieporent]

Did the FBI or other agency actually demand the specific documents that Trump held?

Yes! In fact, they asked, and then they subpoenaed. And each time, he failed to comply.

[Armchair Lawyer]

David,

Do you have a link to the specific documents that the FBI requested (not something general, but specific), that Trump failed to produce?

[David Nieporent]

Why do you lie like this? Those statutes are in fact about mishandling them. They don't contain the word "mishandling," which is why I didn't put it in quotes; I simply described the concept. But they also don't contain the word "stealing." (They do contain the word "destroy," but only as one of several ways they can be violated.)

He did indeed have a right to them as president. But despite what you and he think, he stopped being president — and thus stopped having any right to them — as of 12:01 p.m. on January 20, 2021.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh... You're accusing me of lying? Let me quote the statue for you. Since apparently I need to.

18 U.S.C. §§ 641
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641
"Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another"

So, they contain the word "steals".

If you can't accurately describe the laws you cite...you're not a very good lawyer.

[David Nieporent]

You are correct and I am wrong. I forgot what we were talking about, and was thinking only of the statutes in the warrant, rather than statutes we discussed above.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'll give you credit for admitting your mistake.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Espionage Act.

Lock him up!

[Goju]

Secret documents on an illegal server. Lock her up, right Rev? Wouldn't want to look like a cheap political whore, now would you? Oops, too late.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You guys must like the taste of the soles of your betters' shoes.

Getting stomped in the culture war has made you hayseeds as unhinged as you are inconsequential in modern America.

The FBI says, 'hi.' Then, after it does what it wants, it says 'bye,' and leaves a receipt.

[Goju]

I especially like the receipt they left in Waco. I never saw the receipt for Randy Weaver's wife.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

We don't care whether you like anything. We don't want your approval. We just want your compliance, until replacement, and we will continue to have it.

[epsilon given]

And that is why we're headed towards a bloody, awful, evil Civil War.

It's because "elites" like you enjoy the double standard, two-tier justice system, and, after doing everything in your power to destroy the trust of the "deplorables" in all the institutions, rather than apologize and try to fix things, you rub our noses in it.

And then, when you expect compliance, you get rebellion instead, because we don't care for whether you want our approval or not -- we just want to be left alone.

[David Nieporent]

Once again: there was no "illegal server."

[John F. Carr]

Receipt for:
"Various classified/TS/SCI documents"
"Miscellaneous Secret Documents"
"Miscellaneous Top Secret Documents"

Uh oh.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and one pair of woman's underwear for the Big Guy to sniff.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thinking about it, maybe they took a pair for Hunter, too.

[Michael P]

And "miscellaneous confidential documents", if we're being comprehensive.

[Josh R]

That's not illuminating. We need to know why the documents were of great interest (being classified, even TS/SCI is not quite enough)? And perhaps more importantly, why didn't Trump turn them over much earlier?

[SimonP]

"I demand confidential details on an ongoing and sensitive criminal investigation into a former president by the current DOJ before I even possibly take this seriously."

Always another goalpost.

We now know what crimes they suspected Trump to have committed. They got a search warrant to search for evidence of those crimes. They seized materials pursuant to that search warrant.

Do we know, with specificity, precisely what highly classified documents relating to national security were seized? No, it looks like we still don't. But you can draw an inference, can't you? What do you think they would have grabbed?

[Bob from Ohio]

"But you can draw an inference, can't you?"

Mrs. Trump's clothes. Hard to cross dress properly on an FBI salary.

[jb]

I don't see those mentioned in the inventory. Is there a specific line that you're referring to I may have missed?

[epsilon given]

They didn't take them. They just put them back after wearing them for the raid.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Their search warrant was for literally everything he might have seen as president during his term.

Some precision there dude.

[jb]

That's incorrect. It's for Presidential records, not McDonald's menus. Seems like everything in the warrant is pretty clearly scoped as evidence for the specific laws that they're looking for violations of.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Under "Attachment B" of the FBI raid document, Garland demanded the seizure of literally any record Trump ever saw, read, or created over the entire 4-year term of his presidency: "Any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021."

[jb]

Any government records, sure. That's because he's not supposed to have any of them. I'm sure during that four year period Trump saw lots of things that were not government or Presidential records, though, so your original claim is obviously incorrect.

[Sarcastr0]

Believe it or not, many things a President sees are not a governmental or Presidential record!

[Life of Brian]

No kidding. Given that, what instructions would you provide to the lackeys that searched the house to sort out which is which?

[Sarcastr0]

Take it up with BCD, who claims: "Their search warrant was for literally everything he might have seen as president during his term."

[David Nieporent]

Life of Brian doesn't have the foggiest clue how search warrants work. If they're investigating a stabbing, and get a warrant to search a suspect's home for evidence thereof, and they come across some bloody clothing, they do not need to DNA test each article of clothing to ascertain whether it's the victim's blood before seizing it. They seize all of those items, and then later they'll test them.

Similarly, the FBI agents who searched the home don't need to "sort out which is which" at the time of the search. They seize any documents that appear to be subject to the warrant, and then later will have to review them to see if they actually are.

[Life of Brian]

They seize any documents that appear to be subject to the warrant, and then later will have to review them to see if they actually are.

Wow, talk about leading with your jaw. I appreciate you fast-forwarding the discussion and making my ultimate point for me that all the breathless headlines of "21 BOXES OF STATE SECRETS, DERP!!1!11one" are categorical nonsense.

Keep up the good work, Too-Clever.

[bernard11]

Could you point us to the headlines about 12 boxes of state secrets?

Or are you making shit up?

[Life of Brian]

Either I'm making shit up, or all these anti-Trumpers are making shit up.

Which would you rather?

[Life of Brian]

Either I'm not... etc.

[Josh R]

I'm not demanding classified details. But, we should know enough to establish whether the items were critical enough to justify this level of intrusion. And again note, we need to know why Trump didn't turn them over sooner because that's part of the justification as well.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The National Archives had to retrieve some boxes of things from him in January. He was issued a subpoena in June, and still held onto these documents.

Classified documents, including those classified as TS/SCI, that he's refusing to hand over to the government?

Yeah, the raid is justified on its face. Note that it was timed so as to have him not present, and the media was not informed of the raid. Some laughable "intrusion" you're concerned about.

It's a standard search warrant. Get over it.

[Josh R]

I'd like to hear from Trump for why he withheld documents that were subpoenaed before I pass judgment.

[bernard11]

What reason do you consider acceptable?

Or will you buy anything? Suppose he says he was afraid Biden would turn them over to Putin and wanted to keep them safe. Believe it?

[Josh R]

What reason do you consider acceptable?

I'm not sure. I am keeping an open mind. On the other hand ...

Suppose he says he was afraid Biden would turn them over to Putin and wanted to keep them safe. Believe it?

Of course not.

[bernard11]

OK, Josh.

Let's say we don't know the answers to your questions.

We do know:

1. These are Presidential records and he is not entitled to keep them.
2. He was asked several times to turn them over, and they were even subpoenaed.
3. Despite all that he did not turn them over.

Now, I'm going to make an assumption that, whether they contain important national security information or not, it was not unreasonable for DOJ to fear that they did.

What should be done?

As it happens I wouldn't be totally shocked to learn that Trump was just being an asshole, and had no reason to keep the documents except that he wanted to.

But that's no reason to let him keep them.

[David Nieporent]

1. These are Presidential records and he is not entitled to keep them.
2. He was asked several times to turn them over, and they were even subpoenaed.
3. Despite all that he did not turn them over

Moreover, it's reported today that he affirmatively lied about still having them; he swore he had turned everything over.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, there are reports that Trump was responsive to subpoenas. And that he had just responded to the last subpoena, giving over requested documents in June to FBI agents who arrived at his Mar-a-Lago house. There had been no contact from the government since June. That makes this raid...unusual.

"Two months before his Florida home was raided by the FBI, former President Donald Trump secretly received a grand jury subpoena for classified documents belonging to the National Archives, and voluntarily cooperated by turning over responsive evidence, surrendering security surveillance footage and allowing federal agents and a senior Justice Department lawyer to tour his private storage locker, according to a half dozen people familiar with the incident.

While the cooperation was mostly arranged by his lawyers, Trump personally surprised the DOJ National Security Division prosecutor and three FBI agents who came to his Mar-a-Lago compound on June 3, greeting them as they came to pick up a small number of documents compliant with the subpoena, the sources told Just the News, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the visit was covered by grand jury secrecy.

After the subpoena was delivered in late May, federal authorities said they suspected there were more classified materials still left at Mar-a-Lago, and arranged the June 3 visit.

After mid-June, the government had no other official contacts with the president's lawyers until agents showed up unannounced on Monday and executed the search warrant, ousting the president's lawyers and staff and spending nine hours collecting evidence. Sources told Just the News they collected about 12 boxes of evidence.

U.S. officials who confirmed the June 3 voluntary visit and subpoena compliance, refused to say whether U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart was apprised of the full extent of Trump's compliance when he was asked to sign the unprecedented search warrant last Friday."

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/trump-got-grand-jury-subpoena-spring-voluntarily-cooperated-home

[David Nieporent]

You've got to love disgraced ex-journalist/Russian propagandist John Solomon's desperate attempts at spin.

Only giving documents back that you've been illegally withholding for a year after you receive a subpoena is not "voluntarily cooperating." It's nearly the opposite. And of course only giving back some documents, and lying that you've given them all back, is 100% the opposite.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Ad hominem arguments now?

And giving over the documents that were responsive to the subpoena is standard practice.

[damikesc]

"You've got to love disgraced ex-journalist/Russian propagandist John Solomon's desperate attempts at spin."

In case you wondered what ad hominem is...

[Noscitur a sociis]

And giving over the documents that were responsive to the subpoena is standard practice.

The standard practice is (supposed to be) turning over all responsive items, not just the ones you feel like producing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In case you wondered what ad hominem is...

The linked article cites no named sources, so we're being asked to trust the author. The author's trustworthiness (or in this case, essential lack thereof) is this pretty relevant to assessing how much weight to give it.

Although as David M. Nieporent notes, you have to get pretty pathetically tendentious to turn even these dubious factual claims into an actual defense for Trump.

[David Nieporent]

In case you wondered what ad hominem is...

And in case you know the topic: that was not an ad hominem; that was just an insult.

An ad hominem argument would be "This is wrong because it was said by disgraced ex-journalist/Russian propagandist John Solomon."¹ But I didn't say that; I said it was false because he was misusing words or misrepresenting the facts. (What Trump did was not "voluntarily cooperating.") That's the case regardless of the identity of the speaker.
​
​
¹Though that's a good heuristic!

[Armchair Lawyer]

"that was not an ad hominem; that was just an insult."

I see...It was just an "insult" at the credibility of a source, not an ad hominem...

Well, most people consider if your initial response to be an insult on the credibility of a source, that's an ad hominem argument, which insinuates the source can't be trusted. The fact you can't even admit that, well....

Seems you're losing ground and credibility further.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Re: Noscitur a sociis

"The standard practice is (supposed to be) turning over all responsive items, not just the ones you feel like producing."

Standard practice is turning over all responsive items, which are responsive in your legal judgement to the subpoena. It typically doesn't include every cocktail napkin, photo binder, and the contents of the wardrobe. If the opposing party feels that other items are needed, they respond with another subpoena. A flat out raid where every cocktail napkin, photo binder and more are seized is...dramatic.

[shawn_dude]

If the cocktail napkin has SCI information on it, yeah, it's more than enough for a raid.

It's going to be expensive enough to verify the chain of custody from the White House to Trump's basement, let alone figure out who may have had access to it after it arrived. All of which will have to be done, so this is far from over.

[bernard11]

Is that from "Standing order" Solomon?

[shawn_dude]

So would the DOJ. I'm sure they're going to ask him under oath in the not-too-distant future.

[JesseAz]

The FBI was there in June and told him to add an extra lock. He showed them all the boxes and areas dummy.

[Sarcastr0]

There was also a subpoena, which he apparently ignored.

We'll see what this is, but those jumping to Trump being innocent and the FBI doing a frame-up are betting some janky odds.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There was a subpoena, which he gave over documents that were responsive towards in June. That's not ignoring.

[Randal]

I don't understand the relevance of the subpoena. We all know that Trump knows how to run out clocks. Failing to fully respond to the first subpoena after over a year, shame on Trump. Had the FBI tried then issuing subsequent subpoenas hoping for a different result, shame on them. You don't get multiple, year-long chances to cooperate with investigations.

[Mr. Bumble]

What has been released so far is as useful as teats on a bull. This is a Dem attempt to claim transparency while continuing to make unsubstantiated claims. Unless they find a way to drive a stake in his heart this will only make him stronger and with more than just his base.

And of course if they kill Trump politically thay will have DeSantis to contend with.

[Nige]

Nothing to do with the Dems.

[Mr. Bumble]

Go back to gaming.

[Nige]

Still nothing to do with the Dems.

[epsilon given]

Really? Hahahahaha! Because this couldn't possibly be the result of Democrats trying exact revenge from a political opponent they don't like -- one that they've spent several years propagating a hoax about ties to Russia -- and one they even fear might be planning to run again!

Tell us another funny joke!

[TW]

Which I think ultimately a lot of Republicas will be fine with (even glad of). DeSantis seems to actually be effective in his role in getting things done that stand a chance of lasting longer than it takes a successor from the other party to find a pen and sign a new executive order.

[Jedi Master Yoda]

No doubt we will start seeing information from the irrelevant documents vacuumed up start to leak out.

[Sarcastr0]

This is a common thing on the right - claiming there will be leaks. They’re wrong a lot but it doesn’t stop them from predicting the same thing next time.

Just because you are spiteful and unprofessional doesn’t mean everyone is.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey remember when those privileged communications from Project Veritas were leaked to the New York Times (who was a party in those communications) right after the FBI raided them?

So professional!

[David Nieporent]

No, the NYT wasn't "a party in those communications," whatever that gibberish means, and as we've already discussed, the communications were leaked before the FBI search, not after.

[epsilon given]

The leaks still happened, though.

[DaveM]

This is "unsealed"? It's a list of categories for heaven's sake. Clearly I don't understand the legal mind at all. This is useless information.

[John F. Carr]

Most of us are hoping to see the affidavit explaining why the government thought there was evidence of a crime. That's going to be the good part.

[DaveM]

Thank you.

[Squirrelloid]

Yeah, the affidavit wasn't unsealed, and that's where the actual fire is going to be. It's all suggestive but vague at the moment.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the part they kept sealed, attachment "C".

[not guilty]

The court unsealed what the DOJ requested. Presumably the request by the New York Times and others to unseal the affidavit supporting issuance of the warrant remains pending.

[David Nieporent]

Most of us are hoping to see the affidavit explaining why the government thought there was evidence of a crime. That's going to be the good part.

Except that it won't be, not for Trumpkins. They're going to say that an affidavit from an FBI agent saying that he was told X, Y, and Z doesn't prove anything.

[epsilon given]

Will it, though? How many times were we told "Once we learn this about Trump, it will be curtains for him?" only to see, when it's revealed, that it was just a nothing-burger?

Why expect things to change now?

[jb]

It's the actual warrant and the actual receipt, mostly unredacted. So yes, seems pretty unsealed.

[bernard11]

Unredacted?!!

But we were assured by so many here that it would be almost totally redacted. You mean they were wrong?

[Don Nico]

The receipt itself is pretty useless. A "box of TS documents" without a document serial number and copy number is hardly a category with any real utility. And how can one claim that it is suffient to establish a chain of custody of TS documents?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Asking about chain of custody involving documents classified in the TS/SCI or above category is pretty clear indication that you don't deal with classified documents.

I'm curious if even half of the commenters here have any idea what kinds of things are put under the SCI label, or where they are stored and viewed.

[Don Nico]

Hah, what do you know about that.
Tell us, Jason, how many TS/SCI documents have you had assigned to you? Let's have a number.

I had several dozens. I know how they had to be accounted for handled and stored and what the rules for making TEMPORARY classified work papers are. I also know about the secure procedures for destruction of such documents.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If you've indeed had such a security clearance, then you're well aware that they don't just walk off on their own, and the chain of custody is never in question.

[Don Nico]

No they don't walk off; that is exactly the point that you are missing. TS documents are not catalogued by the measure, "a box of," without a count of documents, pages etc.

A receipt or location record, "a box of," would not be accepted in any document audit. As for whether a document gets removed or added to the box, one would not know from that receipt.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I suspect that in this case, they are listed as such so as not to make the receipt itself require classification.

For my opinion, it is enough that these were TS/SCI of some kind, and that he not only refused to hand them over after a subpoena, but also lied in a legal response saying he did not in fact have anything classified anymore.

There are many motives for such behavior, and not a single one of them is benign.

[Don Nico]

You're wrong again regarding the receipt.
There is no need to list a title. Just the number of documents and their document number, always required on TS documents. If need be the document numbers could be partially redacted.
That would not have made the receipt a classified document. It would have made the receipt a useful document.

I am not disagreeing that Mr Trump should have handed over the documents when officially requested,

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You realize that a search warrant does not mean that they sift through every piece of paper on-site?

I'm "wrong again," yet you don't understand that when they find something the warrant entitles them to seize, that they grab everything they find with that same item. Find a piece of classified information inside a manila envelope? They'll take the whole envelope and sort out what isn't appropriate later.

Find a box with TS/SCI documents in it while looking for such with a warrant? The item seized will be a 'box with TS/SCI documents' even if it was also filled with baseball cards.

[Don Nico]

You realize that a classified document receipt needs to be just that. The receipt is not the warrent. It is an official piece of document control that i mandatory especial for TS, SCI, RD and special Acess documents.

You are just insisting to have the last word about a topic that you clearly know little about and about which FBI agents charged with seizing classified documents have training for.

You comment about baseball cards betrays your ignorance about the topic of document accountability and control or even about evidence.

Bye.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

LOL.

So you think the people you just claimed 'have training for' dealing with this issue didn't do their job right? According to you?

You're also disputing the standard practice of seizing items found alongside items of interest from a warrant and how such finds are commonly labeled.

Tell me Don, do you think that LEO routinely sift through every single piece of paper on-site and only take precisely what the warrant is looking for?

You claim to have TS/SCI clearance - are you also going to claim that you've executed search warrants?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Notably, an actual lawyer who has presumably dealt with search warrants said you're wrong about the receipts too.

I guess David is also ignorant about 'the topic of document accountability and control or even about evidence.'

[Randal]

Don has a habit of misapplying his knowledge to novel situations.

Of course a search warrant receipt is not a classified document audit record. I expect that the latter also exists, generated during intake.

[Don Nico]

Randal has a funny habit of finding excuses for people who blather on about nonsense.
That receipt is described as the ONLY record of what was take. As such it is de facto a classified document receipt without adequate information.
If you have special knowledge about this topic Randal, tell us what it is and how you have it.
Otherwise you are trying to make excuses for a guy who does not know what he is talking about and just has to have the last word.

[Randal]

Where is the receipt descibed as the only record of what was taken? That's what they call "facially silly."

[David Nieporent]

That receipt is described as the ONLY record of what was take. As such it is de facto a classified document receipt without adequate information.

The problem with your argument is that whatever you think it is "de facto," that's not what it is de jure. It was not written to serve the purpose of classified document control. It was written to serve as a record of items seized during a search conducted as part of a criminal investigation.

Your complaint is ultimately that it's not adequate for something that it isn't intended to be used for.

[MoreCurious]

The good part -- including the details of the affidavit -- will be in the indictment. Can you wait a little longer?

[Don Nico]

Why should we wait when the FBI did what seems to be a half-assed job in filling out the receipt.

I don't buy, "you get what you get and you don't get upset" in that regard

[David Nieporent]

Again, that's just not how warrant receipts work.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

August 11: "I'd be delighted to see posts by my cobloggers about the raid, if they are so inclined. I just don't know enough about the legal issues, and don't have the time to bone up on the factual issues"

August 12: [posts about the "raid"]

Must have been quite a bit of "boning up" overnight.

[santamonica811]

Wait. There was a document re the clemency of Roger Stone??? That's going to (possibly) be fascinating. Is this the same document as before (ie, Trump's grant of clemency to Stone)? Or, did Trump secretly give a second grant of clemency to Stone? If so, for what offence(s)?

Potentially nothing. Possibly very interesting.

(The fact that I haven't seen anyone in the media talking about this makes me think that I'm overreacting. But it was the one item that really jumped out at me.)

[John F. Carr]

Probably the same document we know about, or related to it, considered a presidential record because it documents an official act of the president.

[santamonica811]

Absolutely possible. (And probably the most likely explanation.) But, if there has been a second Stone clemency . . .

(Hell, if people can engage in batshit-crazy theories like the FBI planting stuff while on this search; surely I can indulge in my own conspiracy wet dream, no?)

[Commenter_XY]

Yeah, why not = (Hell, if people can engage in batshit-crazy theories like the FBI planting stuff while on this search; surely I can indulge in my own conspiracy wet dream, no?)

[epsilon given]

Do be fair, if the FBI willingly used a made-up document to justify spying on a candidate for the Presidency, and to continue that spying after the candidate won, is it really that much of a stretch that they might want to plant evidence, particularly when they requested that lawyers leave the room and security cameras be turned off?

This is the same agency, after all, that lost a door to a compound that was supposed to be saved for evidence ....

[John F. Carr]

I thought there might be some secret pardons waiting around to be revealed if Biden's Justice Department went after some not yet charged Trump allies. So far we have no evidence of that.

[shawn_dude]

Can Trump have "secret pardons?" Shouldn't they have been recorded somewhere or follow some sort of official process?

[David Nieporent]

Not according to the Trump Is My God crew. They think he could just think something, and that willed it into being. He could declassify a document just by looking at it; so similarly he could pardon just by pondering it.

[Nige]

Trump got his leak out first, though, and his lies about Obama.

[epsilon given]

But then, why should I care about the contest of who lies first? The FBI and the DOJ, and heck, the MSM, had already lost significant credibility before this raid. Why should I suddenly believe them now?

[Michael P]

I wonder how many of these things are the only, or the canonical, copy of something. Because documents that are copies of "government records" are not "government records" for the purposes of these laws -- they're just copies for convenience.

[Syd Henderson]

Except that a lot of these seem to be classified. Would he be able to keep copies of those as well?

[Michael P]

If they are really classified -- properly classified in the first place, and not declassified -- then I suspect not. But stranger things have been allowed in the past.

[Bruce Hayden]

That’s the thing - that the FBI was most interested, for purely selfish reasons, in Cossfire Hurricane documents that Trump had ordered declassified, but apparently (according to FOIA requests) weren’t.

I found the wording of the search warrant interesting - they were looking for documents marked as TS, etc. The FBI knew that Trump had these documents, and also that they were still marked as to classification level - because it was very likely that FBI employees were the ones who had not followed through on the declassifications. (The agency creating a document owns its classification, so these documents were controlled by the FBI and/DOJ).

What is going to be very interesting is whether the FBI was using the LawFare misinterpretation of Obstruction of Justice used by the Mueller investigation in their notorious § 1001 perjury traps. It will also be interesting to see if the OLC has formally redefined and reinterpreted their definition of the statute.

[Michael P]

All classified documents are supposed to be marked, including with the classification level, so that a recipient knows how to handle the document properly. There are only three levels, and Attachment B is not specific as to the classification markings.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's nice to see that you're still willing to lie your ass off, Bruce.

[Sarcastr0]

it was very likely that FBI employees were the ones who had not followed through on the declassifications.

What do you think the odds are this unsupported speculation ends up being disproven? Will you admit fault?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Will you admit fault?

Lol.

[Iridium]

Isn't it fairly common for high level officials to keep their clearances for the purpose of putting together memoirs? I remember that a bunch of people threw a fit after Trump pulled the clearances of a few retired folks, when, for the plebs, their clearances get suspended the moment they no longer have a job that demands it.

It has been a while since I have read the handling procedures, but I suspect it wouldn't be that difficult for a secret service protected house to be able to meet those requirements (handling electronic documents is a different matter, but all I have heard about are physical copies).

So, if he had clearance, need to know (which for some bizarre reason, the government has included memoirs as NTK) and had a facility for securely handling such documents, then, yes, he would be able to keep classified documents.

[Sarcastr0]

If your understanding of this is correct, it sure is weird this easily established way Trump could claim innocence would remain unused!

[JesseAz]

Trump and his team have already stated they declassified all documents at mar a Lago prior to leaving months ago.

Again. Ignorance seems to be the primary trait if the leftists here.

[Sarcastr0]

they declassified all documents at mar a Lago prior to leaving months ago.

Think for a moment about that timeline.

[not guilty]

For purposes of whether the scope of the warrant was exceeded, how does it matter whether records or documents were classified or unclassified? One of the statutes identified in Attachment B, 18 U.S.C. § 2071, makes no distinction between classified and unclassified materials.

[David Nieporent]

The other statutes cited in the warrant don't either! The Espionage Act is about national defense information that can harm the U.S., whether or not classified.

And the third statute is about obstruction — destroying documents.

[Iridium]

True. Though it might go some way to explaining why literally everyone is so casual about the classified documents turned over in June. You would think Democrats would pounce on that if Trump was mishandling classified information.

It would also explain the rumor that the FBI told him to buy a better lock for his safe. Safes for classified information require some pretty special combo locks. I am pretty sure that CUI doesn't have any special requirements on the safe, so unless they were just giving him helpful advice, that demand only makes sense in the context that they expect him to store classified information.

On the other hand, I don't know why the FBI would cite the Espionage Act if Trump was handling the documents properly. Perhaps his setup was sufficient for some but not all documents? Maybe it was about the improper lock in June? There also seems to be a dispute over which documents were declassified. Which seems like something so cut and dry as to be impossible to disagree on.

This whole thing is such an opaque mess. Really will be nice when we can get to the bottom of it.

[Sarcastr0]

It absolutely is still opaque, but I don't think the answer is that Trump did everything right and the FBI messed up.

[Brett Bellmore]

I doubt he did everything right. I would easily believe he did things "right" for ordinary values of what passes for "right" in D.C. for important people. The odd thing here is that he's not getting important person treatment, like every other ex-President ever.

I don't think important person treatment should be a thing, but I really HATE double standards.

[Nige]

If you hate them so much why do you keep inventing them?

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, whatever you think there is a very small chance these facts will be comparable - too many variables.

You keep harping on Hillary because it feels a bit less risky than trying to defend Trump before the facts are in.

But in reality you're just deflecting *before you even know that you're defending Trump from* think why you raced to do that so fast - it has little to do with reality, and a lot to do with partisan allegiance.

[David Nieporent]

Isn't it fairly common for high level officials to keep their clearances for the purpose of putting together memoirs? I

Trump never had a clearance.

[Iridium]

Ah, yes. Presidents don't get clearances. Forgot about that. I'm not sure what to make of that. Perhaps it is traditional for presidents to give former presidents a courtesy clearances?

[David Nieporent]

It actually is traditional, yes. Presidents like to be able to call on former presidents for advice from time to time; they are usually 2 or 3 of the only people on the planet with experience doing that job, and they may have insight about specific people or events on the world stage.

But for obvious reasons, Biden is not giving Trump briefings or calling on Trump for advice.

[epsilon given]

"For obvious reasons" indeed.

But I strongly suspect that the first obvious reason that popped into my head is much different than the ones you have in mind.

And considering just how bad things have gotten since Pretendant Biden took office, I can't help but think things may have been at least a little better had Pretendant Biden been willing and/or able to make a phone call or two.

Regardless, I doubt Pretendant Biden's unwillingness to call the former President would automatically mean that said former President wouldn't have automatic security clearance.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, you've gone from biased to delusional.

In fact, Trump had the highest existing security clearance the day he was inaugurated, and kept it to the day Biden was inaugurated.

Then Biden broke another norm by stripping the departing President of his security clearance, (Something Trump did NOT do to Obama.) but he certainly DID have one for four years.

[Nige]

Maybe this is the first time a president had security clearance who couldn't actually pass a background check - like his daughter and son-in-law - therefore the security clearance simply couldn't be retained when he left office.

Maybe the retention of this security clearance is something worked out during the transition period when the outgoing president co-operates with the incoming president to facilitate the smooth transfer of power.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett, I'm not sure about the semantics here, but having just done my annual training, that may not be how clearance is defined. Clearance requires a vetting procedure (and need to know and a couple of other things).

Trump had legal access, but not clearance.

[David Nieporent]

On every given topic, Brett's wrongness is directly proportional to his certainty.

Trump did not have a security clearance. Presidents do not need and do not get security clearances. As president, Trump of course had authorization to access every bit of classified information, but that's not the same thing as having a security clearance, which is a specific thing that follows a legal process. That authorization automatically terminated the moment he left office.

Of course, Biden could have granted him one, just as Trump granted one to all sorts of people in his own administration who couldn't pass the background check. But there was no good reason to do so, and so Biden didn't.

[Brett Bellmore]

"As president, Trump of course had authorization to access every bit of classified information, but that's not the same thing as having a security clearance,"

It is literally, functionally, the exact same thing, and only somebody desperate to say he didn't have a security clearance would deny that.

[David Nieporent]

It's literally nothing like the thing. A security clearance requires a specific set of procedures, including an extensive background investigation, as anyone who has filled out an SF-86 knows. The president participates in and undergoes none of that, and nobody makes a decision as to whether he's entitled to access classified information.

And Biden did not "strip him of" it; he never had it.

[Randal]

You've obviously never had a security clearance, Brett.

[SimonP]

You're a step behind. The statutes cited in the search warrant include one that can be violated by making prohibited copies of national security information. Try reading?

[Bruce Hayden]

Ok, you are saying that the sitting President can’t personally authorize the making of copies of classified documents? Or are you saying that you know that there were copies made of still classified documents after he left office?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

There is no such thing as 'just making a copy of' a classified document. Any copies made keep the exact same classification and storage/handling requirements as the 'original.'

[Toranth]

What SimonP said the crime was "making copies", which is not the case.

You are mostly right, though, that copies of a document containing classified information is also classified at the same level, and has there same handling requirements.
It gets more complicated when you only copy sections of documents, as portion marking is a rule honored more in the breach, but in general if Trump had documents containing information that was still classified, he would have been required to store and handle them in the appropriate manner, after he was no longer President.
That means that if he had an approved SCIF and appropriate containers - like a safe - he would be allowed to keep and store such documents.

[Sarcastr0]

The crime? Simon said that was one of the statutes.

One clue he doesn't have a SCIF is the whole thing with the padlock. But even if he did, plenty of things a SCIF is insufficient storage for.

[Don Nico]

TS documents are supposed to be specified by copy number and have a number of pages specified

[Bob from Ohio]

Funny, I was told here that this would be so illuminating, not just a list of boxes.

As expected, no probable cause affidavit or Attachment C. Not even a redacted one. Transparency!

[SimonP]

Exactly how much transparency are you expecting, considering that this is apparently a criminal investigation into Trump's handling of information pertaining to national defense? We, uh, might not want to blow up that investigation just to satisfy a bunch of internet trolls who'll never stop slobbing Trump's knob anyway, right?

[Bob from Ohio]

I didn't expect anything but this.

Its the leader of the opposition party, the likely 2024 opponent of the current regime figurehead. If they proceed, its the riskiest prosecution in US history. Standard procedure ain't cutting it. Your Trump hatred doesn't acknowledge the risk, but a document dispute will only convince already existing Trump haters.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Keep retreating and bleating, Bob from Ohio.

And wondering why you are still mired in Can't-Keep-Up, Ohio, while better lawyers succeed in the big leagues.

Speaking of big leagues . . . how far must you drive from your depleted backwater to watch a big league baseball game? Two hours?

[SimonP]

What makes this prosecution "risky," exactly?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some of these right-wingers are delusional enough t think their nail guns give them superpowers.

Ricky Shiffer learned, the hard way, that life can be difficult in the clingerverse. Others apparently have yet to be schooled.

[epsilon given]

And all these "elites" are delusional enough to believe they can keep on filling the dam with disdain and it will never burst.

[damikesc]

Payback, Simon, will be unpleasant. Do not think that Biden does not have PLENTY to go after when he leaves office. And he should absolutely never have clearance, given how utterly compromised Joe is.

[David Nieporent]

I think we can be quite certain that [Joe] Biden does not have PLENTY to go after, or Republicans would have already used it, instead of inventing fake scandals like Hunter Biden.

[Randal]

Who cares about Biden? If he's guilty of something, lock him up and throw away the key. You'd be doing Democrats a favor. We're not all slobbering his knob as SimonP so astutely put it, the way you're doing with Trump's. The Democrats are a political party that puts country first. The Republicans are a cult.

Remember not to spit, but swallow that kool-aid when it comes.

[epsilon given]

Oh, that's easy: if it's not pulled off correctly, it could set off a deeply politically polarized country into a Civil War.

That the "elites" of our country can't -- or won't -- see that, would be pretty amazing, if it weren't so scary.

[Bruce Hayden]

How do you know that the documents actually pertained to national security, and not to FBI malfeasance in Crossfire Hurricane? Or, is covering up that malfeasance considered essential for national defense?

Right now, we just don’t know what the documents seized actually contain. We just know that they had classified markings on them - we don’t actually even know if they were still classified.

[David Nieporent]

Wait, you're saying that Trump had documents proving "FBI malfeasance in Crossfire Hurricane," and yet rather than releasing them to disprove the many investigations showing his perfidy, he kept them hidden in Mar-a-Lago for years?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Given the lies the FBI used to spy on candidate Trump and President Trump, we should be able to scrutinize everything.

[Social Justice is neither]

I'm just assuming they are as truthful this time as all other times and this is all a frame job by a thoroughly corrupt and partisan FBI.

[Darth Buckeye]

Andrew Schiff is getting ready to impeach Trump yet again. He may also seek to impeach DeSanto because...why not.

[Mr. Bumble]

That would be Adam Schitt not Andrew.

[Darth Buckeye]

Andrew Schiff is probably thinking of ways to describe this list as damning. Of course, Schiff would describe a receipt from McDonalds as damning.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I suspect this is becoming a huge big nadda bagel. It is not uncommon for the immediate past President to take records that may be included in their library archives eventually and hold on to them. There is usually some contention as to the proper custodian especially between the Library of Congress and the future President's Library, however, it never boils up to something like this.

My best guess, assuming bad actors are at work in DC, which is a fair presumption given the hoax history out of the deep state kind of people, is that Trump took more docs than he was probably entitled to and wanted actual physical possession so they did not "disappear" during the process. Then, the deep state said "give 'em back" which is part of the dance, but this time it boiled up into a hissy fit because the left hates Trump. But what else would you expect from this banana republic administration....

[Eric VonSalzen]

Jimmy, your take on this is the most plausible one I've heard so far at this early stage of the matter.

By the way, why are the Democrats so afraid of Trump? Didn't they beat him in 2020? So aren't they likely to beat him in 2024 when he would be running against a successful incumbent?

[Mr. Bumble]

"By the way, why are the Democrats so afraid of Trump? Didn't they beat him in 2020? So aren't they likely to beat him in 2024 when he would be running against a successful incumbent?"

Is this sarcasm? Why are the Democrats so afraid of Trump? They know they didn't beat him in 2020 and if Biden is any more "successful we'll be speaking Mandarin by 2024.

[Bob from Ohio]

They hate him, that's it.

I think the people around Biden want trump to run in 2024 because they think they can beat him again, while a younger, more aggressive nominee might be harder to beat.

[Nige]

'They hate him, that's it.'

It's what you wanted. All of you were quite explicit about that.

[Sarcastr0]

The FBI.
The commenters here.
A lot of the GOP.
Hollywood.
The media.

All are driven by hatred of Trump, that explains how the many, many times Trump looks like an authoritarian idiot is all fake, man!

I take some solace you've said lying is a virtue, if it helps your side win the war of politics. It means you may not be this unthinking.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You mistake your betters' disdain and imposition of adult supervision for fear, Eric VonSalzen.

We have learned from a half-century of the culture war that right-wingers are nothing but ankle-nipping, all-bark losers.

[epsilon given]

And we know from just 18 months of Biden's Pretendancy that Democrats don't have any adults in their Party, and that when left-wingers get into power, everything, both domestic and foreign, go to pot.

Why didn't Putin invade Ukraine while Trump was in power, but did when Biden was? Oh, yeah, I remember now: the video when Biden said "We wouldn't do anything if Russia made minor incursions into Ukraine" -- after shutting down US energy, and after approving Russia's gas pipeline to Europe.

[Randal]

The Democrats aren't afraid of Trump. They want nothing more than for him to run. Biden even said that. They really want him to announce before the midterms, which would probably save the Senate.

Maybe you should factor that into your conspiracy theory.

[Nige]

Your best guess is a bunch of stuff you completely made up.

[Sarcastr0]

Why aren't you in Russia, the home of the free, yet?

[Jimmy the Dane]

I actually called it home of actual "law and order" unlike our banana republic, but, nice try....

[Noscitur a sociis]

You also called it "the shining example of a first world governed country", you sniveling shitstain.

[David Nieporent]

It is not uncommon for the immediate past President to take records that may be included in their library archives eventually and hold on to them. There is usually some contention as to the proper custodian especially between the Library of Congress and the future President's Library, however, it never boils up to something like this.

Every word of this is bullshit designed to fool people who don't know anything about the issues. The "Library of Congress" is not a custodian of presidential records; the National Archives are. And there's no "contention" between the National Archives and a presidential library because the National Archives operate the presidential libraries.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You obviously know nothing. But, hey, you at least sound convincing here!

[Brett Bellmore]

You seem to think that just flat out denying things that are public record is some kind of clever tactic; That you can't lose an argument until you admit you've lost it.

It just makes you look stupid.

[Mr. Bumble]

So, the question becomes what's next? Impeachment 3.0? Better get it done soon. Grand Jury inquiry? Special Counsel?

[Jimmy the Dane]

This is Trump. Why settle for one when the left is going to engineer all three?

[Nige]

He's like Jesus On The Cross, Impeached For Your Sins. And then he fell the third time, well not fell, bent over to put in a tee, but I could see his suffering because oh lordy He's in bad shape, and the Feds with their whips and warrants ordered him to rise and take up his club and walk but he threw it at a caddy and flopped in a golf cart.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

They aren't going to roll the dice again like they did with Meuller.

The Federals will assassinate him and pin it on some doped up loser like they do all those mass shootings.

[wreckinball]

Well they stage kidnappings although they seem pretty bad at it

[Davedave]

You people really don't get it. They're gathering the necessary evidence for the treason trial. Trump committed treason for money. He's going to be executed.

We are getting pretty close now, hence Trump's increasingly desperate flailing about.

[Life of Brian]

Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;

Ah, the "infectious classification" theory.

Joking aside, given this instruction the 12/15/however many banker's boxes of docs they seized could have been triggered by a single document with a classification marking.

[Sarcastr0]

Coulda been!

[epsilon given]

And what guiding principle was there in the warrant to prevent that from happening?

And with this FBI, "coulda been" is just as good as "it could very well have been". The FBI does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, basically they could walk off with the entire contents of the room based on one covered document, given that instruction.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett sees a warrant for the first time and is horrified.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I was involved in a case in which the receipt provided to an adversary at the end of a search identified the property removed as "contents of office."

One of the prosecutors (a civil case became a criminal case) told me 'if his dog had been there, we would have taken the dog.'

That guy -- the office's occupant, an elected official -- went to prison for a while.

[Goju]

Anyone else remember all the boxes of "evidence" seized from Richard Jewell? The FBI already knew he wasn't the bomber but destroyed a man land his reputation because the real bomber was eluding them.

All of you are assuming the FBI didn't manufacture the evidence. Probably got lessons doing that from Harris.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where was former Pres. Obama born, Goju?

Who won the 2020 presidential election?

[epsilon given]

Before you get answers to these questions, I have a few of my own:

Why would someone who's not cheating throw out poll watchers? Why would several States stop counting their votes at the same time, only to open up several hours later with a change who's in the lead in those States?

And finally, if these things are all nonsense, why does Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube put so much effort in censoring people attempting to talk about these things -- after Time published a nice article talking about the roles of these organizations in "fortifying the election"?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Is there a single accounting anywhere of all the elections the FBI has directly tried to meddle in?

Off the top of my head I know of 2016, Ted Stevens, Whitmer, and Nixon. And PA ongoing with 2022 midterms & 2024 presidential ongoing.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Oh and that MI primary they just interfered with.

[apedad]

When you gonna start shooting people?

Do us a favor and as you lie dying, scrawl in your blood, “BCD,” so we know it’s you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Have you ever met a Federal's boot that you didn't like the taste of?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

We are the boot, BravoCharlieDelta. Life is good on the winning side.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Reverend no matter the Federals and their sycophants do to GEOTUS, you will never be granted access to bugger little children. Unless you go to a Pride Parade in some blue hellhole. Then children are as plentiful as the hashtsg PridePox

[Sarcastr0]

Drunk-like posting detected.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which is worse -- these pathetic, bigoted, delusional commenters, or the law professors who cultivate them as an audience?

[MoreCurious]

Which raises a question: When can we expect Professor Blackman to enlighten us on the intricacies of search-and-seizure law, document classification, executive powers, and espionage?

[David Nieporent]

Presumably after Seth Barrett Tillman decides to write about those things.

[SRG]

AFAICT:

There weren't any classified documents.
And if there were, Trump had declassified them.
And if he hadn't, when he was president he was allowed to keep them so he still can
And if he wasn't allowed to keep them, her emailz!!

[David Nieporent]

And they were planted.

[California Dreamer]

And he actually won the 2020 election, so he's still President and has every right to keep them.

[NOVA Lawyer]

This is ultimately where the defense has to end up. The Cult's legal team needs you ASAP.

[apedad]

Lock him up then execute the fuckers who attack United States personnel.

Losers gotta lose.

[Michael P]

Not holding my breath for apedad to demand summary executions of Portland Antifa fuckers. Because consistency would be too much to expect.

[Sarcastr0]

Antifa fucker? I hardy know 'er!

[Toranth]

But you defend them all the time, even when they block the exits to a Federal courthouse and set it on fire.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, I love arson. You really remember my comments perfectly.

You gotta love arson to be a supersoldier in the Antifa army.

Or, maybe, I was comparing a crap failed attempt to burn down a courthouse and which resulted in charges to Jan 06, and finding the attempt to halt our peaceful transfer of power to be worse, and also deserving of charges.

[Toranth]

Considering you were defending the arson attempts in summer of 2020 you must have had some amazing experiences with your time machine.

Or you're just as full of shit as normal.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're gonna need a quote for that, because I don't remember Sarcastro doing anything but defending peaceful protests and condemning looting, violence, and arson.

[wreckinball]

It's waste of time. Also see Sarcastro.

[Estragon]

“Well I thought I had a way through bulletproof glass, and I didn’t.”

Jimmy! This was one of your tourists.

[Sarcastr0]

Statement from Trump Office: As we can all relate to, everyone ends up having to bring home their work from time to time… He had a standing order that documents removed from the Oval Office taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified..

Lots of ways to solve this without a secret policy that destroys the entire classification system.

[Iridium]

While not the best policy from a security perspective, it is a brilliant one from a criminal liability perspective. It basically makes it impossible for him to be guilty of any classified material mishandling crimes.

Which is why, now that I have bothered to look up the statutes in question, I now realize this has nothing to do with classified information. The applicable law subsection appears to be:

18 USC 793
(d)Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it

So, this is going to get fun. Because whether material is cleared or not is relatively cut and dry. But this? Let's relish the delightful ambiguity of the phrase "possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States". Or the absolutely beautiful legal salami slicing that is using the National Archives to trigger the "on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;" clause. That is an absolutely beautiful legal conclusion of the sort I'd expect from an administration that called mask mandates a sanitization regulation and unvaccinated workers a workplace hazard.

So, of course the lawyers are going to fight it out, because legal ambiguity is like lawyer catnip. The FBI's going in position was likely: all formerly classified information is obviously stuff that Trump has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States, because, that is basically the definition of classified information. And Trump's lawyers initial position is going to be: everyone knows that too much stuff is classified and the information is two years out of date, so *you* explain why the data could be used for injury. And after a whole bunch of annoying back and forth, eventually 90% of the stuff everyone agrees what is okay to keep and what should go.

But there is a hitch: the classified records tracking system shows a bunch of documents that Trump claims he doesn't have are missing. And because Trump is a monster who works for Putin, leads insurrections, sends mean tweets, etc. the most natural conclusion is that he is concealing those records!!! Not to mention, that is the obstruction of justice statute, and I'll bet the DOJ would love to have another go at it, after Barr didn't let them prosecute Trump for it last time.

So suddenly it becomes super important to execute a search warrant for all of those concealed documents. And since he is concealing the documents, no point in less intrusive means, such as a subpeona. And, as a happy side effect, you don't have to argue about the last 10% of documents anymore, because you'll just tell the agents to take them and tell Trump's lawyers to pound sand. And those 10% documents also save you from the possible embarrassment of your warrant coming up empty handed.

[Davedave]

Why not try dealing with the facts? Trump ignored the sub poena.

As for the statute:

"which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation"

That is not a high bar to get over. 'Reason to believe' is met by credible government bodies saying 'you should consider this'. Which has happened in this case. On top of that it is absolutely unarguable that anything actually classified fits the bill.

"willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it"

'Entitled to receive it' does not rely on the preceding clause. It means anyone in the government entitled to request the documents.

So, there is an open and shut case here. That Trump has reason to believe these documents may be a matter of national security - note, may be, not are - is absolutely unquestionable at this point. He may not place much weight on those reasons, but he can't deny he is aware of them.

Equally it is unarguable that he is committing a crime by refusing to hand over these documents on request.

The simple reality is this is another correctly executed step in the process that ends with a conviction for treason. Yet another minor crime by Trump which ties into a framework that constitutes treason in the eyes of the law. He's not just going to jail, he's going to death row.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You were doing reasonably well until you go to: "ends with a conviction for treason." Yeah, probably not, unless that security footage they subpoenaed and were given shows Trump making a deal with the Saudis for nuclear secrets. Don't be as untethered from reality as the cultists.

He's not just going to jail, he's going to death row.

lol. No.

But thanks for reminding that there are anti-Trump cranks too.

[Davedave]

Levying war against the United States is treason even if you do so incredibly ineffectually. We're seeing increasing amounts of incontrovertible evidence that there was a conspiracy to commit treason which was centred on Trump himself. What's worse, the conspiracy appears to be ongoing.

If you seriously think this ends any way except with Trump dead - either suicide, natural causes, or execution - then you're having your judgement skewed by the sheer volume of desperate nonsense coming from the Trump cultists. Repeatedly hearing complete nonsense does eventually wear away one's skepticism to at least some extent, but the reality is that Trump committed treason in public.

[Sarcastr0]

First, guilt is harder to establish than you think.

Second, lots of people get away with stuff on accounta being rich.

Third, everybody dies so I suppose you are technically correct as to how it ends.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The walls are closing in!

IT'S MEULLER TIME!

[Iridium]

> Why not try dealing with the facts? Trump ignored the sub poena

Didn't he hand over 15 boxes of stuff in response to the subpeona?

[SRG]

Why not hand over all the other boxes?

[epsilon given]

Because at the time he sincerely believed he had rights to those boxes, maybe?

How many documents have other politicians withheld, until lawyers battled out what should and should not be passed over?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Wtf I hate government operating in secret now

[Sarcastr0]

Lets make nuclear secrets FOIAble!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You actually believe they were hunting for nuclear secrets?

[Nige]

They weren't 'hunting' for anything. They new exactly what was there. As far as I'm aware there's been no official confirmation of the nuclear secrets, but Trump's flailing lies about Obama and his accusations about the Feds planting nuclear stuff all suggest that yes, there probably were.

If it's true and he does not get prosecuted, that will confirm he is, in fact, above the law. That might make you guys happy, but I think it'll piss every other person in the country off mightily.

[wreckinball]

So you're all in "nuclear secrets". From teh same bunch who have actually always been wrong

[Nige]

All in? Nah. But he definitely stole a bunch of documents related to national security and didn't want to give them back.

[Mr. Bumble]

So you've seen attachment C?

[Nige]

Not yet. You've seen Obama's three million papers? You watched the Feds plant incriminating stuff round Mar A Lago? You overheard Biden telling Garland to go get that Trump m'fker?

Difference is, nobody's saying those boxes of documents weren't there, or that they weren't related to national security, or that Trump wasn't trying to hang on to them, while all that other stuff is made up.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Not yet."

That was responsive. The rest is bullshit about thinks I never said but you feel you must continue to regurgitate.

[Nige]

I'm glad you agree the rest is bullshit, because it really, really is.

[wreckinball]

You'll believe anything. Nuclear! is the new Russia! Dumbasses fall for it every time

[Sarcastr0]

Oh, I'm not saying there were nuclear secrets, I'm saying that's what this purported policy allows.

[David Nieporent]

True. Believe it or not, there are still (!) people who don't know that Russia worked to assist Trump's election in 2016, that Trump knew of, and welcomed, this assistance, and then lied about it.

[wreckinball]

They had a special prosecutor and an army of lawyers who spent $30+ million and concluded otherwise.

[David Nieporent]

Nope. You didn't read the Mueller report, apparently getting all of your info about it from Bill Barr's press release and Trump's tweets. You also apparently didn't read the bipartisan SSCI report.

What Mueller found was that there was insufficient evidence to establish an affirmative agreement between Trump and Russia. That is, there was no proof of, "If you do this for me, I will do this for you."

[epsilon given]

So you're saying "Because Mueller couldn't find proof for or against, it had to be true!"

[Randal]

Sorry, wrecked balls, but the report concluded all of the above.

Cults are bad, m'kay?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Sarcasto,

I had to check that wasn't a joke. This shit is hilarious. The flailings of an ignoramus are pretty amusing, if not for the fact that our fellow citizens made this jackass the most powerful man in the world for four years.

It's worth revisiting that brief moment in time when Ted Cruz's ambitious aligned with telling the truth:

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278514-cruz-trump-is-an-utterly-amoral-bully-narcissist-and/

But then he realized his only path to the White House laid through Trump sycophancy, so he kneeled to kiss the ring of the man who had savaged his wife and slandered his father. It's all the more sad he became Trump apologist, because he proved that he very clearly saw what Trump was and the menace he posed to the nation. The only good thing, I think that whole episode did tank his chances of every being the Republican nominee.

[Harvey Mosley]

Your comments on Cruz are showing your partisanship. Remember the confrontations between Biden and Harris during the debates? Remember Obama's comments about Hillary when they were both seeking the Democratic nomination? It may be shameful and dishonest but it is politics. Both sides have done it. Both sides do it. Neither side is going to stop doing it.

[Sarcastr0]

Political disagreements are not the same as the personal attacks Trump made.

You should be able to tell the difference between the personal and the political.

[epsilon given]

Yeah, like the time Harris called Biden a straight-up racist for his policies? That wasn't personal?

[NOVA Lawyer]

My comment on Cruz was he identified the several serious character defects that Trump has and warned what a danger he was to the Republic, when it was in his interest to speak the truth. Then he went back kowtowing to the most ignorant portion of what he hoped would one day be his base.

But, yeah, the personal attacks made by Trump were beneath a dog catcher, much less an aspirant to the highest office in the land. No one else on either the Republican or Democratic side engaged in that low class nonsense. And the conspiracy theories he told about Cruz's father demonstrated how little he cares for truth or integrity. Again, the sort of fantasy no one else told about family members of their rivals.

All of this would be concerning to a voter with even a modicum of integrity and genuine interest in the well-being of the nation. Cultists gonna cult, though.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who had the power to declassify items and what process is required?

[NOVA Lawyer]

The President. The process requires more than him tweeting after he left office that he decided to classify them when he was in office. If he actually declassified them, there is a paper trail.

Just recall, he tweeted that he was declassifying the entire Crossfire Hurricane file. Only his people immediately began assuring everybody that the tweet didn't declassify anything. He later signed an order declassifying a portion of the Crossfire Hurricane documents. You can see the declassification order. That's pretty much how its done. (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-declassification-certain-materials-related-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/)

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Who defines the process by which material can be classified by the President?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

declassified*

[NOVA Lawyer]

There is no real or possible United States of America in which declassification doesn't have to be documented.

I mean, I guess it's an interesting Supreme Court case for Trump to assert that documents are declassified whenever he secretly thinks, but tells no one, that he wants them declassified. But mainly to see what gymnastics Alito will go through to agree with him. You won't get five votes, because the proposition is stupid.

[wreckinball]

So what?

[NOVA Lawyer]

wreckinball,

Ask BCD, he wanted to know, so I told him. The answer to all of this bluster about he thought them declassified so he could take them wherever he wanted is this:

If he actually declassified them, there is a paper trail.

But, yeah, whether Trump declassified the documents or didn't is only marginally relevant.

[Nige]

This is playing catch-up - none of the crimes on the warrants relate to the documents being classified.

Holy shit he really was trying to steal a load of secret documents.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I will join the speculating. Pursuant to this search:

1. Trump will be convicted of something; I do not speculate about how serious, or not.

2. On appeal, if the Supreme Court majority can think of any crime more serious which Trump did not commit, it will overturn his conviction. It will do so on the basis of some kind of minimization, plus asserted ambiguity in the circumstances, plus no precedent. Nothing the Justice Department can prove will be sufficient to get the Court to treat Trump like it would treat any other defendant tried on the same charges and facts.

[ah....Clem]

It is very difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.

It's entirely plausible that the FBI/DOJ simply became fed up with the delay in the negotiations to return the materials, said "Fuck it, let's just go take it." and that will be the end of it.

Maybe the warrant application will be unsealed and maybe it will be sufficiently unredacted to draw further conclusions. More likely, we won't hear more from the DOJ until an indictment is announced, which may be never.

Meanwhile, it is amusing to watch the impressive mental gymnastics of the Trump supporters twisting themselves into logical hyper-pretzels to breathlessly assert that Trump did noting wrong or illegal, the "real killers" are the FBI, and that this will be very very bad for Biden and the Democrats.

[wreckinball]

Yea the FBI/DOJ.

Falsifying a FISA warrant
Starting a fake investigation using the Steele dossier even after they knew it was fake
Staging a kidnapping of a governor
Hunting down trespassers while letting Burners Lotters and Murders to run free

Just get rid of the FBI. It was formed in 1908. It's obviously not essential

[NOVA Lawyer]

Falsifying a FISA warrant

And the person who did was convicted of a crime.

Starting a fake investigation using the Steele dossier even after they knew it was fake

The investigation was real, notwithstanding it's popular to just label things you don't like fake. Moreover, it wasn't started by the Steele dossier, it was started when an agent of a friendly foreign government reported, after Russia released info damaging to Hillary's campaign, that Papadopoulos had bragged that the Russians had offered to help by releasing info damaging to Hillary's campaign. Those are two pretty easy to connect dots for reasonable suspicion to investigate a possible intrusion of Russia into one of the major party campaigns.

Staging a kidnapping of a governor

Nothing was staged. Two men were acquitted based on their defense that they were entrapped. But, as I'm sure you know, two others pleaded guilty and still others are on trial right now.

Hunting down trespassers while letting Burners Lotters and Murders to run free

This stupid point gets repeated often, but doesn't get any less false each time the lie is told. Setting aside that the January 6 rioters were not only "trespassers", lots of people were arrested, charged, and convicted for crimes of arson, looting, and violence during the racial justice protests. By now, you know that which suggests you intend to spread a falsehood.

Just get rid of the FBI. It was formed in 1908. It's obviously not essential.

A stupid reason if ever there was one. Things formed in or after 1900:

The U.S. Air Force
The Central Intelligence Agency
The internet
NATO
The Federalist Society
The FDA
The INS

Obviously, none of these are essential, right?

[wreckinball]

Ha ha so only two guys were entrapped. The others weren't. Spin spin spin. And no way no how does the FBI by indefinite imprisonment, solitary etc. try to force a plea. NO WAY that happens.

Yeas sure the FBI went after BLM with the same fervor as J6. Lay off the drugs man. Our present VP was fund raising for bail.

Yea we don't need a SS oops I mean FBI. Doesn't mean nothing good happened after 1900. You're not too good at logic are you?

[David Nieporent]

Beyond the fact of an initial arrest, the FBI does not do imprisonment, let alone "indefinite" imprisonment. The FBI does not do "solitary" either. You're confused about which actors play what role in our criminal justice system.

Yeas sure the FBI went after BLM with the same fervor as J6.

"BLM" isn't a crime. The crimes that were committed, the FBI — answering, for the first 8 months of the 2020 protests, to Donald Trump — did in fact go after fervidly. And every time another story about someone being convicted for crimes committed during protests is published, you guys just ignore it.

Our present VP was fund raising for bail.

You're just flailing around wildly. Setting aside the inaccurate description of events, "our present VP" is not the FBI, and of course bail is for people who haven't been convicted of anything.

[wreckinball]

First lets start with just a crime

[Mr. Bumble]

For what it's worth Techno Fog's take on this clusterfuck:

https://technofog.substack.com/p/here-is-the-trump-search-warrant

Note that the DOJ response to requests to unseal the entire warrant with attachments is due on Monday Aug. 15

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Apparently the same FBI group that’s under criminal investigation for illegally spying on candidate and then President Trump where the same ones involved in this raid.

These people are domestic terrorirsts

[David Nieporent]

There is no "FBI group" (whatever that phrase means) under any investigation for illegally spying on candidate (let alone president!) Trump.

[wreckinball]

Yea lets see the affidavit.

And when is Obama getting raided?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/08/11/when-will-the-fbi-raid-obamas-home-over-his-missing-records-n2611588

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There is a hierarchy of power and Obama is at the upper levels, whereas Trump is just barely above the Federal Bootlickers and sycophants.

Appeals to hypocrisy gain no traction because the bootlicking audience welcomes and craves a hierarchy of elites.

[Nige]

There's a hierarchy of fuck-ups, and Trump's at the top.

[epsilon given]

After what happened with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, how the heck can you say that President Trump would be at the top of that?!?!?!

[David Nieporent]

When will the rich white man ever get a fair shake in America?

[wreckinball]

It cracks me up when folks somehow think Trump is "flailing" when he points out Obama did the exact same thing he did.

Thats called unequal politicized justice. Many of the faux libertarians on here are Ok with it,

The list of such inequalities is pretty long

[Nige]

He did not point out Obama did the exact same thing, he told a massive and obvious lie that would embarrass any supporter of the political faction he leads that had an ounce of self-resepect, but it's accepted as normal behaviour from him, and normal for his supporters to repeat it.

Trump stole a bunch of documents and wouldn't give them back. There's every possibility he won't even be prosecuted for it, if we're talking about inequalities.

[wreckinball]

So did Obama. You have a hard time with reality don't you

[Nige]

Except he didn't, though I'm sure this'll join the Hunter videos and the election fraud evidence as things that are supposedly true but never proven to be wheeled out every time Trump fucks up. Which is a lot.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There are videos of Hunter smoking crack and banging kids all over the internet just as there are videos of Democrats stealing the 2020 election all over the internet.

[Nige]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, so you keep saying, but look at you repeating Trump's latest lies, too, you're just a clearing house for lies.

[Mr. Bumble]

Are you Queen almathea's evil spawn or alter ego?

[Nige]

No, I just know the difference between things that are real and the things you guys claim are real.

[Voize of Reazon]

Also all over the internet is lots of evidence that the earth is flat.
All you need to recognize to know NASA is a hoax is that Neil Armstrong spelled backwards is "Gnorts, Mr. Alien".

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you actually arguing the videos of Hunter smoking crack and all the memes are like the flat earthers?

[Nige]

'the memes'

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Even Elon Musk has been dunking on him.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1547238325907513346?

[Nige]

Oh no, not Elon Musk.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Kinda weird how Elon Musk is talking about something that doesn't exist and that I only made up.

Am I Elon Musk?

[David Nieporent]

Kinda weird how Elon Musk is talking about something that doesn't exist and that I only made up.

Dude, nobody thinks you're smart enough to make it up. The whole point is that you're dumb enough to believe things other people made up.

[David Nieporent]

There are videos of Hunter smoking crack and banging kids all over the internet just as there are videos of Democrats stealing the 2020 election all over the internet.

I mean, this is a true statement, though not for the reasons BCD pretends.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Every time you comment, it's nothing but bullshit and lies.

Your parents would be ashamed of how you turned out.

[Sarcastr0]

You just ipse dixit bullshit all day. I suppose it makes posting easy, but it's not very good for the mind.

[SRG]

What's the actual evidence that Obama retained all these documents as alleged by Trump?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

There could be a video of Obama holding TS documents and handing them to China and none of you would believe it.

See Hunter Biden and Election 2020

[NOVA Lawyer]

So your response to a request for proof, or at least a non-fantastical allegation, is that you don't believe any proof will do.

How about just start with a plausible allegation with some basis in fact?

While you're at it, admit Trump's allegation was absolute horseshit immediately disproven by the NARA.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are there videos of Hunter Biden smoking crack, that the authorities know about and yet are doing nothing?

[Nige]

Have you tried more memes? They can be submitted as evidence in Internet Court.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www dot bit chute dot com/video/9dAXl7QNbPor/

P.S. It's Hunter smoking crack

[Nige]

It doesn't count if it's not in meme form.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The FBI has seen those videos, since they've been sitting on the laptop for 800 days and have even threatened the repair man.

Why do you think he hasn't been raided by the FBI?

[Nige]

Because the only thing on the laptop confirmed as belonging to Hunter Biden are some e-mails.

[David Nieporent]

Let's pretend — just for the sake of argument — that there were non-fabricated "videos of Hunter Biden smoking crack." What would one expect "the authorities" to "do" about them?

Let's set aside that unless they knew where such videos were made, how would "the authorities" know whether they had jurisdiction? Let's set aside that unless they knew when such videos were made, how would they know whether the statute of limitations had run? That still leaves the minor problem that one cannot perform a chemical analysis of a substance seen in a video, and thus one cannot prove that it's "crack" in the first place.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's acknowledge, since we don't have to pretend, that Hunter violated gun laws, and could easily be criminally prosecuted for that.

As he was kicked out of West Point for his drug use, Hunter is under federal law prohibited from ever owning a firearm. Yet he did so anyway, lying on a form 4473, a criminal act which is easily proven, and could put him away for a decade or more.

If he weren't the sort of important person laws don't get enforced against.

[Voize of Reazon]

As he was kicked out of West Point for his drug use, Hunter is under federal law prohibited from ever owning a firearm.

That would be the case if he had been dishonorably discharged, but not for the administrative discharge he did receive.

The most likely offense with his 4473 would be if he answered no to question 11(e) "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" According to his memoirs published last year he might well have been an active user in October 2018 when he filled out the form, though it would still need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If he did lie, I agree he should be treated no better or worse than anyone else, but "everyone else" is almost never prosecuted for this offense. According to this GAO report in 2017 there were 8.6 million federal NICS transactions of which 112,090 were denied. Of those 12,710 were referred for further investigation, and of those only 50 were considered for prosecution.

[David Nieporent]

I was going to respond in detail, but thankfully I scrolled down first, so I see that Voize of Reazon beat me to it. As always, you don't know enough to know what you don't know.

[David Nieporent]

Also, you can't even get minor facts right; Hunter Biden was not "kicked out of West Point." Hunter Biden was never at West Point.

Also, of course, is that this incident occurred while Donald Trump was president. (I know, I know, rather than proving that there wasn't sufficient evidence or reason to prosecute Hunter Biden, you think this proves that the Deep State subverted Donald Trump's wishes.)

[SRG]

So you have no evidence, only the claim that if there were evidence, we wouldn't believe it. Meanwhile, you evidently believe Trump's claim with no supporting evidence at all.

Why? What is the basis for your belief?

[Randal]

There probably is a video of Obama holding TS documents and handing them to China. And no, I wouldn't believe it.

At a wedding reception, a new groom played an X-rated video of his bride in bed with another man—her pregnant sister's husband.

All the videos on the internet are totally true you know!

[John F. Carr]

I read a book including an account of a visit to a classified facility by somebody without a clearance. He found some rubber stamps and made for himself a blank sheet of paper marked CLASSIFIED. The guards searching him at the exit were not amused. They were trained to look at the marks, not think about whether a blank sheet of paper could be classified or ask if somebody with classification authority had declassified the paper and forgot to apply the appropriate marks.

I think it was Clifford Stoll's _The Cuckoo's Egg_.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The only stupid person in this story is the guy who used the stamps. The guards shouldn't be making decisions about what's classified, they did their job.

An apparently blank piece of paper isn't necessarily a blank piece of paper, for example.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That final point is an excellent point.

[John F. Carr]

For those who like talking about banana republics, I enjoyed this game in college: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junta_(game)

[Jimmy the Dane]

The fact that most media outlets dropped this as a lead item shortly after the release. Now we are reading "hey look a celebrity is about to die!!!!"

As I said a whole big nadda bagel is here. Just some intra-DC pissing about who should have physical control over some boxes of papers. One that got turned into a hissy fit by an AG that is bitter he did not get a seat on the Supreme Court (thank the grand creator above for that one).

[NOVA Lawyer]

The only one who turned it into a hissy fit is Trump.

The grown ups went in quietly, and without fanfare, to retrieve what belonged to the U.S. government (at least allegedly). Trump started tweeting that that was the end of the Republic. His sycophants jumped on board without even considering whether Trump might have instigated this whole thing by a series of missteps and miscalculations, including thinking he could just ignore subpoenas and damn well keep what he wanted because no one would dare force him to give back what he had rightly stolen, allegedly.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The kool-aid must be especially strong today....

[NOVA Lawyer]

He's the only one that told the world about the peaceful, orderly search of Mar-A-Lago. No statement from tfg, no circus. But we all know he loves a circus.

We likely wouldn't know he had top secret documents stored in his basement but for the circus he intentionally created around this otherwise mundane search. This is on him.

[Nige]

Trump saw this as a perfect opportunity to fire up his base. He never considered the possibilty of blowback.

[NOVA Lawyer]

As usual. And tfg continues to count on his base and fellow GOP "leaders" falling in line. They will, until they don't. It's gross how people like Cruz, Graham are willing to ride the cult to power if they can. Never forget these people sold their souls for power. When faced with a threat to the country, which they knew was a threat to the country (see Cruz's and Graham's prior statements, at least), they turned tail in a pathetic effort to preserve their own political ambitions.

DeSantis and Hawley are different animals. They are cut of the same cloth as tfg. They represent nearly the same danger, only without the childish impulsiveness. But they have all the narcissism, amorality, and naked lust for power.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Are you sure? By now it may be that Trump has tumbled to an insight that any blowback he can provoke can be monetized: "If I steal these classified documents, I can fund-raise a fortune from people convinced I need their help to hang onto them."

What Trump probably is not ready for would be some kind of blowback like getting treated the way anyone else would get treated. My sense of the usual news reports about finding someone who stole dangerous-to-national security documents is that those guy get taken into custody, and when they try to make bail the government argues against it.

[Nige]

He's raised the whole thing to such a dominatingly high profile, and now he's the guy who stole classifed/sensitive documents and wouldn't give them back and his supporters threatened civil war over it.

[epsilon given]

No, you are wrong. There are a lot of people angered over this, and were angered even before President Trump opened his mouth. This has been compared to Caesar crossing the Rubicon.

And not just Republicans, either. Many Independents, and some Democrats, saw what a big deal this was.

That you do not see how big a deal this is, shows that you are dangerously ignorant of the current political climate.

[MoreCurious]

More bad news for Trump and his ass-kissing defenders on this blog and elsewhere. The NYT is reporting: "At least one lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump signed a written statement in June asserting that all material marked as classified and held in boxes in a storage area at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and club had been returned to the government." Can't wait to hear them try to explain this away.

[Bill Falcon]

NYT? Surely your joking. The NYT hasn't reported facts since the Holodomor.

Boshie rag...always was, always will be. And full of bigots...Italian Americans have long memories of how the Times celebrated the largest lynching in US history in New Orleans. The Times owners can hate Italians or Irish or Romanians (old world grudges) and print lies...we remember...we always remember

[MoreCurious]

I hope you like surprises, because all the truth that is coming out about your hero is going to result in his indictment and conviction. Be sure to get back to us then and tell us how you feel. Have you contributed to his defense fund yet?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

One thing we know for sure, if the trial is in DC, he will be found guilty no matter what the evidence says.

No non-Federal can win a case in DC against the Democrat Judge, Democrat Jury and Democrat prosecutor. The facts or truth won't matter.

[epsilon given]

That may be true, but unless the truth is coming from some other source besides the New York Times or the Washington Post or ... ok, I'll stop there, for now, because there are a lot of institutions that have a lot of trust-building they need to do ... in any case, these organizations have indeed destroyed their reputation for passing on the truth.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Surely your joking. "

Just as surely, you're an illiterate, worthless bigot, Bill Falcon.

I will celebrate your replacement.

The Volokh Conspiracy considers you its target audience, though. Deans at legitimate law schools should consider that point -- the bigotry, the belligerent ignorance, the lathering of delusional rubes -- when considering whether to hire movement conservatives.

Carry on, clingers . . . but only so far as your betters permit.

[epsilon given]

You clearly yearn for the days when you and your fellow Democrats can re-establish that Great Institution your forbears fought so hard to preserve, both by oration and by force, only to fail so miserably!

Fortunately, there's still a few of us out there, trying to make sure you fail to do that this time, in this culture war.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Italian Americans have long memories of how the Times celebrated the largest lynching in US history in New Orleans.

About what percentage of Italian Americans, in your estimation, are even aware of the incident, much less the Times's coverage of it?

[Brett Bellmore]

Plenty of possible explanations. The simplest would be that Trump's people and the FBI disagree about what documents are classified, perhaps due to some faceless minions refusing to record declassifications that Trump ordered.

[Nige]

No, the simplest explanation is that Trump was lying and got a faceless legal minion to fuck up their career to protect him.

[epsilon given]

There's always an explanation that is simple, beautiful, and wrong.

But, for what it's worth, I would say that the simplest explanation is that the political machine is still angry that the Annointed Hillary Clinton was overthrown by a crazy, deplorable upstart, and the Washington Establishment has been looking for every little way they could make that upstart's life miserable ever since.

[Jimmy the Dane]

You realize there are different levels of "classified" material, right? And it sounds like Trump (or another authorized designee) ordered the vast majority of those materials to be declassified. That would make these documents little more than public records. So the FBI essentially stole public records from an American citizen. That ought to be the outrage here.

[Nige]

Sounds more like Trump stole them. No, wait, sounds EXACTLY like Trump stole them.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

If you're a politician there's one telltale sign that you're a threat to the elites:

The FBI will raid you just before an election.

See Ted Stevens, President Trump, Ryan Kelly etc.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Not raided by the FBI
Murderer Alec Baldwin

[NOVA Lawyer]

Trump isn't a threat to elites. He's a threat to the nation.

[epsilon given]

No, it's the Establishment Elites that continue to ignore the plight of the "deplorables" that is the threat to this nation. Trump was merely the flipped finger to these Elites.

[David Nieporent]

In what way, exactly, do you think that an 86-year old who had been a member of the Senate for over 40 years was a "threat to the elites," rather than one of the elites?

[bernard11]

What if the espionage business relates not to Trump but to one of his cronies?

Suppose someone - Roger Stone? - told some government he could get a look at some classified documents at Mar-a-Lago?

Just conjecture.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Just one of the problems with a private citizen storing sensitive government documents in his basement with all the security of a padlock.

i mean, Jared did a solid for MBS to get his $2 billion deal, but does anybody think Jared's done everything MBS wants for his investment?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I wonder whether some of the information that has precipitated the recent developments might have been obtained from a mobile telephone -- John Eastman's, Mick Mulvaney's, or that of someone similar.

If that type of signal intelligence from Trump's "friendlies" has fueled the investigation -- after the strenuous efforts to deprive investigators of that type of evidence -- that would be magnificent.

Let's hope the content of Scott Perry's telephone are illuminative.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Let's do hope. It's going to be interesting where this goes.

[epsilon given]

If you kill someone solely based on conjecture because they might have a gun and they could use it against you, you are still going to prison.

Just conjecture isn't sufficient reason to get a warrant, either.

[Bill Falcon]

First I can't believe Trump who is lazy and has zero attention to detail reviewed and gave orders to take these files. Second, are there same issues with other Presidents and if so, how was it handled? And third, the Stasi didn't raid Clinton's house did they?

I'll have to see the files and see how they are any different than any other former President...and if so did Trump personally take them or direct someone to take them. I doubt he even knew what was shipped from the WH when he left..details are not his thing.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You'll have better credibility if you don't compare the FBI to the East German secret police.

It's been explained why Hillary's home was not raided. When the FBI asked for stuff, she turned it over. She also voluntarily answered investigator's questions without pleading the Fifth 400 times. In fact, she didn't plead the Fifth once.

The "Hillary wasn't raided" example does exactly the opposite of what you apparently think it does.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The FBI has earned its reputation.

When the FBI asked for stuff, she turned it over.

wtf are you for real? she destroyed evidence under subpoena, and then when the FBI asked her about ( not under oath), she said they weren't relevant and the FBI was like "ok that makes sense! sorry to bother you!"

[David Nieporent]

she destroyed evidence under subpoena

The question is, are you lying, or stupid? This didn't happen. There's no evidence she deleted a single subpoenaed document.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, right, she delegated, and that makes it all OK.

[Sarcastr0]

Also not what happened.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

What happened then?

[Brett Bellmore]

Somebody working for her deleted them, as they had been directed to by her.

[NOVA Lawyer]

It's nice you post a link proving Sarcastro is right.

However, the implication — that Clinton deleted emails relevant to the subpoena in order to avoid scrutiny — is unprovable if not flat wrong....

However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

She had provided the emails requested. Any order she gave to erase the server came before the subpoena. An employee of a private company realized he hadn't done what was previously asked and, after the subpoena, he erased the server.

It is not the case that Hillary got the subpoena and then ordered the server wiped.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The However paragraph is also a quote from the linked article, I unintentionally stopped italicization too soon.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

An employee of a private company realized he hadn't done what was previously asked and, after the subpoena, he erased the server.

Wow, I didn't know that tidbit. That makes it totally legal and on the up & up then!

The subpoena'd emails got legally erased using the Time Travel or I Wish I Would'a Doctrine. I think I saw that in the constitution somewhere.

[Randal]

It makes all your claims lies, I think is the point.

[wreckinball]

God always dumb. Are you actually Tony?

[BrotherMovesOn]

"Stasi"? LOL
Are you with the Romanian People's Front, or the People's Front of Romania?
BTW the Times "hates" gypsies too. Used to know a guy who wrote there.

[Nige]

'First I can't believe Trump who is lazy and has zero attention to detail reviewed and gave orders to take these files.'

I can't believe you people want to put him back in office when this is a default defence of his actions.

[Noscitur a sociis]

So he declassified them before he left office, and also didn't know he was taking them, and also he gave them back when he was told about them, and he was allowed to have the even though they were classified, and also the FBI planted them.

Did I miss anything?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Does anybody think all of these attacks on the FBI by Republicans is going to turn out well for the country in general or for Republicans in particular?

I can only assume high-level Republicans comparing the FBI to the STASI have the intent of trashing the country by delegitimizing any organization that might stand between them and stealing the next election the way they attempted to steal this one. These are dangerous times.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Oh no! It's going to hurt Muh Sacred Democracies if the corrupt FBI is called out!

Why do you like licking boots of the people that wish to grind you under them?

[NOVA Lawyer]

I'm all for holding accountable FBI agents who alter evidence or engage in other malfeasance and for criticizing leadership if/when patterns, etc. are uncovered. But the overheated rhetoric comparing the FBI to the secret police of an authoritarian dictatorship is so far beyond the pale, it's disturbing that Senators are doing that. I can mute you, BCD, and remember why I did. But U.S. Senators should have a higher standard than an internet troll.

[Brett Bellmore]

I hate to break it to you, but nobody assigned you the job of official pale locator.

Just the bare fact that the FBI refuses to record their interviews, alone, without anything else, is sufficient to demonstrate that the organization is corrupt. Just that, by itself, proves beyond any argument that it's rotten, and rotten from the top down, because at any time the upper management could have said, "Screw that, record EVERYTHING!"

And didn't.

[Sarcastr0]

This special pleading stinks.

Putting aside your usual jump to bad faith, Nothing was rotten till it was your guy.

You want to talk reform, fine. But you mostly want to talk about ending any investigation of Trump.

No dice. This has been going in for ages, and you didn’t care. I can’t believe you suddenly care unless you support actions that do not include special treatment for Trump or Jan 06 crimes or anything like that,

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You can’t attack the FBI now because you didn’t attack them then!!!

[Nige]

You've done nothing to attack them - to protect Trump, not because they've done anything wrong in this instance.

[Nige]

Nothing *BUT*

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How do you know they've done nothing wrong?

[Nige]

Because nobody's shown any evidence of it so far, despite the insane level of scrutiny, although admittedly the response of Trump supporters by design functions to obscure, confuse, distract and terrorise.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I see, so in your world the people in power have the presumption of innocence, but their targets have the presumption of guilt.

I'm sure the elites love people like you.

[Nige]

Obviously not, but at some point actual evidence has to be produced, and as we've noted here before, that's always been the weak point of the sorts of claims you make. Weak as a wet noodle.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I linked to you a video montage of Hunter smoking crack and you still insist there are no videos of Hunter smoking crack.

[Nige]

No-one gives a shit about videos of Hunter Biden smoking crack.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Definitely not the FBI!!

[Nige]

Not you either, not really.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

It's so funny to watch your evolution on this. You just move to wherever need to keep from acknowledging the reality of DOJ/FBI/Biden/elite corruption.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

14 more comments you'll be rationalizing why Taylor Swift really needs to take 170 private flights a year and how her jets don't harm global warming but everyone else's does.

[Nige]

You're throwing all these well-worn tropes out there to protect a billionaire politician who hasn't even denied having what the FBI took.

[Nige]

I see you've dropped accusing him of child rape, though. That might count as growth.

[Randal]

Um... anyone can put up a video of themselves "smoking crack" on the internet and the FBI will do entirely nothing in response.

You think the FBI spends time investigating drug-use videos? Snoop Dogg would be raided daily.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have been criticizing the FBI's policy of not recording interviews for years now, from the first incredulous moment I learned of it.

But drop for a moment the reflexive ad hominem, and address the point: How could the FBI NOT be corrupt, and have this policy?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

These people have no qualms with it, after all they think the design of the J6 Committee and their deposition tactics are not corrupt.

[wreckinball]

They're Ok with it as long as it's their political enemies are being attacked.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah the left loves law enforcement.

You just say shit, don’t you?

[Nige]

Well, if you've used that criticism every time a Trump operative got indicted, you've certainly had plenty of opportunitites.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have been criticizing the FBI's policy of not recording interviews for years now, from the first incredulous moment I learned of it.

Not only is it not the FBI's policy to not record interviews, their policy affirmatively requires recording most custodial interviews.

[Noscitur a sociis]

And of course, DOJ law enforcement (including the FBI) is in the process of setting up a program that will see agents wearing body cameras during most enforcement operations, including executing search warrants, as required under a directive issued by your pal, Merrick Garland.

[epsilon given]

No, Sarcrastr0, this is a major reason I have been distrusting the FBI for years. I can't remember when I first learned about it, but I remember thinking that it's why Scooter Libby shouldn't have been prosecuted -- and I remember several other cases as well.

Isn't it Reason who regular posts articles and videos as to why you shouldn't talk to the police? I remember one video where a lawyer said to a client "Only talk to the FBI when I'm present" and the first thing the lawyer did in the interview was pull out a tape recorder -- and the FBI agents asked him to put it away -- and when he wouldn't, the FBI agents said "we don't have any questions, then" and left.

And all this is well before the FBI tried to railroad a sitting President based on a fake dossiere, among other things.

So, no, refusing to give the FBI the "benefit of the doubt" is not special pleading.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett,

I hate to break it to you, but nobody assigned you the job of official pale locator.

Ooh, reverse burn!

I agree with you that the FBI should record their interviews. At least, I can't imagine a reason why they aren't and haven't heard one. But that doesn't prove an entire organization is corrupt. There have also been too many instances of malfeasance with, to my mind, too few consequences. But pretending this is just a problem with the FBI and not with law enforcement generally, and the fact that your outrage only came up once the GOP ox was being gored, suggests you actually don't give a shit and, as usual, your only interest is in carrying water for your party.

So now you're on board with defund the police, as long as it's the federal police? You're a fucking joke.

[wreckinball]

Well issuing fraudulent FISA warrants, inventing a dossier to start a special prosecution and staging a kidnapping certainly point in that direction.

It's like a repeat criminal. You think they're going to do it again?

[NOVA Lawyer]

The first FISA warrant had probable cause and, as far as I know the second. The person who lied on the affidavit was convicted of a crime. My own opinion is that person should never be allowed to practice law or work in law enforcement again. I understand he has his law license back. He shouldn't.

The FBI didn't invent a dossier. The dossier didn't start any special prosecution.

Nobody staged a kidnapping. Two people have pleaded guilty to federal charges, two more are on trial right now. Two got off claiming entrapment, which is not the same as staging a kidnapping. It's that they were lured into participating in a crime. (Importantly, that wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it just was the apparent basis for the jury to have at least reasonable doubt as to whether those two defendants were actually guilty.)

You keep saying untrue things, but it doesn't make them true.

[wreckinball]

You haven't seen the affidavit so you're speculating probable cause

The dossier was the alleged evidence that warranted the special prosecutor. It was false so parse words if you wish false vs invented.

Well we'll see won't we on the kidnapping. One jury thought so and we'll see this outcome. Interesting that the FBI was going to get a helicopter and also added all kinds of surveillance to Whitmer's home. But nothing stagey there. I predict you'll be 0-2 on the stage show.

I keep saying true things you don't like. Big difference

You're not really a lawyer are you? I hope not

[David Nieporent]

The dossier was the alleged evidence that warranted the special prosecutor.

Incorrect.

Crossfire Hurricane was opened before the dossier was even a glimmer in the DOJ's eye. The special prosecutor was appointed because Trump fired Comey to stop the investigation.

[wreckinball]

The probable cause for the FISA warrant was a doctored email. Thus fake probable cause. You're out buddy. Zero credibility

[Sarcastr0]

The FISA warrant? Which Jen do you mean?

[NOVA Lawyer]

The altered email was for the third, renewed, FISA warrant, wreckinball. You're the one with zero credibility. And you lose more with every lying post.

[Brett Bellmore]

The IG did say that the first FISA warrant, though the application had errors, could be justified, that it was the subsequent ones where they'd defrauded the FISA court to keep the investigation going.

Page 368, per the page numbering in the document, is where this is discussed in detail.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thanks, Brett.

Nice to see someone in these threads acknowledge a fact that doesn't fit their sides preferred narrative.

[David Nieporent]

As noted, they do in fact record custodial interviews, thanks to the GOP-hated Eric Holder. But non-custodial ones pose more logistical/bureaucratic challenges. You can't have a policy that all interviews be recorded unless you provide the tools for each agent to make such a recording, or you'll get "Why wasn't this particular interview recorded if that's DOJ policy?" Yes, presumably now they all have government-issued smartphones. But that's relatively recent, and you still have to establish protocols for what to do with the recordings and such. None of that is insurmountable, obviously, but the government doesn't move quickly.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, right, it's only in the last year or so when the FBI actually had the budget to afford "tape recorders". It's not as though digital voice recorders have been a consumer level product for a couple decades, and portable tape recorders had been available even in Hoover's days.

[bernard11]

BTW, Brett, it seems that the surveillance cameras were not turned off, and that Trump watched almost the entire search.

Former President Donald Trump's attorney said Trump watched from New York as the FBI searched his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida on Monday.

Christina Bobb, one of Trump's lawyers, made this comment during a Thursday appearance on the right-wing media network Real America's Voice. Bobb told host Gina Loudon that, contrary to rumors that the security cameras had been turned off, the property's security feeds were on for most of the FBI's search.

"I think the folks in New York — President Trump and his family — they probably had a better view than I did. Because they had the CCTV, they were able to watch," Bobb said.

She added that she had not witnessed the raid as she was busy answering investigators' questions, but said the Trump family had seen "the whole thing."

[bernard11]

The whole comment, after "search" is a quote from the article.

I have noticed that, when italicizing something, a paragraph break seems to close the tag. Either that, or I am consistently making the same mistake.

Has anyone else had this problem? I'm using Firefox.

[David Nieporent]

Yes; that's the design of Reason's CMS system. It's annoying.

[David Nieporent]

And yes, you should smack me on the nose with a rolled up newspaper for saying "CMS system."

[NOVA Lawyer]

Yea, using Safari. Same problem. Only once, I thought it was me, but now you say it, it was Reason.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I'm aware that they refused the order to shut off the cameras. Good for them, but it shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

[David Nieporent]

Just the bare fact that the FBI refuses to record their interviews, alone, without anything else, is sufficient to demonstrate that the organization is corrupt. Just that, by itself, proves beyond any argument that it's rotten, and rotten from the top down, because at any time the upper management could have said, "Screw that, record EVERYTHING!"

And didn't.

1) In fact, Eric Holder — but not any of his GOP predecessors — did order the recording of all custodial interviews.
2) Whether they could have or should have done that sooner, or whether it could have been or should have been expanded to non-custodial interviews, does not in fact "demonstrate" or "prove beyond any argument" that they are corrupt. It just… doesn't. Your "I wish the world were like X; if it's not, that proves a conspiracy" has failed you yet again.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's what I get for accepting one of Brett's "facts". I should have known before, but I won't forget again.

And, Brett, while you're apologizing for spreading lies about the FBI, maybe you should pen a special thank you to Eric Holder for fixing the problem no one in the GOP would fix.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whether they could have or should have done that sooner, or whether it could have been or should have been expanded to non-custodial interviews, does not in fact "demonstrate" or "prove beyond any argument" that they are corrupt. It just… doesn't."

No, actually, it just does.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett,

You purport to be very logical. There are plenty of alternative explanations, the most obvious is: institutional inertia. After all, it did update it's policies to your preferred policy, at least with respect to custodial interviews.

You may reject institutional inertia as the reason the policy you think is optimal wasn't adopted sooner. But the mere fact that there is an alternative explanation defeats your hypothesis as "proven beyond any argument."

And it's hyperbolic shit throwing like that which does damage rather than enlightens.

"I don't like what X is doing, so X must be corrupt!" If you say that for everything, which it appears to me you do in terms of politics, then you're just a boy crying wolf, doing more harm to your cause than good.

[Nige]

I'd have more respect for people calling out the corrupt FBI if they were calling them out for corruption and injustice, rather than to protect their cult leader from consequences.

[epsilon given]

And I'd have more respect for you if you could convincingly prove that you have gone through all the history of the various commenters here, who have always trusted the FBI, and all of the sudden don't trust the FBI now.

Ah, heck, why are you even alleging this thing? This is, allegedly, Reason. I sincerely doubt you could find anyone who would automatically trust the FBI.

Only, now that Orange Man Bad is getting gored, all of the sudden half the people here insist that the FBI is as pure as the wind-driven snow. PURE, I TELL YOU!

Because the person that the FBI is goring is someone they are happy to see gored.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Unsatisfied with Esformes serving “time served” and paying fines and forfeiting 38 million dollars, the DOJ plans to retry Esformes on the 6 counts he wasn’t convicted on. How many times has this happened in American history? How many times has the DOJ reopened a criminal case after a presidential pardon? Never.

The DOJ needs to be burned to the ground and every Federal there tried for treason.

[David Nieporent]

Which white supremacist website is this random quote from? Presumably written by someone not smart enough to know that Esformes didn't receive a presidential pardon.

[Brett Bellmore]

He got his sentence commuted. Not quite the same thing, admittedly. Trump could have pardoned him on the charges he wasn't convicted on, but why would he have thought it necessary?

There's a lack of precedent on whether it's lawful to prosecute him on the deadlocked charges, as this is apparently literally the first time in all of US history where they've tried to to that.

The norms continue falling.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The norm may include special favors for wealthy convicts with connections to the President, but that doesn't make it any less unsavory.

The Times noted that the Esformes family for years donated to the movement of Hasidic Jews known as Chabad-Lubavitch, “to which [Trump’s son-in-law Jared] Kushner has longstanding ties.” Kushner was a senior White House advisor during Trump’s presidency.

Esforme was a monster. The clemency obviously only goes to the charges of which he was convicted and the sentence for those charges. That's why there is a difference between a pardon and a commutation. Trump could have pardoned him, he didn't.

So, yes, this monster who mistreated poor and sickly old people for base greed absolutely should spend the rest of his miserable life in prison. And there is no legal bar to further charges.

But this is quintessential Brett: Defend the indefensible because Trump did it.

If the DOJ could go after Marc Rich or Oscar Lopez, Brett, you'd be making this same argument?

Of course not. Because you are a tool to GOP elites.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying he was a great guy. I'm saying that prosecuting on charges a jury had refused to convict on after a commutation, as a way to put the person back in prison anyway, is apparently unprecedented.

Now that this precedent has been broken, I assume Presidents will, going forward, always pardon on deadlocked charges when commuting a sentence, to prevent this work-around. This was somewhat of a zero day exploit for defeating a commutation, only useful the first time you use it.

[David Nieporent]

Going forward, I assume that presidents won't commute the sentences of people still facing charges.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Brett,

I assume Presidents will, going forward, always pardon on deadlocked charges when commuting a sentence, to prevent this work-around.

I think that's a highly questionable assumption. They may be more likely to pardon than commute, because the calculus has changed. But one reason they commute these sentences rather than pardon the perpetrator is because there is a non-zero marginal cost to pardoning versus commuting the sentence.

But even if you are right, so what? If one bad guy who shouldn't have gotten his sentence commuted and only did because he is rich and connected, serves time in prison for taking advantage of the weak: Hooray!

So, others may get off in the future, but at least Presidents will have to admit what they are doing, which is absolving these creeps of guilt, if that's what they really intend.

Looks like a win-win to me. Unless you like ultra-wealthy, politically connected people having a separate system of "justice."

[epsilon given]

Now I'm curious: is there any pardon or commutation Obama or Clinton made that you'd find outrageous? Because I'd find it rather outrageous if the Federal Government had gone back and tried to re-hash a trial that occurred at the same time as the trial for which the guy was pardoned or commuted, even if I thought the original pardon was despicable, too.

Either the pardon power means something, or it doesn't, even if I disagree with how it's used.

[wreckinball]

Maybe he violated the "Logan Act" hahahaha

Or maybe we can twist a "disturbing congress law" into prosecuting political opponents. Of course we don't prosecute folks who disturb congress who are our political allies.

I mean this FBI/DOJ is nothing but straight shooters.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you outline the argument that these charges should be treated differently from any situation where the jury doesn't reach a verdict? Because I'm having trouble seeing it.

[David Nieporent]

Not quite the same thing, admittedly.

It's not "not quite" the same thing. It's an entirely different thing. A commutation = "you're guilty of what you were convicted of doing, but I think you've been punished enough for that."

There is exactly zero doubt on whether it's lawful to prosecute someone on charges for which the person was previously charged and not acquitted.

[wreckinball]

I'm not finding the statute that says white supremacy is illegal. Maybe you could find it.

[Sarcastr0]

No one said it’s illegal, it’s just both factually incorrect and immoral.

[ragebot]

What I don't understand about this whole mess is the timeline.

Something like a year and a half ago Trump left office and took some stuff with him. Archives wanted some or all of them back and lawyers for both sides argued about it. Time passed and Trump gave up some of the stuff and his lawyers claimed that was all he was required but the government lawyers wanted more and the lawyers for both sides argued and the government lawyers did some legal stuff to demand Trump gave up more than he wanted to.

For some reason a couple of months later the FBI on DOJ's orders based on a demand from Archives raids Trumps home/office and grabs some stuff.

What I can't figure out is the timing of the raid. There does not seem to be any reason they could not have waited a couple of more months or on the other hand done it a year ago. So why was it so important to do it now?

[MoreCurious]

Perhaps the government had its suspicions about what Trump was hiding, but until an informer of some sort came forward with confirmation, they didn't yet have enough for a search warrant.

[Brett Bellmore]

Or based on the latest revelation, that they carted off documents they admit were covered by attorney/client privilege, and are refusing to get a special master to go over them, perhaps they just wanted to look at his communications with his lawyers.

[David Nieporent]

It's not a "revelation," Brett; it's an allegation. And the article you link to makes clear that it isn't certain that there's anything covered by attorney/client privilege:

It is unclear, at this point, if the records include communications between the former president and his private attorneys, White House counsel during the Trump administration, or a combination.

Communications between Trump and his private attorneys are the only ones that could be privileged. (Subject, of course, to the crime-fraud exception.) But why would his personal attorney communications be mixed in with government documents?

And the government doesn't "get a special master." A court has to appoint a special master. Trump is free to go to the court to ask for one at any time. The DOJ will otherwise employ a taint team, which is why they see no need for a special master.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Beat me to it. Another link by a cultist which doesn't say anything like what they pretend it does. Nobody "admitted" any documents recovered by the FBI were privileged. It's been alleged by the same people who alleged Italian space lasers were changing votes, that Obama had squirreled away 30 million government records, and that they had won the biggest electoral college victory "since Reagan."

Why do people continue to believe a group that not only lies like everyone else breathes, but they say stupid lies about easily provable things?

Do cultists not realize that when powerful people tell lies like this, it's a test to see how sheep-like their followers are? And you all parrot the stupidity every fucking time.

[David Nieporent]

In fact, it was their taint team that discovered the passports! That turned out to be another bullshit Trump thing.

1. The DOJ taint team has been going through the stuff seized.
2. They find the three passports. (Two expired, one unexpired.)
3. They notify Trump's people that they have them and are returning them.
4. Trump sees an opportunity and posts a rant about how they seized his passports. (He makes up the claim that there were two unexpired and one expired for no obvious reason.)

[Sarcastr0]

Latest is they caught people moving these docs on tape.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

So?

[wreckinball]

Is that leak a Shifty Schiff special?

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, chief.

I think you are failing the Turing test at this point.

[Josh R]

They didn't do it previously because they were hoping to obtain the material without a search. But given they didn't get all the material after the subpoena in June, what would you have them do now other than get a warrant for search?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Presidential Records Act is not criminal.

[Josh R]

The warrant listed three criminal statutes that may have been violated.

Would you instead just let Trump keep the material?

[wreckinball]

Not sure. Maybe we should ask Obama since he's kept a bunch

[NOVA Lawyer]

What's the basis for that statement other than Trump's disproven allegation? Or are you just enough of a liar that you'll continue to repeat allegations that have been proven to be false?

[wreckinball]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/08/11/when-will-the-fbi-raid-obamas-home-over-his-missing-records-n2611588

Always wrong. You need to work on that

[Noscitur a sociis]

Which part of that article do you believe supports your assertion that Obama " kept a bunch" of government records?

[NOVA Lawyer]

wreckinball is aptly named, Takes a wreckinball to his own arguments. But, yeah, that Townhall opinion piece doesn't say anything remotely supporting his fever dreams.

[wreckinball]

Dude you have a habit of proving nothing false.

[Sarcastr0]

There it is. You make something up and think the burden is in everyone else to find evidence it’s false.

Thats not how it works.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Can you square that fact with your original analysis?

[Josh R]

I'm not following how my original analysis conflicts with my latest take.

The key new information is the affidavit, apparently false, that all classified information was handed over in June. Assuming there was a credible source that additional classified information remained, the search now strikes me as justified even if in the end no criminal charge is brought because there wasn't criminal intent. But at this point, we don't know if there was criminal intent.

[wreckinball]

So you have the apparently false affidavit ?

[Josh R]

I do not and if it proves such a statement doesn't exist, that might change my mind. But even without the statement, we might have a credible source that classified documents were left behind which would suffice to justify a search. It would be good to see the warrant affidavit.

[wreckinball]

Agree on seeing the affidavit

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1558813321066958850
lol

[wreckinball]

Holy crap that is a classic!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And that's after she illegally clean up her server and devices.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that not only was hilarious, it aged well, too.

[wreckinball]

Ha ha it keeps going. Now they don't want to submit to an independent review of what was seized. All of the TDS afflicted were screaming when it was suggested they might plant something.

Well the independent review would put that question to rest. Garland refused. So does that mean he is planting stuff.
Are they authoring a new dossier?

[Sarcastr0]

How would it put anything to rest? You would just say the review was biased, or the evidence was planted before the review.

We saw this with the birth certificate; coddling right wing requests so something gets put to rest is a fools errand.

[Brett Bellmore]

What we saw with the birth certificate is that as soon as Obama stopped fighting its release, belief that he was born abroad imploded. Sure, it didn't go away completely, and there are flat Earthers, too. But the evidence persuaded almost everybody.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You're just wrong, Brett.

As of 2017, polls still showed 42% of Republicans still thought Obama was not born in the U.S. You're smart enough to know, lies make it around the world while the truth is tying its shoes and people tend to remember the first thing they heard, not the correction.

Trump understands this. That's why he continually lies to you, even about stupid things, because even if he's corrected, he knows about half is cultists will continue believing the lie he initially told.

You and the rest of the right need to be way smarter about what Trump is and how he is manipulating his cult. Don't be a part of it, ffs.

[David Nieporent]

Brett's also lying; Obama never fought its release.

[wreckinball]

Now that this practice which every president has followed is illegal I wonder if there is a statute of limitations? If not when are we raiding Obama?

[Nige]

Why are you raiding Obama.

[wreckinball]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/08/11/when-will-the-fbi-raid-obamas-home-over-his-missing-records-n2611588

[Nige]

So, no reason.

[wreckinball]

You're apparently are not literate other than the snippets you type on here

[Nige]

As I said, no reason.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Low value people love boot-licking. It's the one thing they can compete with others on.

[Nige]

I'm not the one debasing myself with lies to protect a billionaire.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yeah you’re debasing yourself with lies to lick the boots of those in power.

[Nige]

I haven't lied.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

When you develop a functioning brain.

[wreckinball]

Test

[wreckinball]

"We learn from special counsel John Durham’s indictment of Igor Danchenko that “the FBI ultimately devoted substantial resources attempting to investigate and corroborate the allegations” in the now-infamous Steele dossier. “Ultimately” is right — but not before it relied on the shoddy document to surveil an American citizen in an investigation that produced the Mueller probe and a two-year-long obsession with Trump and Russian built on a preposterous foundation."

[wreckinball]

Weirdly Reason won't let me post the link to this article but it refutes "NOVA Lawyer" contention regarding the Steele Dossier.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I don't know what you think that opinion piece refutes, but it doesn't refute anything I said.

Also, the whole premise that the Mueller probe was built on the Steel Dossier is preposterous. Among other things, Don Jr. said "if it's what you say, I love it" when a Russian agent offered to collaborate. Don Jr., Manafort (convicted criminal), and Jared Kushner ($2B gift from MBS), met with a known Russian agent. They all agree that there was no collusion in that meeting. We have to take their word for it.

Notably, the people that insist that taking Don Jr.'s and a Russian agent's word for what happened in that room between Don Jr., Manafort, Kushner, and a Russian agent are the same people that think it's preposterous to believe what Bill Clinton and AG Lynch say their conversation was about.

As I also pointed out before, the interest in Carter Page pre-dated the Trump campaign, but the first FISA warrant, which didn't lack probable cause, was spurred by Papadopolous bragging that the Russians offered to help by releasing info damaging to the Hillary campaign, which Russian then did. It would be dereliction of duty for the FBI not to investigate that report.

[wreckinball]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/the-dossier-deceit

[wreckinball]

And there we

[Nige]

The Steele dossier wasn't used to surveil anyone.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Liar.

[Nige]

Call me what you like, won't make it any less true.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/republican-house-releases-fisa-memo-confirms-steele-dossier-suspicions/

Next up:

"No one cares that the Steele Dossier was used to spy!"

lmao

[Nige]

No-one cares that you make claims like this because everyone knows you;re a craven liar.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

How’s them Hunter Biden crack videos workin out for ‘ya, bootlicker?

[Nige]

You've completely dropped claims about the other videos, then? Good for you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

After reading these comments, I conclude that the law professors who cultivate this white, male, right-wing blog's collection of ignorant, bigoted, delusional, disaffected fans are worse than the commenters.

I hope Prof. Kerr disassociates himself formally from this flaming clustermuck of delusion, racism, stupidity, misogyny, lies, homophobia, ignorance, and xenophobia.

[NOVA Lawyer]

I agree. Prof. Kerr is better than this place.

[Randal]

It does seem as though all rational conservative / libertarian commentary is gone. Did it go somewhere else, or did it vanish along with the Republican party's principles?

Like Pelosi, I don't think the country can survive without a healthy right wing. We need both wings. The right one is being consumed by flesh rot.

[Brett Bellmore]

The country can't survive without a healthy right wing, but a right wing that gets defined by the left wing isn't going to be a healthy right wing.

[Randal]

That's never been a risk -- the right is always resistant to being externally defined.

In fact, what's happening is essentially the opposite. Y'all are so paranoid of letting the left define you that you've reached the point of defining yourselves in opposition to the left. Which is a lot like letting the left define you.

It's comparable to atheism. I've always thought that calling yourself an atheist was a bit of a dick move, and pretty hard to justify. "I'm against whatever you're for" is an unhealthy mindset in religion and in politics.

[Don Nico]

"I'm against whatever you're for" is an unhealthy mindset in religion and in politics."
And yet it seems to be your modus operandi.
Bye

[Randal]

Yes yes, you hate me the most for some reason. I think you seem mostly ok. A little uncreative in your thinking, but at least you're thinking.

[Bob from Ohio]

He should get the same punishment as Hilary did.

[Bob from Ohio]

"special investigation with lots of leaks"

We have that. "nuclear materials" are included!!!!!

I don't recall Comey leaking, I recall two full press conferences. Perhaps he did leak, its been 7 years.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Except if they are a democrat. Then they can do whatever they want to do including using their own illegal private server and then make you look like the bad guy for asking them about it.

[DaveM]

No, the banana republic is the one sending in the raiding party on the opposition candidate just before an election where everyone's been saying you're about to be trounced.

Really, there's no profit in polishing this dog pile. The optics are terrible, obviously.

The real question is who benefits. Like the SCOTUS leak, I think this one favors a Democrat sponsorship. They have the most to benefit from making sure Trump is their opponent. They really can't compete if it's anyone else. If the Republicans get all crazy and such, all the better, lots of "see I told ja they're crazy" opportunities.

[Mr. Bumble]

Banana republic will be confirmed when Brandon starts wearing epaulets on his jacket (if he can get it on); he already wears the Caudillo shades.

[Nige]

In fairness Hilary never accused the FBI of planting nuclear weapons in her house.

[NOVA Lawyer]

One of the reasons Comey made a statement, as reported, was because anti-Hillary agents were leaking.

[DaivdBehar]

I do not believe in killing political opponents. I believe in voting them out. See you next Tuesday.

[Nige]

Special pleading and whataboutery = how dare you hold Trump accountable to the law.

[David Nieporent]

There. Was. No. Illegal. Private. Server.

[DaivdBehar]

Alex Jones sales shot up to $800000 last week after the jury verdict. This witch hunt is what Trump needed to guarantee his re-election.

[DaivdBehar]

I agree with the Jones verdict because those parents endured a lot of suffering.

The point is that the lawyer can't do anything right. Blow up the Jones business to record amount. Insure the re-election of Trump.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm no Trump fan, but honestly, I think the laws at issue here should generally be struck down by the court for being enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Also, given Trump still had the documents, Hillary's document mishandling was arguably worse, as it seemed custom designed to facilitate FOIA request avoidance. The fact that she deliberately deleted obvious government documents compounds that error.

Now, if real evidence of deliberate misuse of the documents by Trump becomes available, I could change my mind. But right now, the only thing I know for sure is that Trump had possession of classified material, something that rarely gets prosecuted.

[damikesc]

I am a believer in equal application of the law.

[Sarcastr0]

Not getting elected President? Too late for that.

[EscherEnigma]

With luck he will: no formal charges, but won't get elected to office ever again.

[Sarcastr0]

You assume this was some sort of frame-up.

Based on nothing.

Thus neatly rendering Trump above the law, thanks to self-imposed delusions.

Your cult of personality is antithetical to the values of living in a Republic; do better.

[David Nieporent]

No, the banana republic is the one sending in the raiding party on the opposition candidate just before an election where everyone's been saying you're about to be trounced.

You're very confused. It is not "just before" November 2024.

[Nige]

If he turns out to have been selling nuclear secrets to the Saudis his supporters will argue that that was Good, Actually, ressurect some zombie Hilary lie to claim a double standard and dismantle the entire federal government to install him as king, because that's the only way a Republican can expect fair treatment!

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It's "arguably worse" that an ex-President was refusing to hand over classified documents he wasn't lawfully entitled to possess?

Typical.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Based upon the history of the FBI's interactions with Trump and the clear motive they have now.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Licking the boots of those above you in the power hierarchy are values foreign to America and her pedigree.

And are only nominally a Republic unless you include some fruit adjective.

[DaveM]

No, I'm not assuming it is some sort of frame-up, I suspect it could be some sort of frame-up, and if that were to be true, I conclude that the Democratic Party would have the most to gain from perpetuating it.

Distinctions are important here. Speculations are just some guy's opinions pulling stuff out of the air. They're not "assumptions".

Now, as to why one would choose to speculate rather than assume: because this entire episode is a just another pile of [expletive-deleted] DC power-play where no one is going to learn the truth and we're all just wasting our time. Sometimes I really hate living here, I really do.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Well if you sell secrets to the Chinese you're wife becomes SOS or you become President.

[Nige]

Is this a reference to Ivanka Trump's patents? But it was her husband that became, well, rich from working in the White House, apparently.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You can mutter and sputter, whine and whimper, rail and flail as much as you like . . . but you will continue to comply with the preferences of your betters. Losing the culture war to your betters has consequences.

[Sarcastr0]

Believing the evidence I'm provided with and not just making shit up is interfacing with reality, it's not loving authoritarianism.

[JesseAz]

Yet she was never raided and then given 2 weeks to pick and choose what to hand over and then wiped her server. DESPITE known multiple governments attempting to hack her server.

[JesseAz]

The leftists on this site seem to be very ignorant.

https://www.heritage.org/report/the-clinton-nuclear-deal-pyongyang-road-map-progress-or-dead-end-street

You can follow that up with Clinton's China donor scandal.

[Don Nico]

Cute, but meaningless.

[NOVA Lawyer]

JesseAz,

It's an interesting fantasy world you live in. But even accepting all your assertions as true: She had two whole weeks? And she complied within two weeks? So you admit that's a totally different situation as Trump has been given months and months to comply, but didn't.

Glad you see the distinction.

[Squirrelloid]

Possession of classified documents alone rarely, if ever, gets prosecuted. So based on previous DoJ prosecution decisions, no, mere possession isn't that bad.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I'll count you among the list of people here who don't know how serious a TS/SCI classification is, and why it's inexcusable for anyone to mishandle.

Again - not just mis-handle, but refuse to hand over after multiple requests. There is no 'innocent' explanation for this behavior, and it is far beyond anything Hillary did.

This isn't a partisan evaluation, either. TS/SCI simply does not compare to what she did. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't attempt to claim otherwise.

[Brett Bellmore]

Except that we can point to multiple people who mishandled them, and were excused.

[Squirrelloid]

Please name some court cases where someone was prosecuted solely for possession of classified information. I'll wait.

[Brett Bellmore]

Was she prosecuted? No.

And the investigation wasn't over "having" classified documents, it was over storing them on a wildly insecure server, letting people without appropriate clearances have access, and her deletion of government records under subpoena.

You do understand that the only comprehensible reason for going to the trouble of having that private server WAS to facilitate that destruction of documents, right? So it was premeditated, too.

[Nige]

Trump accused the FBI of planting stuff in his house, I know you're far gone into the nihilism of Trumpism, but it's not actually meaningless.

[Nige]

Yes, one of those zombie Clinton lies.

[Nige]

Can't prosecute Clinton for crimes she did in your head.

[Nige]

No, you can point to various people and tell assorted lies and distortions.

[Don Nico]

Come on, Nige, lighten up.
Of course Hilary never accused the FBI of planting materials that they have absolutely no authority to have under their control.
" I know you're far gone into the nihilism of Trumpism,"
As for that meaningless ad hominem, you really do know nothing.

[DaveM]

It is not "just before" November 2024.

Well, yes, sadly, it is. We have a perpetual campaign season now. This is the dread DC virus.

[DaveM]

Well yes, there was "No. Illegal. Private. Server."

But only because there's no such thing as an "illegal" private server. There are only private servers that illegally have government records on them.

And oh heck yes, there were lots and lots of that. Tens of thousands of that.

[David Nieporent]

Nope. Still not right. Yes, it was illegal to have classified information there, but there was not "tens of thousands of that." There were indeed tens of thousands of emails that were "government records," but that just wasn't illegal, no matter how much you wish it were.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

While waiting, you could've just googled and found your answer that you seem to want to pretend doesn't exist.

https://www.voanews.com/a/fbi-justice-department-routinely-prosecute-misuse-of-classified-documents/6694887.html

[Sarcastr0]

You are drawing a line between speculation and assumption that I’m not sure holds. You sure seem certain enough if a bunch of stuff to be angry about it.

[Sarcastr0]

This is just wrong. Campaign season is pretty noticeably different from normal political sniping.

You are using cynicism to bootstrap into bitter skepticism. It’s a great recipe for righteous misery, but not for understanding a given situation.

[damikesc]

"Complied" by erasing the server, had her IT guy go online to see how to erase it more completely, then smashing cell phones with a hammer that had info from the server.

I love Democrats claiming that all the subpoena sought was just the physical server and not the info on the server.

[Brett Bellmore]

The primary illegalities having to do with the server, aside from the classified information, had to do with her failure to configure it to back up to the federal system, which is a legal requirement if you're going to use private email. That, and her destruction of emails after they were under subpoena, which the failure to back up to the official system enabled.

Remember, the only reason we found out about the server in the first place was somebody doing a FOIA request for her emails as SOS, and it coming up empty because not one of them had been backed up by the formal system.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

You're a genuine idiot.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige
August.13.2022 at 6:47 am
Flag Comment Mute User
Yes, one of those zombie Clinton lies.

Nige - You might actually try to get up to speed.

both you and Nova lawyer seem to be very good at filtering out facts

[NOVA Lawyer]

First, I never claimed all the subpoena sought was the physical server.

Even assuming all of that is true, it still does not establish there was any need or basis for a search of her property. Unless you're claiming that the wiping of the server happened in between getting the subpoena and turning over the server. Which I don't believe happened, because that's pretty obvious obstruction of justice. It happened before the subpoena. Once she got the subpoena she complied. It appears Trump lied.

That's the difference. The Hillary example does the opposite of what you think it does.

But I look forward to you applying the same standards to Trump that you applied to Hillary on all aspects of the case. Or do you just want the same in the situations where you imagine Hillary got better treatment? Because I have yet to hear your chant of "lock him up" for mishandling what reportedly are national security secrets. I'll be waiting.

[David Nieporent]

which is a legal requirement if you're going to use private email.

It is indeed. Pursuant to a law passed after she left office.

[NOVA Lawyer]

By "facts", you apparently mean things you dreamed up.

[Squirrelloid]

Well, if you actually read the source you linked, mostly describes people who improperly had classified documents, and then did something with them like *share them* with people not entitled to see them, or *try to sell them to Russia*. There's only a couple mere possession.

(And of course, what's not there is the number of cases of improper possession of classified documents which never got prosecuted.)

Now, if evidence exists that Trump was trying to sell classified information or otherwise allow improper access, I'll grant that's really bad (worse than Hillary) and he deserves to have the book thrown at him. But with the affidavit still sealed, I don't know that's true yet.

[epsilon given]

Well, what should it be, then? Should we have prosecuted Hillary, or should we punish Trump?

Why would someone frustrated that one of their opponents didn't get punished suddenly be happy if one of their own does get punished for the same thing?

What's so funny is seeing people so eager to lock President Trump up bending over backwards defending Hillary for similar things.

Meanwhile, my logic is consistent: if Trump should be locked up, then Hillary should, too -- whereas since Hillary's punishments were brushed off, so should Trump's.

Fun fact: we don't even need to wait until the end of Biden's Pretendancy to know that the FBI is going to brush off the transgressions of Democrats this time: while not necessarily relating to secret documents, we already know of several crimes from Hunter Biden that should have put him in jail, ignored by the DOJ and the FBI.

Why does the law only apply to Republicans?

[epsilon given]

For Pete's sake, indeed: for all the talk that this election was "perfectly clean", there's an awful lot of behavior from the "victors" that would tell a reasonable person that they had a "guilty mind".

[epsilon given]

To say that "hatred against Trump" can't be a reasonable factor to consider -- or even a predominant one -- is foolish.

How many Presidents in history do you know of, where journalists claim that this President is so bad, we cannot report objectively on him, and then spend the next few years doing exactly as they promised?

I don't particularly like President Trump, but one of the major reasons I came around to voting for him in 2020, was just to spite the people who would do things like this -- and they are all over the place, not just the Media.

And now? Well, rather than ignore a grumpy former President has-been and bask in the glory of the wonderful New President in all his glory, they still have to find ways to kick him while he's down.

Apparently, it's all they got.

[epsilon given]

Sure, but we could prosecute for crimes Coney specifically identified in a press conference, and then said it wasn't worth prosecuting her over.

[epsilon given]

Sandy Berger comes to mind, come to think of it. But then, putting documents in your underwear and socks was "just sloppy", so there's that.

[epsilon given]

Look, I know you live in your little bubble, but in case you haven't noticed: we are not complying with our "betters".

Or perhaps maybe we are, but they happen to not include you and your ilk.