FBI search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago (Update: Trump Indicted!)

[Torie]

I'll predict that this one will lead to Trump being indicted, although not before the end of this year.  This is a straightforward crime that the government routinely prosecutes successfully, and the information that has come out so far looks extremely damning for Trump.

Would you make that prediction if the docs stamped security sensitive are just not that shocking  to the conscience for Trump to have? In reality, I think that if all Trump has that he should not have, prosecuting him while technically valid, might be viewed as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, particularly against a POTUS, and I have read that well outside Trump world sources. I say that as one who thinks the issuance of the warrant was justified. It all depends on what is found.

I certainly hope for our country, and indeed the world, that Garland has the requisite goods now.

The whole thing is just crazy and surreal. That is what Trump has wrought.

[Torie]

I'll predict that this one will lead to Trump being indicted, although not before the end of this year.  This is a straightforward crime that the government routinely prosecutes successfully, and the information that has come out so far looks extremely damning for Trump.

Would you make that prediction if the docs stamped security sensitive are just not that shocking  to the conscience for Trump to have? In reality, I think that if all Trump has that he should not have, prosecuting him while technically valid, might be viewed as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, particularly against a POTUS, and I have read that well outside Trump world sources. I say that as one who thinks the issuance of the warrant was justified. It all depends on what is found.

I certainly hope for our country, and indeed the world, that Garland has the requisite goods now.

The whole thing is just crazy and surreal. That is what Trump has wrought.

What do you think of the reports that he had nuclear weapons-level documents?

If those documents getting into the wrong hands would be a disaster, then that would be a relief. But I have not read any more leaks on that, and the leaks we had as to that may not be that reliable if whoever leaked had not seen and understood the documents.

What would really be a disaster is if Trump is indicted and while he technically committed crimes, once we know what was in the documents, it turns out it does not shock the conscience that much. At that point there will be a firestorm and Trump will be reanimated the way darkness does for Dracula. I hope I am wrong of course, and I don't want to sound like a doomer, and replace the one we already have. Insert hands in prayer symbol here.

Oh, not ideal, but far better than just more technical violations, would be solid evidence that Trump was actively involved in hiding documents, you know like removing them from storage while his lawyers looked at them and then putting them back. I want to see a video of Trump carrying a box out of the storage room before his lawyer wandered in, and then putting it back after his lawyer left. Was Trump ever in MAL between June and the warrant search?

[Torie]

What are the chances an indictment bars or otherwise keeps Trump from running again?

Alas, the only thing that precludes Trump from running is an impeachment and conviction, wherein the Senate imposes the sanction of being ineligible to ever run for federal office again.

That is why a smart lawyer who writes for National Review, Andrew McCarthy,  observed that the Senate porked the pooch when it did not have a much more lengthy trial going on for months so that all the evidence we are now getting of what Trump did on that fateful day of Jan 6 was fully fleshed out. Nothing is more clear that Trump deserved that punishment for what he did that day. If failing to protect Congress from physical harm for political purposes, and "forcing" Pence to just do it and call in the national guard, with the Joint chiefs on board with his usurpation of power is not grounds for conviction and baring from future office, nothing is.

But that ship has sailed. Trump can run for POTUS from a jail cell having been convicted of whatever felony, including murder.  It is up to the voters to decide if such person is fit to lead the still most powerful and necessary nation to keep more than would be otherwise in its absence, a more just international order on this earth, imo.

Our Constitution sucks in just so many ways. That is also my opinion. It is way, way, overrated.

[Torie]

I'll predict that this one will lead to Trump being indicted, although not before the end of this year.  This is a straightforward crime that the government routinely prosecutes successfully, and the information that has come out so far looks extremely damning for Trump.

Would you make that prediction if the docs stamped security sensitive are just not that shocking  to the conscience for Trump to have? In reality, I think that if all Trump has that he should not have, prosecuting him while technically valid, might be viewed as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, particularly against a POTUS, and I have read that well outside Trump world sources. I say that as one who thinks the issuance of the warrant was justified. It all depends on what is found.

I certainly hope for our country, and indeed the world, that Garland has the requisite goods now.

The whole thing is just crazy and surreal. That is what Trump has wrought.

What do you think of the reports that he had nuclear weapons-level documents?

If those documents getting into the wrong hands would be a disaster, then that would be a relief. But I have not read any more leaks on that, and the leaks we had as to that may not be that reliable if whoever leaked had not seen and understood the documents.

What would really be a disaster is if Trump is indicted and while he technically committed crimes, once we know what was in the documents, it turns out it does not shock the conscience that much. At that point there will be a firestorm and Trump will be reanimated the way darkness does for Dracula. I hope I am wrong of course, and I don't want to sound like a doomer, and replace the one we already have. Insert hands in prayer symbol here.

Oh, not ideal, but far better than just more technical violations, would be solid evidence that Trump was actively involved in hiding documents, you know like removing them from storage while his lawyers looked at them and then putting them back. I want to see a video of Trump carrying a box out of the storage room before his lawyer wandered in, and then putting it back after his lawyer left. Was Trump ever in MAL between June and the warrant search?

Speaking from my defense background: if the reports are correct that the boxes included TS/SCI and possibly even SAP ("codeword") documents, I cannot envision any possible circumstances in which Trump having them in an insecure facility that employs foreign nationals could be considered "not that shocking".  This is an exceptional breach of national security.

Praise the Lord.

[Torie]

If Maggie H. has her finger on the pulse, Trump is now sweating fear from every pore of his most ample frame. It surely is true that for ethical competent professionals  to get near Trump is akin to a near career ending event for them. How can their reputation survive it? So thus he is left with the washed up Rudy types, whose addiction to the kleig lights is worth far more than a mere reputation.

[Torie]

You know, all the docs I took to MAL are mine. All mine! If you don't believe me, just ask that legal genius at Judicial Watch.  But because I wanted to try to cooperate, and be accommodating, I did give some of the docs up in June. Big mistake! The DOJ hacks then bootstrapped off those docs, to get a hack judge to issue a warrant to steal even more of my documents. It is very bad when the government has no respect for your personal property, and not only wants to grab it, but then get our corrupt DOJ and courts to criminalize your right to try to protect your property. So sad! We need to take America back now more than ever!

Donald Trump

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/25/politics/trump-maralago-documents-private-concerns-legal-tom-fitton/index.html

Yeah that is the word on the street. Maggie Haberman at the NYT says the same thing. Trump World thinks their mistake was not the failure to return everything upon request, the mistake was rather that they had returned anything over at all. Not one piece of paper should have been returned. That just opened a Pandora's Box. Nice guys finish last.

[Torie]

This seems bad...

https://twitter.com/MikeSallah7/status/1563175012978159616

Actually it was a menage a trois.

[Torie]

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000182-daec-dfd1-adef-dafe79d30000


I read the document in its entirety. My takeaways are 1) sensitive documents were intermixed with non sensitive ones in a chaotic fashion, which is not up to archival standards to say the least, 2) all the reasons for the redactions were also redacted in the chart except the one for "agent safety," and 3) the DOJ seemed annoyed that Trump had issued a statement that the government found nothing improper in the documents that he voluntarily gave them pursuant to their request last February.

What one otherwise could read was boilerplate about why releasing affidavits compromises criminal investigations.

Not much to see here overall. And the chaotic organization and filing system or lack of a system suggests feckless incompetence (cf "orange buffoon"), rather than something more sinister.  All in all not that much additional bad news here for Trump, at least that is not covered up in black. So things have not yet been brought to a head, and the boil lanced.

We now I will see what the MSM big guns think as compared to what the forum fossil thinks.

[Torie]

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000182-daec-dfd1-adef-dafe79d30000


I read the document in its entirety. My takeaways are 1) sensitive documents were intermixed with non sensitive ones in a chaotic fashion, which is not up to archival standards to say the least, 2) all the reasons for the redactions were also redacted in the chart except the one for "agent safety," and 3) the DOJ seemed annoyed that Trump had issued a statement that the government found nothing improper in the documents that he voluntarily gave them pursuant to their request last February.

What one otherwise could read was boilerplate about why releasing affidavits compromises criminal investigations.

Not much to see here overall. And the chaotic organization and filing system or lack of a system suggests feckless incompetence (cf "orange buffoon"), rather than something more sinister.  All in all not that much additional bad news here for Trump, at least that is not covered up in black. So things have not yet been brought to a head, and the boil lanced.

We now I will see what the MSM big guns think as compared to what the forum fossil thinks.

1. Mixture of sensitive and non-sensitive documents excuses nothing.

2. What is covered includes the affiant and the FBI Special Agent leading the case. There could also be   CIA and DIA officials and experts in nuclear secrets. It is easy to understand the resentments that people in such positions might have about knowing the close scrutiny and the consequences for disseminating such information  that anyone could get unauthorized access to such material and then abuse it.

3. There could be fears that the ex-President could be seeking to flee the United States for places in which such information would be extremely valuable to the intelligence and military services of a potentially-dangerous adversary.  

4. Feckless buffoons do much crime, and often horrific crimes. This may include the person who arranges a murder conspiracy for collection of insurance proceeds, the usual bank robber, and the bulk of drug dealers. That the offender is of marginal competence at doing the crime -- well, ideally we do not promote expertise in committing such crimes, do we, through our educational system? -- the legal system offers those buffoons no mercy in trial or sentencing.  

I hope you did not infer that I thought that the contents of the released redacted affidavit suggests that Trump has less legal exposure than was previously thought. It just didn't in the non-redacted bits contain exacerbatory smoking gun stuff that leaves only the exact date of the filing of the inevitable indictment on the table. It just didn't move the legal ball very much from where it was is my take.

I had mused myself about Trump fleeing the country, to Putin's dacca or something. The thing is though, is that he has all those secret service agents following him around. So he would have to lose them first to slip away. Maybe a Russian sub could get near MAL, and then he could hop into a helo and zip over to it as it surfaces, hop off and zip down the hatch as the sub submerges again.  Then Biden would need to ponder what to do about that sub. Not sure whether it should have nukes on it or not.

Yes, I know the script needs some work, before I submit it to the appropriate studio for production. For example, Trump would need to know something, or have something, that he could give to Putin, that would change the world, to ramp up the intensity to where it needs to be get the jaded audiences out of their stupor.  Be patient.

[Torie]

Frank Figliuzzi (former CI director at FBI) thinks the most highly classified documents are so sensitive that it will be difficult to prosecute Trump for having them. This has apparently been an issue in the past for mishandling such documents.

Say that again? He thinks they are too sensitive to show to a jury so national security precludes  a prosecution?

Andrew McCarthy thinks the government was so concerned that the documents would compromise operations, that they needed to get their hands on them to start doing a damage control assessment immediately before it might be too late, and people put in danger and operations shut down and so forth, such that even though a prosecution per DOJ policy and discretion might not be appropriate, the warrant was still necessary no matter what the potential for reanimating Trump. Getting the documents back trumped everything else.

[Torie]

Is it possible to either put jurors through the security clearance process or just get a jury of only those of adequate clearance level?

If it really is (totally hypothetically) something like second-strike plans against Russia and China or invasion contingencies for a war against Canada, I can understand why you would want literally no one to see the documents except for only the senior-most levels of government, but if that is the case, does the specific content of the documents really drive the prosecution? Like, can the prosecutor not just say "these documents were found at Mar-a-Lago, and as you can clearly see, they are labeled as Top Secret in this photo taken during the raid." And just leave it at that?

Good questions all, but sadly it is beyond my pay grade to be of much help in answering them.

[Torie]

Is it possible to either put jurors through the security clearance process or just get a jury of only those of adequate clearance level?

If it really is (totally hypothetically) something like second-strike plans against Russia and China or invasion contingencies for a war against Canada, I can understand why you would want literally no one to see the documents except for only the senior-most levels of government, but if that is the case, does the specific content of the documents really drive the prosecution? Like, can the prosecutor not just say "these documents were found at Mar-a-Lago, and as you can clearly see, they are labeled as Top Secret in this photo taken during the raid." And just leave it at that?

It would be completely infeasible to put random jurors through the clearance process, especially since a high proportion of them would probably fail the checks for the highest levels of clearance.  Here's an example from my own experience to show how time-consuming the clearance process is.  Bear in mind that this was in the late 1970s, and things have probably changed by now.  

It took me two months to get a Secret clearance, and that was pretty much record time in those days; I was fresh out of college with a boring background and no skeletons in my closet.  When I was upgraded to Top Secret a few years later to work on a project that required it, it took an additional six months of background investigation.  A regular TS clearance was the highest I ever held; to qualify for something extra like SCI would have been more difficult and taken even longer.  

I had one colleague who took 14 months to get a Secret, although he was an extreme case.  He was married to a foreign national, his in-laws were from the PRC, and previously he had worked in the Peace Corps in Southeast Asia and had hitchhiked through Eastern Europe while it was Communist.  I strongly doubt he could ever have gotten a Top Secret clearance.  

Selecting a jury of already cleared people would run into the issue that the pool of potential jurors with top clearances is quite small, and they would almost certainly be well informed about the case -- and I suspect that most of them would have strong biases against people who mishandle classified information.

Come to think of it, it can't possibly be legal to exclude people from a jury in a criminal case based on them not having top secret clearances. That is not a jury of your peers.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/PaulaChertok/status/1563343353319550976

Well that connects a lot of dots (the bit about the CIA attrition rate being alarmingly high). I wonder if anyone at the DOJ etc, told Trump how dire the situation was/is.  What is not clear to me, is if more such HIS documents were found via the warrant.  

If at least in the first two rounds all of the really sensitive stuff had been turned over that would be mitigatory (i.e. no more was found by the FBI). If that "Rothschild" woman is on tape wandering into the storage room or Trump's office closet, that would be exacerbatory. Will we ever know if the leaks emanated out of MAL?

After this news drop, I wonder if that will quiet Trump down a bit in the role of victim.

[Torie]

This article is just outstanding, particularly for those interested in the labyrinth of legalities (we all know who you are   ). Consistent with the 200 word/20% copyright metric (yeah I had to make the effort to trim, and then trim again, to get below 200 words and so should you - always), the bits below caught my eye in particular. But there is a lot of other “good” stuff in it as well.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-did-we-learn-mar-lago-search-warrant-affidavit

“The memorandum also argues that certain redactions are necessary to protect the privacy and “reputational interests” of the individuals who are being investigated. In doing so, the memorandum acknowledges that former President Trump has “spoken publicly about this investigation and has said in a public statement that he wishes for the affidavit to be disclosed in its entirety[,]” confirming that he is among the people being investigated. But it also notes that Trump has not filed any actual pleadings in support of efforts to have the affidavit unsealed, leaving his actual preferences unclear. While it does not say as much in the memorandum, the Justice Department’s redactions in the affidavit withhold nearly all information about Trump’s conduct, suggesting that both the department and Reinhardt ultimately declined to take Trump’s public claims that he supports disclosure as a waiver of his privacy rights, at least absent more clear follow-through on his part.

…

‘Notably absent, however, is any discussion of statutory provisions that protect and punish the mishandling of U.S. nuclear secrets. … .”

The article then goes on to say that may be because despite media reports to the contrary, they were not in play, or that the DOJ thought the evidence too thin, and that they may be swept up in other security classifications. I would note that Trump has crowed about that, as one of the few scraps left on the table for him perhaps.

[Torie]

And here is another article about Trump’s legal exposure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/us/politics/obstruction-trump-search-documents.html

“Julie O’Sullivan, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in white-collar crime, said the emerging timeline of the government’s repeatedly stymied attempts to retrieve all the documents, coupled with claims by Mr. Trump that he did nothing wrong because he had declassified all the documents in his possession, raised significant legal peril for him.

‘ “He is making a mistake in believing that it matters whether it’s top secret or not,” she said. “He is essentially conceding that he knew he had them.” If so, she added, then not giving them back was “obstructing the return of these documents. ‘ “

I don’t agree with the above. Trump is claiming nothing was classified due to his own hand as an interior line of defense. That hardly proves that he was aware that they were classified in and of itself. The problem with Trump’s claim that he declassified everything is that some of the docs, such as listing CIA agents in sensitive situations, would have never been declassified, even by Trump. So that assertion of fact by him is ludicrous.

One more bit:

"“He would probably look to throw his lawyers under the bus and deny that he had the requisite knowledge that he was concealing them with the intent to obstruct the return of the documents,” she said. “That is what we don’t know yet because of the affidavit redactions — whether the Department of Justice has proof that he did know that they were still concealing documents on an ongoing basis.”

I wonder how attorney client privilege works vis a vis a client claiming his lawyer told him X, when in fact the lawyer told him Y, where the lawyer is in legal trouble for false representations to the government.

[Torie]

...

That is indeed a good article; thanks for posting the link.  It does bug me slightly that such an otherwise well-written article would consistently misspell the judge's name.  It's Reinhart, not Reinhardt.

Reinhart is an unusual spelling of the name. Be merciful. 

[Torie]

Lindsay Graham talks way too much. Sad the media feels the need to feed this particular troll.
He doesn't know any more than we do, but he gets the headlines for just speculating sh*t basically. On this site a Mod might deem it spam and delete.

Moving right along, the article below is behind a paywall, but the NYT basically says the DOJ is a long way away from making a decision as to whether to indict Trump or not on the documents retention and obstruction issue, is well aware of the stakes, and would only go there with an airtight case. And that means as I interpret it, there needs to be a plus factor, e.g., that some of the documents are so sensitive that if in the wrong hands would imperil lives or important national interests, that Trump knew he had and refused to give up, or that he was personally involved in lying to the DOJ, actions shocking to the conscience. A violation of the law arising from mere negligence won't cut it, just as it didn't cut it for Hillary.

Right now there are a lot of unanswered questions that the DOJ needs to run to ground, and it has a lot of work still to do before making a recommendation for Garland to ponder. I suspect this story will leave the front pages for awhile, unless more leaks from the investigation wind their way into the public square, or a witness leaks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/29/us/politics/trump-justice-department-documents.html?

[Torie]

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

Remember that attestation that Bobb signed on June 3 about all classified material having been returned, where I was wondering how the crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege would play out?

The article below gives the best explanation of the ins and outs that I have read by far. It gets the Torie "highly recommend" that one read stamp. What higher honor can there be than that?    

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-christina-bobb-mar-a-lago-search-rcna44711

It seems that the end game is that attorneys Bobb and Corcoran will be testifying about it all, and will be doing so when they are no longer representing Trump.

It does occur to me that there may be an escape hatch for them though. You see, they thought Trump had declassified everything, so of course nothing was classified that Trump still had. How could there be? Sure, it may turn out that the lawyers were wrong about Trump having done a wave of the wand blanket declassification, but hey, that is a mere mistake of law. Still, they will have to testify as to whether they looked at the docs themselves, whether Trump characterized them, or whether the sole basis for the attestation was Trump's bogus claim that a mere thought in Trump’s mind declassifying them a minute before his term expired. Which raises the issue of when Trump told them about his magic wand. When did Trump's declassification first hit the airwaves? Was it before or after the attestation was signed?

It would appear odd if Trump made the claim to them before the June 3 signing, but the claim only became public much later. That would appear a tad too convenient. Does anyone know when the declassification claim was first made public? Hey, it looks like it was after the search went down. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/us/politics/declassified-documents-trump.html  Yep. Maybe that is one reason the DOJ finessed the classification issue with the warrant. It was because of that attestation. They knew Trump still had docs (unless he had destroyed them), but discerned the possibility of the Corcoran/Bobb evasion sand trap.

Both lawyers are going to have to testify as to when Trump first made the declassification claim to them. Are they going to tell the truth under oath or lie? Do they have any corroborating notes? Where and when did Trump tell them? Was it by phone? So many questions. The depositions should be quite lengthy I would think.

I really think it is unethical for these two lawyers to be representing Trump as we speak, given the real possibility that they will be spilling their guts about what they know, and what Trump knew and did, and when, about the document saga. Their time in the klieg lights is coming. You might make a note of it.

[Torie]

[Torie]

In case you were wondering how Trump spent his morning. When will it ever end? I fear it will be only a matter of time until another tragedy occurs by those agitated by Trump's actions.
It's an evolving tragedy with no surcease in sight, and perhaps little that can be done that would mitigate matters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/30/us/politics/trump-search-violence.html

"On Tuesday, Mr. Trump spent much of the morning reposting messages from known purveyors of the QAnon conspiracy theory and from 4chan, an anonymous message platform where threats of violence often blossom. Some were outright provocations, such as a photograph of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and Speaker Nancy Pelosi with their faces obscured by the words, 'Your enemy is not in Russia.'"

[Torie]

The paragraph below from the DOJ's filing opposing the appointment of a Special Master leapt out from the page and utterly Gobsmacked me.

"The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation. See also MJ Docket D.E. 80 at 8 (“As the Government aptly noted at the hearing, these concerns are not hypothetical in this case. One of the statutes for which I found probable cause was 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which prohibits obstructing an investigation.”). This included evidence indicating that boxes formerly in the Storage Room were not returned prior to counsel’s review."

Some of the most sensitive documents were in Trump's desk, including some sitting next to his passports.

For the first time ever, this particular washed up old retired lawyer believes it would be right and proper for the DOJ to use its prosecutorial discretion and proceed to indict Trump assuming evidence exists that he directed the felonious secretion of top secret documents that should only be reviewed in secure settings, putting lives and critical national security interests at risk. Such conduct by Trump is indeed shocking to the conscience and outrageous.

To state it with more brevity, assuming evidence exists of Trump's knowledge of the secretion of documents to thwart the production of documents pursuant to a subpoena, that is the  smoking gun. Prosecuting Trump may result in violence, but the mob must not and cannot become the arbiter of justice.

For those interested in the law or aspiring lawyers, I highly recommend reading the DOJ document. The prose meets the highest standards of the legal profession. I rarely saw prose of this caliber when I practiced law.

Addendum

I of course was curious, after typing out the above, to check out what the NYT deemed most significant. Below is a screenshot of its headline:

[Torie]

I struggle to see what's a workable defense to convince a jury that reasonable doubt exists here. I mean, they were all marked & some were still in his own desk…

The only real argument that exists is "When the President does it that means it's not illegal"....well no except even that doesn't work because he wasn't President. Thus leaving that bizarre claim that he somehow mentally declassified the documents before leaving office but didn't tell anyone or take any formal action but that still meant they were declassified...but even by that logic Biden effectively mentally reclassified them. And that's not even getting into the Atomic Energy Act's standards for declassification. I'm struggling to come with a coherent legal argument.

Also I'm hearing that Fox News' "argument" is basically "Oh, but what about Hillary's emails?"

The DOJ filing has a couple of paragraphs pointing out that when pursuant to the subpoena where a lot of classified documents were handed over, there was no assertion that others had been declassified, or any other claim supporting much less disclosing the retention of other documents. So now we have Trump claiming he declassified everything without telling anyone while in office, but then nevertheless turned over some classified documents but not others. If he thought everything was declassified and outside the scope of the subpoena, why did he turn over anything at all?

[Torie]

""But department officials are not expected to file charges imminently, if they ever do."

Obviously, the DOJ is not going to indict Trump "imminently." These things take a lot of time, and the DOJ may based on its latest document pickup, be doing more witness interviews and so forth. Moreover, Garland is a very meticulous man. He may also deem it appropriate to wait until after the election, in an attempt to not appear political. The "if ever" words are a bit sloppy. It would have been better to say it is unknown whether the DOJ in its prosecutorial discretion will deem based on the obstruction evidence to proceed to take the unprecedented step of indicting a former President.

I would not make too much of the NYT caveat myself. I don't think it implies that their sources tell them that the evidence the DOJ has is still probably not enough to cause Garland to cross the Rubicon.

[Torie]

Matthew Gaetz twitter Fox News clips above

1. Who is the governor?

2. Whomever the governor is, she does not seem to understand that what a special master would be doing does not include determining if the documents found were planted there by the FBI itself. The sole role of the special master would be assessing what documents are subject to the attorney client privilege. There is no executive privilege and Trump does not own the documents. The hacks need more coaching to get their talking points in order.

3. A grand jury, and if indicted, a jury, will make the determination of whether there is any evidence that the documents were planted by the FBI. Be patient dear. Ditto as to whether or not the documents are classified or just had a false and misleading cover page.

4. Rupert Murdoch, you need to clean house and fire a lot of people soon. This is not a good look for you at all. And the Fox News page is an embarrassing joke. It makes the NY Post look like the London Times in comparison. How long do you think Brett Baier will hang around in the midst of such a circus act, the last semi respectable guy remaining in your now almost wall to wall rogues gallery.

[Torie]

Time to move on; nothing to see here:

“The records found in the Aug. 8 search are still undergoing review, but a photo included in a DOJ court filing Tuesday shows markings and cover sheets signaling “Secret,” Top Secret” and “Sensitive Compartmented Information.”

‘Despite those markings, Trump’s lawyers have suggested the information involved was trivial.
‘In an interview Monday on Fox News, Trump attorney Jim Trusty compared Trump’s actions in retaining the allegedly classified information as akin to “an overdue library book.’ ”

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/31/garland-doj-trump-classified-documents-legal-00054311

Moving right along, this Politico article is the best explication on the contours of Trump’s legal jeopardy that I have read, and the factors that will be in play as Garland ponders whether or not to pull the trigger of such portentous import. Who moved the documents and why? Why did the attorney sign that false representation that there were no more documents? She will have to testify what Trump told her under the crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege. Did she ask him if there were any more documents marked classified, or did she just ask him if there were any more classified documents (the latter giving Trump the out about declassifying everything)? What was Trump’s motive in moving, or causing to be moved, a bunch of stuff to his office to evade the subpoena if that is what he did? What was in those documents that he wanted so badly that he was willing to violate the law and place himself in legal peril if caught?

Those are the questions that I would be asking.

One other tidbit that I have not seen mentioned before, is just how do you prosecute Trump while not compromising the contents of very sensitive documents that one would want to show a jury to prove just how shocking Trump’s conduct was. That could prove to be a very delicate balancing test.

There is a long way to go to get from here to there.