Anonymous wrote:It's going to be tough to get trump, it's not like he actually carried the documents or moved them himself. They will need to prove trump told someone something and it will be a he said she said

Anonymous wrote:A friend said that she'd heard the informant was likely a SS agent, and nobody close to Trump. I hope someday we know who it was.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty much sums it up

Casual racism is all the rage! Calling people who live in a majority minority city illiterate says more about you than them.

8.1% of DC residents have less than a high school education. The national average is 11.4%.

15.8 percent have attainted a just high school degree. The national average is 26.9%.

59.7% have a college degree. The national average is 33.1%.

Racist white trash gonna be racist white trash. It’s who you are:

Anonymous wrote:

Whoever lifted the documents from the SCIF is screwed. And anyone else who has handled the documents are also screwed.

Anonymous wrote:

Whoever lifted the documents from the SCIF is screwed. And anyone else who has handled the documents are also screwed.

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.

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?

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.