Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Fun CH »

In responce to Trump indictment today, this video,from 2017 (I think) is circulating on social media. Chuck Schumer basically says don't mess with the intelligence community because they have ways of messing with you.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/wat ... 7022147815

And Trumps reply on Don Jr's Twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/stat ... gr%5Etweet
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

All the facts will most certainly never be known, that's why redactions appear on documents. The gj will have seen more information than will be released in the final report, or even the charging documents if the decision to charge is made. In the meantime, if the public is not informed of the court filings and those filings as well as the observations and analysis of of experts then the public isn't doing its part in a democracy by staying informed.

There's value in having an informed public that goes on to become informed voters. You like to stop the presses by saying that jouralists and pundits weigh in with opinions but they are informed opinions. Informed opinions based on serious research, comprehensive knowledge of the timelines and investigations that they then can apply their own expertise to. Without their expertise, which you like to refer to as opinion (in order to dilute their value), the lay public would have a tough time putting together the pieces so that's why it's worthwhile to rely on the experts to evaluate along the way.
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Fun CH »

Rideback wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 6:11 pm Interesting that you cannot bring yourself to recognize the structure of analysis. And here I thought you'd be caught up by the title of 'what we don't know'.

Things are moving fast now in the MAL case, with Trump's explosive reaction to his lawyers' meeting with DoJ this morning it doesn't take a crystal ball to interpret that his lawyers told him the gig is up.
pitty you don't understand that opinions are not facts. The writer wrote and I quoted: "should caution that these could be wrong," That's opinion based upon very limited facts known to the public. How could it be anything else. ALL THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE NOT YET KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC. Objective analysis to reach a definitive conclusion requires all the facts to be known otherwise it's just opinionated speculation.

Hope this quote below helps

"Presenting Information as Opinions
Opinions are subjective and unverifiable. They are based on personal judgment, preference, or individual feelings, values, or experiences; therefore, they cannot be “proved” or verified."

https://snaplanguage.io/esl/b-level/rea ... ation.html

The public will know soon.Just chill out and you and Jim may get your pound of flesh. Enjoy. Or not.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
just-jim
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2022 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by just-jim »

.
Short Guardian piece on the topic. It sounds to me like guilty, tiny, fascist Depends donnie’s time is finally coming to an end.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -documents

“While it is not unusual for lawyers to seek a meeting with prosecutors near the end of an investigation, it typically is not with the attorney general. That is especially the case in special counsel investigations, where charging decisions can only be overruled if department rules were not followed.

The development comes as prosecutors have recently asked witnesses before the grand jury hearing evidence in the case in Washington whether Trump showed off national security materials, including a document concerning military action against Iran, people close to the case said.”

Besides Obstruction charges, Im betting we are looking at Espionage or Treason charges.

Tic-toc, tic-toc …
.
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

Interesting that you cannot bring yourself to recognize the structure of analysis. And here I thought you'd be caught up by the title of 'what we don't know'.

Things are moving fast now in the MAL case, with Trump's explosive reaction to his lawyers' meeting with DoJ this morning it doesn't take a crystal ball to interpret that his lawyers told him the gig is up.
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Fun CH »

Rideback wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:48 pm Unfortunately for your comment, the piece lists the known resources and timelines based on public documentation. Sure there's speculation, it's a critical way of learning to think through and analyze events.

The writer in this instance has laid out what is known, not opinion, and laid out which options may be in play. That's how investigative reporting works and that's how legal minds use that reporting to analyze. Sorry you don't understand that.
I understand what speculation is and I understand what facts are. The writer says himself that he could be wrong and he is "tease out the simplest, most likely answers". He can't possibly know what evidence the grand jury has to consider.

This piece serves one purpose and that is to keep the "get Trump" crowd hoping. I thought substack was supposed to be for intellectual pursuits. This piece is intellectually dishonest speculation.

crit·i·cal think·ing
noun
the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.

Without the facts of the entire body of evidence that is on record (not yet made public), how can an objective analysis be undertaken.

It would be like me going into the mountains with 2-ft of new snow and and blue sky and say hey, the weather is nice so there's no Avalanche risk today.

All known facts are required to make an objective analysis. That article is subjective analysis subject to the bias of the writer. Let me guess, he's not a Trump supporter.

We'll know soon enough what the facts are.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

Unfortunately for your comment, the piece lists the known resources and timelines based on public documentation. Sure there's speculation, it's a critical way of learning to think through and analyze events.

The writer in this instance has laid out what is known, not opinion, and laid out which options may be in play. That's how investigative reporting works and that's how legal minds use that reporting to analyze. Sorry you don't understand that.
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Fun CH »

Rideback wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2023 12:41 pm Trump's lawyers met with the DoJ this morning. Trump was apparently infuriated when he was informed of the substance of the meeting and began posting on Truth Social in screaming all caps that he is a victim, how can they charge me?

Where we stand now explained:
https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/a-trum ... email=true
Just more biased speculation based upon slim public evidence: Waste of time. Better to just wait and see what actually happens. You know actual facts.

Quote from link.

"Let’s take a look at some of the bigger ones and, using Occam’s razor, tease out the simplest, most likely answers. I should caution that these could be wrong, but they are at present the best conclusion we can draw based on what we know about the evidence to date."
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

Trump's lawyers met with the DoJ this morning. Trump was apparently infuriated when he was informed of the substance of the meeting and began posting on Truth Social in screaming all caps that he is a victim, how can they charge me?

Where we stand now explained:
https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/a-trum ... email=true
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

Grand jury in the MAL case will reconvene this week

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... -rcna87599
just-jim
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2022 8:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by just-jim »

.
Former VP Mike Pence is NOT being charged with any crimes for the documents found in his possession.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/doj-cl ... -rcna87396

Keep in mind these documents were turned over - voluntarily, by Pence’s attorney - after a request by Pence to have a search happen. He didn’t hide them, claim he had a right to them, lie about them, or try to cover anything up…..

Unlike……you know…..guilty, lazy, fat-azz,fascist, Depends tiny donnie.
.
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Fun CH »

Rideback wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 7:21 pm You really need to start reading more. A grand jury is working on MAL. After Trump's CNN comment he opened the door for the case to be moved to DC where the Federal Judges are much more experienced than the woman judge Trump appointed in FL who infamously bungled the case last year.

The search warrant: https://embed.documentcloud.org/documen ... yshoworg=1

Since the search warrant was issued court filings and interviews have revealed enhancements to the search warrant list. More charges not fewer.
if Trump is indicted, I'm sure we'll all know. Until then, it's all speculation that sells papers. Same old, same old.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

You really need to start reading more. A grand jury is working on MAL. After Trump's CNN comment he opened the door for the case to be moved to DC where the Federal Judges are much more experienced than the woman judge Trump appointed in FL who infamously bungled the case last year.

The search warrant: https://embed.documentcloud.org/documen ... yshoworg=1

Since the search warrant was issued court filings and interviews have revealed enhancements to the search warrant list. More charges not fewer.
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Fun CH »

/quote]
Rideback wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 1:27 pm There you go again, attacking the messenger rather than the substance. Look up Fair Use. I find it noteworthy that the article that I linked to also has an array of direct fb, twitter etc share buttons...almost as if the author and CREW are asking for the research to be shared!
They do have a copyright mark on their webpage it's almost like they're saying they have a copyright to their work. Copying an entire article, especially without critiquing or comment on the points made in the article is not considered fair use.

But maybe you should ask permission before you use someones entire body of work.

And you are definitely not a messenger.

My guess, Trump is never indicted on federal charges on this unless there's information we don't know such as he sold or gave classified documents to Russia.

One thing thats certain is all those articles that you used without permission don't really amount to much. Just someone's opinion, which doesn't really count in a court of law does it?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

There you go again, attacking the messenger rather than the substance. Look up Fair Use. I find it noteworthy that the article that I linked to also has an array of direct fb, twitter etc share buttons...almost as if the author and CREW are asking for the research to be shared!
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Fun CH »

Rideback wrote: Sun May 28, 2023 11:54 am https://nscc.libguides.com/c.php?g=2924 ... e%20author.

I clearly am giving the link to the original article.
that link doesn't matter, you need permission to post the whole article here. I guess not everyone knows how to handle documents under the law. Can't you see the irony? You, Trump, Hillary, Biden and Pence all have problems in that area.

"Permission of the copyright holder is required to digitize and bring such a paper online. After 1977, copyright was automatically granted upon publication, with or without written notice."

https://www.cmich.edu/research/clarke-h ... n%20notice.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

https://nscc.libguides.com/c.php?g=2924 ... e%20author.

I clearly am giving the link to the original article.
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Fun CH »

You do realize that it is violation of copyright law when a person posts an entire article (unless permission was given) that includes a marked copyright on the web site. Fair use allows a person to quote from that article but not reprint the whole article.

Kind of ironic don't ya think that you are posting about allegations that Trump violated the law.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

https://www.citizensforethics.org/repor ... rged-with/

The next criminal charges former President Donald Trump may face could well come from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s possession of nearly 300 classified documents — including some marked as top secret — at his Mar-a-Lago residence and business in the year and a half after he left office. While Fani Willis’ Fulton County, Georgia investigation into election interference continues, as does a federal investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and Alvin Bragg has already indicted Trump in New York for his role in false statements connected to hush money payments to Karen McDougal and Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) during the 2016 presidential campaign, an indictment by Smith in the Mar-a-Lago investigation would yield the first federal charges against the former president. Trump may face charges ranging from obstruction of justice and criminal contempt to conversion of government property and unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as Special Counsel in November 2022 to investigate interference with the transfer of power following the 2020 election as well as Trump’s retention of classified records and potential obstruction of justice. Smith’s appointment came after over a year of efforts by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the Justice Department to have Trump voluntarily turn over presidential records in his possession as required under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, a standoff that only ended after a federal court approved a request by the FBI to search Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence for classified documents.

Under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records are considered federal property and are required to be turned over to NARA upon the president leaving office. On January 20, 2021, Trump left the White House for his home in Florida. Members of Trump’s transition team were responsible for packing his things and were required by the General Services Administration to certify in writing “that the items being shipped were required to wind down the Office of the Former President and would be utilized as the Office transitioned to its new location in Florida.” In May 2021, NARA found that documents were missing from the material received from Trump when he left office; the agency requested the records from Trump on or around May 6, 2021. NARA then engaged in prolonged discussions with Trump representatives to acquire the records.

In late December 2021, NARA was informed by a Trump representative that at least 12 boxes of records had been found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. In January 2022, Trump’s team turned over 15 boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago to NARA for their review; NARA determined that 14 of those 15 boxes contained classified material and, in February, referred the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. After several months and repeated attempts to retrieve additional documents, on May 11, 2022, the Justice Department obtained a grand jury subpoena seeking “any and all” documents bearing classification markings in Trump’s possession. Investigators suspect, based on witness statements, security camera footage, and other documentary evidence, that following the subpoena, Trump personally examined documents stored at Mar-a-Lago.

In response to that subpoena, on June 3, 2022, the Justice Department obtained a single envelope from Trump’s attorney at Mar-a-Lago containing 38 documents, 17 of which were marked top secret, 16 marked secret, and 5 marked confidential. They also received a signed certification from Trump’s attorney Christina Bobb that following a “diligent search,” no further classified documents remained at Mar-a-Lago. It subsequently became public that despite signing the certification, Bobb had not personally conducted a search for the documents but rather had been directed to sign it by another Trump attorney, Evan Corcoran.

On August 8, 2022 the Justice Department executed a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago for additional classified materials. FBI agents seized more than 100 classified documents from both the storage room at Mar-a-Lago and desks in Trump’s personal office. Among the documents were some with classification levels so restricted that even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review required additional clearances to review them.



Possible Crimes
The FBI and Department of Justice routinely prosecute individuals, including high-level officers like former CIA Director David Petraeus, for misusing classified documents. There are several criminal provisions that may be implicated, depending on the exact contents of the documents.

Obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1519)
Obstruction of justice is the impediment of government activities. There are several statutes that criminalize different types of obstruction, including 18 U.S.C. § 1519 which criminalizes obstruction of justice when an individual “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.” Section 1519 is a felony, punishable by fine, imprisonment of up to 20 years, or both.

It seems rather straightforward for a prosecutor to prove that the classified documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago were concealed (e.g. their disclosure was prevented by Trump refusing to turn them over to the DOJ and NARA) and that Trump’s concealment was done “knowingly” given that Trump has admitted that he knowingly took documents from the White House and investigators even suspect that Trump personally examined relevant documents at Mar-a-Lago following the May 11 subpoena. Conviction therefore turns on whether the statute’s specific intent requirement is satisfied, which it likely is here.

A defendant has the specific intent required under § 1519 when they know their conduct would obstruct a federal investigation, regardless of whether or not an investigation was pending at the time. Given the repeated attempts, including court orders, that the government undertook to investigate and recover these documents, it seems quite likely that Trump knew he was obstructing a federal investigation in his repeated refusals to comply with NARA’s and DOJ’s attempts to recover the presidential records. Moreover, prosecutors have also apparently learned that two of Trump’s employees moved boxes of papers the day before FBI officers visited Mar-a-Lago in June 2022 to retrieve classified documents in response to a subpoena. Trump’s conduct wasn’t innocent or pursuant to routine document retention policies. Rather, it was seemingly purposefully designed to permit him to retain documents that were legally the possession of the United States government.

Criminal contempt (18 U.S.C. § 402)
Criminal contempt is another obstruction charge, this one based on willful disobedience of a court order, such as a grand jury subpoena. Conviction under § 402 requires a prosecutor to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a lawful order was issued by a federal court and the defendant willfully and unlawfully violated that order. Criminal contempt is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine up to $1,000, up to 6 months imprisonment, or both.

The May 11, 2022 grand jury subpoena requested “[a]ny and all documents or writings in the control or custody of Donald J. Trump and/or the office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings…” This subpoena was unquestionably a lawful order issued by a federal court. Conviction here requires showing that Trump knew about the order and deliberately or recklessly violated it. Although the subpoena was addressed to the Office of Donald Trump and not Trump individually, it stretches credulity to claim that he wasn’t aware of it. Trump’s personal examination of classified documents in his possession following the court order is additional evidence that he knew about the subpoena and the need to respond to it. Moreover, Trump attorney Christina Bobb’s false signed certification that no classified documents remained at Mar-a-Lago seems highly unlikely to have been sent to the DOJ without Trump’s knowledge, indicating that he likely deliberately or recklessly defied the subpoena.

False statements to federal authorities (18 U.S.C. § 1001)
The Department of Justice frequently brings charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a crime for someone to make a willfully false written or oral statement about a material fact to a federal investigator or agency. Importantly, under § 1001 the government need not prove that the defendant himself made the statement, but rather that he caused it to be made.

To charge Trump with a violation of § 1001, the government will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knowingly and willfully caused his attorneys to submit false statements. For example, we know that Trump attorney Christina Bobb signed and submitted the June 2022 certification that no further classified documents remained at Mar-a-Lago at the direction of another Trump attorney, Evan Corcoran. Prosecutors however would have to prove Trump’s involvement in causing this certification to be made in order to bring a § 1001 charge. From public reporting it seems that the Justice Department may be viewing both Bobb and Corcoran as witnesses, rather than targets of the investigation. Although attorneys are generally precluded from testifying against their clients under attorney-client privilege, that privilege has several exceptions, including a crime-fraud exception, which may be relevant here.

Conversion of government property (18 U.S.C. § 641)
The Department of Justice uses 18 U.S.C. § 641 to prosecute cases where classified government materials have been mishandled. In particular, § 641 makes it a crime for a person to willfully and knowingly convert a government document or record for personal use. The offense is a felony punishable by a fine, 10 years imprisonment, or both.

It is undisputed that classified government documents are things of value. Trump’s repeated refusal to comply with government requests to return the classified documents in his possession was done willfully and knowingly. The question then becomes whether Trump “convert[ed]” those government documents for his own personal use. Conversion under § 641 requires knowingly using the government documents “in a way that seriously interfered with the government’s right to use and control its own property.” Here, Trump’s use was retaining the documents — a retention that was incompatible with the government’s attempts to regain control of its property under the Presidential Records Act. Trump has previously stated that he did not want to return the documents because he believed they belonged to him. As recently as May 2023, Trump claimed that he would have the right to show the documents to anyone, and investigators have questioned witnesses about whether Trump showed these classified documents to anyone, including political donors.

Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (18 U.S.C. § 1924)
The Department of Justice frequently charges individuals — including high-ranking officials like David Petraeus — with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1924. Section 1924 makes it a crime for an officer or employee of the United States to knowingly remove classified documents with the intent to retain them in an unauthorized location. Since 2018 the offense has been classified as a felony, punishable by a fine, imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

The president, as chief executive officer of the United States, is plainly an “officer…of the United States” as Trump himself admitted in separate litigation. Moreover, the FBI’s August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago clearly retrieved classified documents that were stored at an unauthorized location. Trump has admitted that he knowingly took these documents from the White House and illustrated his intent to retain them by his failure to comply with a federal subpoena to turn them over. Trump and his allies, however, have argued that prosecution under § 1924 or other similar statutes is uncalled for because he allegedly declassified the documents prior to his departure from the White House. There is no indication that this is the case. And, importantly, no steps were taken to modify the classification markings on the relevant documents — a prerequisite before documents can be actually declassified.

Removing and concealing government records (18 U.S.C. § 2071)
Willfully and unlawfully concealing government records with an intent to do so is a criminal act under 18 U.S.C. § 2071. A felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, imprisonment of up to 3 years, or both, a prosecutor would be required to prove that (1) a defendant willfully and intentionally concealed, removed, or destroyed; (2) a government document or record; (3) filed or deposited in any public office of the United States. It is clear that the documents in this case were “concealed” because their disclosure was prevented by Trump’s repeated efforts not to turn documents over to the DOJ and NARA and that the documents are government records because case law makes clear that presidential records material, like those retrieved from Mar-a-Lago, qualify under the statute. Prosecutors would have to go further however, proving that the concealment was willful and intentional. There is sparse precedent explaining when a document is “filed or deposited in any public office,” but the case law that does exist indicates that documents are considered filed if they are “records of a public office.”

Gathering national defense information (18 U.S.C. § 793(e))
One of a number of offenses under the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) criminalizes the willful retention of documents containing or pertaining to national defense information and failure to deliver such documents to appropriate government entities by those in unauthorized possession of or with access or control over such documents. Although the statute is associated with leaking classified information to foreign adversaries, by its terms it could apply here. Conviction under § 793(e) requires the government to prove: (1) the defendant had “unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over”; (2) any document relating to the national defense of the United States; (3) that the defendant had “reason to believe” could injure the United States; (3) yet “wilfully” retained the document; and (4) failed to return the document. Conviction under § 793(e) is a felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.

It is clear Trump’s removal and retention of classified documents constitutes “unauthorized possession” (because he was no longer authorized to have them) and that he failed to return them when requested. A prosecutor would also have to prove that the retention was “wilful” and that the defendant had reason to believe the document could injure the United States. There is also a significant unresolved factual question to this charge that a jury would have to determine, namely, whether the information was related to the national defense of the United States. Classified information is not necessarily related to the national defense of the United States. Rather, information is related to the national defense of the United States when it is “directly and reasonably” connected to the U.S. national defense, is “closely held”, and disclosure would pose a risk to U.S. national security. Without knowing the exact contents of the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago, it is impossible to say whether they include information related to the national defense of the United States, although press coverage suggests that at least some of them do.



Near-Term Legal Issues
“Oversight” of the investigative process
Although Congress has the authority to conduct oversight of the executive branch and its agencies, as implied by the Constitution and confirmed on several occasions by the Supreme Court, this authority does not extend to interfering with the independence of our criminal justice system. That is why, historically, Congress has not interfered with pending criminal investigations and, in the rare instance in which Congress has requested materials pertaining to ongoing investigations, DOJ has refused to provide them.

Nonetheless, following the House Judiciary Committee’s recent attempts to obtain confidential files from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office following his indictment of Donald Trump for hush money payments made in relation to the 2016 election, there is widespread speculation that the House Judiciary Committee may attempt a similar feat here. Indeed, Trump’s legal team has already requested that Congress make similar demands during the Mar-a-Lago investigation. Historical precedent makes clear that such a request would be overstepping, and that Special Counsel Smith would be well within his rights to decline.

Timing Considerations
Although the investigation into Trump’s mishandling of classified documents preceded his November 15, 2022 announcement that he is running for president, Attorney General Merrick Garland took the election into consideration when he appointed Special Counsel Smith. Special Counsels are attorneys appointed by the Justice Department to carry out investigations when there is a perceived conflict of interest or when their appointment is in the public’s best interest.

Department of Justice regulations state that, “Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charge, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” Because of this, by policy, the Department of Justice has an unwritten rule, the so-called “60 Day Rule,” that it will avoid taking public investigatory steps close to an election that could influence how people vote. For these reasons, if Special Counsel Smith is to charge Trump, he likely will do so before the 60 Day Rule would be triggered.



Potential defenses raised by Donald Trump
Declassification
Trump’s lawyers have argued that he didn’t violate the law because the documents he retained had been unilaterally declassified. Presidents may classify and declassify materials at their discretion. Trump however has failed to show any evidence that he declassified the documents prior to their removal and retention. Moreover, some documents obtained by NARA seem to indicate that Trump knew how to properly declassify documents yet failed to take any of those required steps.

No “knowing” removal
Conviction of some criminal offenses, including § 1924, requires a knowing and unauthorized removal of documents. Trump’s attorneys have started to lay the groundwork to argue that the removal of these documents was not “knowing” and, instead, was the result of “institutional practice and procedures within the White House.” To that end, they blame NARA for allegedly not assisting in “pack-out” procedures for presidential records when Trump departed office, and point to a “compressed timeline” of only four years in office that allegedly put him at a disadvantage compared to other outgoing presidents and vice presidents.

This defense ignores the fact that NARA did provide staff to help pack out Trump and fails to address Trump’s conduct after the May subpoena, at which point the evidence suggests that Trump may have personally inspected documents with classified markings and, if so, thereby knew of their existence and removal from the White House. Moreover, Trump has admitted that he knowingly took documents from the White House, suggesting during a CNN town hall in May 2023 that he was allowed to take these materials with him when he left office.

Deference to the intelligence community
In an April 2023 letter to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents was not criminal. Instead, the letter argues, that the Justice Department “should be ordered to stand down” and, in their stead, the intelligence community should “conduct an appropriate investigation and provide a full report to this committee.” This letter however seems to overlook the fact that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence did conduct a review in coordination with the Justice Department. Moreover, an intelligence review does not preclude a criminal investigation where the facts warrant, as they do here.

Challenging the constitutionality of the Special Counsel regulations
Trump’s lawyers may argue, as the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) already has, that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The crux of the argument is that a special counsel cannot be named without Senate confirmation — an argument that was raised repeatedly to delegitimize former Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into 2016 election interference.

This argument is flawed. Since 1999 the Department of Justice has had regulations in place that provide for the appointment of Special Counsels who possess “the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney.” Jack Smith was appointed pursuant to this authority. In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in In re Grand Jury Investigation upheld the special counsel regulations, concluding that a special counsel is an inferior officer under the U.S. Constitution and therefore does not require Senate approval.



How the Trump case differs from Biden’s and Pence’s possession of classified documents
In recent months, classified documents have been found in former Vice President Mike Pence’s home and in President Biden’s home and Washington think-tank. There are however significant differences between these cases and Trump’s mishandling of classified documents.

In the case of both Pence and Biden, a small number of classified documents were found in their possession. In both cases, NARA and the FBI were immediately contacted, took possession of the documents, and conducted voluntary searches of the premises to identify and remove any further documents. Unlike Trump, it appears based on the publicly known evidence that neither Biden nor Pence knew they were in possession of classified documents. Furthermore, both cooperated with law enforcement and immediately turned the documents over. Their actions therefore demonstrated a lack of willfulness or intent, particularly when compared to the year and a half of requests that NARA made to Trump and his team to retrieve classified documents, an effort that required a court ordered search of Mar-a-Lago because of Trump’s and his team’s seemingly repeated noncompliance.

It is very likely that Trump will soon face his first federal indictment for his possession and mishandling of over 300 classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence. Trump’s apparent refusal to cooperate with law enforcement to return those documents and the protracted attempts by the Department of Justice and NARA to retrieve them not only places Trump in legal peril, but differentiates his conduct from that of President Biden and former Vice President Pence. With three simultaneous investigations into former President Trump’s conduct moving forward in New York, Georgia, and at the Department of Justice, Trump’s legal woes have likely only begun.
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Fun CH »

Rideback wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 6:12 pm Again, you misrepresent what was in the Mueller Report.
Really? Then tell us exactly when Trump was charged in a criminal conspiracy with Russia?
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

StatusKuo:

'The Espionage Act

In the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, the Justice Department listed three crimes for which it believed evidence was at Trump’s Florida resort residence. In the section titled “Property to be Seized,” the Department stated,

All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071 , or 1519.

I wrote about Section 1519 (obstruction) on Monday. Section 2071 is a fairly mundane statute that relates to the removal or concealment of government records. And Section 793, which we’ll dive into more today, is the Espionage Act. And it’s juicy.

That Act dates back to 1917, and most of it covers the kind of spy stuff you’d expect. Section (a) talks about obtaining national defense information to hurt the U.S. or help foreign nations; Section (b) prohibits making copies or stealing national defense information; Section (c) focuses on those who receive such information. Those sections aren’t directly at issue here, at least not based on anything we currently know.

Section (d), however, is problematic for the ex-president. It prohibits willful communication of national defense information to any person not entitled to see it. It also prohibits willful retention of national defense information and the failure to return it on demand to the U.S. government.

Simply put, an Espionage Act charge could be made against Trump if he willfully communicated or retained national defense information.

What we know: willful retention

When lawyers for the Justice Department went to Judge Beryl Howell seeking to put attorney Corcoran on the stand, they argued that, because Trump had used Corcoran to help commit a crime, there was an exception to the attorney-client privilege and Corcoran should have to testify. The judge, in a sealed opinion, agreed, and she ordered Corcoran to give sworn answers before the grand jury.

One crime that Trump likely committed was obstruction of justice. But as new reporting by the New York Times on Thursday revealed, another likely one was espionage. In her opinion ordering Corcoran to testify, Judge Howell reportedly stated,

Other evidence demonstrates that the former president willfully sought to retain classified documents when he was not authorized to do so, and knew it.

See those key words? Willfully sought to retain. Now that you know what Section (d) of the Espionage Act requires, you’ll see that Trump is indeed in big legal trouble: A federal judge has found it is more likely than not that Trump willfully retained classified documents. She further found he knew that he was not authorized to do so.

If the Times reporting is correct, that likely constitutes a violation of Section (d) of the Espionage Act. Does it prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? No, and we’re not there yet. But if they can convince a federal judge that Trump committed this crime, they can probably convince a grand jury of it.

So what might some of that evidence Judge Howell mentioned be? The Washington Post reported Thursday that two Trump Organization employees—his valet Walt Nauta and an unnamed person who is cooperating with investigators—moved boxes of papers to a storage room the day before the FBI came to Mar-a-Lago on a scheduled visit, then packed up an SUV the day after—though it isn’t clear with what. That’s a pretty suspicious timeline.

Let’s look at it more closely as it unfolded.

In May 2022, Trump receives a grand jury subpoena for all remaining government documents, including classified and top secret documents, that he took with him after leaving the White House.

Sometime later, Trump learns that the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, Jay Bratt, is coming to collect any remaining classified documents. Trump has Corcoran conduct a search, but he limits where he is allowed to search.

On June 2, the day before Bratt’s visit, as seen in security video footage, Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, and an unnamed employee load boxes onto dollies and then into a storage area.

On June 3, Bratt comes and visits Mar-a-Lago. He is handed a Redweld folder and an affidavit sworn to by Trump’s attorney Christina Bobb that a “diligent search” was conducted and there are no other responsive documents.

On June 4, the day after Bratt leaves, the employee helps Nauta pack up an SUV, and Trump leaves for Bedminster for the summer.

Nothing to see here!

What we know: willful communication

The Washington Post also reported that prosecutors have evidence that Trump would keep classified documents in his office in places visible to others, and that he would sometimes show the documents to people. It isn’t clear whom he showed what, but if this fact is supported by eyewitnesses, it also comprises a likely violation of the Espionage Act.

This is because it is illegal not just to retain such information but to communicate it to persons not authorized to see it. If he did it willfully—that is, intentionally and with knowledge—then each instance is a potential violation.

Trump has argued that the documents belong to him, not the government, and that he declassified all of them, maybe even by thinking about it only. Therefore, he claims, it was not a violation to retain them or to communicate them to others. This is absurd and contrary to the evidence, but nevertheless, this is one of his defenses.

No matter, because the Department has been very careful. Importantly, none of the statutes listed in the search warrant as possible underlying crimes requires any showing that the documents actually be “classified” in order for the laws to have been violated.

For espionage, for example, it is sufficient that the documents are “relating to the national defense”—not that they are “classified.” (This makes sense, because the Espionage Act of 1917 predates the modern classification system.) As explained by Professor Heidi Kitrosser in Lawfare, this has meant, according to relevant court cases, two things:

they are “closely held” in that they “have not been made public and are not available to the general public,” and

the disclosure must be “potentially damaging to the United States or useful to an enemy of the United States.”

Trump can try to claim, for example, that he declassified nuclear weapon capability information, which reportedly was among the documents retrieved. But irrespective of what Trump claims or even did, such information remains “closely held” and “potentially damaging.” That’s why it’s labeled “Top Secret” after all.

Even assuming charitably that Trump was simply showing off classified documents, perhaps to well-heeled donors and foreign guests, this is still a grave violation of the Espinage Act because it comprises willful communication of national defense information to someone unauthorized to see it.

People in government get charged and go to prison for precisely that kind of violation. Just ask recently indicted and arrested air national guardsman Jack Teixeira, who apparently was showing off to his buddies online when he leaked classified Pentagon files.

Tick Tock, Trump

Trump’s lawyers undoubtedly understand the ex-president’s legal peril. As reported by Rolling Stone, which spoke with to two sources familiar with the matter, some of Trump’s top advisers and lawyers have told him that they expect the Justice Department to charge him for retaining highly sensitive and classified documents. Trump’s response has been to say, “What about Joe Biden?”—which shows he still doesn’t really understand how his case of willful retention and communication and of obstruction is so markedly different.

“Looks like they’re going for it,” one of the sources said. “People close to the president have discussed with him what we think is going to happen soon, and how he and everyone else needs to be ready for it … it would be crazy not to.”

Indications point to a decision on whether to indict coming not long from now. Grand jury activity, which was furious for months, ceased altogether on May 5. Trump’s team has outlined his potential defense to allies in Congress and even sought a meeting with Attorney General Merrick Garland, which he promptly denied.

These are generally the kinds of developments and moves that happen right before charges land. And based on what we already know about Trump’s efforts to mislead his own attorneys, as well as his apparent pattern of hoarding and showing off highly classified documents, it would be surprising at this point if Trump were not indicted under these two statutes.

Now, I need to be clear. I’m not saying charges are a certainty. In the law, nothing ever is, and we have to consider that Trump has skirted justice and accountability all his life. But to my eye, it looks like Special Counsel Jack Smith has finally caught up to him, and I would certainly not bet against federal indictments on the documents case
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

WSJ is reporting that Smith's investigation is in the end stage. Trump's attorney's have written a letter to Garland asking for a meeting.

Good segment on where things stand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTYyElbgW00

This is the search warrant from Mar a Lago, as a reminder of what Garland's team suspected Trump had engaged in.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10810
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

Again, you misrepresent what was in the Mueller Report. Did you read it? I did. The quotes you use about collusion and conspiracy were what Barr wanted the public to believe when he drafted and circulated his infamous memo. The memo that, by the way, the Mueller team was so incensed about for its inaccuracies that they felt compelled to not only write to Barr and publish the letter but then Mueller testified to Congress.

If you had read the report and something beyond Barr's memo you would know that Mueller was BARRED by DoJ protocols from charging a sitting President. In the conclusion section he laid that out and purposefully listed the crimes that had been uncovered. Look at the number of successful prosecutions the Mueller team achieved.

Those are court papers, but apparently they're still not good enough for you.
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Fun CH »

Rideback wrote: Tue May 23, 2023 12:43 pm This is not hearsay when a journalist uses court docs. Trump himself has admitted to taking the docs numerous times. Your arguments are non sensical just because you want to cling to whataboutisms so that you appear as standing on a higher moral ground. That ground doesn't exist.

If you want to argue then present documentation that what the links I've posted are not correct.
Yea, court docs that say who was called to give testimony. What was that testimony in court? Didn't happen yet.

As I said "The official facts of the case will be revealed to us after the investigation is complete."

Do you disagree with that statement?

Or do prefer the court of public opinion over a real court of law?

Remember Mueller's important investigation? Did Trump get charged with a crime as a result of that investigation? No criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russia was found to have occurred despite the fact the extreme left convicted him in their Court of public opinion.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Rideback
Posts: 1778
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:53 am
Contact:

Re: Mar a Lago Obstruction with Intent

Post by Rideback »

This is not hearsay when a journalist uses court docs. Trump himself has admitted to taking the docs numerous times. Your arguments are non sensical just because you want to cling to whataboutisms so that you appear as standing on a higher moral ground. That ground doesn't exist.

If you want to argue then present documentation that what the links I've posted are not correct.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests