If we could just find one document...?

[kentuck]

...to show his intent and knowledge that he knew it was illegal to take the documents from the White House to M-a-L and he understood that he did not have the power to de-classify them?

Does it seem like we are returning to square one?

Did not his aides and attorneys tell him that it was not legal to keep the stolen documents?

If his intent was to not keep the documents, then why did he try to hide them from the FBI?

Who put those sensitive documents in his office and desk drawer?

So now, the Special Counsel has a recording of Trump saying that he had possession of a classified document but he could not show it because he no longer had the power to "de-classify" it.

Why is this any more important than the hundreds of other classified documents that were stolen and taken to M-a-L?

I suppose they are having a difficult time finding evidence to charge the former president?

After all, we must treat presidents and former presidents differently when thinking about charging them with a crime. They are superior citizens.

[Walleye]

1. The whole population knows what his intent was. Come on

[kentuck]

2. Intent is self-defined by the act itself.

His intent was to steal them and to hide them. Why would we need to know more about what was in his head?

[Walleye]

5. ipso facto

[Ms. Toad]

30. Because the law requires it.

You have to prove every element of a crime to obtain conviction. Virtually all crimes include a state of mind element (mens rea) and an act (actus reus). Essentially a guilty act committed with a guilty mind.

You can't prove the mens rea (intentionally, knowingly, etc.) simply by proving the act (taking and hiding). That would reduce it to a single act.

[FarPoint]

3. We just have to continue to wait for Jack Smith....

I agree...we must have some evidence with razor sharp teeth.....Sure, we won't get all of his abuse crimes ....we only need a few with strong compelling evidence....hopefully leading to the " Master he serves, Putin"....

I am trying to become a bit more detached from the media tRump GOP fest of late....makes my stomach cramp....I try to find peace knowing things will begin by indictments in say June/July....I use music, TV, socializing with others without talking politics....

I am taking that leap of faith with Jack Smith....it is all we have now...well we do have Georgia and NY....

Indictments will line up but he will still be the GOP candidate, court delays and dated distanced out after the 2024 election.......he can run under indictment....by mid 2024....all the walls will come tumbling down ....he will think about leaving on a trip overseas for say a golf trip....never come home...is my sense. He will not win any election in 2024...it will be Biden.

[gab13by13]

13. IMO we are not waiting for Jack Smith,

The documents grand jury hasn't met since May 5th. Smith has interviewed everyone at Mar-el-Loco including the cooks and bottle washers.

No, I'm afraid we are waiting on Merrick garland to pull the trigger.

[The Magistrate]

4. The One Referenced Is Damning, Sir

Particularly in conjunction with the Saudi money gushing into golf nowadays....

[kentuck]

6. Sir, it leaves the impression that all the other documents are insignificant...

...and not worthy of an indictment.

Still searching for the magic bullet, it appears?

[yardwork]

7. I don't get that impression.

[kentuck]

9. I assume he was lying on the recording.

If his lips were moving...

[The Magistrate]

23. Not At All, Sir

It is the most important one of which we know. Not much has been made public of the contents of documents sought and seized, only their degree of classification. Some of these do suggest the documents in question are important ones.

An assessment of what would be the needed forces for, and likely course of, an attack on Iran by the United States, would interest many nations, the Saudis in particular. The monarchy has certainly showered cash on the suspect's family and enterprises.

[kentuck]

25. Yes, Sir.

Someone released the information for a reason.

I think they may be debating whether to charge with espionage.

[yardwork]

8. We don't know 99% of the evidence against Trump.

Occasional news articles may be strategic leaks, or some other kind of leak, but we don't know most of what they have.

I hope they've got him.

[kentuck]

10. We may never know what they have...

Garland may have made a decision already?

[yardwork]

11. Why jump to that conclusion?

[kentuck]

12. Just my opinion, but it seems that this story minimizes all the other evidence...

..and if they can narrow it down to one document, then it can be dismissed entirely. Just my opinion.

[yardwork]

16. You're equating a news story with what's actually happening?

We know the news media is close to useless right now. There's almost no investigative reporting. Whatever random pieces of information happen to surface in a news article isn't necessarily at all representative of what's actually happening.

[kentuck]

27. True.

The media is building it up as a huge story. I think the official line from the DOJ is that it is just another piece of evidence.

[gab13by13]

17. Indicting Trump regarding the stolen document crimes

at this stage, has nothing to do with evidence, it has to do with Merrick Garland pulling the trigger.

Turn on Nicolle Wallace today at 4PM and listen to Andrew Weissmann and Neal Katyal or others explain how DOJ has overwhelming evidence to indict Trump, and as someone mentioned, that's just the evidence turned up by investigative reporters, Smith has a lot more that we aren't aware of.

The classified document grand jury hasn't met since May 5th, just put 2 and 2 together, the case is ready.

[kentuck]

26. We are now into the month of June.

The clock is ticking.

I am skeptical that Garland will go "wherever the law leads us".

There are consequences to decisions of this magnitude. Maybe he has decided that a prosecution would be too harmful to our country and not worth the prosecution of a proven crime?

I think it is a bit naive to think politics is not involved in the decision.

[bigtree]

31. this is the dumbest take

...whatever you know about the investigation is just a fraction of what's occurring.

But ragging on Garland when the ball is in Smith's court right now shows a profound lack of uderstanding of even the most simple things about the probe.

You added 2+2, and you think that suffices for evidence that will be incontrovertable when presented to a jury. You know nothing about the state of that evidence except what you read in the news. You have zero knowledge of the case beyond that, and it's impossible to make a credible judgment on the state of evidence from where you sit.

But this: "Indicting Trump regarding the stolen document crimes at this stage, has nothing to do with evidence," has to be the most absurd take in the entire universe of internet imagined prosecutions.

[brooklynite]

14. Trump DID have the power to declassify every document...the point is that he didn't.

[yardwork]

18. And if he had, the documents would have been useless to him.

A declassified document is no longer worth money to a buyer.

The last thing Trump would have done is declassify his loot.

[kentuck]

19. But there is a process.

Joe Biden could come out today and say that he has decided to de-classify every document that the CIA has in its possession and it would be effective immediately.

Because common sense and national security must be part of the decision process.

I guess we are supposed to see that Trump knew he didn't have the authority to declassify that one document from what was said on the recording? And since he knew it at that time, he could no longer claim that he "de-classified" everything that left the White House?

I only see it as more evidence, but nothing earth-shaking.

[brooklynite]

15. "I suppose they are having a difficult time finding evidence to charge the former president? "

....because they're not filling charges as quickly as you'd like?

I'm looking for comprehensiveness, not speed.

[gab13by13]

20. Turn on Nicolle Wallace at 4PM.

The grand jury hasn't met since May 5th, there is enough evidence right now to indict Trump.

Jack Smith and his team and Garland may be going over what to charge and how to proceed, but any delay now is certainly not about a lack of evidence.

Time matters.

[kentuck]

24. Just my suspicion...

But I suspect they may be deciding on whether or not to charge under the Espionage Act?

[brooklynite]

29. "there is enough evidence right now to indict Trump."

and you know that because.....?

I'll rely on the judgement of the DOJ over the blogosphere.

[kentuck]

22. No.

I want to see citizens willing to keep their feet to the fire and make sure they just do their job. The voters need to know who and what they are voting for before the next election comes and goes.

[Ray Bruns]

21. For the love of god, just arrest the bastard.

[newdayneeded]

32. Ha ha, of course not...

but this new revelation should jump start Garland to get the indictment bus rolling in early 2026.

[H2O Man]

28. Recommended.

The document that the defendent is said to have been discussing when recorded has to do with a potential military conflict with Iran. Hence, it involves intelligence from more than the United States. This is why the Attorney General selected Jack Smith to lead the investigation -- he has experience proseuting on the international level, which involves coordination between countries, rather than just the United States' legal system.

As Smoth's investigation continued this year, more and more individuals "at risk" of indictment had legal representives that have sought to make deals with Mr. Smith. This is more time-consuming than, say, a local prosecutor dealing with the attorney for a punk who is willing to roll over on his co-defendents for a lighter (or no) charge. Thus, while many of us are impatient, I think we are right on track.