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

[brucejoel99]

What's the general Republican voter consensus here?

Fuzzy and that ilk. I'm assuming they're excusing this, deflecting it, or ignoring it?

Fuzzy's sole comments:

They are politicized from top to bottom.  It's nothing new.  The present FBI leadership is as corrupt as J. Edgar Hoover.

The present FBI leadership also happens to be appointed by Donald Trump. I guess irony can be pretty damned ironic sometimes.

Wray's appointment was a pick forced on Trump after firing Comey.  He was hardly "his" pick, any more than Louis Freeh was a Clinton partisan.

If Donald Trump was just a powerless figurehead anyway what would be the point of electing him in 2024 again?

Trump was not a powerless figurehead.  If he had been, people on your side would not be so bent out of shape over him.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1558484552653357056

[brucejoel99]

I have a question for the people still going with the "Trump could mentally declassify these documents without telling anyone" schtick – what if Biden declassified these documents mentally without telling anyone? Do you see how stupid these things get if you reduce a type of document classification to a purely philosophical and fundamentally unknowable state of being?

That's another thing here, I don't really think thoughts have legal standing in that way. If he's going to say he declassified it then he has to produce some kind of contemporaneous document from when he was president showing that. I think we know he didn't actually do that.

Correct, thoughts don't have such legal standing:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1557930815006408705

https://twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1558484552653357056

But why? (Hard-hitting and insightful political analysis, I know)

Why have those documents in the first place?

My guess is that his cronies were packing up all their other incriminating documents regarding their many acts of malfeasance, and this just happened to get swept into the mix. He probably didn’t even know he had it.

Why keep them instead of destroying them though?

Are we sure he was aware of them? Maybe he just had them tucked away in a huge filing cabinet labeled “crimes” and never looked through it.

We're sure that he was aware of them in light of the NYT's report just now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/13/us/politics/trump-classified-material-fbi.html

In the spring, the Justice Department issued a subpoena to Mr. Trump seeking further documents believed to be in his possession. He was repeatedly urged by advisers to return what remained, despite what they described as his desire to continue to hold onto some documents.

Incidentally, such being the case helps neuter DT's point from a few days ago about how the warrant was apparently unnecessary overkill on account of the "cooperation."

[brucejoel99]

We're sure that he was aware of them in light of the NYT's report just now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/13/us/politics/trump-classified-material-fbi.html

In the spring, the Justice Department issued a subpoena to Mr. Trump seeking further documents believed to be in his possession. He was repeatedly urged by advisers to return what remained, despite what they described as his desire to continue to hold onto some documents.

Incidentally, such being the case helps neuter DT's point from a few days ago about how the warrant was apparently unnecessary overkill on account of the "cooperation."

Perhaps he took them by accident and, realizing what he’d done, tried to pretend they didn’t exist. It’s not that I think Trump isn’t stupid enough to purposely make off with nuclear documents (he absolutely is), but this isn’t something I imagine him doing without some clear incentive or financial gain. What is to be gained from having these documents?

My optimistic guess is that he wanted to be able to show them to guests at Maralago to impress them and make them think he's cool.

With the pessimistic guess obviously being that he's been selling state secrets.

[brucejoel99]

We're sure that he was aware of them in light of the NYT's report just now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/13/us/politics/trump-classified-material-fbi.html

In the spring, the Justice Department issued a subpoena to Mr. Trump seeking further documents believed to be in his possession. He was repeatedly urged by advisers to return what remained, despite what they described as his desire to continue to hold onto some documents.

Incidentally, such being the case helps neuter DT's point from a few days ago about how the warrant was apparently unnecessary overkill on account of the "cooperation."

Perhaps he took them by accident and, realizing what he’d done, tried to pretend they didn’t exist. It’s not that I think Trump isn’t stupid enough to purposely make off with nuclear documents (he absolutely is), but this isn’t something I imagine him doing without some clear incentive or financial gain. What is to be gained from having these documents?

I’m not sure he was even thinking in those terms. I think he just thought “I want to have these, they belong to me” and took them like souvenirs.

This wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.  

This honestly might even be implied by the relative proximity of the classified sh*t to clear souvenirs like his clemency grant to Stone or the Kim letters (the former of which was just seized; the latter already previously returned).

[brucejoel99]

Exhibit B:

https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1558281457768038400

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/rweingarten/status/1558517764037480450

Yes, we been knew.

[brucejoel99]

This seems like a stretch.

They're going to put Trump in jail for ten years for possessing unclassified documents?  That doesn't pass the smell test

I'm late to the party here but let me get this straight: according to you, Trump stole a bunch of documents which legally were supposed to return to the government upon his exiting office, including numerous top secret and nuclear documents; used his psychic legal powers asserted by the Heritage Foundation to declassify these documents, without ever communicating that they were declassified; stashed them in his beach house; refused to turn them over to the government for a year and a half, breaking a law which says that keeping government documents carries a legal penalty; and finally gets them snatched back once his beach house is raided. And the part of this saga you find objectionable is that the law Trump broke did not differentiate between government documents which were and were not declassified by Trump's mind powers.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  Stop enjoying listening to yourself so much and consider this nuance:  not all documents presidents are supposed to return to NARA under the PRA would be classified.  If the Espionage Act is being used to potentially prosecute Trump for not returning these records upon "demand of an officer or employee of the United States" then that is prosecutorial overkill.

The only provision of the Espionage Act that he's actually being accused of violating merely concerns the unauthorized retention of national defense information. Just because it's called the "Espionage Act" doesn't mean that the DoJ is acting as if he transmitted state secrets to hostile nations because, flashy title aside, it's still one of its provisions that criminalizes the willful mishandling of these documents, which is still, y'know, a blatant federal crime even if/when it doesn't rise to the level of active, spy-like espionage. So if he's alleged to have not only retained & mishandled records that he was unauthorized to retain, but then willfully concealed his retention & mishandling of such documents from investigators, then where exactly is this supposed prosecutorial overkill that you speak of? What's wrong here??

[brucejoel99]

This seems like a stretch.

They're going to put Trump in jail for ten years for possessing unclassified documents?  That doesn't pass the smell test

I'm late to the party here but let me get this straight: according to you, Trump stole a bunch of documents which legally were supposed to return to the government upon his exiting office, including numerous top secret and nuclear documents; used his psychic legal powers asserted by the Heritage Foundation to declassify these documents, without ever communicating that they were declassified; stashed them in his beach house; refused to turn them over to the government for a year and a half, breaking a law which says that keeping government documents carries a legal penalty; and finally gets them snatched back once his beach house is raided. And the part of this saga you find objectionable is that the law Trump broke did not differentiate between government documents which were and were not declassified by Trump's mind powers.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  Stop enjoying listening to yourself so much and consider this nuance:  not all documents presidents are supposed to return to NARA under the PRA would be classified.  If the Espionage Act is being used to potentially prosecute Trump for not returning these records upon "demand of an officer or employee of the United States" then that is prosecutorial overkill.

The only provision of the Espionage Act that he's actually being accused of violating merely concerns the unauthorized retention of national defense information. Just because it's called the "Espionage Act" doesn't mean that the DoJ is acting as if he transmitted state secrets to hostile nations because, flashy title aside, it's still one of its provisions that criminalizes the willful mishandling of these documents, which is still, y'know, a blatant federal crime even if/when it doesn't rise to the level of active, spy-like espionage. So if he's alleged to have not only retained & mishandled records that he was unauthorized to retain, but then willfully concealed his retention & mishandling of such documents from investigators, then where exactly is this supposed prosecutorial overkill that you speak of? What's wrong here??

Any charge under the Espionage Act is prosecutorial overkill because there is separate legislation that regulates presidential records, and Trump should be charged under that statute as he once had presidential custody over the documents in question (which is not a situation the Espionage Act was written to consider, per the legislative history of the act.)  

…

The search warrant literally cited that separate legislation, 18 USC 2071, the PRA. "Whoever, having the custody of any such record… willfully and unlawfully conceals [or] removes… the same, shall be fined… or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." You clearly seem to misunderstand how criminal investigations work, because when an investigation into potential instances of one crime, like violating the PRA, uncovers evidence of not only such violations but also of other crimes, like violating the Espionage Act & concealing the violations of both acts from investigators, then the accused will be liable for those actions too.

And yes, his alleged actions clearly fall under the purview of 18 USC 793, the section of the Espionage Act concerned, if, in undertaking those actions, he was retaining information related to the national defense that could be used to injure the U.S. or to the advantage of a foreign government without the necessary authorization to retain such information. That's a blatant violation of the provision at hand, not something that wasn't considered within the legislative history of the act, & we know that because it's been consistently prosecuted, except without the initial good-faith effort to treat the accused with a great amount of deference in light of their former job & figure all of this out cooperatively.

[brucejoel99]

So what's next? What are we waiting on for now?

Immediately?  Review of the collected evidence, but we won't know when that's completed.  I don't believe there are any pending motions in the case; Trump's team hasn't filed any to (for example) challenge whether the search was lawfully conducted.  So I don't think there's anything specific in terms of events or deadlines.  We'll just have to wait and see if there are further subpoenas or search warrants in the case, and eventually for indictments.

After DoJ reviews the evidence & makes a charging decision but before any actual indictments come down in the event that they do decide to charge, they'd first have to present their findings to a grand jury, who'll make the final indictment determination, but otherwise, yeah, that's mostly it for now.

[brucejoel99]

If they can do it to Trump, they can do it to you.  If they can do it to you, they can do it to me.  

To think that cops & prosecutors can come after any one of us simply for having willfully broken the law a bunch of times.

[brucejoel99]

Why would he resign since there is zero chance he would be convicted.

To spare Biden an Embarrassment.

Impeachments generally do not help the party in charge of the impeachment though. Republicans impeaching Clinton(or moving towards doing so) increased President Clinton's approvals and Republicans lost seats in a midterm.

Impeaching Trump in 2019 also resulted in Trump's approvals going slightly up so generally impeachment generally does not work.

There has already being Impeachment Articles written against Garland as I type here.

Good luck with those articles:

https://twitter.com/mitsubey/status/1558932277819834369

[brucejoel99]

Old School Republican,
You know what struck me the most is the timing of this Search Warrant at Mar-a-Lago. Most of the sort of liberal Cable News saying the DoJ's Decision wasn't a Political One. How convinient!

BUT how can it not be when we are less than 85 Days away from the Midterms?

Do you have any thoughts on this?

I think either side will say it helped or hurt them once the Election is over.

Not OSR, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was *something* of a political move.  Or at the very least, those who ordered it aren't stupid -- even if it was completely apolitical on paper, they're not oblivious to its political implications. 

And in any event, my question pertaining to this for 2016 is honestly "so what?" The DoJ's practice is to issue no comment about politically sensitive investigations only within 60 days of an election, so unless the ISO has recently ruled that 85 is now less than 60, the DoJ is well within their rights to conduct a politically sensitive investigation at this time because, of course, they're well within their rights to conduct a politically sensitive investigation at any & all times, regardless of whether or not they necessarily feel comfortable issuing public comments re: such investigations at certain points in time.

[brucejoel99]

This seems like a stretch.

They're going to put Trump in jail for ten years for possessing unclassified documents?  That doesn't pass the smell test

I'm late to the party here but let me get this straight: according to you, Trump stole a bunch of documents which legally were supposed to return to the government upon his exiting office, including numerous top secret and nuclear documents; used his psychic legal powers asserted by the Heritage Foundation to declassify these documents, without ever communicating that they were declassified; stashed them in his beach house; refused to turn them over to the government for a year and a half, breaking a law which says that keeping government documents carries a legal penalty; and finally gets them snatched back once his beach house is raided. And the part of this saga you find objectionable is that the law Trump broke did not differentiate between government documents which were and were not declassified by Trump's mind powers.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  Stop enjoying listening to yourself so much and consider this nuance:  not all documents presidents are supposed to return to NARA under the PRA would be classified.  If the Espionage Act is being used to potentially prosecute Trump for not returning these records upon "demand of an officer or employee of the United States" then that is prosecutorial overkill.

The only provision of the Espionage Act that he's actually being accused of violating merely concerns the unauthorized retention of national defense information. Just because it's called the "Espionage Act" doesn't mean that the DoJ is acting as if he transmitted state secrets to hostile nations because, flashy title aside, it's still one of its provisions that criminalizes the willful mishandling of these documents, which is still, y'know, a blatant federal crime even if/when it doesn't rise to the level of active, spy-like espionage. So if he's alleged to have not only retained & mishandled records that he was unauthorized to retain, but then willfully concealed his retention & mishandling of such documents from investigators, then where exactly is this supposed prosecutorial overkill that you speak of? What's wrong here??

Any charge under the Espionage Act is prosecutorial overkill because there is separate legislation that regulates presidential records, and Trump should be charged under that statute as he once had presidential custody over the documents in question (which is not a situation the Espionage Act was written to consider, per the legislative history of the act.) 

…

The search warrant literally cited that separate legislation, 18 USC 2071, the PRA. "Whoever, having the custody of any such record… willfully and unlawfully conceals [or] removes… the same, shall be fined… or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." You clearly seem to misunderstand how criminal investigations work, because when an investigation into potential instances of one crime, like violating the PRA, uncovers evidence of not only such violations but also of other crimes, like violating the Espionage Act & concealing the violations of both acts from investigators, then the accused will be liable for those actions too.

And yes, his alleged actions clearly fall under the purview of 18 USC 793, the section of the Espionage Act concerned, if, in undertaking those actions, he was retaining information related to the national defense that could be used to injure the U.S. or to the advantage of a foreign government without the necessary authorization to retain such information. That's a blatant violation of the provision at hand, not something that wasn't considered within the legislative history of the act, & we know that because it's been consistently prosecuted, except without the initial good-faith effort to treat the accused with a great amount of deference in light of their former job & figure all of this out cooperatively.

The Espionage Act is only at play here because the DOJ believes certain documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago contain "national defense" information (whatever that means.)  A former president or anyone else retaining presidential records is a violation of the Presidential Records Act, and should be prosecuted as such.  A lesser charge under the PRA is entirely appropriate given a "great amount of deference in light of [Trump's] former job" and no indication that he was attempting to transmit the information to hostile governments or individuals.

No offense, DT, but the cognitive dissonance that's being displayed here by you right now is frankly staggering. If I didn't know any better, then I'd presume that you were actively trying to portray a caricatured exemplification of the party of "law & order" & "national defense" now ironically being the party that doesn't give a sh*t about either at the altar of Donald Trump. Wow.

[brucejoel99]

This seems like a stretch.

They're going to put Trump in jail for ten years for possessing unclassified documents?  That doesn't pass the smell test

I'm late to the party here but let me get this straight: according to you, Trump stole a bunch of documents which legally were supposed to return to the government upon his exiting office, including numerous top secret and nuclear documents; used his psychic legal powers asserted by the Heritage Foundation to declassify these documents, without ever communicating that they were declassified; stashed them in his beach house; refused to turn them over to the government for a year and a half, breaking a law which says that keeping government documents carries a legal penalty; and finally gets them snatched back once his beach house is raided. And the part of this saga you find objectionable is that the law Trump broke did not differentiate between government documents which were and were not declassified by Trump's mind powers.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  Stop enjoying listening to yourself so much and consider this nuance:  not all documents presidents are supposed to return to NARA under the PRA would be classified.  If the Espionage Act is being used to potentially prosecute Trump for not returning these records upon "demand of an officer or employee of the United States" then that is prosecutorial overkill.

The only provision of the Espionage Act that he's actually being accused of violating merely concerns the unauthorized retention of national defense information. Just because it's called the "Espionage Act" doesn't mean that the DoJ is acting as if he transmitted state secrets to hostile nations because, flashy title aside, it's still one of its provisions that criminalizes the willful mishandling of these documents, which is still, y'know, a blatant federal crime even if/when it doesn't rise to the level of active, spy-like espionage. So if he's alleged to have not only retained & mishandled records that he was unauthorized to retain, but then willfully concealed his retention & mishandling of such documents from investigators, then where exactly is this supposed prosecutorial overkill that you speak of? What's wrong here??

Any charge under the Espionage Act is prosecutorial overkill because there is separate legislation that regulates presidential records, and Trump should be charged under that statute as he once had presidential custody over the documents in question (which is not a situation the Espionage Act was written to consider, per the legislative history of the act.) 

…

The search warrant literally cited that separate legislation, 18 USC 2071, the PRA. "Whoever, having the custody of any such record… willfully and unlawfully conceals [or] removes… the same, shall be fined… or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." You clearly seem to misunderstand how criminal investigations work, because when an investigation into potential instances of one crime, like violating the PRA, uncovers evidence of not only such violations but also of other crimes, like violating the Espionage Act & concealing the violations of both acts from investigators, then the accused will be liable for those actions too.

And yes, his alleged actions clearly fall under the purview of 18 USC 793, the section of the Espionage Act concerned, if, in undertaking those actions, he was retaining information related to the national defense that could be used to injure the U.S. or to the advantage of a foreign government without the necessary authorization to retain such information. That's a blatant violation of the provision at hand, not something that wasn't considered within the legislative history of the act, & we know that because it's been consistently prosecuted, except without the initial good-faith effort to treat the accused with a great amount of deference in light of their former job & figure all of this out cooperatively.

The Espionage Act is only at play here because the DOJ believes certain documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago contain "national defense" information (whatever that means.)  A former president or anyone else retaining presidential records is a violation of the Presidential Records Act, and should be prosecuted as such.  A lesser charge under the PRA is entirely appropriate given a "great amount of deference in light of [Trump's] former job" and no indication that he was attempting to transmit the information to hostile governments or individuals.

No offense, DT, but the cognitive dissonance that's being displayed here by you right now is frankly staggering. If I didn't know any better, then I'd presume that you were actively trying to portray a caricatured exemplification of the party of "law & order" & "national defense" now ironically being the party that doesn't give a sh*t about either at the altar of Donald Trump. Wow.

The only cognitive dissonance to see here are those giddy to defend the DOJ's heavy-handed approach here while the likes of Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton were given great deference and administrative slaps-on-the-wrist for similar mishandlings of classified info.

Two wrongs don't make a right.  But different treatment for two equal wrongs is a third wrong, especially if AG Garland's high-minded rhetoric from last week about the "evenhanded application of the law" is to be believed.

It really isn't, man, since you're now just evidently continuing to talk about something that you clearly don't actually understand enough about to talk about as confidently as you've been, since you're - either ignorantly, at best, or deliberately, at worst - just completely ignoring or forgetting about the existence of such legal concepts as willful, criminal intent & full cooperation.

[brucejoel99]

Unless you have proof that Sandy or Hillary refused to cooperate with the FBI for almost a year the way we now know Trump did that somehow wasn’t well reported on at the time then no you are flat out wrong in stating that those cases are the same as this

Berger lied to investigators about removing classified documents from the National Archives before pleading down to misdemeanor charges and a fine of $50,000.  

My man, you're falsely equivocating different charges under the law. At the time of his prosecution, the crime that Berger committed was a misdemeanor worthy of a maximum 1 year in jail, in lieu of which he was fined $50K, sentenced to 2 years' probation, & denied a security clearance for 3 years by W.'s DoJ. The law changing that from a misdemeanor to a felony worthy of 1-5 years in jail was signed in 2018 by Trump. Unless you're just advocating for unconstitutional ex-post-facto prosecutions & double-jeopardy violations now, then please consider quitting while you're far behind but still talking.

But those previous investigations were under previous administrations; Garland can hardly be blamed for how they were conducted.  If you think the consequences for Clinton and Berger were too light, then why would it be a good idea for them to set a precedent for subsequent investigations?

I don't think the outcome for Clinton was too light, but she seems to have been afforded a great deal of investigative and prosecutorial deference that Trump isn't getting.  Keeping classified information on an unsecured email server is functionally equivalent to keeping it at Mar-a-Lago.  It appears in neither case was there an intention to transmit or leak classified information to bad actors.  

Holy f**k, my man:

This was not heavy-handed. Heavy-handed would have been enacting the raid a year and a half ago and arresting Trump immediately. They gave Trump and his legal team many opportunities to return the documents and only did this because they repeatedly refused to hand them over and lied about it.

You know you're falsely equivocating a case of recklessness & a case of willful, criminal intent here, right? I mean, c'mon.

It appears in neither case was there an intention to transmit or leak classified information to bad actors.  

The difference between these 2 cases that I just don't understand how you fail to see, of course, is that the 1 which actually reached that conclusion was closed 6 years ago & 1 has yet to reach a conclusion because it's, y'know, presently ongoing, with a search warrant only just having been executed 1 week ago. Unless you're secretly an FBI agent who was on-site or an SDFL prosecutor & this is how you leak sh*t, stop treating your baselessly-offered guess as presumptive fact. Otherwise, it just seems like you're acting as if this case, for [INSERT REASONS HERE], should've deviated from standard operating procedures & been closed within a week of the search warrant being executed, in which case:

you're now just evidently continuing to talk about something that you clearly don't actually understand enough about to talk about as confidently as you've been

[brucejoel99]

This was not heavy-handed. Heavy-handed would have been enacting the raid a year and a half ago and arresting Trump immediately. They gave Trump and his legal team many opportunities to return the documents and only did this because they repeatedly refused to hand them over and lied about it.

What indicates Trump has been uncooperative with records requests?  He voluntarily returned 15 boxes of records to NARA in January.  Reporting is that his lawyers were cooperative when the FBI later executed a subpoena on June 3rd, and they took custody of additional documents at that time.

Please keep up or please shut up:

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1558281457768038400https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1558484552653357056
And that's just from what we know based off of the public reporting alone. Imagine what DoJ already knows that we don't.

[brucejoel99]

This was not heavy-handed. Heavy-handed would have been enacting the raid a year and a half ago and arresting Trump immediately. They gave Trump and his legal team many opportunities to return the documents and only did this because they repeatedly refused to hand them over and lied about it.

What indicates Trump has been uncooperative with records requests?  He voluntarily returned 15 boxes of records to NARA in January.  Reporting is that his lawyers were cooperative when the FBI later executed a subpoena on June 3rd, and they took custody of additional documents at that time.

Please keep up or please shut up:

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1558281457768038400https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1558484552653357056
And that's just from what we know based off of the public reporting alone. Imagine what DoJ already knows that we don't.

The letter from Kim Jong-un is one that Trump already voluntarily returned to NARA in January.  It doesn't matter that Trump mistakenly or ignorantly believed it was his to keep if he ultimately complied with a request to return it.

When your own f**king attorneys tell you that many of the documents in your possession aren't actually your own personal property but are instead property of the federal government, who's urgently requesting them back, &, instead of immediately agreeing with your attorneys' advice to comply with the federal government's request, one continues to insist (perhaps on multiple occasions 'til the documents were eventually returned, for all we know) that "no, you're all wrong; they're mine, so I'm keeping them," then no matter that he returned some specific documents back, that doesn't change the fact that not only were there, y'know, still more documents that ended up having to be seized pursuant to a search warrant because Trump & his attorneys had lied to federal investigators about having fully complied with the earlier subpoena, but that these incidences clearly speak to at least probable cause for willful intent, hence, y'know, the ongoing investigation. So again, understanding that all of that is true (even though I know you're presumably just gonna reply to this with even more incorrect BS instead), do you think that DoJ should deviate this case, for [INSERT REASONS HERE], from standard operating procedures & have closed it within a week of the search warrant being executed? In which case:

you're now just evidently continuing to talk about something that you clearly don't actually understand enough about to talk about as confidently as you've been

The contents of this "written statement" are unknown and the sources who leaked its alleged presence to the press couldn't even say which of Trump's lawyers had signed it.  If the lawyers believed to the best of their knowledge that all classified info had been returned, then that isn't an obstruction of justice.

Maybe, but unless you're willing to show us your SDFL badge, then that's not at all your determination to make, but a determination to be reached by, y'know, the presently ongoing federal investigation that actually has resourceful access to more evidence than you, rando netizen who, instead of acknowledging that, f**king whines about its existence & confidently, but obviously incorrectly acts as if DoJ should close this case immediately, if not had the audacity to investigate it to begin with.

"Imagine what the DOJ knows that we don't"?  Probably not much.  The DOJ of the past couple of years is notoriously loose-lipped. As much as you and partisans would wish otherwise, there's no smoking gun contained anywhere in the DOJ's official statements or what's been verified in leaks to the press thus far.

Lol, I've finally realized it: it's just that your consciousness is blatantly living in an alternate reality. I mean, that's the only explanation, since the rest of us are still continuing to live here in the real world where DoJ is tight-lipped, not loose-lipped, & Merrick Garland is infamously someone who's by-the-book & legally cautious to a fault instead of a f**king partisan lmao

I love that the defense is now “well Trump was just so awash in stuff he took from the White House that his dumbass lawyers just couldn’t find all the top secret documents!”

Tbh can't wait to see what the defense ends up becoming if/when another shoe or additional, several shoes - plural - drop.

[brucejoel99]

This is beyond mental gymnastics, this is going over Niagara Falls in a mental barrel.

He just keeps repeating himself, over and over again, with false claims or items that have already been answered by news reports. It's almost like he is stuck in time from hour-one, of when the FBI first pulled-in to Mar-a-Lago to retrieve the documents.

Don't forget blatant goal-post shifting after being informed of the "indicat[ions that] Trump has been uncooperative with records requests," which it looks like he confidently assumed just didn't exist when he asked to be shown such indications.

[brucejoel99]

This was not heavy-handed. Heavy-handed would have been enacting the raid a year and a half ago and arresting Trump immediately. They gave Trump and his legal team many opportunities to return the documents and only did this because they repeatedly refused to hand them over and lied about it.

What indicates Trump has been uncooperative with records requests?  He voluntarily returned 15 boxes of records to NARA in January.  Reporting is that his lawyers were cooperative when the FBI later executed a subpoena on June 3rd, and they took custody of additional documents at that time.

Please keep up or please shut up:

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1558281457768038400https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1558484552653357056
And that's just from what we know based off of the public reporting alone. Imagine what DoJ already knows that we don't.

The letter from Kim Jong-un is one that Trump already voluntarily returned to NARA in January.  It doesn't matter that Trump mistakenly or ignorantly believed it was his to keep if he ultimately complied with a request to return it.

The contents of this "written statement" are unknown and the sources who leaked its alleged presence to the press couldn't even say which of Trump's lawyers had signed it.  If the lawyers believed to the best of their knowledge that all classified info had been returned, then that isn't an obstruction of justice.   

"Imagine what the DOJ knows that we don't"?  Probably not much.  The DOJ of the past couple of years is notoriously loose-lipped.  As much as you and partisans would wish otherwise, there's no smoking gun contained anywhere in the DOJ's official statements or what's been verified in leaks to the press thus far. 

But why would they believe this? Did Trump lie to them? Or did he just have so much top-secret information stashed away in his house that he just forgot about a bunch of it? Because I don’t know which is worse.

Trump probably has a lot of records from his time as president stored at Mar-a-Lago, many of which he would be entitled to retain.  It's not that unusual that his attorneys would not have a complete inventory of the tens of thousands of documents, letters, photographs, etc. in his possession.

Oh, & that actually would be super unusual for ex-Presidents, who actually typically comply with the PRA to begin with in lieu of thinking themself a King, since the only reason that Trump's move-out was unusually haphazard & perhaps not fully documented in the first place was because planning began in earnest only on Jan. 7th instead of Nov. 7th for obvious, problematic reasons.

[brucejoel99]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

https://twitter.com/meridithmcgraw/status/1559233795106242560

[brucejoel99]

Well, I'd reckon that those are some passports:

https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1559269676160614402

[brucejoel99]

Nvm, here's what D.E. 57 is at least:

https://twitter.com/joshua87c/status/1559283940292038657

Is that an amendment to the property receipt?

No clue now. Still nothing on D.E.'s 55 & 56.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/jeremyherb/status/1560356977993293829

[brucejoel99]

From an expert who has been fairly skeptical up to now about the prospect of an indictment:

https://twitter.com/BradMossEsq/status/1563208186085396482

Imagine saying that you're stealing a line & then you get the line wrong.