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

[Anonymous]

Using Jim Comeys own words, "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statues regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One of the most remarkable things about the Trump phenomenon is why his supporters never get insulted that he treats them like complete dipsh*ts. I hear lots of complaints about liberals talking down to conservatives, but telling people to believe obvious lies that contradict one another is pretty condescending.

You see it over and over. They throw out excuses #1, #2, #3, etc. to see which one sticks. They essentially have conservative media field test the messaging. And when they find the lie that sticks, they all rally around it.

Judging by what I’ve seen on Fox comments section, they just invent new excuses when they run out of Trump excuses. Many of them seem to actually believe it strengthens their argument.

[Anonymous]

Even if we lived in a world where the President could take these documents legally and show them to whoever he wanted (and we do not)...

... why on earth would anyone think it's something to defend?

I mean, that's why we live in a world where such actions are criminal. Laws were put in place to protect the USA from the actions of one person, who might by accident or design show national security secrets to enemies who will then exploit that advantage to hurt the USA and its allies.

The MAGA position is anti-American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone repost the suggestion of whom to follow on Twitter to understand the details of this story?

There was someone with national security expertise? I just can't find it on this thread.

Asha Rangappa is really good.

[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: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.

False. They were still government documents he didn't own and wasn't entitled to keep. Law broken.

This. You don’t get to keep government property, period. They easier for it back and he refused, and it so happens some of it was probably highly valuable information that out enemies would love to have. And he kept them at the private club where people pay to have access to him. Not dangerous at all right? No need to retrieve it.

God you people.

And they were actively cooperating with giving back what was wanted back, like every other past administration.

No they were not. The reason the FBI had to get a warrant and seize the stuff is because they were NOT cooperating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One of the most remarkable things about the Trump phenomenon is why his supporters never get insulted that he treats them like complete dipsh*ts. I hear lots of complaints about liberals talking down to conservatives, but telling people to believe obvious lies that contradict one another is pretty condescending.

It’s also remarkable how little Trump supporters care about our country. We are talking about some of our most precious secrets being exposed (or possibly even shared for private gain) and the response is a taunting playground chant that he had “declassified” them. Astonishing and disheartening.

+1 If I ever hear of any current GOP voter saying they are a patriot I will have to laugh. Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does Trump have the authority to “declassify” anything he wants?

If he follows the process of having it properly processed, inventoried, reviewed, cleared and remarked per IC, NARA etc then yes.

But if the question is can he at any time wave a magic wand over a box of documents and declare it declassified, then the answer is absolutely not.

Not information about our nuclear program.

[Anonymous]

He knew he was taking the docs, and he knew they were classified. As I stated, he continues to think he's POTUS, and that he can decree by tweet and not go through proper channels.

Once again.. he has always been, and continues to be clueless when it comes to the office of the POTUS. He has never belonged in that office. Certainly doesn't belong there now.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-latest-defense-mar-lago-105942456.html

"As we can all relate to, everyone ends up having to bring home their work from time to time. American presidents are no different," said the statement from Trump's office on Friday night read out on Fox News.

claimed that the power to classify and declassify documents rests solely with the president and that he did not need approval from a "paper-pushing bureaucrat."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One of the most remarkable things about the Trump phenomenon is why his supporters never get insulted that he treats them like complete dipsh*ts. I hear lots of complaints about liberals talking down to conservatives, but telling people to believe obvious lies that contradict one another is pretty condescending.

It’s also remarkable how little Trump supporters care about our country. We are talking about some of our most precious secrets being exposed (or possibly even shared for private gain) and the response is a taunting playground chant that he had “declassified” them. Astonishing and disheartening.

+1 If I ever hear of any current GOP voter saying they are a patriot I will have to laugh. Nope.

Then you have certain @sshats out there saying 'defund the FBI'. Beyond just being supremely hypocritical, it's an extraordinarily dumb take.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Hmm. I hope we have other sources than MSNBC. I like those guys, but maybe something a little more neutral and academic, just so it can be credible for all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using Jim Comeys own words, "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statues regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Major legal analogy fail... the two things you are comparing are not the same. But carry on cultist! You never cared about the country or its secrets, we know!

[Anonymous]

Anyone who defends Trump at this point is either just a troll or a seriously mentally deranged person who does not understand national security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. I hope we have other sources than MSNBC. I like those guys, but maybe something a little more neutral and academic, just so it can be credible for all?

Sure. I mean federal law enforcement is officially involved so we'll see what happens. It's not a hypothetical anymore, and it's outside of the media spin zone now. You'd think that something would have had to trigger the inclusion of the Espionage Act, though. I don't think you add that in there otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. I hope we have other sources than MSNBC. I like those guys, but maybe something a little more neutral and academic, just so it can be credible for all?

Sure. I mean federal law enforcement is officially involved so we'll see what happens. It's not a hypothetical anymore, and it's outside of the media spin zone now. You'd think that something would have had to trigger the inclusion of the Espionage Act, though. I don't think you add that in there otherwise.

PP you replied to. Yes, I agree. Just sitting tight and waiting.