Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Two points just made on CNN that are worth noting.
1. When the FBI reviews these documents and materials, they will not just be reviewing the substance of the documents. They will likely be fingerprinting the documents to determine who may have viewed them.
2. The existence of the documents alone would not be enough to support a finding of probable cause under the Espionage Act, so this warrant probably signals that DOJ has other evidence (probably from a witness or a written communication they obtained) of intent to share this information in a way that is contrary to national security interests. The warrant itself is only the tip of the iceberg here.
The second paragraph doesn’t make sense. Probable cause can be established by a showing that materials subject to the Espionage Act were in the possession and control of a person but are now unaccounted for and not otherwise under positive control by NARA and/or those materials are known to be located at a specified unsecured location without legal authority. The FBI obtains warrants on this basis all the time when government employees or contractors are involved in mishandling classified or confidential material.
It’s also quite possible that there was a sudden sense of urgency triggered by information obtained through intelligence, surveillance or a witness/source.
Warrants, yes, but I doubt a random employee will be CHARGED with espionage if they mistakenly bring something home they shouldn't have, absent all other proof.
Now in this case, Trump knowingly brought these documents home. But doesn't a charge of espionage need evidence of disseminating it to others? Or intent of same?
Nobody said anything about mistakenly — which is near impodddible to do. That’s blatantly moving the goalposts. Go read 18 USC sec. 793. It is not hard to parse.
Right. My question is: Will Trump be charged with espionage even if law enforcement cannot find any proof he intended to share them? Is sole possession of these docs sufficient since he should have known it was illegal to do so?
Also, if fingerprints of his employees are found on them, will they be charged too?
I bet this brings down the whole Trump family, his legal team, everyone.
How many layers of fingerprints can be read on a single document do you think?
If the fingerprints of his employees belong to foreign nationals who aren’t just cheap summer labor but are actually intelligence from those other countries, yes, they’ll be locked up here or deported or whatever they do with those people.
Dear LORD
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/
The article tries to spin it six ways from Sunday, but the fact is, the documents are unclassified. What Trump had with him down there were documents about Russia-gate with names. The DOJ quietly gave Klinesmith the ability to practice law back. He had lost it due to altering an email used to get the FISAs re: spying at Trump tower. This is why the warrant was so darn broad. What the DOJ/FBI probably wants are documents that could potentially implicate them, because they know the mid-terms could be hell for them politically and that there would be resulting investigations by a Republican House.
But you can't declassify documents after leaving office because then you're not the President. Plus it doesn't matter if he declassified them because he broke the law either way. He's a private citizen now.
The narrative is he did it after leaving office. That's not true. He didn't break the law if the documents were declassified.
The goal is to get him not to run again and to try and taint him to the American people, meaning independents. All this did was strengthen him in that a huge portion of independents see the DOJ and FBI as being partisan and that this was a politically motivated. So let's say that Trump doesn't run. The sentiment will still persist, and in fact, probably motivate more people to the polls to vote R, because no one wants federal law enforcement to be partisan. Add to this, the new weaponized IRS job openings, and the optics are even worse.
There is a reason why Twitter's new speech policies were just instituted - they are trying to shut down opposing voices.
This was a BIG mistake by DOJ and they are now realizing it. Watch for more heavy-handed behavior.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}