Heavily Redacted Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit Now Available

It's here, and you can also read the government's memorandum explaining the reasons for the redactions (though it's itself substantially redacted).

Comments

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anyone out there know how to read in redacted?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It could be done, in certain circumstances, years ago. I suspect it has become more difficult.

[Currentsitguy]

Any document person worth their salt today is going to flatten the layers before release.

[DaivdBehar]

More evidence of lawfare by the judiciary against half the population. More evidence that the lawyer profession cannot protect witnesses, or litigants. This time, armed agents have to hide their identities for fear of attack.

[John F. Carr]

They seem to have been printed out and scanned.

[Brett Bellmore]

They didn't screw up the redaction, as sometimes happens. I checked.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anyone find it suspicious the the judge released the redacted version so quickly? Seems he couldn't p[ossibly have had the time or inclination to check the redactions against an unredacted version.

[santamonica811]

??? Of course he could have. I don't see it as taking very long at all. (Actually, given the judge's past statements; I expect that he had already finished his version of redacting. If so, it was a simple matter of comparing his finished product to the govts, and then concluding, "Hmm...we agree on 98% of the redactions. How strongly do I disagree with the 4 sentences that I don't believe need to be redacted, and with the 1 sentence that I believe ought to be redacted (but the govt left it)? Not that strongly? Okay, the govt version is fine."

What non-lawyers might not realize is that everyone in this process, in August 2022, is absolutely aware that everything is and will be under a microscope. So, in my mind; there is zero chance that anyone will do a half-assed job, or will rush out a substandard document. (PARTICULARLY when it's coming from a judge, who obviously can take, essentially, as much or as little time as he feels is necessary to do a complete and professional job.)

It's a bit disheartening to read that you find this suspicious. This was the most ordinary and expected and anodyne sub-issue in this whole matter. Sorry to see that even this procedure quickness prompts concerns from you.

[Mr. Bumble]

Suspicious in the sense that he would OK whatever the DOJ put out.

[Social Justice is neither]

He was fine with 100% sealed so I'm sure the most minimal release required will be fine with him if it gets the media talking about how transparent the government is being in their political prosecution.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Let's see .....
* This is the FBI. Their history since inception has been full of lies, incompetence, and a compliant press providing good PR.
* Recent FBI corruption includes hiding the Hunter Biden laptop news "to not interfere in the election."
* Recent FBI corruption includes pretending Ashley's (?) diary was fake, that the pedo behavior mentioned in it was therefore fake, and now they've got two guilty confessions that yes they had stolen the actual diary.
* This is the same FBI team that swept the Hillary-Steele nonsense under the rug "to not interfere in the election."
* Didn't this judge also participate in some other FBI coverups?

And after all this, you find nothing suspicious in this related behavior?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I better add a pre-emptive apology for any errors in the details I listed. There has been so much recent corruption with the FBI, SS, and other State apparati, that I've lost track of exactly which was what by who.

[Dan Schiavetta]

any action that is taken against Trump or even irritates him = corruption

[Mr. Bumble]

You deny the the DOJ and FBI have not been involved in anything regarding Trump that doesn't raise the suspicion of corruption?
Starting with the sources of all the leaks that occurred during "Russiagate".

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You didn't answer any of my specific examples.

Non-responsive bs.

[Sarcastr0]

Your specific examples are

Useless general statement
already debunked story pretending a local director is Senior Leadership
Basically right wing drivel
Pretending something was covered up when it was not
Wild speculation.

Yeah you are way out there. Partisanship can make fools of us all.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Your list of my specific examples is fiction. I expected no better from you.

Answer the actual question if you want respect. Insults are not that way.

[Sarcastr0]

I engaged with each of your attempted points,

You can’t seem to respond.

Because your goal is not truthtelling it is rationalizing disbelief of claims you do not like.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Well! Let's compare, shall we?

ME: This is the FBI. Their history since inception has been full of lies, incompetence, and a compliant press providing good PR.
YOU: Useless general statement
ME: Recent FBI corruption includes hiding the Hunter Biden laptop news "to not interfere in the election."
YOU: already debunked story pretending a local director is Senior Leadership
ME: Recent FBI corruption includes pretending Ashley's (?) diary was fake, that the pedo behavior mentioned in it was therefore fake, and now they've got two guilty confessions that yes they had stolen the actual diary.
YOU: Basically right wing drivel
ME: This is the same FBI team that swept the Hillary-Steele nonsense under the rug "to not interfere in the election."
YOU: Pretending something was covered up when it was not
ME: Didn't this judge also participate in some other FBI coverups?
YOU: Wild speculation.

Yeppers, really responsive.

[Nige]

This is the FBI. Their history since inception has been full of lies, incompetence, and a compliant press providing good PR. But none of your examples are any of that.

[Finrod]

Cute mythology you have.

[Snorkle]

> This is the same FBI team that swept the Hillary-Steele nonsense under the rug "to not interfere in the election."

The bloody hell you talking about? The FBI, via the NY branch, arguably threw the election to your orange liege.

These people lie about literally everything. You just can't trust xians, their god commands them to lie.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

No, if the Hillary-Steele escapade had been publicized, Hillary would have lost more votes.

[Sarcastr0]

A counter factual certainty!

[Nige]

They didn't leak enough anti-Hilary stuff which proves they'te pro-Hilary! Even though 'Hilary-Steele escapade' is a bit ambiguous since doing oppo research isn't exactly scandalous nad oppo research begun by Republicans and not actually used by Clinton is a rather puzzling thing to suggest would have been the final final nail in Clinton's coffin!

[Finrod]

If the FBI had done its bloody job, Hillary would have been in jail long before the election. Stop huffing the Team Blue glue.

[NOVA Lawyer]

santamonica,

If it had taken twice as long, then it would have been suspicious that it was taking so long. That's the problem with these conspiracy theorists. Literally any fact can be fit into their ever malleable theory. The only thing that will never change is their conclusion.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not shocking, he agreed to their redaction proposal, so there wasn't much for him to do. "Yup, that's redacted!"

[Mr. Bumble]

Statements like that are what causes me confusion in following these comments.

Agreeing to a proposal to redact is not the same as knowing what was going to be redacted. Other than in general terms the judge could not make a decision on the extent of the redactions until he had it in front of him.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The "proposal to redact" was a copy of affidavit with the proposed redactions marked and a chart explaining why each redaction was warranted, you troglodytic imbecile.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I realize you're desperate to find an angle here, but even you can't be dumb enough to think that this is one.

Even if it took the magistrate 10 minutes a page to review the redactions (which is ridiculously long, especially since he was already familiar with the contents), that's still only a few hours of work.

[David Nieporent]

My god, is there any sort of weird conspiratorial insinuation you guys can't make? No, no sane person finds it suspicious that the judge released the redacted version "so quickly."

For one thing, I have no idea why you think overnight is "so quickly." For another, you know he saw the unredacted version weeks ago, right? It's a <40 page document. How long do you think it takes him to compare two versions side by side?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is how this blog works. The professors toss rancid red meat to a cultivated collection of followers; the fans respond with delusional, disaffected, bigoted, ignorant, antisocial, sometimes threatening comments.

Which is worse at this white, male, faux libertarian, conservative blog -- the professors or their fans -- is a legitimate point for debate.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and so says the King of Adjectives.

[Krayt]

That's how all blogs work, from CNN to 4chan. Site posts stuff that pisses people off, who respond in the comments section, ad views accrue to the site. And probably additional advertising dollars for participating in the ad company's categorization AI bot analysis.

[OtisAH]

“You must release the affidavit!”

“‘Kay, here.”

“Whoa whoa whoa… where’s the fire, dude? What’s the rush?”

[SRG]

Yeah, first thing I checked! Time was...

[Structured Chaos]

Apparently the redacted was broad enough in its scope to allow the seizure of Trump's Passports. If not, then why give Trump a Cause of Action by taking three of his Passports? Mistakenly taken, seriously? The FBI did not say they were mistakenly taken, they were merely returned. Therefore, also in the redacted portions you will likely find reference to very small tech like items capable of storing data and which could presumably not only fit in a Passport but also be embedded in a Passport in a very discrete manner.
This is all complete speculation. But, where you leave a redaction or essentially a blank space, you invite people to fill it in with the most incredible of things (e.g. "redacted").

[not guilty]

Trump's passports being located on the premises to be searched is evidence of Trump's possessory interest in the premises, where items of more significance were also found. Glenn Kirschner explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWb7itW4i-I&t=353s

[Structured Chaos]

Oh come on. I should leave this alone, but,...
In order to show Trumps possessory interest or ownership of the boxes, documents, and other materials at issue in the case they needed to take his Passport? Perhaps you are correct. Maybe they should have taken his DNA, and his mailbox, and heck if his wife was standing next to the boxes secured during the search they should have taken his wife so as to show Trump's constructive possession via marital proxy given his purported caveman notions of women as possessory interests.
My dig here is not at you at all. And in any other context I think the point made in the You Tube video to which you link is a very nuanced and intelligent one (as an aside were all three passports found in the boxes at issue?) But the thought of grabbing Mrs. Trump if she had been close to the boxes at issue is stupid funny.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You should probably read Attachment B of the warrant before commenting further.

After doing so, you might reconsider your Passport "gotcha."

[Commenter_XY]

Legal question: What will it take to compel the 'un-redaction' of the affidavit? Does any article 3 judge have the authority to compel the release of the unredacted affidavit?

(Mine is just a legal question....others can get into the politics of it)

[shawn_dude]

Probably an indictment would be the first step.

[Kazinski]

What's the charge?

[MoreCurious]

Pathetic. If you can't figure out what the possible charges are after reading the warrant and now the affidavit, you need to go back to grade school where you apparently slept through the lessons on analytical reading.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Rule 4 of the Local Rules for the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida:

Any party may appeal from a Magistrate Judge’s order determining a motion or matter under subsection 1(c) of these rules, supra, within fourteen (14) days after being served with the Magistrate Judge’s order, unless a different time is prescribed by the Magistrate Judge or District Judge. Such party shall file with the Clerk of the Court, and serve on all parties, written objections which shall specifically set forth the order, or part thereof, appealed from; a concise statement of the alleged error in the Magistrate Judge’s ruling; and statutory, rule, or case authority, in support of the moving party’s position. Any party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof, or within such other time as may be allowed by the Magistrate Judge or District Judge. Absent prior permission from the Court, no party shall file any objections or responses to another party’s objections exceeding twenty pages in length. The District Judge shall consider the appeal and shall set aside any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The District Judge may also reconsider sua sponte any matter determined by a Magistrate Judge under this rule.

In short, any party can appeal and an Article 3 US District Court Judge will rule on the order authorizing unsealing of redacted version of the affidavit. (Trump isn't a party, but I would imagine a competent legal team would be able to intervene and either file a new motion which could then be appealed or, less likely, appeal this particular ruling (given they filed nothing on the original motion in the first place).)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Which is to say a District Court judge could order the release, but for reasons discussed all over media, it is almost certain that no judge would release an unredacted copy pre-indictment. And those orders could be appealed to the US Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the SCOTUS, but the result will continue to be only a redacted version is available pre-indictment, if there ever is an indictment.

[Commenter_XY]

NOVA lawyer, thx for the concise explanation. So without an indictment, we won't know what is in the affidavit.

[Armchair Lawyer]

I wonder if Congress could request a copy of it, then read it into the record.

[ragebot]

"Legal question: What will it take to compel the 'un-redaction' of the affidavit? Does any article 3 judge have the authority to compel the release of the unredacted affidavit?

(Mine is just a legal question....others can get into the politics of it)"

It is hard to not get into the politics of it since both sitting Senators and sitting Congressmen have made it clear they will be investigating the raid and will be insisting on a complete unredacted version along with testimony from those who sent the request to Garland asking for their justification for sending the request to Garland; not to mention questions about the time line since Garland sat on the request for a warrant for at least for six weeks and even when he granted it gave a three day grace period from his OK to the actual raid.

Thing is not only the pubs but the dems want more released. The pubs think it will show that justification for the raid was all made up while the dems think there are pix from Melina's bedroom search of her using a strap-on on Trump with no lube.

[Glaucomatose]

They can insist on whatever they like. Unless and until they get a court order, that insistence isn't actually compulsion.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Isn't it part of Congress's oversight authority? Couldn't they just issue a Congressional subpoena for it?

[Social Justice is neither]

Contempt of congress is only a thing for Republicans.

[damikesc]

Given the requirement of a DC grand jury....that is basically the case.

They need to remove DC from the indictment of government malfeasance.

[not guilty]

"What will it take to compel the 'un-redaction' of the affidavit? Does any article 3 judge have the authority to compel the release of the unredacted affidavit?"

The media intervenors can seek review of the magistrate judge's action in the district court.

If Donald Trump had appeared before the magistrate, he could appeal to the district court. I don't know if it is too late now for him to do so.

[Jerry B.]

Well, that's pretty much useless.

[Mr. Bumble]

You really expected it to be useful? When the reasons for redaction get redacted there isn't much there, there.

[Krayt]

Pretty much this. My working hypothesis is the government is scurrying for cover for opening up with both barrels, and not much to show for it so far.

One way or the other, America loses. A president who did serious wrong, or just minor wrong or nothing, and was pursued to hurt a political opponent.

[shawn_dude]

What use did you have in mind? Or think others had in mind?
I don't think there's any/many legitimate uses one could put the unredacted memo to that couldn't easily wait for the justice system to finish its work.

If Trump is innocent, exposing the accusations could be a negative thing for him. The whistleblowers/witnesses could be targeted for violence. etc. Aside from the potentially juicy nature of the information, it seems best to let the DOJ do its job. It's not like knowing the details is going to suddenly convince conspiracy theorists that they're wrong; they're pretty good at handling cognitive dissonance.

[Flatulus]

The public doesn’t need a special reason to know why the state is exercising its coercive power.

[Ben of Houston]

Especially when the state is exercising its power for the explicit and advertised purpose of putting the effective head of the opposition party in prison, with some calling for his summary execution.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Especially when the state is exercising its power for the explicit and advertised purpose of putting the effective head of the opposition party in prison

Where did you see that explicitly advertised? Seems like it would have been a big story, but I must have missed it.

[shawn_dude]

It's been a while since I've bothered to read Breitbart or listened to even a minute of FOX editorializing, so maybe the conspirasphere is promoting this BS as truth now?

[Social Justice is neither]

That's because you're a marxist memory holing anything that makes you leftists look bad.

[Nige]

Does being the head of the opposition party make one immune to laws? God knows, there's already been plenty of special treatment for him.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

There's absolutely nothing Trump could do to violate the law that you dipshits won't pretend he didn't do, or doesn't deserve punishment for.

You're pathetic.

[ragebot]

"It's here, and you can also read the government's memorandum explaining the reasons for the redactions (though it's itself substantially redacted)."

Reasons for the redactions are redacted.

Wonder what the libtards will say to the Senate and House members investigating this. Not to mention what happens if Trump is ever charged and his lawyers demand discovery.

If this is anything close to the shitshow the Steele bullshit was it will be interesting to see what happens to fucktards like Peter Struck and Lisa Slut.

[santamonica811]

libtards, shitshow, bullshit, fucktards, Lisa Slut.

Classy to the end, Ragebot. Your post is definitely the type that will influence people in the middle and those who are persuadable.

[MoreCurious]

The government is fully aware that it will have to disclose its evidence to the defense if it decides to prosecute. Will that satisfy you?

[AmosArch]

I wonder what the next thing their going to try to get Trump on and blow up as if its a massive thing. Maybe removing mattress tags?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Maybe they can get him over a blowjob like Clinton?? Lol.

[Super Scary]

Lying about a blowjob*

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Yep, impeachable offense. 😉

[ragebot]

Lying under oath about anything is what Clinton was impeached, but not convicted, for. It is also the reason he lost his ticket.

[Nige]

Or what you guys would now call 'a process crime.'

[AmosArch]

and it helped Clinton in the end. Maybe history is repeating itself for trump but his fans won't have to lie about what actually happened forever after.

[Nige]

I'm curious as to when they're going to start telling the truth.

[damikesc]

"Yep, impeachable offense."

At least SOMETHING illegal happened there.

Trump was impeached TWICE for zero crimes either time.

[Nuke the cane]

Not gonna need a "next thing."

[Mr. Bumble]

Just remember, as with the two impeachments, the process is the punishment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

What process?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Impeachment worked—Bush won in 2000 and Biden won in 2020…unfortunately Bush was an awful president. Fortunately Biden has been what Trump was supposed to be so only a member of Al Qaida could be unhappy now.

[damikesc]

"Fortunately Biden has been what Trump was supposed to be so only a member of Al Qaida could be unhappy now."

Long as you do not mind the worst COVID death numbers. And a terrible economy. And a laughably terrible foreign policy. And an absolute fiasco withdrawing from Afghanistan.

What, exactly, has he accomplished outside of spending tons of money, opening the border, and abusing laws wholesale?

[jb]

Didn't Trump himself say he wanted the affidavit released?

[Martinned]

I'm sure that will settle the discussion once and for all. Nice to be able to go back to other topics. Student loan forgiveness anybody?

[Mr. Bumble]

Anything equivalent to US student loan programs in Europe?

[Toranth]

They're called "taxes".

[ragebot]

In Europe higher education is restricted to a very few students who are usually selected around junior high school. The governments in Europe don't spend nearly as much on higher education as the US does and truth be told don't really have the same view of higher education as the US does.

[jb]

Nope. It's actually a very similar problem to healthcare: we do spend more government money on education than many European countries, but the cost of education is also WAY higher per student so as a result we still end up with a large amount that has to be paid for privately. US universities spend more on facilities and administration, so costs have been skyrocketing even though the educational product hasn't been improving. Easy student loan money certainly contributes to the problem, but is hardly the only cause.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I guess Republicans now believe cutting the upper tax rate that inevitably leads to higher deficits…is really a tax increase on the middle class??

[shawn_dude]

I dunno about those rich people, but my taxes absolutely went up, by a lot, after Trump "cut taxes."

[Currentsitguy]

I wasn't expecting anything of great importance today, and as usual, I am not disappointed.

[Reallynotbob]

Hypothetical for the "no big deal" advocates:

Assume DOJ had witness testimony that Trump had documents containing top secret current US spy identities and nuclear readiness information at Mar-a-Lago. Assume DOJ and DOD consider this kind of security breach to constitute a clear and present danger to national security. Assume further that identifying the witness would compromise a continuing investigation into someone's (could be Trump's but would not need to be) attempts to sell those secrets to China.

I'm not saying this is true. I'm asking whether you would feel the same way about redacting the affidavit and the specific explanations for seeking the redactions--assuming this scenario were true.

And if so, then shouldn't we just wait to see how this all plays out?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not at all sure why we would assume any of that.

[David Nieporent]

Because that's the hypo.

[Reallynotbob]

That's how a hypothetical works, Brett.

But okay, I'll put you down for "doesn't matter because nothing would matter."

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't really see much point in discussing the hypothetical that Trump is a Bond villain. It's like discussing whether Biden is a bought and paid for agent of the PRC; It's possible, sure, but no point in discussing it until there's evidence to that effect.

[Reallynotbob]

Had nothing to do with Trump really. I was trying to get to the question of whether the redactions are automatically so awful.

[Sarcastr0]

Hypotheticals don't tell you much about reality - they tell you about the thinking of the person answering the hypo.

You've been quite revealing.

[Mr. Bumble]

They tell you more about the person asking the hypo. Obfuscating the question at hand by throwing in a useless comparison.

[Michael P]

That's quite the funhouse mirror you have right there.

Hypotheticals tell you just as much about the person asking the question, and the people jumping in to pretend the hypothetical is relevant.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Assume that Martians planted the boxes using Advanced Martian Teleportation wouldn’t that be a big deal?

I’m not saying this true……

[Reallynotbob]

It would, and I would say in the circumstance that redaction might be warranted.

Did you want to engage my hypothetical or just brush it off?

[EscherEnigma]

Assume that Martians planted the boxes using Advanced Martian Teleportation wouldn’t that be a big deal?

Then redacting that Martians are real would be perfectly reasonable behavior, as exposing that secret has the potential to cause grave national harm.

See? Not difficult.

[MatthewSlyfield]

My own opinion is that all warrant affidavits should be very nearly fully public at least after the search has been executed. If the government feels the need to keep it out of the public eye it shouldn't be in the warrant affidavit in the first place.

I can possibly see redacting witness names. Law enforcement officer names? Unless they are working under cover, hell no.

There is enough unredacted in the affidavit to make me personally less uncomfortable (though some qualms remain) about the fact that the search/raid happened in the first place.

[shawn_dude]

How do we square that with "innocent until proven guilty?" This information is believable enough to overcome a Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. If it turns out to be wrong, or even if the search is successful but the circumstances allow for innocence, then this seems to be unfair to the defendant's presumption of innocence. (IANAL) If it leads to an indictment, then entering it into evidence makes sense but otherwise, what's the point?

[damikesc]

"This information is believable enough to overcome a Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures."

FBI lied in FISA applications to illegally surveil the Trump campaign and administration.

I do not buy your logic on this at all.

FBI has to prove it.

[David Nieporent]

There were no FISA applications to surveil the Trump campaign or administration.

[Currentsitguy]

Assuming that were true they wouldn't have visited once, talked about better locks, finally decided months later to seize them, but wait for 2 days to execute the warrant. Really they would not have waited 18 months in the first place.

The type of documents you are hypothesizing would have a huge sense of urgency that these did not.

[Reallynotbob]

Okay. I think you are saying: "yes, that would justify redactions... but no, I don't think your assumed facts are true."

I accept that answer (if I have it right).

[ragebot]

"The type of documents you are hypothesizing would have a huge sense of urgency that these did not."

Not the first time I have posted the problem the libtards like Garland and his flunkies have is explaining the time line. All the stuff the hypo describes has a very short sell by date and even waiting a couple of days would be silly but waiting weeks or months is impossible to explain.

[Nige]

Unless they're giving incredible amounts of lattitude to Trump. That's the only explanation.

[bernard11]

Really, the argument is simple:

Hurry things along and you are being disrespectful.

Give Trump time to cooperate and it proves the whole thing is not at all serious.

Really, they are cultists and will say whatever the leader wants them to say. It's gone miles beyond any rationality whatsoever.

[Currentsitguy]

Honestly the fact it took months is what makes it so obviously political. If it were a real national security issue it would have been act now, ask for forgiveness later.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You're just another pathetic Trumper who's willing to make any excuse to pretend he hasn't done anything wrong.

If they had acted quickly, you'd be claiming they played hardball too quickly and didn't ask nicely enough times, and thus it was overtly a political act.

Instead they took their time to build the case, and repeatedly asked for the documents back, to which Trump LIED and claimed he didn't have any more, and when the search warrant is finally executed:

"It's obviously political."

Fuck you people. He broke the law.

[Currentsitguy]

You know, I tried to approach this logically and impartially. Instead you have to make stupid, irrational, and insulting comments. It is you who are making excuses for a government agency that if what they claim is true is the most shockingly incompetent group I have ever seen. The Keystone Cops could have done a better job, so don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining with all of your fake, cheap, righteous indignation.

After Sandy Berger smuggled classified documents out of secure storage in his pants and got a slap on his wrist I don't want to hear a fucking word about "breaking the law".

You got 2 years until the next election. Make your case for Biden or shut the fuck up because Article II is pretty plain on the qualifications to be on the ballot, and no matter what the outcome of this is if he decides to run he's going to be the nominee.

[Sarcastr0]

Claiming to be the king of rational analysis is not a sign you are in any way rational.

[JSinAZ]

The quote was “I tried …”, which does not imply success at being impartial. Close reading might make you look like less of an irredeemable dick.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

There is nothing irrational about my comment.

Many of your kind on these very comment sections have made the argument that the search warrant was political because they didn't ask nicely for a long enough period of time for Trump to do the right thing.

Here you are claiming it's obviously political because they did give him multiple opportunities to do the right thing, and in the end needed a search warrant because Trump was willing to lie and (again) obstruct justice in retrieving documents that he was not entitled to possess.

So for your ilk, it's six one way and a half-dozen the other. No matter what Trump does, any attempt at holding him accountable is "obviously political."

And your justification is always some other fucking excuse. Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Hunter Biden, etc.

It's bullshit, and you people are indeed the dregs of our society because you've willfully thrown your morality into the dumpster for a fat, lying sack of shit named Donald Trump.

And I don't care for Biden, so you can go fuck off with that nonsense too.

[shawn_dude]

It's not either/or, and you're omitting the fact that Trump was partially successful and collecting, riling, and aiming a mob at Congress. There is open talk of armed violence against Democrats.

Maybe the delay was the best option in order to get this done as peacefully as possible.

[Currentsitguy]

I am not condoning violence in any way, shape, or form, but if they go down this path I am predicting it.

You already have half the country with absolutely zero trust in Washington, and 1/6 was a minor riot in comparison to the pent up rage in a good chunk of the country. It's a tinderkeg with a very short fuse just waiting to be lit.

[bernard11]

And maybe you could tell us what they are so pissed off about, and whether you think it is justified.

Because I don't get it.

[JSinAZ]

“It’s the summer of love, love, love…”. Idijit.

[Nuke the cane]

Archives referred to DOJ in February, pissy correspondence in the months that followed, visual confirmation of the secret stash in June, worked up the search warrant application in July, got it approved and tossed Trump’s shit in the beginning of August. That’s warp speed for the feds.

[Currentsitguy]

I don't buy it. Not with the Super Double Secret stuff they are purporting. They'd have been through the front door with a fleet of MRAP's that day.

[Sarcastr0]

Who is they and what exactly are they claiming?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/09/politics/doj-investigation-trump-documents-timeline/index.html

You can pretend the facts don't exist. That just makes you ignorant and stupid.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's complete BS. They had to try to cooperate with Trump because even after they did, and go show how many extra miles they went to get him to return documents, they didn't act until, it would appear, they caught Trump, his attorney, and/or someone else involved lying about whether the documents had been returned (which raises the stakes because why would someone not intending any harm falsely claim they had turned over all the classified documents).

If they had gone in immediately to get the documents, then you would have been screaming bloody murder about how they didn't even work with Trump. (Even now, the cult is claiming he was cooperating, despite the lie that they had returned everything when they hadn't. And the change in strategy of the cult leader when the talking head told him the documents were his.)

It is clear that there is no scenario which would lead you to believe this wasn't political.

(And the timing may also have been affected by the fact that, at least initially, they didn't know what documents were at Mar-a-Lago. It could have taken time. And I'm not sure they initially knew that the lawyer's assertion that they had turned over everything was a lie. It seems they were tipped off that it was. Which explains further delay.)

Mostly we don't know enough to evaluate the timeline. But there are a plentitude of plausible explanations for the FBI to wait as long as they did.

Your certainty that it took too long, (then the affidavit was released too fast!), is motivated reasoning at its most stupid.

[Cyto]

When Obama took 30 million documents that the national archives did not want him to have, what happened?

(Short answer: he did not return them and agreed to a cash payment to take them on loan)

[David Nieporent]

This is so incoherent that I don't know if it's trolling, sincere-but-stupid, or mocking right wingers.

[ah....Clem]

Poe's law in action.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You need professional help. You managed to pack a novel's worth of fantasies into a mere two sentences. Literally nothing you said in those two sentences was true.

[Currentsitguy]

Nuclear secrets, or identities of operatives + Latitude just doesn't add up in my book.

I just don't see anyone in the government saying "Hey, you know what? I have it on good authority that Trump has copies of X (where X is critical hypersensitive info) sitting in a closet down in Florida. We ought to figure out a way to get those back."

If they were of the sensitivity being alleged, between "Hey you know what" and a force so strong it would have made what showed up at Mar-A Lago look like a country fair not in months, or days, but within hours, if not minutes.

I've seen crack houses raided with more urgency.

[Nige]

No, it doesn't add up, because clearly they should not be so deferential. On the other hand, one has to wonder to what degree Trump enagaged in obstruction.

[bernard11]

I agree, but then CiG would jahve been complaining about how unfairly Trump was treated - like a common criminal or something.

These guys always defend Trump, no matter how absurd the defense is.

[shawn_dude]

I always considered mob bosses as "uncommon criminals." But we know what happens to rich people who do illegal things like run child trafficking rings to provide underage hookers to other rich people: they get to live in their South Florida mansion under "mansion arrest."

[Squirrelloid]

There doesn't appear to be any allegations about attempt to sell or otherwise disclose the contents of the documents in the affidavit, as such claims would logically follow claims related to the possession of said documents (not be buried in the middle of claims about possession). Since the first and last probable cause claims, and every legible one inbetween, relate to possession, we can reasonably conclude all the claims relate to possession.

At which point, why should we assume what the DoJ appears unwilling to allege.

[Squirrelloid]

(Note: I hold no position on the legitimacy of the redactions - i have no clue what's inside them, just a reasonable suspicion they relate to probable cause Trump held classified/etc... documents, and given they're redacted, would expose witnesses, methods, or otherwise sensitive evidence if unredacted, at least in the government's estimation).

[Nuke the cane]

Its not a charging document. Its for a search warrant so its all about the documents.

[Iridium]

Assuming that is true, the redactions are still overly broad. Yeah, witness identities don't need to come out until the investigation is closed. But, I really can't think of a fact pattern that makes it necessary to retract some of the most important questions:

1. Why did the FBI not believe that the documents were declassified? If they have a legal opinion that the President doesn't have the right to declassify, I see no compelling interest to keep that sealed. If they looked around and couldn't find the "standing order" then they should say that. If they have decided that they are going to move forward on the basis that the law doesn't mandate that the information be classified, then that is a pretty important and newsworthy thing.

2. What is the whole "obstruction of justice" about? Even if they don't want to go into specifics and some fact patterns might justify that, they should at least be able to give a hint. The most direct conclusion, that the obstruction was the concealment of mishandling classified documents doesn't add up, because this whole thing was kicked off when Trump turned in documents marked classified. If he was so worried about getting prosecuted for mishandling classified documents that he would conceal them, he would have shredded the documents rather than turn in the batch in January.

3. Why did the subpoena include all Presidental Records, as opposed to just documents marked classified? I don't need to see why they thought Presidential Records were there, but I don't think there is compelling reason to keep sealed the FBI's explanation for why they are sticking their nose into it. PRA is a civil matter, so even if it was the National Archives who originally brought the FBI in, that doesn't automatically scope creep the criminal investigation to cover a civil fight over what is government property.

4. Why was a search warrant necessary, rather than a subpoena? Even under your fact pattern, I see no reason why they couldn't have unsealed whatever sentence essentially said: "we believe that the records would be copied or stolen if they knew we were coming". It would still be unsatisfactory, given that they were there just a few months prior, so presumably the would-be spy would have more or less known the jig was up at that point, but as-is, we don't even get a hint that the FBI considered less invasive options.

[Nuke the cane]

The judge found the affidavit satisfactory and approved the warrant as most judges would have done if presented with the same. Your beef is with DOJ/Garland for choosing what you believe was an overly heavy-handed approach to retrieving the government documents. They seem to have considered this step thoroughly before taking it. Having done so, the matter is largely finished and all of the carping on this tread matters little. The next steps though are fascinating. Garland seems to be a by the book prosecutor and not intimidated by any political fallout. It seems quite probable now that the law will be enforced against Trump "without fear or favor."

[Iridium]

There are no next steps. The spy posed in the hypothetical almost certainly doesn't exist. The search would have tipped off the spy that it was time to leave the country. As a result, the arrest almost certainly would have happened simultaneous to the search. We would have heard if a spy had been arrested in connection to this.

[NOVA Lawyer]

1. Why did the FBI not believe that the documents were declassified?

As has been explained multiple times, the classification status is not at all determinative of liability under these statutes. There is no reason for them to debunk the spurious claim of a "standing order." They don't have to prove a negative, nor say anything about proving a negative.

But to answer your question: Because the documents are marked classified. When such documents are declassified, they are remarked to make that clear.

Ergo, the presumption, at minimum, is that documents marked classified are classified.

2. We know that an attorney for your cult leader submitted a signed statement saying they had no more classified documents when, in fact, they did have documents marked classified (and there has been no plausible argument yet that they aren't classified....if there was an irresponsible order to summarily declassify anything your cult leader brought home, it would be written down and they would have said that and produced the document. Instead, it's: If cult leader thinks it, then it is a reality. You guys are nuts to fall for this shit.)

3. Why did the subpoena include all Presidental Records, as opposed to just documents marked classified?

Because classification status is not determinative of liability under the cited statutes.

But it's easier than that: All Presidential records belong to the federal government, not a former President.

4. See answer to 2. We know for a fact that they had some evidence that the cult was lying to them about what they did have. That doesn't make one confident they'll comply with a subpoena. The various leaked reports also suggest there were other indications that someone may have moved or been intending to move documents.

Also, enforcing a subpoena could take quite awhile (especially if the subject lies about whether they have what is being subpoenaed and it's also particularly concerning in that case).

These are really easy questions......

[Social Justice is neither]

So if it was Hillary and her unsecured server killing US human assets? I guess equal protection would require you to defend doing nothing to the death if there was an honest bone in your body, but there is not so you wouldn't.

[damikesc]

And if we do not want to play "the inane analogy game"?

[dwb68]

Really, they included Breitbart, CBS Miami, along with a Save America PAC statement? Redacted, of course.

This will not go well for the DOJ.

[David Nieporent]

Is that your professional opinion as a criminal defense lawyer?

[dwb68]

If FBI was forced to put left wing media and PAC quotes in an affidavit, they case was extremely weak.

[David Nieporent]

This isn't a "case," doofus. It's a search warrant application.

[dwb68]

Ahh, yes, guilty until proven innocent. All they need is slightly plausible cause.

[David Nieporent]

Are you just throwing words around at random? It's. Not. A. Case. There is no "proven" at this point.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The PAC quote is actually a statement made on behalf of Donald J. Trump. The statement of the person allegedly possessing (at the time it was alleged, now it is known for a fact) is obviously highly relevant to a search warrant application.

"left wing media" A report on moving trucks at Mar-a-Lago was part of some left wing commentary? It was just facts. They could have gotten statements from (other) eyewitnesses, but there is nothing unusual about citing news reports about readily observable facts.

Breitbart is right wing organization. Plus, again, it was the statement of Kash Patel (someone working closely with Trump), not Brietbart's own commentary, that was relevant in that it showed the Trump team being less than forthright which, in the context of an obstruction charge and classified documents that the Trump team has implausibly claimed weren't classified, is a problem which lends further credence to the need to send FBI agents to get this material back before any (more?) damage is done to national security.

[Sarcastr0]

Your predictions always come to pass!

[bevis the lumberjack]

Paragraph 6 - Explanation of Reasons for Redactions:

REDACTED.

LOLOLOLOLOL

Why don’t y’all go ahead and waste 600 posts with zero knowledge? This has gone way beyond parody.

[Michael P]

They have unearned certainty! But that's not damaging when they do it.

[Josh R]

The redacted document doesn't shed any light on whether Trump ought to be indicted. But, it's enough in my view to justify the search.

It took the pulling of teeth to get twelve boxes in January, 2022 to the Archives. Since those boxes had classified material in them, it was reasonable to refer the case to the DOJ. The DOJ got a subpoena and additional material in June of 2002. They had reason to believe (justification redacted) - and were ultimately proven correct - that more classified material remained. Hence, the search.

It may end up Trump ought to be treated the same as Clinton: no prosecution because this is a case of carelessness. However, his non-cooperation justifies the search.

[Toranth]

How can you say it took "pulling teeth"? Any discussion of what happened was redacted.

[Josh R]

The fact it took a year and multiple requests form the Archives to get the original 15 (not 12, sorry) boxes is strong evidence of pulling teeth.

[JohnTheRevelator]

The fact it took a year and multiple requests form the Archives to get the original 15 (not 12, sorry) boxes is strong evidence of pulling teeth.

No it isn't. It's evidence only that it took a year for some boxes to go from A to B. How do you know Trump didn't reply the same day in December 2021 and NARA then didn't show up for another 6 months? You don't, because if that's discussed at all in the affidavit, the discussion is redacted. Why is it redacted? Since we're speculating, I'll go ahead and speculate that NARA indeed displayed no urgency, and they redacted that bit because it tends to undermine the case that Trump was fighting to hang onto classified information.

I mean hey, maybe you're right and I'm wrong, but there's no reason to pick either of our theories over the other at this point.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'll go ahead and speculate that NARA indeed displayed no urgency, and they redacted that bit because it tends to undermine the case that Trump was fighting to hang onto classified information.

It's very considerate of Trump to facilitate the coverup by not disclosing any of that himself.

[Josh R]

Your narrative seems unlikely given:

On or about May 6, 2021, NARA made a request for the missing PRA records and continued to make requests until approximately late December 2021 when NARA was informed twelve boxes were found and ready for retrieval at the PREMISES.

To be sure, Trump claims:

It is important to emphasize that when a request was made for the documents by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), President Trump readily and voluntarily agreed to their transfer to NARA,

but I doubt it. Additionally (not supported in the un-redacted portions of the affidavit), is the subpoena, more classified documents being turned over, and even more obtained in the search. That's a plenty strong enough case for non-cooperation.

[David Nieporent]

but I doubt it.

We know it's not true, because various Trump orbiters on social media explained that Trump was justified in refusing to cooperate.

It's just explanation 17C-3(b) for why Trump is a victim.

[Life of Brian]

On or about May 6, 2021, NARA made a request for the missing PRA records and continued to make requests until approximately late December 2021 when NARA was informed twelve boxes were found and ready for retrieval at the PREMISES.

It's... interesting that NARA's own account of the timeline (on February 8, 2022) was significantly less inflammatory than the rendition that ended up in the affidavit:

Throughout the course of the last year, NARA obtained the cooperation of Trump representatives to locate Presidential records that had not been transferred to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration. When a representative informed NARA in December 2021 that they had located some records, NARA arranged for them to be securely transported to Washington.

[Josh R]

That statement came one day after what could be interpreted as a damning statement against Trump ("these records should have been transferred to NARA from the White House at the end of the Trump Administration in January 2021"). Perhaps the Feb 8 statement was CYA diplomacy for public consumption.

[Life of Brian]

what could be interpreted as a damning statement against Trump ("these records should have been transferred to NARA from the White House at the end of the Trump Administration in January 2021")

Not quite seeing the damning part. When Trump shipped back the boxes, he was agreeing those were presidential rather than personal records and thus NARA's statement is simply factual.

[NOVA Lawyer]

NARA's own account of the timeline (on February 8, 2022)

You're aware that quite a lot of non-cooperation happened between February and August? And that the non-cooperation, including the implausible justifications for it, cast a new light on whether the Trump team had been cooperating, or had been attempting to hide some of the materials even to the point of having a Trump attorney submit a signed statement saying there were no more classified documents when, in fact, there were.

The most obvious interpretation: NARA thought Trump was cooperating in February when they issued the statement, but it turns out Trump wasn't really cooperating even prior to February 2022. He or someone on his team was even then engaged in stonewalling and hiding materials that NARA had requested and which belonged to the federal government.

[Life of Brian]

a Trump attorney submit a signed statement saying there were no more classified documents when, in fact, there were

Unless you've dug up an actual copy of the letter, the description from the alt-right NYT is a bit different:

Mr. Corcoran then drafted a statement, which Ms. Bobb, who is said to be the custodian of the documents, signed. It asserted that, to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that was there had been returned, according to two people familiar with the statement.

That's exactly how you, I, or any other attorney would qualify such a statement. The implication in this latest breathless ooooo-gotcha routine that she (or anyone) would have personally sorted through every last sheet of paper in every last banker's box in every last storage area in Trump's possession is ridiculous, as I credit you knowing full well.

[David Nieporent]

Um, “to the best of my knowledge” is inherent in any affidavit. But like any competent lawyer I would not sign an affidavit relating to something about which I don’t have firsthand knowledge. If I’m not the one who went through the boxes, I’m not the one who signs the affidavit.

[Life of Brian]

If I’m not the one who went through the boxes, I’m not the one who signs the affidavit.

It may well be that the cases you work on are of such a size that you can personally look at every document in your client's possession and know for a certainty you've covered the entire universe of materials. But that's not how larger-scale collection/review efforts work at all.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Larger scale collection/review efforts involve multiple attorneys. Yes, the lead attorney signs the paperwork. But they are representing that a good faith process was followed to identify all relevant materials. Good luck convincing the court not to sanction you as the lead attorney in a document production if you attest that there were no classified documents, but, when the documents are found, your only defense is: well, I didn't look through the boxes.

Who did? What was the procedure they were supposed to follow? Who supervised them? Etc.

If you sign that affidavit, you're going to need to tell the court why you didn't know those documents existed. Did the client (Trump) hide them from you? Do you have a plausible argument that you didn't know those documents existed? Again, who looked through the boxes and if no one did, why not? And the Trump team knew these boxes were in the storage room. It's not that big a storage room.

We get none of that from the Trump team. They just flail about with Trump thought them into declassified status. If they had a better argument, they wouldn't lead with stupid.

In summary, if you don't see a problem for Trump in his attorney signing that affidavit and then more boxes with classified documents coming to light, then I don't want you anywhere near my legal team and I would never take you as a client.

[Life of Brian]

Spare me the phony posturing, my friend. If you've never been in a situation where responsive materials popped up late in a case in a location that wasn't expected to contain responsive materials or simply slipped through the cracks, you haven't litigated much.

Is it a comfortable situation? Of course not. Does the other side scream bloody murder, drum up every conceivable scrap of potential prejudice, and push for sanctions? Of course. But don't pretend you're doing anything but that here. And certainly don't pretend that if you were on the thin side of such a situation you'd just meekly fold.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Is it a comfortable situation? Of course not.

That's the main point which you seem to be denying, particularly by quoting the "to the best of my knowledge" language that, if you've ever seen a courtroom, you know is standard and doesn't absolve the attorney the way you pretended it does.

Does the other side scream bloody murder, drum up every conceivable scrap of potential prejudice, and push for sanctions? Of course.

And all the more so if those boxes of documents are found in the clients home or office, rather than in some off-site storage location where it can be shown they happened to end up by mistake. And even more so if the boxes were only discovered by a tipoff from an insider and weren't produced late by the client himself. Because then you can scream that the documents never would have come to light, which creates an inference of bad faith.

(Ask Alex Jones how "comfortable" it is. It's not just uncomfortable, it probably contributed to the multimillion dollar judgment, because any sensible person infers in such circumstances that Alex Jones was intentionally hiding damaging text messages.)

But don't pretend you're doing anything but that here.

I've heard a lot of excuses out of the Trump team and their apologists, but i haven't heard anyone provide any explanation, much less a plausible one, as to why the attorney made that misrepresentation to the government and whose fault it was. Was it the attorney's? Or did the client (Trump) lie to the attorney?

So, no, not just screaming. Because they are going to have to explain how that happened. Absent an explanation, a good explanation, it's going to be a problem. (Again, the attorney didn't discover the error and notify the FBI, the client didn't say, oh, attorney, I forgot about these boxes or we found these boxes. No, a tipster did. Which, if a tipster knew they were there, how did the client and his team not know they were there? ) It's not just uncomfortable, it's a significant problem.

And certainly don't pretend that if you were on the thin side of such a situation you'd just meekly fold.

Of course, not. But, then, if I had signed the affidavit, I could describe to the court what I had done to locate all the documents and why I didn't find that one. And you better believe the client would likely be fired if those documents were in their closet together with their passport. You aren't putting my reputation on the line with your shenanigans.

But back to the original point: It isn't a good look. Combined with the fact that Trump shouldn't have had highly classified documents in an insecure storage location in the first place, this "uncomfortable" situation adds to the indicia of bad faith.

So what we have:

1. A former President kept documents belonging to the U.S. government including highly classified documents (at least, that's the reasonable presumption at this point given the markings and no plausible effort yet at showing they had been declassified.)

2. The former President engaged in lengthy negotiations stalling the return of documents he did not own.

3. He continued to store them in a lightly secured (padlock only and how many people had the key?) location.

4. He gave back some of the documents, to which an advisor responded that it made him look weak and he should keep them all. Trump claims, with no legal basis, that the documents belong to him.

5. Trump's attorney signs an affidavit saying the last batch was all of the classified materials.

6. FBI gets info that there are more classified documents there.

7. Gets a search warrant, searches, and, finds more classified documents.

Saying this situation isn't "comfortable" for the attorney or for Trump is quite the understatement.

[Life of Brian]

i haven't heard anyone provide any explanation, much less a plausible one, as to why the attorney made that misrepresentation to the government and whose fault it was. Was it the attorney's? Or did the client (Trump) lie to the attorney?

Or there's option C, as I said (and again, if you've practiced much at all I'm comfortable you've encountered): nobody misrepresented anything and nobody lied about anything. They conducted a reasonable search where they would expect responsive documents to be, and shipped back what they found. Pretending this is a situation where there are a few thousands or tens of thousands of pages of documents at issue such that Trump could either have encyclopedic knowledge of their contents or readily flip through them all just makes you look more partisan and ridiculous.

So what we have:

Nah. What YOU have is a carefully-sculpted narrative where you're regurgitating inflammatory, one-sided news reports and construing every single inference against Trump. If that's the way you choose to view the world, knock yourself out. But get off your high horse and stop pretending you're operating on some objectively moral plane and there's no other rational way to view this situation.

[David Nieporent]

And all the more so if those boxes of documents are found in the clients home or office, rather than in some off-site storage location where it can be shown they happened to end up by mistake. And even more so if the boxes were only discovered by a tipoff from an insider and weren't produced late by the client himself. Because then you can scream that the documents never would have come to light, which creates an inference of bad faith.

Right. The problem here is that Life of Brian is pretending a very different fact pattern. This isn't a case where, after documents were produced, someone suddenly remembered that there was an asbestos abatement project that lasted a few months in early 2012, and that for those three months documents were stored in an empty office on the third floor rather than the main file room. This was a discrete set of boxes shipped from the White House to Mar-a-Lago, and Bobb claimed that something wasn't in them when it was.

Either (a) Bobb knowingly lied, or (b) Bobb never bothered to look and just signed whatever was put in front of her, or (c) someone lied to Bobb.

"To the best of my knowledge" is throat-clearing; it isn't exculpatory.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Exactly that, David.

When they returned 15 boxes, there was no more issue of lost boxes that were later found. They even put a padlock on the room where they knew the other 11 boxes were. At least some of the documents in those boxes were plainly marked classified. It is not possible that anyone with a modicum of integrity and competence went through the boxes and didn't see documents marked classified.

Which means, either no one went through the documents, which is a problem for Bobb, or someone went through the documents but lied that there weren't classified documents in the boxes which is a problem for Bobb and/or whoever was tasked with going through the boxes.

And if anyone in management instructed Bobb not to have someone go through the boxes or instructed anyone else to lie about what was or was not in the boxes, that individual will also have some significant exposure.

Life of Brian can pretend otherwise all he wants. Reality wins over fantasy.

[NOVA Lawyer]

As David points out, that's a phrase used in literally every affidavit. See paragraph 7 of the just-released Mar-a-Lago affidavit for substantively identical language.

If Trump's team submitted an affidavit about whether there were classified documents from someone who didn't have personal knowledge of the details, then that's evidence they were intentionally misleading the FBI. By submitting the affidavit of Trump's attorney, there is an inherent representation that she has sufficient knowledge to make the representation on behalf of the Trump team after a good faith effort to determine the truth of the matter.

[Reallynotbob]

"...no reason...."

I'm intrigued that the more information comes out, the more epistemological doubt this group expresses. I mean, how can we know anything anyway, man?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Since those boxes had classified material in them,"

Information marked classified. Not quite the same thing, since being declassified doesn't cause the classification markings on a document to magically erase themselves.

[Josh R]

If you are correct, then the DOJ lied in the affidavit. Deep State bat-shit crazy alert (but, no surprise that will be the defense).

[Mr. Bumble]

"If you are correct, then the DOJ lied in the affidavit. "

Gee, that's never been done before, has it?

[John F. Carr]

The affidavit was careful to distinguish between marked classified and classified. Witnesses established the presence of markings. The markings gave probable cause to believe the documents were in fact classified. Trump's lawyer did not claim that the president had declassified the documents. They claimed that the president had power to declassify them. That is a conspicuous omission.

[Brett Bellmore]

A sensible omission. Even if they believed that they had only intentionally taken declassified documents, why would they be certain that the GSA hadn't accidentally packed the wrong thing into a box?

I'm not accusing either side of lies as yet, though I'm not going to pretend that the FBI never lies or omits material information when requesting a warrant, or for that matter that Trump is scrupulously honest.

I was simply noting that they had not asserted that they had proof Trump possessed classified documents, they were careful to say that he'd possessed documents marked classified, which is, as I say, not quite the same thing.

[bernard11]

I'm not accusing either side of lies as yet,

I'm sure those 30 million documents will turn up in Obama's basement any day now.

[Toranth]

You mean the 30 million documents Obama still possesses, after the National Archives agreed pursued them for two years but agreed to let Obama keep after he donated $3 million to the Archives and signed a paper agreeing that the Archives still "owns" those documents?

Yeah, despite the agreement saying they would be scanned and placed online, there still haven't been any released. Maybe the FBI raided and took them?

[jb]

LOL. You're an idiot. The Obama Library is run by the government, not by Obama, and is the place where, by law, those documents are supposed to be. I'm not sure why this is apparently so hard for Trump supporters to understand.

[NOVA Lawyer]

They, apparently, are only capable of holding two ideas in their head. Republicans good, Democrats bad. Anything that fits that narrative, they accept gullibly. Anything that doesn't fit that narrative: CONSPIRACY!!!

Some are probably genuine morons, but plenty apparently choose to be.

[Reallynotbob]

From the standpoint of establishing probable cause, the existence of the classification markings helps to support the search request. It doesn't need to be dispositive; it needs to add probability that the search will recover evidence of a crime.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree that the mere classification marks would be sufficient, unless maybe the FBI had information that the documents bearing those marks HAD been declassified. Which is the sort of 'pre-redaction' on their part that wouldn't shock me.

It would be sufficient against you or me, that is. It would not ordinarily suffice for an ex-President, given prior norms. Prior norms. Norms have been falling like tenpins in the hunt for Trump.

[bernard11]

What prior norms?

How many Presidents have absconded with classified material?

[shawn_dude]

Or sicced an armed mob on Congress to stop the peaceful transfer of power to their successor?

[Brett Bellmore]

Possibly precisely zero of them, including Trump.

How many Presidents could have been accused of absconding with classified material, if the next President felt like having the FBI raid their home? All of them.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure are certain of events you can’t be certain of!

[bernard11]

Got evidence, Brett, or are you just spewing BS you read somewhere?

Is there a limit to your Trump ass-kissing?

[Nuke the cane]

Presidents don't direct DOJ/FBI to conduct raids (at least those not named Trump)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Is there a limit to your Trump ass-kissing?

Brett's answer, posted throughout these comment sections, is an emphatic no. Dear Leader does no wrong in his eyes.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

The only thing you ever do, Brett, is accuse the 'other side' of corruption, malfeasance, and lies.

Trump himself could tell you that he stole those documents, and you'd still be sitting here trying to conjure up an excuse as to why the Deep State must've made him issue a false confession.

Trump. Did. Not. Declassify. Them.

He stole them, and refused to give them back.

[Toranth]

How do you know Trump didn't declassify them?
Trump says he did.
Trump's lawyers and staffers say he did.
But you know better?

[Sarcastr0]

That was like the fifth excuse Trump tried…not every credible.

And his lawyers only now say he did. And Trumps staff have been…equivocal at best, laughing at worst. This is some sad surrender of common sense.

[bernard11]

I know Trump, and his lawyers, and staffers, are all liars, so their statements have zero value.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Several reasons:

1) Trump said it.
2) It wasn't his first attempt at an excuse.
3) Former cabinet members of his have said that he's full of shit.
4) Legal experts have said he's full of shit.
5) There's no evidence that he did so, and nothing gets declassified without a fucking paper trail indicating who ordered it so and why.

So yes, I do know better.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Lol, now you realize that. In the Hillary email investigation you couldn’t grasp how that could ever be?!?

[David Nieporent]

Not quite the same thing, since being declassified doesn't cause the classification markings on a document to magically erase themselves.

Have you ever seen a declassified document? That's part of the process.

[Toranth]

Oh, so the moment when information is declassified, all copies of it in existence magically have their markings removed?

Tell me, what do you think the classification of information is when half the documents its written in have been re-labelled?

Also, what process is the President required to follow for declassifying something? Where can I find this document that describes this process that only you seem to know about?

[Sarcastr0]

You clearly don’t know of what you speak.

[Michael P]

He clearly knows better than you.

[Sarcastr0]

There are classified document guides all over the place. On him if he doesn’t understand them.

[Michael P]

Way to prove my point. If you're going to try to speaken zie jargen, you should at least get basic terms right. (The term you were looking for is classification guide, not classified document guide. And classification guides are for derivative classifiers, not the President or even OCAs.)

[Sarcastr0]

I am not such a wanker to care about the jargon. Toranth is asking questions that are addressed in the protocol.

[Michael P]

Yes, his questions pointed out that DN doesn't understand the protocol.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing he said addresses anything DMN said. Toranth was just yelling that declassification is hard, and then points to some stuff that is not hard at all.

[shawn_dude]

Not magical. It's done page by page, by a human, who marks each header and footer as declassified. Any document that isn't so marked is considered classified, even if other copies were marked unclassified. So if Trump declassified them but someone how kept hold of one still marked as classified, he was still holding on to classified documents. (though, I'd imagine that wouldn't lead to charges.)

It's this process of classification and declassification and the rules behind it that totally blow any claim that "Trump had a blanket declassification order" out of the water, out of orbit, and into open space.

[Toranth]

No, if you have a document marked classified that does not contain any classified information, then you are not in possession of classified anything.

There are sample classification markings in training materials throughout the government. Usually, they're marked to specify that the classification markings are fake, but not always. That doesn't make the training material suddenly classified.

[shawn_dude]

I was trained to treat documents marked as classified as classified. I wasn't trained to open them up and make my own determination. Training material was clearly marked as such.

[Iridium]

No it doesn't. The affidavit says the documents were marked classified. This is indisputably true.

The FBI appears to be arguing that the documents were classified (based the headings), but it looks like that are making the argument rather than claim it as fact. They even included the Trump team's counter argument.

[Iridium]

Sorry. Comment went to the wrong place.

[Iridium]

But there is a big difference between "you should treat it as" and actually being that thing. You should treat every gun as if it is loaded doesn't mean every gun is loaded. It is advice to avoid getting into trouble.

You should treat every document that is marked classified as classified sounds like exactly the right sort of advice to give someone who isn't involved in the declassification process. For someone with unilateral authority to view and declassify any document he wants, such advice is less necessary. It is extremely sloppy and warrants criticism. It does not, though, merit a criminal investigation, should it be discovered that such documents were actually declassified.

[Michael P]

Who established that process, and for what purpose? (Hint: it's not in EO 13526.)

[NOVA Lawyer]

Declassification is typically a process which, big surprise, includes marking documents as declassified.

From DOJ:

"The intent of uniform, conspicuous and standard markings is to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information. If standard declassification markings are not affixed to declassified records uncertainty is created for cleared holders of the record as to its classification status."

I mean, duh.

Of course, if you buy the whole idea that Trump can just think things classified and declassified with no formal process, no paper record, and no marking of the documents he thought about, then maybe it didn't occur to you that for any classification system to work, there must be a process for identifying documents that are classified and documents that are declassified.

Magic unmarking is only required if you buy into the stupidest cult idea put forward yet (that Trump can just think things and it makes them so).

[Gospace]

Okay, Nova lawyer- show me the LAW, not your opinion, the LAW that the President of the United States has to follow to declassify a document, and the procedures he MUST follow or else. Hint- it dosn't exist. POTUS is THE declassification authority,Period.

[Nige]

But how does that help Trump? He still has to prove he declasiified them, show some sort of paper trail and some sort of process, and, oh yeah, none of the quoted statutes require the documents to be classified for his posessing them to be a crime, and he still seems to have engaged in obstruction.

[Voize of Reazon]

If you believe Trump could, with effect, declassify information in his head then you must believe Biden could reclassify it again in his head.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Laws are passed by Congress. So of course there isn't a law saying how Trump has to declassify documents. But there is a process established by prior Presidents. Trump could change that process, but I have seen no evidence he did. And, no, he can't just think it silently in his head and either declassify a document or change the process. Both the change in process and the declassification have to be documented.

The "Trump could just think it" line of reasoning is the dumbest enthusiasm for chaos I have yet seen.

No, he couldn't, even as President, just think things and change reality. He's not a goddam genie. He has to act. Presidential acts are memorialized.

For example, he tweeted that he was declassifying everything related to the Mueller investigation / Crossfire Hurricane. But then his aides told people that, of course, a tweet doesn't declassify anything, they're working on the actual declassification order. Then they produced a declassification memorandum from the President specifying what was declassified and what wasn't. It was a very limited subset of the materials. That's how declassification works. And that's how Trump did it.

So, no, it doesn't end with the fact that the President has ultimate classification/declassification authority. The issue merely starts there.

[Gospace]

Short version of your aanswer- POTUS can say it's declassified- because NO PROCESS actually exists that he has to follow. Now you say, well, previous POTUS have implemented procedures. Procedures are in writing else they're not procedures. Where are they?

Hint: The don't exist either.

[NOVA Lawyer]

No. Short version is there actually is a process and the President can't just "say it's declassified".

Nice try saying the opposite of what I did.

The President has to formally declassify previously classified document. There is a process. It is written down. Just because the Constitution doesn't spell out the process, doesn't mean there isn't a process.

I quoted for you part of one of the procedural guides issued by the administrative branch (i.e., by the authority of the President.)

But perhaps you need an example. (And please note, when he first tweeted he was declassifying everything, his aides quickly said, of course a tweet wasn't an official declassification. Indicating they understood what you do not, that there is a declassification process.) This is how declassification can actually be achieved:

https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/memorandum-declassification-certain-materials-related-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/

Notice, he refers to the same procedures I quoted from above. The procedures are written down and they are followed and, in any case, an official act by the President has to be memorialized in writing.

[Don Nico]

No Brett, they don't erase themselves.
BUT a declassified document should an a multiple strike through across the classifications. Also for SCI codeword documents, the codewords are classified and need to be redacted.
POTUS does not get to be a careless asshole.

[Hank Ferrous]

What planet are you on? 'Should,' 'does not get to be' -your fantasy life is not the same as reality. There are few politicians who are not marginally competent assholes, as biased as the lackwits arguing why their in-group being in the driver's seat means this current goatfuck is above board, legal, and ethical.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Hank, what planet are you on? If the documents are marked classified. There is a process to declassify including marking the documents as declassified. The presumption is that documents marked classified are classified. It's gonna be on Trump to prove they were declassified by producing the order to declassify them. (And, yes, the government may have to first track down the order classifying them. But because we generally have competent people running the day-to-day of the classification system, that's not gonna be hard.)

But it appears Trump's team knows they can't meet their burden, so they resort to: "He can just think it and it's done! Yeah, that's the ticket. He just thought it, without telling anyone. So, sorry, FBI, NARA, all the good people of America, these are Trump's now."

I am just hopeful that things are getting so stupid, some cult members just won't be willing to be fools for Trump anymore.

[Don Nico]

I am in full agreement NOVA

[Don Nico]

Such a reply is what I expect from a complete putz. Buzz off.
Bye.

[CindyF]

Yes. It was so important they waited eighteen months while negotiating which was Trump's papers and which were classified, even visiting the premises. Then, they waited three days from obtaining the search warrant before execution. Whose teeth were they pulling then?

Let's not even mention that with these new super-secret rules that only apply to Trump and that the National Archivist suddenly has all the power over President papers even above and beyond the President's? If that is so, why isn't this an elected position? If the Archivist has this much power, I want a say in who holds that position.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

The FBI waited to execute the search warrant because MAL is closed to members on Monday—they didn’t want to be disruptive.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" If the Archivist has this much power, I want a say in who holds that position. "

Modern American society rejects your preference. You should be accustomed to that by now.

[David Nieporent]

and that the National Archivist suddenly has all the power over President papers even above and beyond the President's?

Trump. Is. Not. The. President.

[bernard11]

a. Trump is not President.

b. It doesn't matter if the documents are classified or not, they don't belong to Trump.

c. If they act more quickly their are being hasty and not treating Trump with due respect. If they spend 18 months trying to get him to turn over documents that belong to the government then it couldn't be important or why did they wait so long?

Really Trumpist "logic" is amazing.

[Don Nico]

Just to emphasize what bernard said.
"the documents... do not belong to Trump."

[Nige]

'Let's not even mention that with these new super-secret rules that only apply to Trump'

Not new, not secret, don't just apply to Trump.

[Don Nico]

That does seem to be the position of the Orange Clown

[Stephen Lathrop]

CindyF, the Archivist of the United States is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is political accountability good enough for a Supreme Court Justice. It ought to be good enough to satisfy you. What more do you think you are entitled to?

[SRG]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mUNcxLry3lBq8lp0Q9hz9CEiG5ZIlOvE/view?usp=sharing

[Squirrelloid]

So, not much useful in terms of what we can read, but we can infer some useful things from the structure of the affidavit.

Because we have the first, the second to last and much of the last points justifying probable cause, as well as scattered additional points throughout, and we have a full statement of the crimes being investigated, it appears as if possession/storage of NDI and classified documents are the only crimes. It's unlikely there's any statement that Trump was attempting to distribute or share them, given that such a claim and evidence related to it should logically follow the allegations about storage (which we know continue through the last point of probable cause).

At which point, the contrast between Trump and Hillary's treatment seems rather on point. I'm willing to change my mind should we ever see what's redacted.

I'm also surprised by how seemingly robust Trump's defense is. 18 USC subsection 1924(a) only applies to "an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant", and Trump's lawyers correctly point out that the President is none of these.

I feel like the Separation of Powers issues are going to be a winner for Trump's defense if this goes anywhere. I wasn't expecting to believe that before. (I'd also note this is a defense that Hillary couldn't access, as she *was* an officer of the US).

[Josh R]

Could be. But, why did Trump not cooperate and just hand over the records? Did he want a search to motivate his base?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

He’s a narcissist that believes he is above the law—he’s always got to be the center of attention!!

[Brett Bellmore]

I would assume he thought that the National Archives were over-claiming, insisting on getting things they weren't actually entitled to, and that he'd end up holding onto some of the stuff after negotiations were complete. Of course, Biden waiving executive privilege for Trump meant that the Archives didn't have to negotiate anymore, they could proceed straight to seizing the documents.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Query—when Democrats get to be above the law…why are you a Republican?? Is it really that important for you to be a member of the party of Dennis Hastert?? All the big fights are over—join the Democratic Party!!

[Brett Bellmore]

Bleah. Like I quoted from an old Western, I'd rather have my horse shot out from under me, than shoot him myself.

Besides, even now it is by no means inevitable that the left will succeed in converting America into a one party totalitarian state. Though things do look dicey, mainly due to the fecklessness of the right.

[bernard11]

Besides, even now it is by no means inevitable that the left will succeed in converting America into a one party totalitarian state.

This is fucking ridiculous. It is the Republicans who are passing bills aimed at reducing voting by Democrats. It is Republicans who are pushing the Independent State Legislature nonsense, so their gerrymandered legislatures can hand EV's to Trump no matter the vote. It is Republicans who have stacked SCOTUS. It is Republicans who are installing election denialists and fraud screamers to run state elections.

Fuck you.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s not at all ridiculous. The left is doing all they can, up to and including bike locks to the temple, to shut down opponents’ speech. They gerrymander every bit as badly as the Republicans trying to disenfranchise their opponents. The media is so hard to the left that it’s currently serving as an American Pravda. Any bullshit the administration throws out is DEFENDED by the media watchdogs.

As a despiser of both parties, I fear for my liberty a lot more from the left than I do from the right.

[Brett Bellmore]

When I decided that the LP was a lost cause, but that I didn't want to give up on being politically active, I had to decide which major party to work with. At the time you could have made a case that the Democratic party was a bit more libertarian, people DID make that case.

My own evaluation was different: The GOP recognizes limits to governmental reach, they recognize economic rights as real rights, and they are not determined to disarm people or abolish freedom of political speech. You can't say those things of the Democratic party.

I see a Republican party that is authoritarian, and a Democratic party that is trending totalitarian.

[Nige]

'or abolish freedom of political speech'

They're banning books from schools and libraries and even bookshops. You think that won't scale up?

'and a Democratic party that is trending totalitarian.'

No you don't. You equate totalitarianism with the idea that victmised groups get to push back against their victimisers.

[NOVA Lawyer]

The GOP recognizes limits to governmental reach

DeSantis refutes you, Brett.

Can private corporations decide, in the midst of a pandemic, to offer vaccinated only cruises? DeSantis says no. Fascists 1, Economic Rights 0.

Can private corporations give their opinion on matters of public interest without being subject to punishment by the government for expressing their views? DeSantis says no. Fascists 2, Economic Rights 0.

Can private corporations determine the content of their training material even if that training material? DeSantis says no. Fascists 3, Economic Rights 0.

You're out.

[Sarcastr0]

bevis, when your go-to is like 5 years ago, you may be reaching.

[bevis the lumberjack]

WTF are you talking about? All that stuff occurred this year.

And as to who I’m more worried about, that’s today.

[Sarcastr0]

The bike lock thing was like 2017.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Antifa is still rioting in Portland regularly. There are several stories from this year -the most recent I could find is July 4. Violent shit like always. Damned white supremacists.

I note your denial that it’s actually happening without you bothering to post it.

[Sarcastr0]

Antifa, you say?

Pretty sure that’s nonsense. Antifa are morons, but not into continual protests.

[bernard11]

The media is so hard to the left that it’s currently serving as an American Pravda. Any bullshit the administration throws out is DEFENDED by the media watchdogs.

"American Pravda."

You're swallowing the right's line.

Here you go. Headline on WaPo editorial:

"Biden’s student loan announcement is a regressive, expensive mistake"

Defending administration bullshit?

If you honestly believe the Post and NYT are equivalent to Breitbart, Fox News, or OAN, which simply traffic in RW lies, you're nuts.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Directionally equivalent. They’re that. WaPo on the loan thing is the exception that proves the rule. And they’re correct.

But sorry, as awful as trump is, as to my freedom I’m a lot more worried about the progressives than Trump. Trump is aggravating and disgusting and oh so tiresome, but ultimately harmless. Progs want to dictate a lot more of my thoughts and personal and economic choices than Trump does.

[bernard11]

Directionally fucking equivalent? What is that?

One set of media lies all the time and on purpose. The other doesn't.

And, "The exception proves the rule" is a bullshit argument and you know it.

"Look. The just published an editorial - not an op-ed, by the way - sharply criticizing a major Biden policy. That just shows they are in the bag for Biden."

You really wan to make that argument?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t want to make any argument at all bernard. If you think overall that Trump gets anywhere near as much positive press coverage as the progs, you’ve probably suffered a recent brain injury.

The press is out there today backing Biden on his latest ridiculous claim - that using a PPP loan as it was intended
and receiving contractual release of the loan is the same as defaulting on a student loan. Every day is some piece of garbage from those guys. I’m sure you’ll defend that idea as well, because that’s what you do.

I know which side feels like a bigger threat to me. And that’s really that.

[bernard11]

I don’t want to make any argument at all bernard.

Then don't spew bullshit arguments about the exception proving the rule.

Oh, and students taking advantage of forgiveness are not defaulting on anything. Their debt is being legally reduced, just like those PPP loans, just like Trump's loans when he took al those bankruptcies.

The only difference is the PPP loans, not to mention Trump's, were a lot bigger. And what's the big deal anyway? Are those Congressmen embarrassed? Fuck them.

You're so eager to make your points you don't see how one-sided your opinions are.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Betnard, one party defaulted on their loan, the other performed on their loan. If you can’t understand that simple distinction I don’t know what to say.

But I knew you couldn’t get through a single day without consuming a heapin’ bowl of Biden Bullshit.

[bernard11]

Who defaulted, Bevis?

[NOVA Lawyer]

bevis, I know it's fashionable on the right to have no shame, but you should be embarrassed.

Even after being corrected, you're apparently assuming student debt relief is for people in default. It's not. It's for people current on their payments.

To reiterate, be embarrassed.

[bevis the lumberjack]

NOVA, as a lawyer you should be embarrassed for contending that there’s any comparison at all between a student loan and a PPP loan. I’m not making that comparison, Biden is. It’s horribly dishonest, but that’s our boy Joe. And apparently so are you.

And I’m not a conservative, so your thinking that I am tells me you don’t read too good. Sorry that I disagree with your King Joe.

[NOVA Lawyer]

NOVA, as a lawyer you should be embarrassed for contending that there’s any comparison at all between a student loan and a PPP loan.

bevis, please quote where I made any such comparison?

So, yeah, you tried to switch to a strawman argument.

You said the student loan relief was going to people who had defaulted. It isn't. Your mistake. Don't be an asshole, own it. Otherwise, I know to ignore you because even when you are caught being blatantly, unquestionable wrong, all you'll do is try to change the subject. You aren't an honest person.

[David Nieporent]

Of course, Biden waiving executive privilege for Trump meant that the Archives didn't have to negotiate anymore, they could proceed straight to seizing the documents.

Sigh. No. Wrong again. These are two utterly unrelated issues.

[bernard11]

Brett,

Stop being crazy.

The documents don't belong to Trump. Classified or not.

It was explained, about ten times, on the previous thread, that the executive privilege waiver pertained to documents the Archives already had. It had nothing to do with those at MAL.

[Currentsitguy]

Not sure, but you have to admit if that were the motive, it sure as hell has worked.

[Squirrelloid]

You're asking me to explain the thought processes of Trump? I wasn't aware he was sentient in the first place.

[Iridium]

Given that the FBI spent 2 man-months in Mar-a-Lago and botched the job so badly that they accidently took his passport and privileged information, I think there is reason to believe that it was not an issue of willingness, so much as it is just an enormous job. Heck, even with months of time, it appears that even the Trump team screwed up and sent too much stuff back in December (it was noted that some of the turned in stuff was post-presidency which are obviously not Presidential Records). We are probably not talking about a few nicely organized boxes of clearly categorized information, so much as several "miscellaneous" boxes.

In fact, I don't think we have firm proof that any Presidental Records were actually held back from December. Just because a document is classified does not mean it is a Presidential Record.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"Given that the FBI spent 2 man-months in Mar-a-Lago and botched the job so badly that they accidently took his passport and privileged information,"

Congratulations! You botched your argument so badly in the first half of your first sentence, that anyone who is aware of the actual facts of the case knows you're full of shit.

The FBI took exactly what the search warrant said to take. They did not "botch" the job by taking the passports.

Hint: Go read the search warrant. The come back and admit that you were wrong.

[Iridium]

Fine. I was wrong. The warrant said to take anything in the same box, and any boxes near by. They technically followed the letter of the warrant when they took stuff that they obviously weren't going to be allowed to keep.

So they had a FAR, FAR easier job than Trump's team, because, once they found one document that met the criteria in a box, they could take the entire box and all adjacent boxes without having to do any more searching. And doing that took them two man-months. To actually carefully go through every box and figure out what belongs to NARA and what is personal would have taken FAR, FAR longer.

[NOVA Lawyer]

what belongs to NARA and what is personal would have taken FAR, FAR longer.

No. Not that much longer.

1. Is it marked classified? If yes, then it's a presidential record and needs to go to NARA (even if it has been declassified or the classification marking is in error).

Subsequent steps aren't much harder, but let's pause here. They could have done that, and then there would have been no classified documents in the boxes. It's unlikely the FBI would have requested a search warrant in the absence of classified documents being held, as the release of documents sufficiently anodyne they lack any classification probably don't pose any threat to national security.

So, sure, it might take a week to sort the contents of the boxes for classified material rather than just a few hours to grab any box with one document marked classified in it. But that's not an explanation for the delay.

(Document production teams easily go through a box per person per day. There were something like 30 boxes in total? So one person could have done it in 30 days. Six weeks if they just worked M-F. A team of six people could have done it in one workweek. Give them another week to find all the boxes. So, it could have been done in about two weeks, give or take. It's just not that hard.)

And your flailing attempts at an excuse ignore the fact that Trump latched onto the idea that the records were his and not the federal governments'. It wasn't an effort issue, it was Trump's unwillingness to hand over what didn't belong to him.

[Nige]

They could have made it easier on themselves by not mixing personal stuff with presidential records and documents marked as classified. Unless, of course, they were moving stuff about and concealing it and bulking what was left up with the personal stuff. Would that be obstruction?

[NOVA Lawyer]

One important thing we know: This happened as a second order effect of Trump trying to steal the 2020 election and, so, refusing to engage in an orderly transition (to include working with the incoming administration and preparing to vacate the White House). And then was it simply incompetence and haste that classified documents were mixed with personal items, or, as you say, Nige, was it an attempt to hide things (i.e., obstruct)?

[Don Nico]

"Just because a document is classified does not mean it is a Presidential Record."
True enough. BUT the documents do not belong to Trump. They are property of the U.S. government.
Why is that difficult to understand.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I'm also surprised by how seemingly robust Trump's defense is. 18 USC subsection 1924(a) only applies to "an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant", and Trump's lawyers correctly point out that the President is none of these.

While that claim seems pretty transparently incorrect, I guess that makes it a good thing that the government aren't citing that statute as a basis for the warrant?

I feel like the Separation of Powers issues are going to be a winner for Trump's defense if this goes anywhere.

Separation of powers between what, exactly?

[Squirrelloid]

It appears to be established caselaw that presidents are none of those things, so hardly transparently incorrect. (And isn't it curious that the most obviously applicable law against removing classified materials *wasn't* cited by the FBI on the warrant affidavit?)

Some of the cited law seems like a real stretch. 1517, for example, is about alteration of destruction of documents *during* an investigation, and to impede that investigation. Now, we can't see all the probable cause claims, but I've seen nothing to suggest that Trump was actively destroying documents *now* (or any time post-presidency), just that he sometimes did so while president, during which there was no investigation into his document handling to be impeded. Nor can i imagine a reason to redact a claim that he was actively doing so (even if the reasons to believe that had to be redacted).

As to separation of powers, one of the questions I might expect lawyers to raise is whether congress can tell the president how to handle classified information. I'm sure a lawyer, especially one with great familiarity in these areas, could find several more such potential conflicts.

[Noscitur a sociis]

It appears to be established caselaw that presidents are none of those things, so hardly transparently incorrect.

What cases "appear" to establish that? The two cases cited in the letter certainly do not, and I hope you're not going to start citing a Tillman & Blackman article.

1517, for example, is about alteration of destruction of documents *during* an investigation, and to impede that investigation.

It's § 1519, and it not only covers an intent to interfere with an investigation (including, by the way, a contemplated investigation, see, e.g., United States v. Gonzalez, 906 F.3d 784, 793 (9th Cir. 2018)), but also acting with the "intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the ... proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States".

As to separation of powers, one of the questions I might expect lawyers to raise is whether congress can tell the president how to handle classified information.

That doesn't strike me as a particularly difficult question, but it also doesn't seem particularly salient since—and I really cannot emphasize this enough—Trump is not the fucking president.

[Squirrelloid]

But Trump *was* the president during the only claimed destruction of documents I am aware of. Nor does the affidavit have any unredacted accusations of evidence destruction in its probable cause claims, and it's unclear why at least the claim that they had reason to believe Trump was destroying documents would have been redacted (even if all supporting statements had to be). If you have evidence he destroyed documents *after* he was president, please share your source.

I certainly agree he is not the president *now*. But that hardly matters for acts committed *while president*.

[shawn_dude]

I did a word search on the document for "1517". It's not there. 1519 is, though, as Noscitur a sociis mentions.

"Based upon the following facts, there is probable cause to believe that the locations to be searched at the PREMISES contain evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of18 U.S.C. §§ 793(e), 1519,or2071. " - emphasis mine.

Even if he was the president still when these items were shipped to MAL, he wasn't entitled to ship them except using pre-approved government methods, which are traceable, and he lost any legal access to them when he stopped being president. He illegally possessed these documents on January 20th, 2021 and thereafter. (Depending on the nature of these documents and their location at MAL, he may have also illegally possessed them before that date, too.)

[Squirrelloid]

Sorry, yes, typo. It's 1519.

1519 doesn't cover "illegal possession". No unredacted allegations supporting probable cause relate to 1519 at all.

Nor is improper possession of classified material alone regularly prosecuted otherwise. Most prosecutions involving classified material also involve allegations that the material was improperly shared or distributed (or the target intended to do so).

It's also not clear to me that the president is required to use pre-approved methods of shipment. I found an executive order governing GSA employees transport of classified material, but the president is not a GSA employee. Legal basis of your claim?

[shawn_dude]

1519: "Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

I was responding to your focus on "destruction" where there is clear evidence that he was illegally in possession. 1519 applies to knowingly concealing and making a false statement regarding the documents in his possession.

The GSA order is mirrored at every other agency, even the FAA. They all require a receipt (paper trail) and a special courier with instructions on security in transit and at the destination. Here's another example. It is likely, given how the outgoing president vacates the Whitehouse, that Trump had legal authority to posses, in general, these documents when they were shipped. But given the nature of the documents and the fact that he was outgoing president, it would be clear that his authority was ending and that a golf club or private residence would not meet the requirements for storage.

For illegal possession:
793(e): "(e)Whoever having unauthorized possession of [an item] ...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 willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it [...]"

One might make the claim he was initially authorized to posses it, which I'd agree with, but his authorization ended with his presidency and he was asked to return the documents on more than one occasion. After January 2021, he was unauthorized. After the initial set of documents were returned and he told the government they got it all, he was concealing the remaining unauthorized documents.

2071 is just "Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally" but does include a prohibition from holding office, though I'm not sure if that applies to the office of the president. It effectively doubles down on the other two sections.

[not guilty]

"Some of the cited law seems like a real stretch. 1517 [sic], for example, is about alteration of [sic] destruction of documents *during* an investigation, and to impede that investigation."

The text of 18 U.S.C. 1519 (which I surmise is the statute you intended to cite) states:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Verbs matter, and here the verbs are listed disjunctively. Alteration or destruction of documents need not be shown; concealment of documents to impede proper administration of the National Archives' duties would suffice. And the issuance and service of a subpoena during June, which subpoena Trump failed to comply with, strongly evinces a culpable mental state.

[David Nieporent]

I'm also surprised by how seemingly robust Trump's defense is. 18 USC subsection 1924(a) only applies to "an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant", and Trump's lawyers correctly point out that the President is none of these.

That's fine, but since the warrant wasn't based on a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1924(a), it's not clear why you think this is a "robust" defense.

[Ben of Houston]

You have a good point. Just like if you go to a shady mechanic, what he doesn't recommend replacing is more important than what he does (the stuff he doesn't want to charge you for is certainly good, while the recommended stuff is questionable).

On the other hand, they might not want to show their cards too early. If they only allege what they know for certain (the documents are here), then they don't release more information than necessary. The DOJ had to know that this was going to get released sooner rather than later.

[Squirrelloid]

Yeah, I remain open to changing my mind.

As to not wanting to release more information than necessary - it makes it look more political though, if they make it solely about possession of (rather than transmission or attempted transmission of) classified information, given the inconsistent and incoherent prosecution history for mere possession, much less an FBI raid. Any interest in disclosing as little as they had to should have been weighed against the optics, knowing this would be public sooner rather than later.

[Reallynotbob]

He's an officer (former). The "Office of President" is constitutional language.

[Reallynotbob]

Sorry -- I replied to the wrong post.

[Squirrelloid]

No, he's not:
The president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,"
Constitution Article 2 Section 2

The president nominates and appoints *all* "Officers of the United States". He is not himself one. Trump's lawyers manage to find their ass with both hands and cite the relevant caselaw on this, too.

[Reallynotbob]

Constitution Article 2 Section 1.

You have to read the whole thing.

[Squirrelloid]

What, exactly, do you think I should be reading. That the President is an Office does not necessarily make him an Officer.

The sentence i quote is quite explicit that there are no "Officers of the United States" who are not nominated and appointed by the president.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Do you want to try reading your own quote again? This time, maybe including the word "other"?

[Squirrelloid]

Yes, it follows a list of specifically named Officers (including ambassadors and the like). The phrase 'all other x' following a list of explicit x implies that if it is an x, it is part of that list.

[Voize of Reazon]

If I talk about "Squirrelloid is smarter than Voize and other commenters" am I saying you aren't a commenter, because you can't be smarter than yourself?

[shawn_dude]

This is irrelevant to the actual law used to justify the search warrant. It begins "Whoever knowingly..." It doesn't mention officers. You'd need to argue that Trump isn't a "whoever" or that he didn't "knowingly" attest in January that he'd turned everything over. IOW, he clearly violated this section. The evidence is overwhelming and very public.

[John F. Carr]

Interesting defense from Trump's lawyer in exhibit 1. Trump would appear to stand in the same position as a random citizen without a security clearance who happened to have classified documents. While he was president he was above the law as far as classified documents were concerned, or rather he was the law. After he was president he was not an "officer, employee, contractor, or consultant" to whom the statute applies.

Note that the affidavit does not say that Trump was the target. Everybody is thinking that because they want Trump to go to jail or Trump to be a victim.

[apedad]

It depends on if Trump (really any President), is required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA, like a Standard Form 312).

Para 8, states: Unless and until I am released in writing by an authorized representative of the United States Government, I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified information, AND AT ALL TIMES THEREAFTER (emphasis added).

Folks who sign NDAs have LIFE-LONG obligations to protect classified information - even if they never have access to classified material ever again and just drive buses or bake cakes.

But again, I don't know if Trump had sign a NDA.

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/SF-312%20%28Classified%20Information%20Nondisclosure%20Agreement%29.pdf

[BillyG]

But again, I don't know if Trump had sign a NDA.

I do know the answer. Presidents do not sign NDAs. They have access to Classified Information as part of their elected position. All classification decisions & processes are derived from whatever the current president says they are.

[Bob from Ohio]

Incumbent presidents do not actually have a security clearance. No FBI investigation, no application. Article II, Section 1, US Constitution is the security clearance.

[Don Nico]

POTUS has access to and is the primary classification authority through his role of commander-in-chief.
There is no clearance granted because none is needed.
BUT that does NOT make him the owner of the documents. He must return them given formal notice by the competent authority which he has actually empowered.

[shawn_dude]

USC 18 section 1519 doesn't mention "officer, employee, contractor, or consultant." Just "Whoever." Trump is definitely "just whoever."

Also, the president is not "above the law" or "the law" when it comes to all classified material. There are classes of classified material that he is not legally able to declassify. The affidavit hints that some of this material might be implicated.

[Don Nico]

Restricted Data is classified by an act of Congress, not by Executive Order. Its declassification procedures are specified by law (Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended).

[CindyF]

Trump's attorneys should just take Comey's statement of late summer 2016 regarding Hillary's server contents and insert Trump's name, and then submit it to the judge as a proposed Order. I think what's good for the former SOS should be good enough for the former President.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

So because OJ got away with murder you believe you should be allowed to murder??

[Bored Lawyer]

OJ was charged and faced trial, where he might have been convicted. Clinton got a pass by a bureucrat making a decision he had no business to make.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Hillary would have fired Comey too…the investigation should never have been undertaken because she did nothing wrong. All of Trump’s State officials were using WhatsApp to send classified information. You are clueless.

[Bored Lawyer]

Look at the original DOJ report. Her actions matched the criminal code in every element. So, know, I think I know what I am talking about.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

No they didn’t. You think Comey is competent…you are clueless!!

[Brett Bellmore]

As Barr said in that recent interview, Trump's mistake with Comey was not firing him immediately on taking office. He was the sort of guy anybody would have been justified in firing.

[not guilty]

Trump's antipathy toward Comey is ironic, considering that Comey's October 2016 shenanigans regarding Anthony Weiner's laptop secured Trump's election.

[Brett Bellmore]

Comey did the least he could get away with to avoid FBI agents going public, which would have been even more damaging to Hillary.

[Sarcastr0]

He broke protocol to talk about it. Weird way to avoid talking about it.

And the innuendo turned out to be vastly worse than what was actually revealed. Which is why the right has to keep making things up about butter emails.

[Structured Chaos]

Look at the affidavit in support of the application submitted for a warrant in this case. It was submitted and attested to via WhatsApp.
Included in this submission apparently was classified information hence the redactions.

[CindyF]

OJ went to trial. Rules and laws applied to his case were pretty much the same as with other murder suspects. Government incompetence and a biased jury set him free. The two situations are nothing alike and your question is ridiculous.

Trump is being treated differently based on political biases. No other President has been treated in such a manner over a disagreement regarding Presidential papers.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Sure. Let me call you a whaaaaaaaaaambulance. Lol.

[bernard11]

No other President has ever been such an asshole over his papers.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Trump is being treated differently because his behavior is different than that of Clinton.

Trump's actions are substantially worse.

[shawn_dude]

Clinton sat through hours of deposition and interrogation without wilting. Let's see if Trump is even half as tough as she was.

Trump is being treated about the same as Clinton, so far. No other president attempted a coup before, so maybe holding him out as some sort of victim like this isn't a good idea.

[Nige]

Really? I don't see him in front of Congress or committees answering qustions for hours and hours.

[David Nieporent]

Um, that really wouldn't help Trump. Here's what Comey said about why he recommended non-prosecution:

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

But this case does involve "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information;" "vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct;" and "efforts to obstruct justice."

[Reallynotbob]

No David, you're only allowed to quote the parts that help Trump.

[Michael P]

The FBI is willfully blind to a lot of things, three of those being matters he listed there.

[Sarcastr0]

Lol so above was right - only quote things that help Trump, all else is lies!

[Bored Lawyer]

What must be borne in mind is that this whole proceeding has been done on an ex parte basis. The original warrant applicaiton, as all warrant applications was done that way. And so was the motion to unseal, since the government's reasons were only provided to the Magistrate Judge. And now most of the reasons to keep significant portions redacted are still kept from the public.

This may be the norm, but the judicial system is built on the notion that a clash of two sides leads to the truth. It's not that there is a conspiracy, but when you hear only one side of a story, and the other side does not even get to hear your side, let alone try to pick it apart, then the end result lacks a basis for confidence. And, there is an enormous temptation to shade the truth when you know it will not be challenged. I have seen that myself, personally, in civil cases. (For example, the Trademark Act provides for an ex parte procedure to obtain a seizure order for counterfeit goods and records of same. 15 USC 1116(d).)

Ex parte procedures are frowned upon, and when they are permitted, they should be subject to heightened scrutiny. That is what we have had here, and the public is entitled not to place great confidence in it. The Magistrate Judge has blessed the Government essenetially operating in secret. Let us hope that circumstances do not make him regret it.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Trump obviously had documents that belong to you and me at his hurricane prone house that is open to the public. We’re you born yesterday??

[CindyF]

Yeah, they were just sitting out in the cabana by the pool for anyone to walk in and review. Or for that hurricane to just come along and blow the papers marked "super-duper-secret" all across Florida into Cuba. Happens just about weekly in Florida, as we are all aware.

The FBI admits the papers were in a locked room and the estate is guarded by Secret Service personnel. The house seems pretty hurricane proof and if a Cat 5 comes along and destroys it, I doubt some spy is going to be picking up random soggy wet papers out of the debris. Sounds like a good plot for a movie though. Maybe the FBI should go check and see what papers Biden has at his beach house. Just in case a hurricane comes along.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The fact that they were so heavily secured is suspicious in itself. To Trump, they were . . . something quite valuable.

[MoreCurious]

You may be right, Cindy. But a more likely scenario is that Trump was showing the stuff off to his rich friends and members of his grifting family. And probably coming up with schemes to sell some of the mementos to the highest bidder. (How much would a letter from Kim Jong-un to Trump be worth?) Oh, and don't ignore the possibility of a drunken Rudy stumbling around and rooting through Trump's stash looking for another bottle of his favorite beverage. And I don't mean Diet Pepsi.

[Don Nico]

"more likely scenario is that Trump was showing the stuff off to his rich friends and members of his grifting family"
What a preposterous speculation. Take your meds.
The Orange Clown was simply insisting "They're MINE."

[MoreCurious]

They're his until they start showing up on E-Bay.

[Reallynotbob]

I thought some of the documents were in Trump's bedroom...?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/23/trump-records-mar-a-lago-fbi/

[Nige]

'The FBI admits the papers were in a locked room'

In one massive golf-club-shaped security hole.

[bernard11]

The FBI admits the papers were in a locked room and the estate is guarded by Secret Service personnel.

So what? It's not up to Trump, or you, to decide what is adequate security.

And letting Trump have access to the documents is idiotic. Can there be any doubt that he would be, at a minimum, careless with them? This is not a man who has shown himself careful about security matters.

[David Nieporent]

The FBI admits the papers were in a locked room and the estate is guarded by Secret Service personnel.

No; Trump is guarded by Secret Service personnel. They're not security guards.

[shawn_dude]

Well... not supposed to be, at any rate.

[David Nieporent]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2022/08/26/russian-speaking-immigrant-allegedly-entered-mar-a-lago-using-fake-identity-met-with-trump-report-says/?sh=2bbeacc8196a

[Noscitur a sociis]

Well, how else would it work? Sharing the sealed documents with the adverse parties so they could formulate a response would kind of vitiate the purpose of sealing in the first place, wouldn't it?

[Bored Lawyer]

I get the point. But not sure you get mine. The procedure here is a deviation from the judicial norm, and lacks the credibility that normally attaches to an adversarial procedure. (Inter partes, for the Latin lovers. That is still used by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.)

In theory, the court could let the other side see it with a protective order, but in this case that would result in a leak, so you could not do that.

[Reallynotbob]

Did you say it's a deviation from literally every federal search warrant application in the US? Didn't think so.

[ah....Clem]

Well, releasing the warrant application, even in redacted form, is highly unusual. Of course, the warrant application process itself is ex parte, as is any grand jury proceeding that may or may not be happening.

But the decision to release the warrant application was not ex parte. Recall that several media outlets asked the court to release the warrant application, and the DOJ responded. Trump's legal team could have weighed in, but for whatever reason chose not to (at least not in court - social media posts are not briefs)

So, it appears to me at least that the adversarial approach to jurisprudence was operative.

Granted, the warrant application is just one side of the story. But we've all heard the other side, or should I say sides since it's an ever-shifting grab bag of mutually contradictory assertions.

[Reallynotbob]

Man, you must really hate FISA applications and wiretapping requests.

I'm assuming you also distrust warrantless police searches--those don't even have a court magistrate involved, just public trust they won't lie during the ex post suppression hearing.

And since you do civil law, I'm assuming you invite a special master or maybe opposing counsel to look over your shoulder while you review your client's documents for discovery production, right? Who has ever abused that secret process?

But please, do go on about the unconscionable secrecy of court-supervised search warrant applications.

[Bored Lawyer]

(1) Funny you mention FISA, since that has a history of being abused.
(2) Yes, I do distrust warrantless searches, and yes, permission to do so often leads to perjury.
(3) Document production is a different animal, as you well know. No one is asking the Court to do anything, as opposed to a warrant, where someone is asking the Court to dispose of someone's Fourth Amendment rights on their say-so.

And, if you bothered reading my post, you would understand that, while I acknowledge that ex parte procedures are tolerated in various criminal and even civil contexts, their reliability is still less than adversary proceedings.

[Reallynotbob]

But that's my point. Suppression hearings are adversarial proceedings, just after the fact. Civil discovery happens in an adversarial context. They're not any better for preventing shenanigans, and they're post-hac. At least warrant applications happen ahead of time with representatives of two different branches of government.

Your original point (which I did read) is that the public should distrust this proceeding because the magistrate allowed the government to act in secret -- as if that never happens. It does, and the adversarial context is not automatically more reliable.

[Voize of Reazon]

a warrant, where someone is asking the Court to dispose of someone's Fourth Amendment rights

Applying for a warrant based on probable cause is respecting someone's Fourth Amendment rights.

[Sarcastr0]

a warrant, where someone is asking the Court to dispose of someone's Fourth Amendment rights

LOL. You're a lawyer?

[Bored Lawyer]

Look up the definition of dispose, you moron.

[Life of Brian]

Well, enough is unredacted to confirm at least one thing: contrary to much chin-stroking around here over the past week that it didn't matter if the suspected documents were classified or not, supposed classification was the ultimate grounding for the affidavit.

[OtisAH]

Don’t forget the TS/SCI level national security docs, dummy!

[Life of Brian]

You feel docs like that wouldn't be classified? Thats... interesting.

[not guilty]

"Well, enough is unredacted to confirm at least one thing: contrary to much chin-stroking around here over the past week that it didn't matter if the suspected documents were classified or not, supposed classification was the ultimate grounding for the affidavit."

Under the statutes referenced in Attachment B to the search warrant, the status of documents as being classified is not an element of the offense. That is not to say that the documents being marked as classified is without evidentiary significance. Mishandling a document marked as classified goes a long way toward establishing a culpable mental state -- particularly where a statute requires that the defendant acted knowingly.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I can only imagine the fumes if it had been redacted the old way with a magic marker. Ahh . . . the good old days . . .

[Bored Lawyer]

When I first started as an associate, one of my jobs was to make sure that all the copies of motion papers were correctly put together, and to have copies sent to adversary counsel and the Court. We would always send three setst to the Court, one for the official file, one for the judge, and one to be stamped FILED and returned. And I would always send the same letter to the Clerk, "Enclosed for filing are an original and two copies of our motion papers, please stamp one set FILED and return in the envelope provided."

Now with ECF, that is all gone.

I don't miss the old days.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It’s possible for some bozo to deny he received an email. Having a “Stamped” copy prevented that sort of thing.

Serving and then filing had its advantages. You could serve at the deadline without needing the filing check. And if your client was late with his affidavit, you could serve the unsigned version, so long as the notarized version came in before the filing deadline.

[shawn_dude]

You can always sharpie-up a hurricane prediction map. I hear those are all the rage in MAL these days.

[OtisAH]

One of the i redacted nothingburgers of this nothingburger of a nothingburger is “793(e).” From my readings people are mildly surprised that it was that and not “793(d).” What’s the difference? Glad you asked.

793(d) covers documents the person was *authorized* to have but did not return after a “demand” requiring their return.

793(e) covers documents the person was *NOT* authorized to have. It does not require a demand. My guess is because the person was, again, *NOT* aithorized to have the documents.

We also learned today that Mal da Lardo was not told to put a padlock on the door but rather they were to secure (presumably within the meaning of NDI standards) the documents.

Now, y’all can pretend whatever you want (and you will). And hey, maybe nothing comes of this. But more and more and more (and more and more) it appears Turnip is well and truly fucked. And that probably includes anybody who got a peek at any of those documents because Big Baby was showing off or for whatever other reason.

[OtisAH]

“i redacted” = “unredacted”

[Bob from Ohio]

"it appears Turnip is well and truly fucked"

Yes, the walls are closing in.

[Life of Brian]

We also learned today that Mal da Lardo was not told to put a padlock on the door but rather they were to secure (presumably within the meaning of NDI standards) the documents.

I'll bite. What are those standards, and what specific requirements would those standards lend to: "we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents had been stored be secured"?

Oh, and before you even go down that path, if these were truly super-sensitive docs that had to be stored in a super-duper-secure space for the nation to be safe, wouldn't the language have been a bit stronger than "ask"?

[Nige]

Well, yes, once again they are being overly-deferential to Trump.

[ah....Clem]

"We also learned today that Mal da Lardo was not told to put a padlock on the door but rather they were to secure (presumably within the meaning of NDI standards) the documents. "

My understanding of this exchange comes from Ken White (popehat) who explained that since the relevant statutes would require the prosecution to prove that the defendant *knew* their actions were illegal, a common "trick" for prosecutors is to explicitly tell the potential defendant that their actions are illegal. And follow that up in writing. If it goes to trial, that checkbox is ticked.

So when the feds say "these documents are not being properly secured, and you need to secure them properly" what's going on is establishing that the potential defendant had knowledge that it was illegal.

The spin that the feds just said "put a padlock on the room and everything will be fine" misunderstands the real point of the "conversation".

[OtisAH]

I’m going to keep assuming that the original purpose of the order to secure the documents was to secure the documents. The fact Turnip ignored it and that that may bolster any federal indictment is useful to the Feds, but was secondary at the time. More likely it wasn’t even a concern because the government just wanted the docs secured until they could be recovered. I do not believe anyone went into any of this wanting to indict Turnip for anything in this regard, anyway. Criminally investigating a former president is pretty much the definition of “a last resort.”

[Frank Drackman]

Trump had Newspapers and Magazine Articles??!?!?!??!?!??! Treason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MoreCurious]

Nice of you to show up and give us a display of your fifth grade education. Thanks!

[Bob from Ohio]

I believe that we can conclude that Trump haters think the redactions are totally justified and Trump likers/lovers think the redactions are totally not justified.

We can also conclude that Trump haters think the search was totally justified and Trump likers/lovers think the search was totally not justified.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well not yet. We got another 300 posts or so before we finalize that conclusion.

[Mr. Bumble]

Your not new here, so you know that's not true. This won't be "concluded" (at least for the left) until Trump is in jail or dead.

[not guilty]

If Donald Trump dies outside of prison, he will have effectively gotten away with heinous crimes. Here's hoping he is promptly indicted, tried, convicted and denied bail pending appeal.

[not guilty]

Trump critic here. The heavy redactions render the unsealing of the affidavit meaningless. I hope that the media intervenors appeal to the district judge.

[shawn_dude]

All snark and partisanship aside...

I'm truly dismayed that people of the "law and order" persuasion are minimizing the fact that a US citizen had highly classified national security documents stacked in boxes at his golf club, refused to relinquish them to the US government when asked politely, and got angry when the government finally showed up to collect in person.

Can we at least agree that national security is important and no one should get a pass on that?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, we can agree to that, once you accept that it hasn't yet been established that Trump had highly classified national security documents.

[Sarcastr0]

What evidence would convince you that he did?

[bevis the lumberjack]

I’m minimizing what little anybody actually knows and laughing at how passionately everyone knows it.

I don’t trust Trump to have done the right thing. I don’t trust Biden’s DOJ to be honest. I wouldn’t Trust the FBI if Jesus was President.

So I’m making zero judgement because I don’t know diddly shit. But all the noise (not just here, but everywhere) is getting tiresome and it won’t be long before people like me tune it out.

Do I wish our supposed elites would act better? Sure. I complain about it on here most days. But they won’t. Because the partisans won’t make ‘em. Trump’s partisans are no different from everyone else’s partisans in that regard.

[Joe_dallas]

finally a coherent comment .

Whose behavior was worse?
Hillary with the bathroom server, pay for play, Steel dossier, etc or Trumps keeping unsecured " classified " documents

All were bad. Partisans complaining about the criminality of the other side while exonerating their favorite. That being said, the fbi/ doj are showing their own partisanship.

[ducksalad]

OK, all snark and partisanship aside: he should've turned in the documents and when he kept holding out, something had to be done. Although there were smaller escalations they could have tried, like a court order to turn them over.

However, the hyperventilation about national security is less convincing. It's not that the information in those documents might not have been important. It's that if they were important, and the theory that Trump has some malign purpose is true, then it's already too late. He's seen the papers. There are probably literally 100 devices at his place that can take a clean images of a document, and literally billions of places to store those images in the cloud.

On the other hand, maybe you say the security worry isn't Trump himself, but merely the fear that someone else would steal the documents. In that case, it's still a legitimate concern. But considering that it's a compound with 24/7 armed security, I don't think it's a whole lot worse than ---- just to take a random example --- if he'd kept some electronic copies of them on his personal e-mail server. And there is precedent on how serious that is. Just serious enough to lock 'em up if it's them, but not if it's us.

[Voize of Reazon]

We don't know who had access to the storage area. Trump's people have not complied with DoJ requests for copies of the surveillance video. Even if Mar-a-Lago security were adequate to keep out people who are not authorized to be on the premises - which apparently it isn't - there is no reason to believe that the people who are authorized to be there have also been cleared for access to classified or otherwise protected sensitive information.

[Mr. Bumble]

If Democrats have any sense they will be "fortifying" the coming election as much as possible, because payback will be a bitch if they lose. (To say nothing of 2025 if a Republican is in the White House).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

With respect to the redacted documents, this "legal" blog today features precisely the level of legal insight and plenty of the downscale comments for which it is known.

Legitimate publications, such as the Washington Post and New York Times, have been able to generate worthwhile analysis and also to feature a better class of commenters.

Carry on, white, male, "often libertarian" legal professionals.

[Mr. Bumble]

The Wapo and NYT might appear legitimate again when the give up their Pulitzers for Russiagate reporting.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You stick with Newsmax, Breitbart, Instapundit, the Volokh Conspiracy, Fox News, Stormfront, FreeRepublic, and the Crusader.

Better Americans will rely on the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Let's continue to observe the results in modern America's settled -- but not quite over -- culture war.

[Mr. Bumble]

We should live long enough or maybe not.

[Nige]

Yes, your incipient fascism is increasingly undeniable.

[Moderation4ever]

Not a whole lot of information from the affidavit. I would say it does establish that this is a long time in coming and that it originated with the National Archives and that DOJ was brought in later. The fact that additional materials were retrieved during the search say that the original return of materials was incomplete. This in turn justifies the search by the FBI.

I would also suggest that the Trump lawyers' letter was added to embarrass the former President. The suggestion that the DOJ should be nonpolitical when President Trump want the DOJ to be his personal attorneys is hypocritical. And while the President can declassify material, there is a need to show that work.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I would also suggest that the Trump lawyers' letter was added to embarrass the former President. "

At least one letter written by Trump's crack legal team expressly asked the Department of Justice to present the letter to any judicial authority asked to review a relevant search warrant. Are you referring to that letter?

[ragebot]

"Not a whole lot of information from the affidavit. I would say it does establish that this is a long time in coming and that it originated with the National Archives and that DOJ was brought in later."

Once again the problem of the time line jumps up and bites you in the ass. The fact that the raid was 'a long time in coming' kinda destroys any claim that the documents were time sensitive. We are no longer hearing any foolishness like Trump had the nuke launch codes. Maybe there could be some long term deep cover spies named but while I have no idea how long spies stay in one place doing one job I have to think that any intel along those lines would have resulted in a maybe two minute wait before any judge ordered an instant raid.

As an aside given how stupid the chinks seem to be acting about Taiwan I have read dozens of articles about puters running 24/7 turning out new sims of what would happen if China and the US/Japan/whoever got it on.

Point is any time sensitive stuff would have resulted in a quick raid. Hell even stuff like dirt on Hillary's involvement in the Steel shit would be quickly taken. So what kinda secret stuff could Trump have had that justified waiting months for the government to raid his house to grab it?

[Nige]

'any claim that the documents were time sensitive. '

The claim is that they're sensitive, not 'time' sensitive, but even so the obvious answer is they were treating Trump with kid gloves. Of course, the other likelihood is that Trump was engaging in a bit of obstruction, for which he has form.

[Noscitur a sociis]

The fuck is wrong with you?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"I would also suggest that the Trump lawyers' letter was added to embarrass the former President."

No, it was included because the letter demonstrates that the only way they were going to retrieve the documents Trump claimed he no longer had possession of, was to send in the FBI and take them.

It turned out that the letter was just another lie.

[Mike Hansberry]

From June 8th memo:
"Accordingly, we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the
documents had been stored be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that
room in their current condition until farther notice."

Lots of redaction, and then:

"There is Probable Cause to Believe That Documents Containing Classified NDI and Presidential Records Remain at the Premises."

and later...

"Based upon this investigation, I believe that the STORAGE ROOM, FPOTUS's residential suite, Pine Hall, the "45 Office," and other spaces within the PREMISES are not currently authorized locations for the storage of classified information or NDI. Similarly, based
upon this investigation, I do not believe that any spaces within the PREMISES have been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of FPOTUS 's Presidential Administration on January 20, 2021"

Does the redacted info include a renouncement of the request that the documents that were then at mara largo be "preserved in that room in their current condition until farther notice" ?

If some documents were stored outside of the designated storage room after receipt of the memo, would failing to honor the June 8th request be a crime?

If classified documents were in the storge room at time of the raid, it seems odd to fault FPOTUS for obeying the June 8th DOJ request.

Lastly, a whole lot rides on the FBI agent's belief the storage room is not currently authorized for storage of classified docs. Why would the thinking behind that assessment need to be redacted?

[shawn_dude]

You're missing the forest here: it doesn't matter what the security situation at Mar a Lago is or was. Donald Trump, former president of the United States, had no legal right to possess those documents after 01/20/2021. No matter where they were, how they were stored, he was, at the very least, in as much trouble has Hillary Clinton was with her email server. Mere possession of classified documents is enough to get someone in trouble.

Absolutely none of this depends on the FBI's evaluation of Trump's storage methods.

[Mike Hansberry]

So you think the FBI needed an investigation to determine that Trump was not president since 1/20/2021?

[Mr. Bumble]

I am curious as to what will happen if any of this will wend its way through the courts (appeals of various court decisions) and wind up at the SC.

[mydisplayname]

Personally, my hunch is that the Supreme Court will say what it has always said; essentially, "The President, after all, is the 'Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.' U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 367 U. S. 890 (1961). [...] The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief."

The President does not work for the Archivist. The President does not work for the DOJ. The President does not work for Congress. The fact that some lackey stamped a document "Top Secret" does not preclude the President from scribbling on it, tearing it up, or reclassifying it for "Former Presidential Eyes Only." The President need not clear such decisions with anyone else. Oh, and The Pentagon Papers _should_ have been declassified.

[David Nieporent]

The President does not work for the Archivist. The President does not work for the DOJ. The President does not work for Congress.

Joe Biden is The President.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some people are confused about the former (and therefore inconsequential, ordinary, obsolete, and powerless) guy.

[Michael P]

And Joe Biden doesn't work! Especially not for all those people.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Joe Biden is barely a potato. Obama is the President.

[Nuke the cane]

Dark Brandon would like a word with you

[shawn_dude]

There are some categories of classified material that the President cannot declassify. Relocating classified material, especially compartmental material, must follow a strict process that is, among other things, traceable. As he is now a private citizen, whatever classified material he had before the search was illegal and could result in criminal charges.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Your hunch is wrong. They aren't going to rule that, after he left office, Trump can say that he secretly declassified things while in office. He may not have to clear the decisions with someone else, but he has to tell someone else.

[Jimmy the Dane]

This is obviously a political investigation designed by the Department of Political Persecution in what used to be called the "United States" and is now just a random banana republic....

[Nige]

He's not even denying he had the papers he wasn't supposed to have or that he refused to give them back and even tried to hide some. A real bannana republic would let him get away with it.

[Jimmy the Dane]

A real banana republic would only let him away away if his last name was - Clinton.

[jb]

So is your theory that Clinton should have gone to jail and therefore so should Trump, or actually she shouldn't have and therefore neither should she, because it seems like you're trying to say she should have gone to jail but Trump did the same thing so it's obviously just a witch hunt which is... hard to understand.

[Nige]

If he changed his name to Clinton he might accidentally lock himself up.

[Robert Efroymson]

Is there a memorandum explaining the redactions in the memorandum explaining the redactions in the affidavit? And if it has redactions, is there a memorandum explaining the redactions in the memorandum explaining the redactions in the memorandum explaining the redactions in the affidavit?

Maybe its redactions all the way down.

[Voize of Reazon]

Redacted explanations all the way down.

[ragebot]

Just in time the shiteating dems in the IRS rise to the occasion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nikki-haley-fires-back-after-tax-forms-leaked-to-media-republicans-have-been-too-nice-for-too-long/ar-AA118DP9?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=974d77ab5e855fd33fd31886b871582b#comments

[jb]

No indication this was leaked by the IRS and the markings on the doc make it much more likely that it came from elsewhere. But why not make shit up to support whatever priors you have, I guess.

[dwb68]

Democrats President does not have the unilateral power to declassify documents, there is a process.

Also Democrats: President has the unilateral power to spend $300 billion and cancel debt. And also turn illegal immigrants into naturalized citizens. All the President needs is a pen and a phone, so long as its not used for declassifying documents.

smh.

[Sarcastr0]

Different things are different.

Though I am skeptical of Biden’s cited authority here, your analogy is bad.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Not really the demoncrat party has turned this country into a joke of a banana republic. The exercise of power and "rule of law" only applies to some of the disfavored.

[Sarcastr0]

Demoncrat. And you got another banana republic ref in there.

What you didn’t manage was a relevant comment.

[Noscitur a sociis]

I don't think anyone is disputing that Trump could have declassified documents (back when he was the president, which he currently is not). Similarly, even the people who (incorrectly) think Biden has the authority to cancel student loan debt still acknowledge that that cancelling doesn't happen unless he actually does it.

[mydisplayname]

To be absolutely clear, I believe Joey Biden has the right to classify and conceal each and every wrongdoing by his son, Hunter: the power to classify and declassify government investigations belongs to the president. Some office-holders -- like Presidents Nixon and Trump -- are significantly more honest than others -- like Ejaculator Clinton.

[NOVA Lawyer]

lol, the actual crook Nixon.

Thanks for the reference to tax cheat, pardoned felon Nixon as one of our most honest Presidents, so that we know you're living in bizarro world.

[not guilty]

Bill Clinton regarded truth as a precious commodity -- so much so that he used it sparingly. But compared to Nixon and Trump, Clinton was a piker.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Clinton wasn’t known for honesty, but Nixon? Nixon?!? He resigned one step ahead of a senate conviction.

As to Trump, well, he tells a lot of absolute whoppers but in his defense I’m not sure his connection to reality is all that good. Are delusional people lying or are they just delusional?

[not guilty]

Donald Trump's lawyers have now filed a supplemental brief in support of their request for a Special Master to review documents seized pursuant to the search warrant at Mar-a-lago. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.28.0.pdf

Neither the original filing nor the supplement addresses the criteria of Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(a)(1) for appointment of a Special Master:

(a) Appointment.

(1) Scope. Unless a statute provides otherwise, a court may appoint a master only to:

(A) perform duties consented to by the parties;

(B) hold trial proceedings and make or recommend findings of fact on issues to be decided without a jury if appointment is warranted by:

(i) some exceptional condition; or

(ii) the need to perform an accounting or resolve a difficult computation of damages; or

(C) address pretrial and posttrial matters that cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the district.

The parties -- Trump and the United States -- are not consenting to appointment. There is no need to perform an accounting or resolve a difficult computation of damages. There is no suggestion of matters that cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the district. That leaves Rule 53(a)(1)(B)(i), "some exceptional condition."

The issues in this case involve the issuance and execution of a search warrant. District and magistrate judges routinely deal with such issues during the adjudication and investigation of criminal matters. Trump suggests the need to sort out what documents may theoretically fall under executive privilege, but Trump's filings include no averment that the holder of such privilege -- President Joe Biden -- has asserted or will assert such privilege.

As the courts have previously ruled, presidents are not kings, and Trump is not president.

[SRG]

It just gives the Trumpsuckers one more thing to whinge about. "That meanie court won't give poor persecuted Beloved Leader the special master that he asks for which shows it's all a conspiracy"

And inevitably, some column in one of the right-wing comedy websites like One Reich News or The Pederalist will write explaining why it's a legal requirement that the judge appoint a special master and next thing you know every Trumpsucker will become an instant expert on the subject.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Presumably, tfg and his team know this, which would explain why they filed the request late and then did such a crappy job in their initial application that the judge said, you'll have to do better, and then their follow up effort wasn't really better. They have no real intention of winning. They saw more benefit in losing.

Getting a special master wouldn't have changed anything.

Not getting a special master will fire up the Trumpsuckers.

[David Nieporent]

Trump suggests the need to sort out what documents may theoretically fall under executive privilege, but Trump's filings include no averment that the holder of such privilege -- President Joe Biden -- has asserted or will assert such privilege.

Nor did they include an affidavit from Trump — or anyone else — that there were actually (or even potentially) privileged documents there.

[The Boss]

I suppose folks are looking into it, but how many of the purloined documents have been copied and reside somewhere other than Mal-A-Lago.

[not guilty]

The District Court in the Mar-a-lago search matter has entered a preliminary order indicating a preliminary intent to appoint a special master and setting a schedule for expedited briefing and hearing next week. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.29.0.pdf

Trump's filings have been unverified, unsupported by affidavits, declarations or evidence of any kind. I wonder whether this matters to the District Court. (The preliminary order does not indicate whether Thursday's hearing will allow presentation of evidence.)

Appointment of a U. S. magistrate to serve as special master is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2). If a master is appointed here, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart (who is already familiar with the matter) would seem to be the logical choice.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

My understanding is that the District Court judge is wholly out of line with this decision.

He is not the supervisor of the magistrate judge, it is not his case, he has no authority to insert himself into this situation.

He does not have a TRO or PI motion to rule upon, and no complaint has been filed. In other words, Judge Cannon has decided that the law doesn't matter, and he will do whatever the hell he wants.

The DOJ should immediately appeal this preliminary decision and file 12b1 and 12b6 motions demanding dismissal.

It's possible that I'm misinformed on this, but I trust the source who explained how this is nothing more than jurisdictional Calvinball.

[not guilty]

Assuming that a special master is to be appointed, I don't see jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal. A motion to dismiss in the District Court should have merit.

Trump's pleadings have not identified the specific remedy sought in this lawsuit, despite the August 23 order directing identification of "the precise relief sought, including any request for injunctive relief pending resolution of the Motion".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I couldn't read the handwriting and I wrongly assumed Judge Cannon to be a male.

It should be noted that Judge Aileen Cannon is in fact, a female.

My mistake.

Not guilty - It sounds as though you are generally confirming what I read elsewhere?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

I also wanted to ask you:

If what I've described is all true, regarding the lack of jurisdiction, no docketed complaint even filed, etc., then how is this anything other than a Trump-appointed Judge deciding to do him a favor?

[Sarcastr0]

Orin Kerr thinks this may be just the fastest way to an easy unappealable dismissal.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Assuming the kinds of national security documents listed are accurately described, here is a hypothetical to help with context for the search and DOJ investigation. Assume instead that nobody knew Trump had any such materials, and then he died without mentioning them.

The problem with national security related documents is controlling who sees them. Trump created a situation where that question could be answered by pure happenstance.

[NOVA Lawyer]

That's a big part of my issue. It's bleeding obvious that Trump and his team were irresponsible, unorganized, and incompetent when it came to taking care to maintain the nation's secrets. And that trifecta raises the specter that someone also had malicious intent. This isn't the head of your local moose lodge being fast and loose with moose lodge documents. This is the highest office in the most powerful and prosperous country.

To understate it: It's a really, really bad look.