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

[T'Chenka]

It’s either we focus on the actual issue at hand, which is THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR COUNTRY, or we get so side tracked by distractions and con artists waving red flags as if we were angry bulls, that we forget what is important and allow yet another brutal stab wound in Lady Liberty pour out until she passes from blood loss.

Protecting Lady Liberty is a secondary objective of the Republican Party. If you force them to choose between that and one of their primary objectives, they won't hesitate to cut her throat.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

What the 3 of us (OSR, Fuzzy Bear and myself) are saying that the timing is highly suspicious!

What would be a non-suspicious timing? Why should the DoJ change its procedures to placate one political party?

As we all know very well, a "non-suspicious timing" for this doesn't exist. Republicans would find a way to explain why the timing was suspicious no matter what, OR, in a rare scenario where that's too difficult, they'll just move onto another talking point about why this was a witch hunt. Whatever "logic" or "reasoning" is used, it's designed to never ever arrive at the conclusion that Trump being under siege is justified.

Yeah, using this same logic the reopening of the email probe had suspicious timing. But none of these guys would say that

[It’s so Joever]

It’s either we focus on the actual issue at hand, which is THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR COUNTRY, or we get so side tracked by distractions and con artists waving red flags as if we were angry bulls, that we forget what is important and allow yet another brutal stab wound in Lady Liberty pour out until she passes from blood loss.

Protecting Lady Liberty is a secondary objective of the Republican Party. If you force them to choose between that and one of their primary objectives, they won't hesitate to cut her throat.

With all due respect, let’s wait and see what they say. Let’s see how they vote and whether they protest even with those who were once rivals. It is unfair to make judgements now, some may have looked the other way before hoping someone else would fix it, but Lady Liberty is still limping on the sidewalk, alive but not for long.

And to all who don’t know what to do, who feel as if it’s unfair you have to make such a stressful choice…Will you let your homeland die in the dark?

I hear her screaming, beckoning your name now. She can see you, she raised you, she gave you everything you could have possibly hoped for.
Don’t be scared, look into her eyes and make up your mind.

[T'Chenka]

It’s either we focus on the actual issue at hand, which is THE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR COUNTRY, or we get so side tracked by distractions and con artists waving red flags as if we were angry bulls, that we forget what is important and allow yet another brutal stab wound in Lady Liberty pour out until she passes from blood loss.

Protecting Lady Liberty is a secondary objective of the Republican Party. If you force them to choose between that and one of their primary objectives, they won't hesitate to cut her throat.

With all due respect, let’s wait and see what they say. Let’s see how they vote and whether they protest even with those who weee once rivals. It is unfair to make judgements now, some may have looked the other way before hoping someone else would fix it, but Lady Liberty is still limping on the sidewalk, alive but not for long.

Will you let your homeland die in the dark? I hear her screaming, beckoning your name now. She can see you, she raised you, she gave you everything you could have possibly hoped for.
Don’t be scared, look into her eyes and make up your mind.

I don't know why you think Republicans are going to prioritize liberty and justice over owning the libs, marginalizing trans people and using the Supreme Court to undo civil rights. I've seen very little evidence of that. Trump declared open war on democracy while DeSantis told each and every district in Florida that they weren't allowed to introduce public safety measures during a pandemic, even if their local governments wanted them.

[Yoda]

One thing is for sure: We are going to reign in Merrick "Craptastic" Garland if Republicans take over the House.

Merrick Snarkland, you are fired.

The House of Representatives does not have the power to fire the Attorney General, cry harder.

The House of Representatives does have the Power to impeach Merrick Garland and I think he will be impeached should Republicans have House Control in January.

Of Course he always could resign before he is impeached.

I actually think Pelosi should hold a vote on MTG's articles of impeachment asap. Let's let republicans go on record that they would try to impeach a law enforcement officer for investigating crimes and retrieving stolen government property.

[Yoda]

Bidens life in the WH will become very miserable just like Garlands life at the DoJ.

Republicans will absolutely do the same thing Democrats did to the Trump WH.

The current Administration will face a lot of Investigations from COVID Mask & Vaccine Mandate overreach to Afghanistan withdrawal, etc, etc, etc. I would suspect.

The House Freedom Caucus & America First Members won't mess around with McCarthy. If he doesn't do what they say he will not be Speaker.

My guess is actually that there will be a compromise among House Republicans and Steve Scalise will become Speaker.

Yeh, but these "investigations" and show hearings in the House won't embarrass the side that you think they're going to embarrass. The only thing they'll accomplish is to show the country how childish and stupid the republicans are when you give them power.  Think the House under Newt Gingrich but waaaaaay worse.

[emailking]

Trump's initially 'upbeat' mood about the FBI's Mar-a-Lago raid turned dark when GOP support began to wane, report says

Former President Donald Trump was initially "upbeat" about the FBI raid of his Mar-a-Lago residence, but his mood at times turned dark when GOP support started waning, according to a report.

Sources told The Washington Post that Trump believed the FBI raid would benefit him as it looked like the Justice Department had overreached.

"He feels it's a political coup for him," one friend who had spoken with the former president multiple times told The Post, speaking under the condition of anonymity.

...

While Republicans initially spoke out strongly against the raid, their public support became more muted when records unsealed on Friday revealed that the FBI had seized 11 sets of classified documents from Mar-a-Lago. The Washington Post reported that the bureau searched for classified documents about nuclear weapons.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trumps-initially-upbeat-mood-about-the-fbis-mar-a-lago-raid-turned-dark-when-gop-support-began-to-wane-report-says/ar-AA10EdeA

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah, there is gonna be a blue wave in Nov, we can win TX, OK and SC too because we can't have Trump holding onto our nuke secrets and Russia is out there in a war with Ukraine

Don Jr met with Russia in 2016 and gave them the 30 K emails on behalf of Hillary thats why Wasserman Schultz had to resign all the emails said DNC was biased in favor of Hillary over Bernie, where was Sir Woodbury back then nowhere

Wages happen at the end we didn't win 42 H seats in 2018 until October not August

That's why Russia is threatening nuke war with US Trump has our nuke codes and can give them to Russia

Likely indictment incoming after Midterms when Ds certainly solidified the S, Cook on MTP already says D's can win more than 52 Seats

The H isn't inevitable R either it's 50/50 we lose control but we can get a range from 235/210 R seats 217 is Minority status

[Dr. Frankenstein]

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

This is so f***** up. One is supposed to defend or argue against ideas, not based on the other one's political affiliation. If somebody goes off the rails, one should have no problem telling them that, regardless if this particular person comes from the same political camp or not. Compared to my early time on this forum, it's like you've become a parody account.

Of course, this type of behaviour is a great exhibit of the really dark path you guys set off on. As I've said before, if you don't manage to collectively find a way to break this vicious circle, it won't end well over the next few decades.

[Torie]

From the NYT:

The former president has worked to cash in on the search.

Mr. Trump’s political action committee has been furiously fund-raising off the F.B.I. search, sending out at least 17 text messages to donors since Tuesday. “The Dems broke into the home of Pres. Trump,” one read. “This is POLITICAL TARGETING!” another alleged. “THEY’RE COMING AFTER YOU!” a third said.

Donald Trump Jr., the former president’s son, wrote another fund-raising email on Sunday: “The witch hunt continues…The FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago was a DISGRACE. In fact, it’s UNFATHOMABLE.”

And here is an interesting squib from CNN:

"Attorney General Garland needs to provide these materials ... Let us see them," Turner told CNN's Brianna Keilar of the evidence the Department of Justice used to justify a search on Trump's home. "And then we can tell you what our answer is and what our discernment is of whether or not this is a true national security threat or whether or not this is an abuse of discretion by Attorney General Garland."


It causes me to wonder whether the DOJ was told by its inside the Trump world source about specific documents that were most definitely not to be seen outside a secure location, as opposed to something less specific, and whether to cause some closure of this so it does not fester until such time as the DOJ decided whether or not to seek an indictment, Turner and other members of the House intelligence committee can/will be informed more specifically of the nature of the highly sensitive documents that were seized.

Turner (he has represented Dayton Ohio since rocks cooled) has basically asked to see those documents. Turner is a pre-Trump Pub and most definitely not a nutter. The DOJ I think will be under some pressure to make such a disclosure to those who have the requisite security clearance to be informed of such documents and have some entitlement to have more knowledge of them pursuant to their oversight role.

[GeorgiaModerate]

From the NYT:

The former president has worked to cash in on the search.

Mr. Trump’s political action committee has been furiously fund-raising off the F.B.I. search, sending out at least 17 text messages to donors since Tuesday. “The Dems broke into the home of Pres. Trump,” one read. “This is POLITICAL TARGETING!” another alleged. “THEY’RE COMING AFTER YOU!” a third said.

Donald Trump Jr., the former president’s son, wrote another fund-raising email on Sunday: “The witch hunt continues…The FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago was a DISGRACE. In fact, it’s UNFATHOMABLE.”

And here is an interesting squib from CNN:

"Attorney General Garland needs to provide these materials ... Let us see them," Turner told CNN's Brianna Keilar of the evidence the Department of Justice used to justify a search on Trump's home. "And then we can tell you what our answer is and what our discernment is of whether or not this is a true national security threat or whether or not this is an abuse of discretion by Attorney General Garland."


It causes me to wonder whether the DOJ was told by its inside the Trump world source about specific documents that were most definitely not to be seen outside a secure location, as opposed to something less specific, and whether to cause some closure of this so it does not fester until such time as the DOJ decided whether or not to seek an indictment, Turner and other members of the House intelligence committee can/will be informed more specifically of the nature of the highly sensitive documents that were seized.

Turner (he has represented Dayton Ohio since rocks cooled) has basically asked to see those documents. Turner is a pre-Trump Pub and most definitely not a nutter. The DOJ I think will be under some pressure to make such a disclosure to those who have the requisite security clearance to be informed of such documents and have some entitlement to have more knowledge of them pursuant to their oversight role.

Given the potential national security implications, it would be entirely reasonable and appropriate for the DOJ to brief the House Intelligence Committee, of which Turner is the ranking minority member.

[Meclazine for Israel]

You cannot arrest Trumpy.

As soon as you throw him in the back seat of a Police Car, the USA will decay into Civil War.

[Del Tachi]

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.   

[Del Tachi]

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.

So you’re arguing that documents pertaining to our nuclear weapons is no big deal for Trump to have and not return?

Do we have confirmation as to the content of the documents and whether they were indeed classified? 

The warrant lists multiple boxes documents as top secret. Obviously their content can’t be revealed, but the less-secret seized documents pertained to Roger Stone’s pardon and the President of France.

I believe the documents were only stamped "top secret" but it's possible they were declassified prior to Trump leaving office.  It will take a review by intelligence analysts to ascertain what the active classification level of the recovered documents really is.

If you may permit me to posit a hypo to you, what would you think if Trump claimed that everything that was still in his possession that has been seized, were documents that he had declassified, and it turned out that some of those documents listed the names of US spies in Moscow, and how the US planned to intercept any nukes that Iran fires towards Israel, so that Israel does not need to fire theirs back?

That is the Trump trap that has been locked shut, and not that it matters for criminal purposes (it's clear now that he did commit felonies, it is just a matter of whether or not he will be prosecuted for them) , but even a man as skillful and pathological a liar as Trump is, is just not going to be able to prevaricate his way out of that particular lock box.

The idea that the president can singlehandedly declassify information as a unitary executive is one that I am inclined to agree with, but absent some kind of written proclamation or order from Trump while he was president to affect such I wouldn't buy it.   

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1559158554988249088

[2016]

It's now confirmed: There is collusion between this Investigation and the January 6 Investigation.

[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.

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1559158554988249088

"Georgy, press the button under the desk. Press the button Georgy!"

[emailking]

It's now confirmed: There is collusion between this Investigation and the January 6 Investigation.

I'm not even sure what this means. Are you saying the investigators are sharing information? Because if there's overlap I don't see anything wrong with that.

[Del Tachi]

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. 

[GeorgiaModerate]

It's now confirmed: There is collusion between this Investigation and the January 6 Investigation.

"Trump's crimes overlap" is perhaps not the defense you think it is.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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. 

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.

[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.

[LBJer]

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. 

How exactly was it "heavy-handed"?  Trump was given every opportunity to surrender those documents without FBI agents going to his home to get them.  He declined--that's on him.  The job of the FBI and DOJ is to protect the United States of America, not cater to a singularly amoral, narcissistic ex-president.  

And the comparison with Hillary Clinton is quite invalid.  I suggest you read this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-search-warrant-draws-hillary-clinton-comparisons-big-difference-rcna42921

[GeorgiaModerate]

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. 

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?