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

[emailking]

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

[Torrain]

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1563236808087207937
The stupid is strong in this one.

I’m looking forward to the Trump Affidavit’s upcoming Netflix standup special “Cancelled by DC”.

[brucejoel99]

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

They could still indict on the PRA & obstruction charges without having to expose any of our national defense info in court.

[Torie]

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

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

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

[emailking]

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

I'm not sure. Jurors wouldn't have clearance anyway. But he thinks documents about human sources and signals intelligence are so sensitive they can't see the light of day. The issue may be cross examination? Or what the defense attorneys are entitled to see? No idea. But he did say they can go the obstruction route to avoid it.

[Middle-aged Europe]

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

Have him tried by the military tribunal at Guantanamo then.

[Crumpets]

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

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

[Torie]

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

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

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

[GeorgiaModerate]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SteveRogers]

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

This has been my worry since the story broke. That you might have sort of a paradoxical effect at play where the juicier the documents are, the less likely the DOJ is to be in a hurry to get the case in front of a jury. After all, you can’t exactly enter the nuclear launch codes into evidence as State’s Exhibit 1.

Is there a way to put on the case without disclosing the contents of the classified documents? Probably. But how do you get a jury to care about a stolen documents case without telling them what the documents are? Any prosecutor will tell you that the jury always wants to see the thing. If it’s a murder case, they want to see the gun or the knife. If it’s a drug case, they want to see the bag of cocaine. And the defense attorney is going to jump up and down and scream bloody murder of the prosecution tries to prove a case about stolen documents without showing the goods. You can’t just show a photo of a cover page marked “Top Secret.” Then the defense gets to argue “How do you know that’s not a cleverly disguised book of recipes? That’s muh reasonable doubt.”

I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m just saying as a prosecutor it would be a bit of a head scratcher.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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

This has been my worry since the story broke. That you might have sort of a paradoxical effect at play where the juicier the documents are, the less likely the DOJ is to be in a hurry to get the case in front of a jury. After all, you can’t exactly enter the nuclear launch codes into evidence as State’s Exhibit 1.

Is there a way to put on the case without disclosing the contents of the classified documents? Probably. But how do you get a jury to care about a stolen documents case without telling them what the documents are? Any prosecutor will tell you that the jury always wants to see the thing. If it’s a murder case, they want to see the gun or the knife. If it’s a drug case, they want to see the bag of cocaine. And the defense attorney is going to jump up and down and scream bloody murder of the prosecution tries to prove a case about stolen documents without showing the goods. You can’t just show a photo of a cover page marked “Top Secret.” Then the defense gets to argue “How do you know that’s not a cleverly disguised book of recipes? That’s muh reasonable doubt.”

I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m just saying as a prosecutor it would be a bit of a head scratcher.

The government has convicted plenty of people for mishandling classified info in the past, so I'm sure they must have some kind of playbook for it.  Perhaps having government witnesses testify to how damaging it would be for the information to be compromised?

[emailking]

Another issue would be whether the prosecutors, cleared or not, would be allowed to see them, or anyone at DOJ. Depends what they are and what's in them.

But maybe for the documents of lesser classification there wouldn't be such issues and there may be cleared defense attorneys who could see them. But yeah the jury wouldn't be allowed to see them.

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

We've put people on trial for espionage before, there are procedures in place for dealing with stuff like this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noshir_Gowadia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kampiles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Trofimoff

[emailking]

Yeah I don't know, but I've heard 2 analysts say today that it's been a problem in the past when it involves intelligence information.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

More people have security clearance than you'd think. You could probably assemble a jury from that.

[Progressive Pessimist]

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

So he's going to worm himself out of a bad legal situation once again? This is why I never get my hopes up for this cretin to ever to see the consequences he deserves.

[Badger]

This won't change minds. MAGA 100%

Well, as you so frequently demonstrate, one has to have a mind in the first place before it can be changed.

[Badger]

This won't change minds. MAGA 100%

This isn't about changing minds.  It's about investigating potential (and very serious) crimes and national security violations.

There is no crime, Trump is the president or ex president according to some Americans, he is right to have those documents. And let's not pretend that any attempt to lock Trump up would not seriously jeopardize the social stability of this country.

Eewww. "It" is back. Gross.

[SteveRogers]

More people have security clearance than you'd think. You could probably assemble a jury from that.

Not a jury of your peers though.

[Badger]

And even if Trump did commit some crime...

But this would set an extremely dangerous precedent because if it applies to Trump, then it would need to apply to Biden or Desantis or President Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, etc. etc.  

Future presidents would be free to commit crimes without reprisal.  And it would also open up the treacherous discussion of what crimes are "permissible".  

No one has as many staunch supporters as Trump and we both know very well that if the Democrats go down this path, things will not end well. Trump's personality, his staunch supporters and the current polarized climate are exceptional.

America won't be intimidated out of existence. We're not going to throw out our laws and freedom because bleach-drinking imbeciles are too fragile to handle losing one of our very regular elections.

If the exceptional morons want to overthrow democracy because they worship a criminal, they'll have to fight us. Let the world see if they're as pathetic as their buddies invading Ukraine.

[Middle-aged Europe]

More people have security clearance than you'd think. You could probably assemble a jury from that.

Not a jury of your peers though.

Correct, a jury of "peers" would consist of Michael Bloomberg, Charles Koch, Rupert Murdoch, and the head of the Gambino crime family.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

More people have security clearance than you'd think. You could probably assemble a jury from that.

Not a jury of your peers though.

Boris Johnson, Al Capone, and Andrew Tate are unavailable.

[Alben Barkley]

'Trump will be indicted': Mar-a-Lago affidavit spells trouble for the former president and decimates his main defense


https://www.businessinsider.com/mar-a-lago-fbi-affidavit-signals-trump-could-get-indicted-2022-8

[GoTfan]

This won't change minds. MAGA 100%

This isn't about changing minds.  It's about investigating potential (and very serious) crimes and national security violations.

There is no crime, Trump is the president or ex president according to some Americans, he is right to have those documents. And let's not pretend that any attempt to lock Trump up would not seriously jeopardize the social stability of this country.

Uh ex presidents do not have the right to those documents unless the current president gives them authorization to have them

Well, because of the "circumstances" that put Biden in the oval office, there is reasonable doubt about his authority in this case.

Circumstances being a free and fair election that you people tried to overturn via attempted coup.