fc2112 said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

You can say that Trump shouldn't have done what he did and that Hillary shouldn't have either. But one is being charged, and "no reasonable prosecutor" could bring charges on the other.

---

And claiming that one should not be charged BECAUSE the other wasn't charged is textbook whataboutism.

Focus on the felonies Trump committed.

---

NY Attorney General Letitia James Says Manhattan Case Against Trump ‘Will Unfortunately Have to Be Adjourned’ Pending Federal Case https://t.co/9L3sDoAQ8t

— Mediaite (@Mediaite) June 13, 2023

aggiehawg said:

---

So what was this all about to begin with?

May 17, 2023.

Quote:

---

Today, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner (OH-10) issued the following statement after the Committee voted to release an unclassified transcript containing the testimony of officials from the National Archives and Records Administration that took place in March:

"Testimony from the National Archives and Records Administration officials makes clear that the handling and mishandling of classified documents are a problem that stretches beyond the Oval Office. In fact, dozens of former Members of Congress and senior government officials have taken classified documents with them after leaving office and donated them to libraries and universities across the country. This is a systemic problem that dates to the Reagan Administration. We need a better way for elected officials who are leaving office in both the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch to properly return classified material and protect the integrity of our national security," said Chairman Mike Turner.
To read the unclassified transcript, click here.
Background:

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) officials testified that when it comes to the retention of classified documents, the problem is broader than former Presidents and Vice Presidents. Since 2010, NARA has received over 80 calls from different libraries and universities where former Members of Congress and senior government officials have taken papers and donated them. For instance, Senator Edmund Muskie inadvertently sent 98 classified documents to Bates College.
NARA officials testified that every presidential administration since the Reagan Administration has mishandled classified material, and they found classified and unclassified documents that were commingled.

NARA was looking for items of historical interest (e.g., the letter that President Obama left for President Trump and President Trump's correspondence with Kim Jong Un) and was not aware of missing classified documents.

---

House Intelligence Community

So what was so special about Obama's letter welcoming Trump to the White House?

He inserted classified information about North Korea's nuclear capabilities into it. Why? Couldn't that info be inserted into a PDB and not a personal letter? And who probably drafted the letter for him? Susan Rice and Lisa Monaco. The same Lisa Monaco that is Bratt's Gal Friday at DOJ Nat Sec.

---

jrdaustin said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

You can say that Trump shouldn't have done what he did and that Hillary shouldn't have either. But one is being charged, and "no reasonable prosecutor" could bring charges on the other.

---

And claiming that one should not be charged BECAUSE the other wasn't charged is textbook whataboutism.

Focus on the felonies Trump committed.

---

Again, you can play the whataboutism card all you want in the political arena, but that stops once we enter the legal arena.

Our entire judicial concept of Equal Justice is based upon whataboutism, only we use another term - precedent.

Without whataboutism in the legal arena, our Constitutional protections do not exist.

---

Quote:

---

Are you saying that the "nuclear capability" references we've seen in the indictment may be the letter from Obama to Trump?

---

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What authority exists that the PRA preempts the field and forecloses the DOJ from charging under another statute like the espionage act? That may be a hard sell and one that we'll know the answer to 3-years from now, if at all. This case gonna have more moving parts than a Rolex.

---

It is not necessarily a matter of pre-emption but as a rule the more narrow statute that applies to the precise facts is preferred over a much broader statute such as the 100 year old Espionage Act.

And not to put too fine a point on this but there are other statutes that specifically apply to dissemination or retention of classified information that would have applied if it were really about classified documents other than the Espionage Act. Where are they in the indictment?

---

That's now how our legal system works, nor is the PRA "more narrow" than the statutes in the indictment, anyhow.

---

The Espionage Act was created for former POTUS records? Because that is the specific situation here and what the very specific PRA applies to.

There is already debate about not only the vagueness and inconsistency of the Espionage Act, and also that its 100 years old and focuses heavily on intent to disseminate military information to our adversaries which is NOT what happened with Trump docs.

Aren't you a lawyer? You are not very good at details.

---

Quote:

---

Since it's criminal law, I defer to Aggiehawg

---

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

Incorrect. You have this flippwd. The Espionage Act does NOT "focus(es) heavily on intent to disseminate military information to our adversaries."

The Espionage Act does not require a specific intent either to harm the national security of the US or benefit a foreign power. Additionally, it applies beyond just "spies", to also include (2) whistleblowers and (3) individuals with a personal motive to retain information. The latter two categories introduce ambiguity for how the Act has been used, and I think the current example continues that trend.

---

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What authority exists that the PRA preempts the field and forecloses the DOJ from charging under another statute like the espionage act? That may be a hard sell and one that we'll know the answer to 3-years from now, if at all. This case gonna have more moving parts than a Rolex.

---

It is not necessarily a matter of pre-emption but as a rule the more narrow statute that applies to the precise facts is preferred over a much broader statute such as the 100 year old Espionage Act.

And not to put too fine a point on this but there are other statutes that specifically apply to dissemination or retention of classified information that would have applied if it were really about classified documents other than the Espionage Act. Where are they in the indictment?

---

That's now how our legal system works, nor is the PRA "more narrow" than the statutes in the indictment, anyhow.

---

The Espionage Act was created for former POTUS records? Because that is the specific situation here and what the very specific PRA applies to.

There is already debate about not only the vagueness and inconsistency of the Espionage Act, and also that its 100 years old and focuses heavily on intent to disseminate military information to our adversaries which is NOT what happened with Trump docs.

Aren't you a lawyer? You are not very good at details.

---

Incorrect. You have this flippwd. The Espionage Act does NOT "focus(es) heavily on intent to disseminate military information to our adversaries."

The Espionage Act does not require a specific intent either to harm the national security of the US or benefit a foreign power. Additionally, it applies beyond just "spies", to also include (2) whistleblowers and (3) individuals with a personal motive to retain information. The latter two categories introduce ambiguity for how the Act has been used, and I think the current example continues that trend.

---

fka ftc said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Exactly! Which is why your earlier argument completely discounting the PRA is circular reasoning that ultimately collapes on itself. Remember, prior to 1978, it didn't matter whether the documents were classified or not. They belonged to the former POTUS.

You're making the argument that Trump should have known what was in every box prior to them arriving at MAL. That in 14 days he get 100% right what was personal and what was Presidential. A standard that was not held to any prior President, VP, or Secretary of State before the MAL raid.

Again, I'm not arguing what Trump did might not have been stupid. I'm arguing it wasn't criminal.

---

The 31 documents relevant to this indictment would not have been Trump's documents to do whatever he wanted with prior to 1978. Either way, Trump was also still a reasonably young man in 1978. I do not know what point you're trying to make.

When you take stuff from the White House, you probably should be expected to know what you're taking. The fact that Trump appears to be a hoarder is not a defense, unless he's going to plead insanity. These are more red herrings. Trump had nearly 18 months to figure out what were in his boxes before the raid. And this indictment centers around the fact that the Trump team certified they had done a diligent search. They either did not actually perform a diligent search, or they did and withheld that they found these 31 documents.

---

Pretty sure Trump did not pack these boxes himself, carry them onto Marine One, loaded into AF1, then stuffed into the trunk on his final ride in The Beast to M-A-L where he stuffed them wherever he had room.

Why Biden packed up files they knew to be classified and shipped them to M-A-L knowing they had also not provided Trump with any security clearances post-Presidency and knowing M-A-L no longer had a designated SCIF.

Why are you not holding Biden accountable for this continued mishandling of classified documents?

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

If the Espionage Act does not require a specific intent then it must require general intent or its strict liability.

Which one is being alleged to be applicable here?

If possession of the documents alone is enough then that's one thing. If it's general intent that's something else.

or so I've heard.

---

fka ftc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I've read that NARA employees were sent to the White House a month or so before to train the White House employees on how different records should be handled and to help them with the job.

---

And you have proof that NARA was actually helpful in this process? Including their refusal to select an appropriate, secure storage location?

---

Quote:

---

JAN. 20, 2021
Then-President Donald Trump left the White House for Florida ahead of President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration. According to the General Services Administration, members of Trump's transition team were responsible for packing items into boxes, putting boxes on pallets and shrink-wrapping those pallets so they could be transported.

Prior to shipping, GSA said it "required the outgoing transition team 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."

GSA did not examine the contents of the boxes and "had no knowledge of the contents prior to shipping," according to an agency spokesperson. GSA was also not responsible for the former president's personal belongings, which were transported by a private moving company.

Under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records are considered federal property not private and are supposed to be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration. Multiple federal laws govern the handling of classified and sensitive government documents, including statutes that make it a crime to remove such material and retain it at an unauthorized location.

MAY 2021

After NARA realized that documents from Trump's presidency seemed to be missing from the material that it received as he left office, the agency requested the records from Trump on or about May 6, 2021, according to a heavily redacted affidavit made public last week.

---

eric76 said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I've read that NARA employees were sent to the White House a month or so before to train the White House employees on how different records should be handled and to help them with the job.

---

And you have proof that NARA was actually helpful in this process? Including their refusal to select an appropriate, secure storage location?

---

What makes you think that the storage location is not appropriate or that they refused to find one?

If there is to be a Presidential Library, they find a location relatively near the site of the Library. Trump has not announced such a site, has he? If not, then where should they ship the documents if not to a storage facility in or near DC?

I read somewhere that in Obama's case, they shipped a number of documents back to Washington, DC, because Obama switched from a Presidential Library to a Presidential Museum and so his documents are mostly not needed there. I may be wrong about that, though.

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

There is no reason, when the DOJ has been sued, that the DOJ should be expected to sit back as a judge butchers the law multiple times.

---

So appointing a Special Master never happens when the FBI seizes attorney client communications?

That is what you are saying?

---

Not only that, but tax returns, passports, personal documents and items, private records containing personal notations, etc.

Apparently all of that is fair game against a former POTUS dare they question the actions of the almighty F. B. I.

Not to mention it's information that can be quite useful in a future election campaign.

---

"Taint team". I assume that they did their job and returned documents that were not covered by the subpoena. Did they not do that?

---

I don't know. Do you? Should a DOJ taint team that answers to a political rival have unfettered access to documents that could assist their side in a future election?

Be careful before you answer. We have a full election season to go through and it's not yet time for anonymous leaks of information.

---

jrdaustin said:

---

fc2112 said:

---

the_batman26 said:

---

You can say that Trump shouldn't have done what he did and that Hillary shouldn't have either. But one is being charged, and "no reasonable prosecutor" could bring charges on the other.

---

And claiming that one should not be charged BECAUSE the other wasn't charged is textbook whataboutism.

Focus on the felonies Trump committed.

---

Again, you can play the whataboutism card all you want in the political arena, but that stops once we enter the legal arena.

Our entire judicial concept of Equal Justice is based upon whataboutism, only we use another term - precedent.

Without whataboutism in the legal arena, our Constitutional protections do not exist.

---

Logos Stick said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Opalka said:

---

For all of you getting your knickers in a knot over this case.....there's a LOT more coming down the pike. Namely, regarding Jan. 6th. except there are now 10 congressmen's names associated with it, that met with Pence to try to talk him into overturning the election results. And that could be YUGE, if 10 congressmen go down with Trump on that one. You can probably guess most of the names, like Jim Jordon, MTG. Stay tuned.

---

Dude, if something like that were to happen, bullets would start being used. You think the right will sit by idly while you your fellow Marxists start taking down congressmen?

Lol, no.

And for your info, the target will not be government, it will be jurors and judges and those in positions of wealth and power and influence that facilitate the work of the Marxist government. For example, those left-wing news journalists you adore at MSNBC.

---

Settle down there rambo. The only ones on the right that might even attempt to start using bullets are Trump loyalists. I guarantee many on the right would draw the line at doing something stupid. What you would likely have is another Jan 6 only this time with people actually firing weapons. No one of any intelligence is going to risk their or their families livelihood for Trump.
Certainly no one on this board is dumb enough to, as you put it 'target jurors and judges'. People need to just step back from the crazy.

---

Good grief. I never claimed that anyone on this board would do a darn thing.

And you're as gullible as a two year old if you think jailing conservative reps and senators would not lead to bloodshed. That's a bridge to far my liberal friend. Jail Trump and see what happens. I wouldn't want to be a jury member. That's not a threat from me Einstein, it's a prediction of what someone will do.

It won't be January 6th because it won't be done openly. Do you believe people are that stupid? They've seen what happens to the right when you attack liberals with cell phones.

---

Bucketrunner said:

---

It wouldn't be defending Trump. Not at all. It's defending the rule of law.

---

fka ftc said:

---

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

Incorrect. You have this flippwd. The Espionage Act does NOT "focus(es) heavily on intent to disseminate military information to our adversaries."

The Espionage Act does not require a specific intent either to harm the national security of the US or benefit a foreign power. Additionally, it applies beyond just "spies", to also include (2) whistleblowers and (3) individuals with a personal motive to retain information. The latter two categories introduce ambiguity for how the Act has been used, and I think the current example continues that trend.

---

No thanks, I am good with my understanding.

Section 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and Sections 2 and 3 all specifically reference intent. Only Subsections 1(d) and 1(e) are merely about possession (d -authorized; e - not authorized).

It most certainly is about military / defense information and for what purpose was the act... enacted? Hint: To prevent spies and bad actors from disseminating the information to our adversaries.

Snowden and Assange even relied on that last part even though they were not technically spies.

Have you read the act?

---

eric76 said:

---

Legal precedents are set by judicial decisions.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

So the point of all this is ...

Donald Trump has access to the very best public and private legal counsel that money could buy.

And he still managed to **** this up to the point that he's facing a 37-count federal criminal indictment.

It's incredulous that the most experienced litigant in human history could **** up this bad.

Trump ****ed up so bad here that it seems intentional.

Yeah Trump is getting ****ed on this deal but he didn't have to spread his cheeks.

Every decision leading up to this seems like the stupidest decision possible.

There is no point to it. It's arguing for the sake of arguing. And a media circle jerk and now a texags F16 circle jerk.

---

fka ftc said:

---

Well, I guess technically it was Trump transition team and GSA folks. However, it was not Trump personally and I highly doubt he provided any input. In prior administrations, its pack it all up and we will sort it later.

GSA then took possession. GSA shipped and said it did not examine any of the boxes nor have any knowledge of the contents. Normally GSA would ship top a NARA facility designated in conjunction with Trump team. I am not sure we have a clear picture as to why this did not occur.

I have read a report saying NARA didn't think temp storage was necessary because in theory there would be less written communication. Which is sort of funny since Trump has known for always wanting paper.

From Jan 20, 2021 through at least MAy 6, 2021 is a period in which the boxes, their contents and movements will be heavily scrutinized.

Point is the narrative that Trump selectively stuffed nuclear secrets into boxes with his golf hats and spirited them away to M-A-L so he could show them to friends is asinine and made up narrative.

Quote:

---

JAN. 20, 2021
Then-President Donald Trump left the White House for Florida ahead of President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration. According to the General Services Administration, members of Trump's transition team were responsible for packing items into boxes, putting boxes on pallets and shrink-wrapping those pallets so they could be transported.

Prior to shipping, GSA said it "required the outgoing transition team 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."

GSA did not examine the contents of the boxes and "had no knowledge of the contents prior to shipping," according to an agency spokesperson. GSA was also not responsible for the former president's personal belongings, which were transported by a private moving company.

Under the Presidential Records Act, presidential records are considered federal property not private and are supposed to be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration. Multiple federal laws govern the handling of classified and sensitive government documents, including statutes that make it a crime to remove such material and retain it at an unauthorized location.

MAY 2021

After NARA realized that documents from Trump's presidency seemed to be missing from the material that it received as he left office, the agency requested the records from Trump on or about May 6, 2021, according to a heavily redacted affidavit made public last week.

---

---

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

My mistake. Assumed we were talking about Trump's charges specifically, 793(e). Or at least that's what I've been focused on and I was not clear. Blinders on. In 793, only (a) and (b) require intent, while the others are primarily about possession. But yes, of course in general the Act is about nefarious intent to share military / defense intel with enemies. However, my point is the Espionage Act covers activities that don't actually involve spying--and those sections of the Act seem to frequent how its used in how modern cases are charged, legally. And that is where Trump is charged, not the other sections you cite. Emily Berman points to those types of "non-spying examples": Reality Winner was charged also with 793(e), Thomas Drake 793(e), Snowden with 793(d).

---

Quote:

---

You cannot be the one who decides to ship them to his house then complain about them being at his house.

How is that hard to understand? And when you say "they ship", you are referring to Team Biden's GSA and / or NARA.

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

So no one that worked at the white house with knowledge of such matters was willing to step up and say, 'hey, we've got some boxes here with a bunch of documents that likely contain classified materials from the former presidents office. ... so we should probably handle this documents in an organized manner, you know .... for the good of the country and all, and because that's the right thing to do."

Out of all the people associated with the Whitehouse that have some level of security clearance ... no one said that. That thought never crossed anyones mind.

Ok.

Carry on.

---

Quote:

---

White House staff quickly learned about Trump's disregard for documents as they witnessed him tearing them up and discarding them. "My director came up to me and said, 'You have to tape these together,'" said Solomon Lartey, a former White House records analyst.

About 10 records staff ended up on Scotch tape duty, starting with Trump's first days in the White House through at least mid-2018.

link

---