aggiehawg said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

That's the one. Many don't like Barnes but he made solid points on this whole thing.

Law scholars are a dime-a-dozen these days, it seems. We don't exactly have Holmes-es and Cardozos anymore.

---

I'm not a big fan of Barnes but you are right, he did make some good points. One of which I have been wondering about regarding the forum shopping using dueling grand juries in both DC and Florida on the exact same matter.

Even without the shady misconduct in the DC grand jury, that was very questionable to me.

---

This is a multi-jurisdictional incident that, at its core, starts in D.C. with the creation, supposed "declassification" or whatever per Trump, and the removal of documents presumably largely taking place within that jurisdiction.

This indictment focuses in on a sub-set of conduct that appears to have mostly or entirely taken place in south Florida, hence a second grand jury within that jurisdiction before the indictment within the same.

There is no reason to think Jack Smith/the DOJ found or are going to find more friendly ground in south Florida rather than D.C. Your suggestion is that they had trouble in Washington so they went down to Florida to find a favorable grand jury so that Aileen Cannon could try the case? Come on now.

This is what goaltending for Team D / Biden looks like folks ^^^^^^

Interesting mention re Aileen Cannon. The left is already out clamoring for her to recuse herself, have the chief judge for S.D. Fla. reassign the case, or get the 11th Cir. to step in to do it.

That talking point probably went out yesterday because prominent legal blogs/webpages are all blasting that narrative this morning and the known left/democrat types at my firm are all parroting the message.

What a funny argument the left make that the only way for justice to be served is by Obama / Biden appointed judges. That's comical.

Particularly when Obama appointed loads of unqualified people to the bench and Biden nominated quite possibly the most unqualified candidate in the history of SCOTUS appoint someone who fails to understand basic biology but qualifies because she is a black woman with a law degree.

Comical.

Trump had a “standing order” that everything he took from the White House were declassified. Game over, Bill Barr can eat a bag of dicks.pic.twitter.com/sjDZK9KtgX

— MAGS (@TAftermath2020) June 12, 2023

Turley is about to come on FNC to give his take on Trump's defenses.

Again, Trump also has a defense on the Espionage Act as merely waving a document you claim to be classified but not actually providing the document to the person for reading . examination or for them to take / make a copy is not enough.

From the original M-A_L raid thread, I recall the Espionage Act requires intent.

I listened to the video over lunch. There was no mention of the 11th Circuit or DoJ saying anything with regard to those Circuit Court Justices. They never talk about the decision from 11th Circuit at all. Is there another video out there?

At about 18:20, he talks about case being in Florida and Judge being skeptical of the case. But no mention of 11th Circuit allegation.

Barnes did talk about the argument on PRA and who records belong to. I didn't hear anything different than what has been posted here, but all good points he raised. Also made some valid points on the search warrant that we all discussed last summer (time flies!)

One great point he made was "in a case like this, you need a victim. There isn't one here. There is no harm to anyone. Juries aren't sympathetic to that case." If this gets to a jury, I agree with him that jury is going to be looking for a reason that this mattered.

He also pointed out one thing hardly anyone is talking about: Milley flat out lied to Woodward about his having to stop Trump from invading Iran! That should be out there much more than it is in the conservative media.

He ends it by saying "we have way too many secrets and that promotes a deeps state. I could not agree more! Think about the JFK stuff that was "Secret" for so long, then released? Why was any of that secret? It was no big deal! (This is rhetorical, don't want an discussion on that to derail).

Now for the bad:

Barnes argues strangely that Congress has to indict and convict Trump first. That just makes no sense to me. These actions were after he left office. Maybe he fleshes it out more somewhere else, but in this video his argument is terrible.

He then says 1st Amendment says you have a right to run for president. Again, makes no sense. Says 1st amendment should be read to prohibit one administration from indicting someone running for president. That's an extremely tortured reading!

He then claims 1st Amendment prohibits selective prosecution. Maybe he misspoke, but he said it several times. He is wrong on that also. It's the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment and due process in the 5th. Its also not a defense to the merits of a criminal charge.

Not surprisingly, they did not talk about the charge Trump ordered documents be hidden from his attorneys and Feds so they would not be turned over in response to the subpoena. Still waiting for someone to explain how Trump gets out of that one (if its true of course.)

Agree with others, this theory of Biden pardoning Trump and everyone including himself is an interesting one.

will25u said:

---

Trump had a “standing order” that everything he took from the White House were declassified. Game over, Bill Barr can eat a bag of dicks.pic.twitter.com/sjDZK9KtgX

— MAGS (@TAftermath2020) June 12, 2023

---

If such a document exists showing he declassified anything he took, he should produce it right now for all the world to see.

fka ftc said:

---

Turley is about to come on FNC to give his take on Trump's defenses.

Again, Trump also has a defense on the Espionage Act as merely waving a document you claim to be classified but not actually providing the document to the person for reading . examination or for them to take / make a copy is not enough.

From the original M-A_L raid thread, I recall the Espionage Act requires intent.

---

I can see this...

I used to have classified docs out on my desk all the time. If someone came by and I wasn't sure of their NtK (their clearance level was on their badge so that was obvious) I just made sure they couldn't see the classified stuff and didn't let them handle it.

Perfectly acceptable.

It doesn't. Remember...you can just think it and poof...it makes it real

Trump is being charged with just the bolded part:

(e)

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



So your questions does not matter in this context, as they aren't charging him with that. All that matters is whether he had authorized possession of it.

Rapier108 said:

---

If such a document exists showing he declassified anything he took, he should produce it right now for all the world to see.

---

While that may be good for those who need it in order to form an opinion on what Trump did, it is not necessary for Trump to produce any such document.

I think one of the reasons we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, is that all the other documents that may have been sent to him that were classified, he may not have known they were sent to him, which kills the Espionage Act angle.

Its also the circumstances that leads Barr to his toast comment. But even on those Trump maintains a defense that he declassified, that he didn't actually let anyone read the docs, and that he was just sorting through everything when these incidents / alleged crimes happened and had been advised from those knowledgeable that under the PRA he had the right to take his time sorting through what he wanted to keep and that NARA could sue him if they didn't like it.

What you want to see has no bearing on what Trump needs to show anyone at this time.

Im Gipper said:

---

Trump is being charged with just the bolded part:

(e)

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



So your questions does not matter in this context, as they aren't charging him with that. All that matters is whether he had authorized possession of it.

---

Wasn't making a comment on that. I was replying to that specific statement above and nothing else.

Quote:

---

we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i

---

Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?

Im Gipper said:

---

Trump is being charged with just the bolded part:

(e)

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



So your questions does not matter in this context, as they aren't charging him with that. All that matters is whether he had authorized possession of it.

---

Subsection (d) would be much more applicable than (e). Again, believe in broader context there still has to be some form of intent.

Also, Trump has a defense that he was in the process of delivering it to the appropriate authority or that since NARA FAILED to provide an appropriate facility for review, that Trump was caught in a procedural limbo pending the courts to resolve a "civil" dispute.

Biden admin is actually more guilty than Trump regarding the Espionage Act if you read subsection (f). Eat that up with your morning cereal.

Quote:

---

Subsection (d) would be much more applicable than (e)

---

Well, they aren't charging him under (d), so that doesn't really matter!

Despite the colorful parts about Trump talking about and showing people documents, he isn't actually charged with crimes for doing that.

Under Espionage Act, its just "retaining" them.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i

---

Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?

---

6 a and b.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Subsection (d) would be much more applicable than (e)

---

Well, they aren't charging him under (d), so that doesn't really matter!

Despite the colorful parts about Trump talking about and showing people documents, he isn't actually charged with crimes for doing that.

Under Espionage Act, its just "retaining" them.

---

Trump was authorized under the PRA so in my opinion, (d) would be much more appropriate.

Its chincy and likely a huge mistake to go after it under (e).

(d) would have potentially undermined Trump's PRA defense.

fka ftc said:

---

Turley is about to come on FNC to give his take on Trump's defenses.

Again, Trump also has a defense on the Espionage Act as merely waving a document you claim to be classified but not actually providing the document to the person for reading . examination or for them to take / make a copy is not enough.

From the original M-A_L raid thread, I recall the Espionage Act requires intent.

---

No, the Espionage Act does not require intent--to my understanding from what I've read (and I haven't read all of this thread, so I'll defer). And the Espionage Act itself does not explicitly require proof that the records themselves were classified, technically. In regards to the EA, this is all about possession and retaining possession.

But there are flaws in the EA that are interesting (more below).

DOJ/Smith are charging Trump with a section of the Espionage Act which makes it a crime for anyone:

Quote:

---

"having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document … relating to the national defense" to "willfully retain[] the same and fail[] to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it."

violating 18 U.S. Code 793

---

Prosecutors will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump willfully retained the material and failed to turn it over to the government. Prosecutors do not need to show that Trump knew it was national defense information, but rather that a reasonable person should have known it was.

Emily Berman at Univ. of Houston put out an interesting piece today, "The Espionage Act Isn't the Right Statute to Criminalize Trump", which I pulled that from. She interestingly points out a few relevant flaws of the Espionage Act.

Flaw 1. The Espionage Act surely is intended to apply to spies. Regarding this part of the EA ...

Quote:

---

Three categories of individuals might run afoul of this provision. First are spiesindividuals actually engaged in espionage in the service of a foreign power. Second are whistleblowerspeople who retain secret information to publicly expose what they believe is government waste, fraud, or abuse. Third are individuals with a purely personal motive to keep informationperhaps they have an obsession with classified information, maybe they want to use it to impress their friends, or possibly even they can't explain their motive.

Trump's prosecution provides an opportunity to ask, however, whether individuals in the second and third categories are appropriate targets of Espionage Act prosecution.

---

Flaw 2. The Espionage Act fails to require a specific intent either to harm the national security of the US or benefit a foreign power. Berman giving examples of why this then introduces ambiguity into the Act, stating:

Quote:

---

Its scope isn't limited to individuals engaged in what we actually consider espionage.

As a result, the Espionage Act has been a powerful government tool to prosecute individuals in that second categorywhistleblowers.

Consider Thomas Drake, a former National Security Agency official who was prosecuted under the act for leaking unclassified information to a reporter to expose what he believed to be unconstitutional surveillance of Americans. After years of legal wrangling, the government dropped all Espionage Act charges against Drake.

Reality Winner, an NSA contractor, was sentenced to over five years in prison under the act for sharing one document about Russia's 2016 election activities with a reporter because she thought Americans were being misled.

Edward Snowden remains under indictment on multiple Espionage Act charges for his massive 2013 leak of information about NSA activities. Whatever one thinks of Snowden's actions, he acted to reveal objectively problematic (and arguably unlawful) NSA surveillance of Americans.

The list goes on. Unfortunately, efforts to amend the Espionage Act to limit its reach to behaviors traditionally conceived of as espionage have failed.

---

Her mixed conclusion:

Quote:

---

Which of the three categories of Espionage Act violators Trump falls into we may never knowto date his motive remains obscure. But as inexcusable as Trump's behavior appears to have been, unless he's proven to have given sensitive information to foreign governments, his alleged mishandling of these documents doesn't make him a spy, and the US Code shouldn't label him as such.

---

Charpie said:

---

It doesn't. Remember...you can just think it and poof...it makes it real

---

Actually a President can verbally declare a document declassified and it is, but for something on going, a written order ensures there is a record of it.

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i

---

Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?

---

6 a and b.

---

Those are not counts.

Counts start at paragraph 76.

BTW - Indictment says Trump "caused" boxes to moved. This is incorrect. NARA and the Biden admin "caused" the transport of the boxes, Trump was no longer the possessor nor authorized owner of the contents of those boxes.

Now, about M-A-L not being an authorized storage location is also not the fault of Trump nor caused by Trump. Biden is the one who disallowed MAL as a SCIF, then shipped boxes knowingly and negligently to an authorized location.

Biden team has way, way more guilt in this than Trump could ever have.

Im Gipper said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, i

---

Which count of the Indictment charges him with that?

---

6 a and b.

---

Those are not counts.

Counts start at paragraph 76.

---

Okay, then why is it in there?

Dramatic effect to outage the reader mostly. But also, it is to provide context as to why the Feds think it is "dangerous" for Trump to have these documents.

Im Gipper said:

---

Trump is being charged with just the bolded part:

(e)

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



So your questions does not matter in this context, as they aren't charging him with that. All that matters is whether he had authorized possession of it.

---

But here's the problem with that. Let's look at the timeline.

• Swamp creatures looking for something to pin on Trump execute Mar-a-Lago raid under dubious circumstances fishing to see what they might find. Find among the trove of boxes sent to MAL from the White House some classified docs.
• Realizing they might have an angle, they check into Biden. Oops. He has docs as well. So does Pence.
• Tells Biden and Pence, "We never really cared whether you had Classified Docs or not (evidenced by said docs being in Biden's unsecured garage for 7 years), but we might have an angle on the Orange Man so let us take your docs.
• Trump, who has been targeted by these individuals for 7 years now, tells them to F-off. There is no precedent for the govt to demand classified docs from a previous POTUS. (See Clinton Sock Drawer & Hillary's bleach-bit server)
• Hire Junk Yard attack dog known for accesses in prosecutions as Special Counsel in another attempt to finally "get him".

Bottom line - who was hurt here? This is a culmination of a records dispute between Trump and those that hate him. Nothing more.

Rapier108 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

If such a document exists showing he declassified anything he took, he should produce it right now for all the world to see.

---

While that may be good for those who need it in order to form an opinion on what Trump did, it is not necessary for Trump to produce any such document.

I think one of the reasons we saw the case narrowed down to the instances where he supposedly showed off the docs or otherwise reference them, is that all the other documents that may have been sent to him that were classified, he may not have known they were sent to him, which kills the Espionage Act angle.

Its also the circumstances that leads Barr to his toast comment. But even on those Trump maintains a defense that he declassified, that he didn't actually let anyone read the docs, and that he was just sorting through everything when these incidents / alleged crimes happened and had been advised from those knowledgeable that under the PRA he had the right to take his time sorting through what he wanted to keep and that NARA could sue him if they didn't like it.

What you want to see has no bearing on what Trump needs to show anyone at this time.

---

Must be exhausting to goaltend for Trump all day, everyday.

Only leftists think these indictments are about the "rule of law". The rest of us know it is purely political, but Trump makes himself an easy target by doing and saying stupid **** over and over.

---

Doesn't bother me to present facts and in some cases opinions on what is going on here.

Trump in this instance was setup and targeted. Biden admin sent the boxes to MAL knowing Trump was no longer authorized and that the residence was no longer a SCIF. Then had NARA complain then the WH took a civil dispute and turned it into a criminal one with ordering the DOJ to raid his home.

I understand very clearly this a witch hunt. But to dismiss it as Trump incompetence or nefariousness or arrogance plays into the MSM / DNC hands that Trump actually did something wrong.

Like the Russia-hoax, Ukraine phone call, and Jan 6t, I am not yet convinced Trump has actually done anything wrong here as the facts continue to emerge and defenses are raised.

Quote:

---

who was hurt here?

---

Yep. I commented on this in my breakdown of the Barnes video above.

Im Gipper said:

---

Dramatic effect to outage the reader mostly. But also, it is to provide context as to why the Feds think it is "dangerous" for Trump to have these documents.

---

The first two pages of the indictment read like a Vindman dear diary of why Orange Man so bad.

Smith should be ashamed of writing an indictment that reads like a Taylor Swift song about being jilted by an ex-lover.

fka ftc said:

---

BTW - Indictment says Trump "caused" boxes to moved. This is incorrect. NARA and the Biden admin "caused" the transport of the boxes, Trump was no longer the possessor nor authorized owner of the contents of those boxes.

---

Also another comment that speaks to authorization of posession.

NARA & Biden ship all these boxes to Trump. The pictures in the indictment indicate that there are a ton of records to go through.

Yet when NARA comes calling saying "we want our stuff", Trump resists as he's not been through all the boxes. Note the pic in the indictment that shows newspaper articles mixed in with other papers. It's pretty obvious people just picked up papers and stuffed them into boxes before they left the WH.

So the DOJ comes in and takes EVERYTHING. So did Trump have no rights at all with what was his? Was he magically supposed to know? That seems to be the insinuation here.

Couple that happening 2 years after he left, while the VP has the same situation 7 years after he left, and I come up with a targeted prosecution for political purposes, NOT law enforcement.

ETA - sorry, fka, I was typing when you posted the above. This basically says the same thing - albeit with a little Schiff style embellishment on my part.

The silver lining in this is that it's now fair game to go after actual wrong doing regardless of current political position or former. Trump's comments today echo that sentiment. It's like a mirror. They opened the door to actual prosecution of actual crimes and that goes to FBI directors, CIA heads and on down to the presidency.

Tibbers said:

---

The silver lining in this is that it's now fair game to go after actual wrong doing regardless of political stature. Trump's comments today echo that sentiment. It's like a mirror. They opened the door to actual prosecution of actual crimes and that goes to FBI directors, CIA heads and on down to the presidency.

---

That is not a silver lining. This is only happening because he's a political opponent.

Right but nothing will come of this instance. It rips the band aid off the precedent that presidents can't ever be charged regardless of wrongdoing. That's the point.

Tibbers said:

---

Right but nothing will come of this instance. It rips the band aid off the precedent that presidents can't ever be charged regardless of wrongdoing. That's the point.

---

That only applied to sitting Presidents. Impeachment and removal are the Constitutionally mandated for a President who has committed a crime. After they are no longer in office, they can be prosecuted. Hence why Ford pardoned Nixon to head this type of crisis off at the pass.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Right but nothing will come of this instance. It rips the band aid off the precedent that presidents can't ever be charged regardless of wrongdoing. That's the point.

---

That only applied to sitting Presidents. Impeachment and removal are the Constitutionally mandated for a President who has committed a crime. After they are no longer in office, they can be prosecuted. Hence why Ford pardoned Nixon to head this type of crisis off at the pass.

---

Ah makes sense. You know when you dig deeper on the Nixon case it's almost like it is the same cohorts doing similar dirty tactics. Not to derail at all.