MSNBC: The Federal Grand Jury hearing the case over the stolen documents is being called back in.

[Botany]

Prosecutors cited the Espionage Act




The federal grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the Justice Department’s investigation of former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents is expected to meet again this coming week in Washington, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation.

Prosecutors working for Special Counsel Jack Smith have been presenting the grand jury with evidence and witness testimony for months, but activity appeared to have slowed in recent weeks based on observations at the courthouse and sources.

It’s unclear whether prosecutors are prepared to seek an indictment at this point. The Justice Department would not comment on the status of the investigation.

Based on reporting from NBC News and other outlets, prosecutors face two central legal questions: 1) Did Trump wrongfully retain classified documents after he left the White House? 2) Did he later obstruct the government’s efforts to retrieve them?

snip

Clues about what precise crime or crimes Smith has been investigating can be found in court filings, including the search warrant and an accompanying affidavit submitted by the DOJ. There are two basic categories: 1) crimes about the handling of classified documents, and 2) crimes about obstructing investigators from retrieving those materials.

Prosecutors cited the Espionage Act, which conjures up an image of someone acting as a spy for a foreign country. But the statute, enacted after World War I, is broader. It criminalizes anyone with "unauthorized possession" of "national defense" material who "willfully" retains it. A string of court decisions has concluded that even if a document isn’t technically "classified," someone can be charged under the law, so long as the information is "closely held" and the information would be useful to US adversaries.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/grand-jury-trump-classified-documents-case-expected-meet-coming-week-h-rcna87599

[FakeNoose]

1. Whoopsie, this could be a new development!

[Tetrachloride]

2. We've been burned before.

[electric_blue68]

4. True, this. Thus: 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞 👍

[electric_blue68]

3. 👀 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞

[Blue Owl]

5. Time to reconvene about the obscene clandestine tangerine

[ProudMNDemocrat]

6. As The NOOSE Tightens (around that fat orange neck)....

And the sooner the better. THERE ARE TAPES!

[Botany]

9. Why he is still walking free is beyond me.

America has had 3 people who were found guilty of espionage @ the level Trump might
very well have been at and we executed 2 of them the Rosenbergs and the other former
FBI agent Robert Hansen is doing 15 life terms in the U.S. Super Max Prison in Florence,
CO. The man had top secret materials that he stole and no doubt was selling and or trading
that information to our enemies such as our remote sensing aka spy satellites which we
have over Ukraine and Russia. You don't think he got that information to Vlad?

[GB_RN]

18. Oddly...

tRump’s original fixer, Roy Cohn, a prosecutor in on the case, was up to shenanigans in convicting Ethel:

But Ethel was almost certainly innocent. Her brother and spy ring co-conspirator David Greenglass testified during the trial that his sister was involved in the plot, but later recanted his account, saying that, with Cohn’s encouragement, he lied to spare his own wife and family.

[Botany]

19. In the 1990s Mikhail Gorbachev opened up the KBG files and the Rosenbergs were way dirty

Julius had a full time Soviet handler, along with other Soviet contacts and Ethel was well aware of Julius'
Soviet connections. I used to think they got a bad deal but the KGB files leave little doubt about them.

[Dios Mio]

28. Amazing. He must be special.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

78. It took over a year to arrest Hansen

Once the FBI suspected him of being the mole. They'd been trying to ID the mole in their midst since 1993. It wasn't until 1999 that an informant finally gave them the name. And then it was 2001 before Hansen was indicted.

You do realize that...right?

The only reason he went to jail as fast as he did is because he pleaded guilty. If he'd fought it at all, it would have taken much longer to get him to trial and convicted than it did.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

10. The legal noose requires careful planning, in case the clever prey slips the knot.

Th noose must be tight to the neck…Patience is not only a virtue in criminal investigation and prosecution, it’s an imperative…not well understood by Twitter criminal law lawyers.

[phrigndumass]

16. +1 :)

Those witches have been busy, according to Fux! It's awesome when the color of trump's spray-tan turns out to be the same color as his prison jumpsuit! I smell justice

- Phrig

[Dave says]

33. Then there is this remark in the article

"It’s unclear whether prosecutors are prepared to seek an indictment at this point. The Justice Department would not comment on the status of the investigation."

Unclear? After all this time?!!

[FakeNoose]

52. All it means is that they're "not saying" one way or the other

The journalists use the word "unclear," because it's all they can say.
The Feds are usually clear but they refuse to give hints.

[Marthe48]

7. If gym jordan had smarts

he could read the court filings and figure out what the investigators are looking for.

[malaise]

8. Give him a nice birthday present

Indict him on June 14😀😀

[chicoescuela]

21. Perfect timing

[CrispyQ]

38. That would be sweet! -nt

[LiberalArkie]

11. I think they are hoping that Trump will either stroke out or run to momma Russia before they have

to have a trial.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

12. Justice either way...justice is coming...some flee before it's wrath! Trump won't. Pride.

Before the fall…double entendre intended!

[AZ8theist]

69. No way..

He is such a fucking coward he will run away rather than go to prison.

[ShazzieB]

74. His malignant narcissism may keep him in denial until it's too late to flee.

This is a guy whose entire life has been based around the belief that he's smarter, stronger, tougher, savvier, and just generally superior in every way to all the mere morals that surround him and block him at every turn from achieving the full extent of his almighty awesomeness.

I think it's going to take a lot more than any of us might imagine for him to be able to fully entertain the notion that he might actually be beaten, and there's a good chance it won't happen in time to plan an escape. At least I really, really hope so!

[machoneman]

13. Bet this has to do with the still missing Iran strike document. TFG gave it to Kushner and he got...

...2 BILLION for it from the Saudis!

[Botany]

17. I think Kushner also relayed to the Saudis our intel on Israel's nuclear weapons program too

We also have been loosing our contacts for foreign intelligence too. Almost like somebody
has tipped off "the other side."

[Kid Berwyn]

14. My Little Con Man graduated to bigger crimes.

Espionage and Treason came to mind.

[onetexan]

67. Yup. Clearly he thinks he's untouchable.

[C_U_L8R]

15. It's either expanding or concluding

Either way, excellent news.

[Orrex]

20. I won't know how to react to this until the cheerleaders tell us how we're allowed to react to this

[Magoo48]

24. Hopefully their guidance will be more finely tuned this time around the carousel.

My stance until then is, “So?”

[CaptainTruth]

22. Let me just say YAY!!!

[BumRushDaShow]

27. The Presidential Records Act was signed into law as a result of Nixon attempting to do just that

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

H.R.13500 — 95th Congress (1977-1978)

H.R.1233 - Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014

[pandr32]

34. Thank you!

[Kingofalldems]

43. Oops.

[Kingofalldems]

53. How about espionage?

And obstruction? I guess they aren't enforceable either.

[BumRushDaShow]

61. It DOES have enforcement

because a "government record" is a "government record" and there are statutes that relate to the disposition of "government records".

And the FACT that he retained documents AFTER he was out of office and refused to turn them in (like you saw Mike Pence do as well as Joe Biden when asked, including when others were found associated with their homes or offices) means there is no special privilege that would apply.

The PRA was taken to court by Richard Nixon - in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) - where a (former) President argued against the new law as a violation of separation of powers and a right to privacy, etc., and the courts ruled that the only thing he was entitled to keep were his personal items (which in fact included some of the recordings that were part of the infamous "tapes" ). But the rest was "government property".

Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977)

(snip)

Act was signed into law, appellant filed an action in District Court challenging the Act's constitutionality on the grounds, inter alia, that, on its face, it violates (1) the principle of separation of powers; (2) the Presidential privilege; (3) appellant's privacy interests; (4) his First Amendment associational rights; and (5) the Bill of Attainder Clause, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the Act. Concluding that, since no public access regulations had yet taken effect, it could consider only the injury to appellant's constitutionally protected interests allegedly caused by the taking of the Presidential materials into custody and their screening by Government archivists, the District Court held that appellant's constitutional challenges were without merit, and dismissed the complaint.

Held:

1. The Act does not, on its face, violate the principle of separation of powers. Pp. 433 U. S. 441-446.

(a) The Act's regulation of the Executive Branch's function in the control of the disposition of Presidential materials does not, in itself, violate such principle, since the Executive Branch became a party to the Act's regulation when President Ford signed the Act into law and President Carter's administration, acting through the Solicitor General, urged affirmance of the District Court's judgment. Moreover, the function remains in the Executive Branch in the person of the GSA Administrator and the Government archivists, employees of that branch. P. 433 U. S. 441.

(b) The separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence, but, in determining whether the Act violates the separation of powers principle, the proper inquiry requires analysis of the extent to which the Act prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions, and only where the potential for disruption is present must it then be determined whether that impact is justified by an overriding need to promote objectives within Congress' constitutional authority. Pp. 433 U. S. 441-443.

(c) There is nothing in the Act rendering it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch, since that branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, the Act being facially designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by privileges inhering in that branch. Pp. 433 U. S. 443-446.

2. Neither does the Act, on its face, violate the Presidential privilege of confidentiality. Pp. 433 U. S. 446-455.

(a) In view of the specific directions to the GSA Administrator in § 104(a) of the Act to take into account, in determining public access to the materials, "the need to protect any party's opportunity to assert any constitutionally based right or privilege," and the need to return to

Page 433 U. S. 427

appellant his purely private materials, there is no reason to believe that the restrictions on public access ultimately established by regulation will not be adequate to preserve executive confidentiality. Pp. 433 U. S. 449-451.

(b) The mere screening of the materials by Government archivists, who have previously performed the identical task for other former Presidents without any suggestion that such activity in any way interfered with executive confidentiality, will not impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers, and will be no more of an intrusion into Presidential confidentiality than the in camera inspection by the District Court approved in United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683. Pp. 433 U. S. 451-452.

(c) Given the safeguards built into the Act to prevent disclosure of materials that implicate Presidential confidentiality, the requirement that appellant's personal and private materials be returned to him, and the minimal nature of the intrusion into the confidentiality of the Presidency resulting from the archivists' viewing such materials in the course of their screening process, the claims of Presidential privilege must yield to the important congressional purposes of preserving appellant's Presidential materials and maintaining access to them for lawful governmental and historical purposes. Pp. 433 U. S. 452-454.

3. The Act does not unconstitutionally invade appellant's right of privacy. While he has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his personal communications, the constitutionality of the Act must be viewed in the context of the limited intrusion of the screening process, of appellant's status as a public figure, his lack of expectation of privacy in the overwhelming majority of the materials (he having conceded that he saw no more than 200,000 items), and the virtual impossibility of segregating the apparently small quantity of private materials without comprehensive screening. When this is combined with the Act's sensitivity to appellant's legitimate privacy interests, the unblemished record of the archivists for discretion, and the likelihood that the public access regulations to be promulgated will further moot appellant's fears that his materials will be reviewed by "a host of persons," it is apparent that appellant's privacy claim has no merit. Pp. 433 U. S. 455-465.

4. The Act does not significantly interfere with or chill appellant's First Amendment associational rights. His First Amendment claim is clearly outweighed by the compelling governmental interests promoted by the Act in preserving the materials. Since archival screening is the least restrictive means of identifying the materials to be returned to appellant, the burden of that screening is the measure of the First Amendment claim, and any such burden is speculative in light of the Act's provisions protecting appellant from improper public disclosures

Page 433 U. S. 428

and guaranteeing him full judicial review before any public access is permitted. Pp. 433 U. S. 465-468.

5. The Act does not violate the Bill of Attainder Clause. Pp. 433 U. S. 468-484.

(a) However expansive is the prohibition against bills of attainder, it was not intended to serve as a variant of the Equal Protection Clause, invalidating every Act by Congress or the States that burdens some persons or groups but not all other plausible individuals. While the Bill of Attainder Clause serves as an important bulwark against tyranny, it does not do so by limiting Congress to the choice of legislating for the universe, or legislating only benefits, or not legislating at all. Pp. 433 U. S. 468-471.

(b) The Act's specificity in referring to appellant by name does not automatically offend the Bill of Attainder Clause. Since, at the time of the Act's passage, Congress was only concerned with the preservation of appellant's materials, the papers of former Presidents already being housed in libraries, appellant constituted a legitimate class of one, and this alone can justify Congress' decision to proceed with dispatch with respect to his materials while accepting the status of his predecessors' papers and ordering in the Public Documents Act the further consideration of generalized standards to govern his successors. Pp. 433 U. S. 471-472.

(c) Congress, by lodging appellant's materials in the GSA's custody pending their screening by Government archivists and the promulgation of further regulations, did not "inflict punishment" within the historical meaning of bills of attainder. Pp. 433 U. S. 473-475.

(d) Evaluated in terms of Congress' asserted proper purposes of the Act to preserve the availability of judicial evidence and historically relevant materials, the Act is one of nonpunitive legislative policymaking, and there is no evidence in the legislative history or in the provisions of the Act showing a congressional intent to punish appellant. Pp. 433 U. S. 475-484.

408 F. Supp. 321, affirmed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEWART, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined; in all but Part VII of which WHITE, J., joined; in all but Parts IV and V of which POWELL, J., joined; and in Part VII of which BLACKMUN, J., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 433 U. S. 484. WHITE, J., post, p. 433 U. S. 487, BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 433 U. S. 491, and POWELL, J., post, p. 433 U. S. 492, filed opinions concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. BURGER, C.J., post, p. 433 U. S. 504, and REHNQUIST, J., post, p. 433 U. S. 545, filed dissenting opinions.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/433/425/#opinions

[grantcart]

64. Not sure if you are correct but the main issue isn't the documents

It's the obstruction of justice and lying to federal law enforcement which is a criminal offense, is prosecutable and which he did do.

Most people who are investigated for violating handling classified documents are caught lying about it. Gen Flynn, to name one.

Nothing in that crime will reach the SC.

[BumRushDaShow]

49. There is a good discussion here --

https://www.lawfareblog.com/trumps-presidential-records-act-violations-short-and-long-term-solutions

Specifically -

(snip)

Possible Liability

There are several provisions of federal criminal law imposing liability on officials who violate the PRA and the FRA. 18 U.S.C. § 641 makes it a felony to, among other things, dispose of any record that belongs to the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 1361 makes it a felony to injure property of the United States.

More specific to records, 18 U.S.C. § 2071 makes it a felony to willfully and unlawfully remove, mutilate or destroy—or to attempt to remove, mutilate or destroy—any record deposited in any public office or with any public officer of the United States. That same provision also makes it a felony for anyone having custody of such records to remove, mutilate or destroy those records and imposes severe consequences: a violation requires the individual to “forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

In addition to these provisions, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 makes it a felony for individuals to obstruct congressional investigations.

Under a straightforward reading of any of these statutes, Trump (and those who knowingly helped him destroy presidential records) could well be held liable for violations of criminal law. Note that at least some courts have held that the statutes prohibiting the destruction of public records are specific intent crimes, meaning that violators must know they are breaking the law to be convicted. But that should not be an obstacle here, as reporting indicates Trump and his aides were specifically and repeatedly warned about violating the PRA.

(snip)

Here is a list of the felony statutes listed in the above -

18 U.S.C. § 641
18 U.S.C. § 1361
18 U.S.C. § 2071
18 U.S.C. § 1505

So let's just make a joke out of it, m'kay? I know I had annual "Records Management" training in my agency and they put the fear of prison in us each and every time.

What will surely become the perfect example for training of current or future federal employees, is someone who although hasn't been in the "breaking news" category for some time, has put himself in a situation that will be going for some time while his ass sits in jail for "mishandling government documents" among other things.

[BumRushDaShow]

55. The article you are quoting from

was actually written Feb 10, 2022 6:45 PM EDT, 6 months BEFORE the search and seizure August 8, 2022 at Mar-a-Lago where tens of thousands of documents were seized, with over 100 documents that had classified markings.

So a whole lot has come down since the cited article with the interview was done and his continued dismissal, even after the raid, shows his obvious bias as a former Bushie who also worked under Alberto Gonzalez.

Calling the FBI finding possession of "classified documents" a "sideshow", in his post-seizure remarks linked above, is proof of his bullshit.

Even his former boss - the infamous James Comey, said the liability is there - especially with the revelation of the recording - and Comey was just on Jen Psaki's show that aired today to talk about it (first time I remembered to even watch it) -

https://www.msnbc.com/inside-with-jen-psaki/watch/james-comey-to-jen-psaki-trump-could-be-wearing-ankle-bracelet-at-gop-convention-179954757645 (not on youtube yet)

Link to tweet

Inside with Jen Psaki
@InsideWithPsaki
·
Follow
"Lordy, I hope there are tapes and lordy, it's a good thing that there are tapes."

@Comey on Mar-a-Lago documents case.
12:07 PM · Jun 4, 2023

And as a no duh, every friggin' thing that happens with 45 ends up "in court". He has continually been going "to court" for over 50 years, which is why litigators in the state of NY always threw their hands up and moved on. Well this time, there are teams of prosecutors who are persisting with the courts and he has lost every single case, including the biggie, the imposition of the "crime-fraud exception" that has tossed out claims for "Executive Privilege". THAT should be a clue as to culpability if the "courts" believe that a crime may have been committed which then preempted claims for "Executive Privilege" and even "Attorney Client privilege".

[Kingofalldems]

57. Go ahead with your bad self!

Great work!

[BumRushDaShow]

68. Thank you and since all of those replies were just self-deleted

I'll add one final one as a reply here (not directed to you), which I was about to post as a reply to this -

#63 What I said was factual... you're performing a gish gallop.

before it was self-deleted (calling the quoting and linking to actual federal statutes "gish gallop" ) -

===========================================

Government "records" have statutes associated with their disposition and "Presidential records" are "government records". Don't believe the 45 and Faux Snooze bullshit about there being some kind of "special" differentiation of what is a "government record" after one leaves office as President.

From here - https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html#2206

Presidential Records (44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 22)

§ 2201. Definitions

§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records

(snip)

As used in this chapter--

(1) The term "documentary material" means all books, correspondence, memoranda, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio and visual records, or other electronic or mechanical recordations, whether in analog, digital, or any other form.

(2) The term "Presidential records" means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, the President’s immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise or assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term--

(A) includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the President or members of the President’s staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; but

(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; (iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or (iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes--

(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;

(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and

(C) materials relating exclusively to the President’s own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

(4) The term "Archivist" means the Archivist of the United States.

(5) The term "former President", when used with respect to Presidential records, means the former President during whose term or terms of office such Presidential records were created.

§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

(snip)

It's a "record" and the disposition of "records" statutes apply as soon as he leaves office. ALL of those items designated by NARA as "government records" from the Office of the President, are "government records".

What the obvious "concern" with anyone arguing before a grand jury for ANY indictment would be, is to describe just what I have posted and how he had no right to certain items (excerpt personal effects like those Time magazine covers) because they are "government records" that belong to the "government".

Nixon attempted to argue against the then-newly passed PRA to get "his stuff" back and the SCOTUS said that only SOME of what was kept by NARA was "personal" (and that was returned - I think for the library) and the rest was "government property".

[ShazzieB]

75. Gish gallop? Hmmmm.

The Gish gallop /ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/ is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Gisg gallop? Yeah, I don't think so!

[BumRushDaShow]

76. That used to be a popular term on DU for years

But linking to the criminal statutes that may directly apply to this case of mishandling of government documents, in response to this (now deleted) post - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17969375

What is the enforcement mechanism of the PRA?

Is it a felony, misdemeanor or carries the same punishment as wearing white after Labor Day?

notably this - "carries the same punishment as wearing white after Labor Day"- is not gish gallop but stating facts in response to that question (which contained a dismissive response).

[BumRushDaShow]

60. Remember that you made a joke about the consequences of violating the PRA

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17969375

WarGamer (8,797 posts)
46. What is the enforcement mechanism of the PRA?

Is it a felony, misdemeanor or carries the same punishment as wearing white after Labor Day?

And I gave you links to the statutes that are ALL felonies. Each one of them would have penalties and those are actually listed at the links that you apparently didn't read.

HERE -

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records

(snip)

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

18 U.S. Code § 1361 - Government property or contracts

(snip)

Whoever willfully injures or commits any depredation against any property of the United States, or of any department or agency thereof, or any property which has been or is being manufactured or constructed for the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or attempts to commit any of the foregoing offenses, shall be punished as follows:

If the damage or attempted damage to such property exceeds the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both; if the damage or attempted damage to such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, by a fine under this title or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(snip)

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

And what you ADDED to your "this will go to court" assertion was a bunch of nonsense based on a legal pundit's (Chuck Rosenberg) dismissal of this whole documents case as a nothing burger.

Going to a court is a given. But this is not a game.

The fact that NARA, much to DU's chagrin, spent almost a year "asking" him to give the documents back, using their normal procedure to request the return of documents, and he and/or his lawyers, were not only not sufficiently responsive enough, but in some cases, just blew them off, establishes why NARA finally referred the case to DOJ. DOJ then sent a SUBPOENA asking for the documents. And when only some of them were returned, FBI staffers scheduled visits to MAL to interview people there and check out what was going on, and after that, they came back a couple months later with a search warrant and seizure notice.

So no, you didn't "simply say" anything. You said quite a bit in your other replies and links to specific articles.

[Sogo]

42. But, technically, he wasn't President when he took them....

[Sogo]

50. He was POTUS until 1/20/21, but I thought

they were shipped out when he moved out after/on the 20th. (Thus the claim that they were swept into boxes by accident in the rush to pack up and move out.)

I could be wrong, because I'm not aware of all the details of the timeline.....

[BumRushDaShow]

59. "Then how did he get them out of secure places?"

They were never held in "secure places". THAT is the problem. "Someone" (and the suggestion has been Kash Patel) removed them from the "secure places" and they were never returned and were eventually packed up and shipped to Mar-a-Largo.

This is most likely why Kash Patel was given partial immunity to testify a 2nd time to a grand jury this past November after taking the 5th the first go around last October.

[LaMouffette]

66. Maybe, just maybe, the US oligarchy has grown weary of Trump and all the damage he's done and

the way he has exposed the truth regarding who really runs the county and the world (the global oligarchy, natch) and will tell their six puppets on the Supreme Court to rule against him.

[thesquanderer]

25. This wasn't the first time TFG basically "declassified with his mind" and there were no consequences

see https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/may/16/reports-say-trump-shared-highly-classified-intel-r/

One legal difference here may be one of timing... what can be enforced against an ex-president vs. what can be enforced against a sitting president.

As for the declassification itself, the article in the OP says,

"A verbal command doesn’t do it. A tweet doesn’t do it. There has to be follow-up documentation through the agencies making clear what is being declassified," Moss told NBC News. "If not, anyone who saw it would still have to treat it as classified.”

But if it wasn't for the obstruction angle (not simply giving them back), he'd have probably had no issue here.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. You think it is finished, done, dusted, so you write "there were no consequences". Shaking my head.

[thesquanderer]

29. I meant there were no consequences to that 2017 incident.

The jury is still out (so to speak) on whether there will be consequences to this one.

[OMGWTF]

30. Hanging is too good for TFG.

[Bayard]

31. I find that last paragraph extremely interesting,

And it seems to fit the situation to a, "T."

Prosecutors cited the Espionage Act, which conjures up an image of someone acting as a spy for a foreign country. But the statute, enacted after World War I, is broader. It criminalizes anyone with "unauthorized possession" of "national defense" material who "willfully" retains it. A string of court decisions has concluded that even if a document isn’t technically "classified," someone can be charged under the law, so long as the information is "closely held" and the information would be useful to US adversaries.

[Qutzupalotl]

32. 500 miles and counting.

[republianmushroom]

35. 28 months and counting

"It’s unclear whether prosecutors are prepared to seek an indictment at this point." or in the future.

[CrispyQ]

36. Hats off for the perfect accompanying graphic!

[Botany]

37. I was thinking of this too. Veruca Salt.

[CrispyQ]

39. I'm with her!

The docs case seems like a slam dunk to me. GA, too, actually.

[Botany]

40. I have a family member who worked with some of the stuff that was on the floor of TFG's bedroom ....

.... and even though he/she is retired now if he/she spoke about the work with our
remote sensing operations he/she would be picked up for questioning and most likely
arrested ASAP. I think Jack Smith has not only the documents,* whom he sold that
information too, and most likely Trump or somebody working for him (Gen. Flynn my
guess) communications with whom he was selling and or trading the information to.

Malcom Nance says that it was Kash Patel who helped TFG steal those documents.

* Many of which were copies.


When the news gets bad I look for Trump to flee America.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. Here is something that I forgot about too...

Last edited Sun Jun 4, 2023, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Top Trump adviser granted immunity testifies in Mar-a-Lago papers case

Kash Patel questioned about claims documents found by FBI had been declassified while Trump was still president, says source


Hugo Lowell in Washington
@hugolowell
Fri 4 Nov 2022 20.03 EDT
Last modified on Mon 7 Nov 2022 09.47 EST

Kash Patel, a top adviser to Donald Trump, testified before a federal grand jury in Washington on Friday about the former president’s unauthorized retention of government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The questioning from federal prosecutors centered on Patel’s claims the documents that the FBI found at the property had been declassified while Trump was still president, as well as why the documents had been removed from the White House, the source said.

Patel testified before the grand jury after the justice department this week granted him limited immunity, which guaranteed he would not be prosecuted in the criminal investigation over his statements or information derived from them.

The move to immunize Patel reflects the importance of his testimony about the purported declassification, and appears to reflect a decision to forgo a potential case against him in order to secure evidence against a bigger target such as Trump.

(snip)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/02/trump-advisor-kash-patel-immunity-mar-a-lago-documents

(fixed link)

He was granted limited immunity to get him in a 2nd appearance before the grand jury after he 5th Amendmented through his first grand jury appearance.

And agree that much of this stuff was retrieved by Patel and I wouldn't be surprised if Manafort was involved in there too (along with Flynn).

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

79. And your prosecutorial experience is...?

This is the problem with all of the armchair lawyers who think they know more about what a particular case requires than those with credentials and experience with the law.

I wish they could move faster, too, but I don't know what they know that I don't. I also know that the system has always been slow, especially for rich people who can throw all kinds of spanners into the works, so I'm not surprise when it's slow now.

[CrispyQ]

83. Zilch. That's my prosecutorial experience.

This is a discussion board. So sick of these tedious lectures every time one of us expresses impatience or suggests that the people in charge, no scratch that—democratic leadership—isn't taking the creeping US fascism as seriously as they should be.

[Orrex]

84. When will you learn to clear your opinions with The Cheerleaders before posting?

They're not gatekeepers, oh no they're not gatekeepers. Just ask them! They might ridicule and mock and humiliate and insult, until the victim finally says "fuck it" and stops posting, but they're not gatekeepers!

And if you post something that won't stand up to scrutiny by a team of three dozen constitutional lawyers each with 80 years of trial experience, then your opinion just might make Garland abandon the whole thing.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

41. We should be on indictment watch."

Link to tweet

[GoCubsGo]

62. Here's the YouTube version for those whose computers don't play well with Twitter videos:

[BumRushDaShow]

65. Thanks

I *finally* remembered to watch Jen at noon (EDT) today for the first time and saw his segment and her interview with Comey, who was joking about "Lordy there are tapes". They still haven't put that segment up on youtube yet.

[senseandsensibility]

70. Thanks for that.

GK is my favorite legal expert.

[Quanto Magnus]

48. I will believe it when I see

tRump behind bars.... Until then this is just becoming a episodic soap opera....

[spanone]

56. 👍🏼...K&R...👍🏼

[lees1975]

71. There's a development, they're working on it, they're calling the jury back, blah, blah, blah

Get it done, get the indictments, get the trial going and get him out of the running for the Presidency.

Now.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

80. You're always free to take your JD

And show them all how it's done. I can't wait to see how much faster you'd get an indictment than people with actual credentials and experience at the job.

[brooklynite]

72. Don't they know the blogosphere has decreed that they have all the evidence they need?

[Orrex]

73. No, because the cheerleaders tell them to take all the time in the world

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

81. LIE, and an outrageous, hateful one at that

We're not saying take all the time in the world, only to take the time they need.

It's a big difference that the "wah I want it now!" whingers can't seem to grasp.

[Orrex]

82. Perhaps you should take issue with the person to whom I replied

You seem ok with their false assertion, perhaps because it aligns with your agenda.

Here's what the cheerleaders don't grasp: people post here to express entirely natural and reasonable anxiety and frustration about Trump's ongoing freedom despite a lifetime of well-documented criminality. This forum is entirely suited to that sort of expression, and it helps to know that others feel similar frustration. Such posts don't harm the endlessly ongoing investigation, nor do they affect Garland's work. These posts certainly don't hurt the cheerleaders in any way.

Nevertheless, the cheerleaders can't help insulting, belittling, degrading, and condescending to those who express their concerns. It's been clear for a while that the cheerleaders don't even really care about the investigation, as long as they can use it as an excuse to mock people along the way. Why?

Find me one post in which someone writes "wah I want it now," otherwise you have no business calling anyone else's post a lie.

[brooklynite]

85. Rah! Rah! Sis Boom Bah!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/07/us/politics/trump-documents-florida-grand-jury.html

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

77. TFG is so stupid

If he'd kept his mouth shut, the grand jury would have wrapped up long ago.

But he keeps opening his mouth to reveal more crimes related to the docs, so those have to get investigated, too.