Donnie Dumptruck says Mar-A-Lago's been searched by the FBI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today is a bad day for the Donald.

Ketchup and walls beware.

I wish people (the Twitter guy, not PP) would stop labeling stuff like this as Trump losing it. He's not losing it. He's using Bannon's tactic of "flood the zone with $h!T" and it's largely worked for him. If they haven't already, every right wing pundit is going to pick up the Obama/Hillary/George HW Bush did it too banner. George HW Bush's people were clutching their pearls last weekend over this. Sadly, pearl-clutching time ended in 2016 and no one cares, least of all Trump's worshippers/supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, what does this mean? You know, in real life? Any charges coming?

My gut is that DOJ is going to indict Trump, in DC and not Florida, after the midterms.

My bet is one thing they are working on is how to get venue in DC, or at least not SDFL. Putting this case in front of Cannon would be a disaster. They also still have a bunch of their evidence locked up in front of the SM. It’s all the unclassified stuff, so while not the most important, there’s still likely relevant stuff there they want to review first.

The crimes all began on Federal property in the Federal city so why wouldn't DC be the venue?

That's not true. The obstruction charge would be based entirely on conduct in Florida. The feds will likely try to link that to DC because the agencies/GJ being obstructed are in DC. I don't know if that will be good enough. The espionage charge might have started in DC, but it depends on whether he moved those boxes from DC before or after he was president. If they were originally moved while he was still president, it will be very hard for DOJ to say that was part of the crime- the president is certainly authorized to move boxes of government documents around. The crime they will charge will be unauthorized retention, not unauthorized removal.

A president cannot move boxes around for an unlawful purpose, such as concealing evidence of a crime or converting government property to his personal use (aka theft). Much of this links back to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of the substantiated links between the campaign snd Russia, which itself implicated a conspiracy implicating Trump’s actions as a private citizen/candidate. Trump had the constitutional duty to take care that laws were faithfully executed and issues of possible venue will have to await development of facts relating to the scope of the conspiracy(ies). Kash Patel is linking the shenanigans with “declassification” back to 12/2020. It certainly was foremost in Trump’s mind on the morning of 1/20/2021.

It's nice that you think that, but 1) that's not what the Espionage Act criminalizes, and 2) there is no chance in hell that DOJ (i.e. the executive branch) is going to make arguments constraining the president's authority over government records.

Conveniently overlooking the fact that obstruction of a federal investigation is itself a crime separate snd apart from any violation of the Espionage Act died t mske it go away. The same is true of 18 USC sec. 1519. Thanks for your contribution.

I’m not overlooking that. But the obstruction happened in Florida. This whole discussion is about where DOJ can charge. DOJ has to show that part of the crime happened in DC in order to charge it there.

A conspiracy to obstruct could have multiple loci. It could have been initiated from instructions issued at Trump Tower, Bedminster or MAL, among other places. It also likely encompasses documents at all of these sites, or even documents driven in a minivan from Crystal City (EDVa) to Florida in early March 2021. DC doesn’t seem like a proper venue unless DOJ can tie the scheme back to the large binders of classified crossfire Hurricane docs it provided in late December 2020. Let’s see how vulnerable useful idiots Kash Patel and John Solomon are feeling.

True. Lots of facts we don’t know at this point. DOJ will likely want to charge all the crimes in a single district though, but they need to establish proper venue for each charge. I don’t see them charging obstruction in SDNY and then Espionage in SDFL.

There would be advantages to trying charges separately in terms of simplicity and limiting defenses.

Obstruction will be easier to prove. I vote for NY or NJ.
Espionage...hmmm. Depends on evidence.

I guess I could DOJ just charging obstruction to get favorable venue and an easier case. But the public optics of leaving off the substantive espionage charge seem bad.

Optics?
TFG needs an orange jumpsuit.
I don't care if he gets sent up the river for tax fraud -- anything! Put that criminal in jail!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCI and other highly classified documents should have never been taken out of the SCIF in DC in the first place, so that crime is in DC.

What criminal statute do you think that violates?

That has been cited in this thread several times.

No, it hasn’t. Because an authorized person taking a classified document out of a SCIF is not a crime. If it were, we’d be sending security officers to jail all day for doing their jobs.

Er, security officers don't take classified (TS) documents out of SCIFs. I take it you don't know anyone with clearance?

How do you think classified docs get moved from one place to another?

With authorization, accountability, and specific levels of security/protection. None of which were present in this scenario.

You said security officer don’t take classified docs out of SCIFs. Seems you’ve now admitted they do in fact do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCI and other highly classified documents should have never been taken out of the SCIF in DC in the first place, so that crime is in DC.

What criminal statute do you think that violates?

That has been cited in this thread several times.

No, it hasn’t. Because an authorized person taking a classified document out of a SCIF is not a crime. If it were, we’d be sending security officers to jail all day for doing their jobs.

Er, security officers don't take classified (TS) documents out of SCIFs. I take it you don't know anyone with clearance?

How do you think classified docs get moved from one place to another?

With authorization, accountability, and specific levels of security/protection. None of which were present in this scenario.

You said security officer don’t take classified docs out of SCIFs. Seems you’ve now admitted they do in fact do that.

Can you accept that what PP meant was that there are protocols and supervision at every turn, whether in the SCIF or during transport, and that none of those rules were followed or even thought of when Trump mishandled stuff?

Thanks. Now we can move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCI and other highly classified documents should have never been taken out of the SCIF in DC in the first place, so that crime is in DC.

What criminal statute do you think that violates?

That has been cited in this thread several times.

No, it hasn’t. Because an authorized person taking a classified document out of a SCIF is not a crime. If it were, we’d be sending security officers to jail all day for doing their jobs.

Er, security officers don't take classified (TS) documents out of SCIFs. I take it you don't know anyone with clearance?

How do you think classified docs get moved from one place to another?

With authorization, accountability, and specific levels of security/protection. None of which were present in this scenario.

You said security officer don’t take classified docs out of SCIFs. Seems you’ve now admitted they do in fact do that.

DP. This seems like an absurd level of hairsplitting that is ultimately irrelevant here because it has nothing to do with the case at hand. Do you have an actual point here, or are you just trying to disrupt the discussion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today is a bad day for the Donald.

Ketchup and walls beware.

I wish people (the Twitter guy, not PP) would stop labeling stuff like this as Trump losing it. He's not losing it. He's using Bannon's tactic of "flood the zone with $h!T" and it's largely worked for him. If they haven't already, every right wing pundit is going to pick up the Obama/Hillary/George HW Bush did it too banner. George HW Bush's people were clutching their pearls last weekend over this. Sadly, pearl-clutching time ended in 2016 and no one cares, least of all Trump's worshippers/supporters.

It's losing it and it's a useful tactic for Trump. He does lose it. He throws ketchup at walls.

It doesn't matter. Everyone has already made up their minds about Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCI and other highly classified documents should have never been taken out of the SCIF in DC in the first place, so that crime is in DC.

What criminal statute do you think that violates?

That has been cited in this thread several times.

No, it hasn’t. Because an authorized person taking a classified document out of a SCIF is not a crime. If it were, we’d be sending security officers to jail all day for doing their jobs.

Er, security officers don't take classified (TS) documents out of SCIFs. I take it you don't know anyone with clearance?

How do you think classified docs get moved from one place to another?

With authorization, accountability, and specific levels of security/protection. None of which were present in this scenario.

You said security officer don’t take classified docs out of SCIFs. Seems you’ve now admitted they do in fact do that.

DP. This seems like an absurd level of hairsplitting that is ultimately irrelevant here because it has nothing to do with the case at hand. Do you have an actual point here, or are you just trying to disrupt the discussion?

It has a lot to do with the case at hand because DOJ has to show at least part of the crime happened in DC if they want to charge their. PP said that was easy because taking it out of the SCIF was the crime, but that is not in fact true if it was removed from the SCIF while Trump was President because in that case the removal would have been authorized. You may think it is hairsplitting, but this is exactly the type of analysis that a judge is going to engage in when deciding whether venue is proper. I guarantee that there are DOJ attorneys producing very long memos going through these issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCI and other highly classified documents should have never been taken out of the SCIF in DC in the first place, so that crime is in DC.

What criminal statute do you think that violates?

That has been cited in this thread several times.

No, it hasn’t. Because an authorized person taking a classified document out of a SCIF is not a crime. If it were, we’d be sending security officers to jail all day for doing their jobs.

Er, security officers don't take classified (TS) documents out of SCIFs. I take it you don't know anyone with clearance?

How do you think classified docs get moved from one place to another?

With authorization, accountability, and specific levels of security/protection. None of which were present in this scenario.

You said security officer don’t take classified docs out of SCIFs. Seems you’ve now admitted they do in fact do that.

DP. This seems like an absurd level of hairsplitting that is ultimately irrelevant here because it has nothing to do with the case at hand. Do you have an actual point here, or are you just trying to disrupt the discussion?

It has a lot to do with the case at hand because DOJ has to show at least part of the crime happened in DC if they want to charge their. PP said that was easy because taking it out of the SCIF was the crime, but that is not in fact true if it was removed from the SCIF while Trump was President because in that case the removal would have been authorized. You may think it is hairsplitting, but this is exactly the type of analysis that a judge is going to engage in when deciding whether venue is proper. I guarantee that there are DOJ attorneys producing very long memos going through these issues.

The actions to illegally remove documents from the White House at the end of/after his term undeniably happened in DC. The White House is in DC. In addition, Trump’s obligation was to return the documents to an agency based in DC. It doesn’t matter if he was at MAL, Bedminster, or who knows where else at the time he directed people to withhold the docs and make the fraudulent misrepresentations, the criminal acts were directed toward an agency based in DC so that is a locus of the crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCI and other highly classified documents should have never been taken out of the SCIF in DC in the first place, so that crime is in DC.

What criminal statute do you think that violates?

That has been cited in this thread several times.

No, it hasn’t. Because an authorized person taking a classified document out of a SCIF is not a crime. If it were, we’d be sending security officers to jail all day for doing their jobs.

Er, security officers don't take classified (TS) documents out of SCIFs. I take it you don't know anyone with clearance?

How do you think classified docs get moved from one place to another?

With authorization, accountability, and specific levels of security/protection. None of which were present in this scenario.

You said security officer don’t take classified docs out of SCIFs. Seems you’ve now admitted they do in fact do that.

PP here. I said no such thing - the above is my first response on this topic.

And it's beyond dispute that no security protocols were followed in this case, which of course is the point you are trying to obscure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCI and other highly classified documents should have never been taken out of the SCIF in DC in the first place, so that crime is in DC.

What criminal statute do you think that violates?

That has been cited in this thread several times.

No, it hasn’t. Because an authorized person taking a classified document out of a SCIF is not a crime. If it were, we’d be sending security officers to jail all day for doing their jobs.

Er, security officers don't take classified (TS) documents out of SCIFs. I take it you don't know anyone with clearance?

How do you think classified docs get moved from one place to another?

With authorization, accountability, and specific levels of security/protection. None of which were present in this scenario.

You said security officer don’t take classified docs out of SCIFs. Seems you’ve now admitted they do in fact do that.

DP. This seems like an absurd level of hairsplitting that is ultimately irrelevant here because it has nothing to do with the case at hand. Do you have an actual point here, or are you just trying to disrupt the discussion?

It has a lot to do with the case at hand because DOJ has to show at least part of the crime happened in DC if they want to charge their. PP said that was easy because taking it out of the SCIF was the crime, but that is not in fact true if it was removed from the SCIF while Trump was President because in that case the removal would have been authorized. You may think it is hairsplitting, but this is exactly the type of analysis that a judge is going to engage in when deciding whether venue is proper. I guarantee that there are DOJ attorneys producing very long memos going through these issues.

The actions to illegally remove documents from the White House at the end of/after his term undeniably happened in DC. The White House is in DC. In addition, Trump’s obligation was to return the documents to an agency based in DC. It doesn’t matter if he was at MAL, Bedminster, or who knows where else at the time he directed people to withhold the docs and make the fraudulent misrepresentations, the criminal acts were directed toward an agency based in DC so that is a locus of the crime.

The obligation is to turn over presidential records to NARA. Agency records such as classified documents should have been returned to the equity holder, which most commonly could have been the FBI, Pentagon, Langley or Ft. Meade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCI and other highly classified documents should have never been taken out of the SCIF in DC in the first place, so that crime is in DC.

What criminal statute do you think that violates?

That has been cited in this thread several times.

No, it hasn’t. Because an authorized person taking a classified document out of a SCIF is not a crime. If it were, we’d be sending security officers to jail all day for doing their jobs.

Er, security officers don't take classified (TS) documents out of SCIFs. I take it you don't know anyone with clearance?

How do you think classified docs get moved from one place to another?

With authorization, accountability, and specific levels of security/protection. None of which were present in this scenario.

You said security officer don’t take classified docs out of SCIFs. Seems you’ve now admitted they do in fact do that.

DP. This seems like an absurd level of hairsplitting that is ultimately irrelevant here because it has nothing to do with the case at hand. Do you have an actual point here, or are you just trying to disrupt the discussion?

It has a lot to do with the case at hand because DOJ has to show at least part of the crime happened in DC if they want to charge their. PP said that was easy because taking it out of the SCIF was the crime, but that is not in fact true if it was removed from the SCIF while Trump was President because in that case the removal would have been authorized. You may think it is hairsplitting, but this is exactly the type of analysis that a judge is going to engage in when deciding whether venue is proper. I guarantee that there are DOJ attorneys producing very long memos going through these issues.

The actions to illegally remove documents from the White House at the end of/after his term undeniably happened in DC. The White House is in DC. In addition, Trump’s obligation was to return the documents to an agency based in DC. It doesn’t matter if he was at MAL, Bedminster, or who knows where else at the time he directed people to withhold the docs and make the fraudulent misrepresentations, the criminal acts were directed toward an agency based in DC so that is a locus of the crime.

But Trump (if he's charged at all) will likely be charged with obstruction. And the obstruction of the federal investigation occurred in Florida, unless it could be proved from witness testimony and phone records that he directed the obstruction from Bedminster or Trump Tower.

If he's charged with stealing federal property, then yes the crimes occurred in DC. But he will have a lot of defenses to those charges because he didn't actually pack the boxes, and he may have been POTUS when the boxes were packed. If it could be proved that the records were shipped to Florida at his direct instruction after Biden was inaugurated on Jan. 20 2021, then the case could be filed in DC.

[Anonymous]

Assuming DOJ brings a conspiracy charge then venue is proper in any jurisdiction in which an overt act is committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So that's Trusty's excuse for why none of the vendors wanted to scan the documents for Trump? It's not that they were worried about payment; it's that they didn't have the ability to scan 200,000 pages that quickly?

"In short, seasoned IT professionals who routinely work
on large-scale document productions with the Government cannot meet the Government’s
proposed schedule, and it was never realistic for the Government to suggest such a narrow
timeframe. Consequently, the Plaintiff respectfully suggests that Your Honor and the
parties will be best served by having the retained vendor convey a supportable timeframe
for scanning roughly 200,000 pages into a platform, and also provide a breakdown of rollout quantities and proposed deadlines. It would be better to base deadlines on actual data
and not wistful claims by the Government."

He makes it sound like the government will need much much longer to have the task accomplished, but the DOJ is just asking for another day or two to hire a vendor.

I dunno....It seems like if you hire enough people you could get
any scanning, indexing job done in two weeks.

Something doesn’t make sense. 200,000 pages is something between 80 and 100 bankers boxes. DOJ didn’t sieze anything close to that according to the inventory. Are there electronic documents on a drive?

DOJ now clarifying that there are only 22,000 pages. Cannon credulously accepted Trump’s representation of 200,000 pages in order to delay review process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCI and other highly classified documents should have never been taken out of the SCIF in DC in the first place, so that crime is in DC.

What criminal statute do you think that violates?

That has been cited in this thread several times.

No, it hasn’t. Because an authorized person taking a classified document out of a SCIF is not a crime. If it were, we’d be sending security officers to jail all day for doing their jobs.

Er, security officers don't take classified (TS) documents out of SCIFs. I take it you don't know anyone with clearance?

How do you think classified docs get moved from one place to another?

I have a courier pass and can carry TS docs in a case with a lock. What I can’t do is unlock the carrier case and read them in non secure environment. I can’t share them with anyone. And I certainly can’t store in my home office mixed up with my kids artwork.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SCI and other highly classified documents should have never been taken out of the SCIF in DC in the first place, so that crime is in DC.

What criminal statute do you think that violates?

That has been cited in this thread several times.

No, it hasn’t. Because an authorized person taking a classified document out of a SCIF is not a crime. If it were, we’d be sending security officers to jail all day for doing their jobs.

Er, security officers don't take classified (TS) documents out of SCIFs. I take it you don't know anyone with clearance?

How do you think classified docs get moved from one place to another?

I have a courier pass and can carry TS docs in a case with a lock. What I can’t do is unlock the carrier case and read them in non secure environment. I can’t share them with anyone. And I certainly can’t store in my home office mixed up with my kids artwork.

See you do not understand how to monetize these documents. Once out of the chain of custody you can make copies and sell them. This is what trump did.