Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

I think the DoJ already answered that by stating that documents were removed from the store room before the laywer looked.
The lawyer answered what he believed to be the truth and Trump lied to his lawyer.

Specific case or not, I'd still like to know what the answer is. Crime reports and court filings are pretty serious things. If the answer is "the lawyer didn't lie so the lawyer is fine, and also, the suspect didn't lie under oath so the suspect is fine" then Trump has an exit strategy.

EDIT: Also, I just want to remind all the cultists out there that many of us (including myself) have cited that, amongst the various laws Trump is suspected of breaking, the word "conceal" comes up a lot. 18 US 2071 for example uses it prominently.

(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.

The FBI basically caught Trump concealing WH records. He didn't need to leak them, damage or destroy them, or lose them for it to be a crime.

[Gorsameth]

Specific case or not, I'd still like to know what the answer is. Crime reports and court filings are pretty serious things. If the answer is "the lawyer didn't lie so the lawyer is fine, and also, the suspect didn't lie under oath so the suspect is fine" then Trump has an exit strategy.

EDIT: Also, I just want to remind all the cultists out there that many of us (including myself) have cited that, amongst the various laws Trump is suspected of breaking, the word "conceal" comes up a lot. 18 US 2071 for example uses it prominently.




The FBI basically caught Trump concealing WH records. He didn't need to leak them, damage or destroy them, or lose them for it to be a crime.

well just looking at the letter from the lawyer posted earlier.
"Based on the information provided to me"
"I swear the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge".

The problem with perjury is proving someone knowingly lied, rather then not knowing the truth.
And yes that gives a lot of outs, including for Trump.

That is, for example, why the big deal with trumps loans and IRS statements was that he likely filed different numbers for his properties to the government and the bank. Because then you can prove at least one of them was a known lie.

[Breccia]

On that topic, a quick search for "what happens if you lie to your lawyer" sent me to the American Bar Association. No surprise there, of course.

The literal first paragraph:

Imagine, if you will, a client that is a large entity. It has been factually documented that the chief executive of the client entity has publicly lied over 10,000 times since he became chief executive two years ago. Your argument on the key issue that you presented as factual is discovered to be false or, at a minimum, “appears to have been contrived.” Regardless, the chief executive insists you continue the representation. What is your ethical responsibility?

Go ahead and check for yourself. The ABA, literally, has their answer to "what happens if you lie to your lawyer" based on Donald J. Trump.

Holy shit. They've been waiting all day for this.

Of particular importance is “that the lawyer knows to be false.” “Knows” is defined in the Terminology portion of the Model Rules, Rule 1.0(f). It “denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question.” Knowledge “may be inferred from circumstances.” The definition of “knows” is distinct from the definition of “reasonably should know.” That is defined in Rule 1.0(j) saying that “a lawyer of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question.”

In other words, if your client lies to you, you're not ethically bound to find that out for yourself. Once you know, for any reason, your client is lying to you, as a lawyer you must change your conduct, possibly leaving the case.

A lawyer who knows or with reason believes that her services or work product are being used or are intended to be used by a client to perpetrate a fraud must withdraw from further representation of the client

And

The failure of the client to be truthful with the lawyer is grounds for the lawyer to withdraw from the representation. Rule 1.16(b)(3), (4), and (5):

This lawyer, Bobb? Now knows she filed a false federal form.

If she willingly did so on purpose, she's now a co-conspirator. She could be disbarred on the way to prison.

Let's assume she did not. Now that she knows that she said "that's everything" and it wasn't, she needs answers from Trump. If she believes Trump lied to her on purpose, to get her to lie to the FBI, she's required to leave.

She hasn't. And the contents of the FBI's evidence locker aren't exactly new. We just have a picture.

Therefore, one of three things has happened.
1) She's a co-conspirator. Uh oh.
2) She believes the evidence was planted. I...don't think that's the case here. We know she wasn't watching in the room every second, but she was in the house.
3) She believes Trump forgot, or otherwise didn't intentionally lie to her, and is willing to proceed anyhow.

That third one basically translates as "she's just doing this for the money". Which means, Trump's legal bills went up $130,000. I don't think most lawyers would be happy to know they just lied to the FBI on their client's behalf, even if Trump was really just that incompetent and/or stupid to remember he brought hundreds of protected WH documents home after he got fired.

Further, lawyers cannot ask their clients to lie under oath, including federal forms.

A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent

Which means this same lawyer cannot file, with or without Trump's permission or orders, anything else that says "we turned over everything" when she knows that's false.

Oh, and since this information is public, any replacement lawyer can't use the same excuse, either.

To the best of my knowledge, lying to your lawyer is not a crime. It's not perjury when you're not under oath.

*ahem*

But.

According to this criminal lawyer website I know nothing else about:

Statement made in court or other proceeding. False statements made outside of official proceedings are not perjury. For example, if a witness lies to a lawyer who is taking notes in order to draft an affidavit, the witness has not committed perjury (unless she later signs the affidavit under oath with the false statement in it). Sworn, written statements submitted to courts or government agencies are statements made in a proceeding and subject to perjury laws.

This is what I need @cubby for. Is this true? If you lie to your lawyer, and that lawyer puts your lie into an affidavit or other legal form and submits it, does that count as you lying?

Because while this case isn't perjury, it is obstruction. And lying to the cops is obstruction.

Did Trump just do that via his lawyer?

- - - Updated - - -

A FOX News host GIMME DEM POINTS said

"The DOJ is saying the special master is unnecessary because it could actually harm national security interests. Well, here's the thing. When you go back and look at those documents – can we go back and look at those documents on the floor? – keep in mind, according to the filing, the agents found three classified documents in Donald Trump's desks," a stunned Steve Doocy said on Wednesday morning's edition of Fox & Friends.

"What were they doing in the desks?" he wondered. "And when you look at these particular things right here, at least five yellow folders marked 'Top Secret' and another, 'Secret/SCI,' that stands for 'Secret Compartmentalized Information,'" Doocy noted, although he mixed up "Secret" for "Specialized," which is even worse for Trump.

"These are the biggest secrets in the world," Doocy emphasized.

"You know, we have heard that Donald Trump's lawyers went through all this stuff. How can you go and look at that and not think, 'you know what, that's probably something I should turn back over?" a bewildered Doocy asked rhetorically.

Trump, meanwhile, complained about the photo and said it was evidence of a frame job.

No, really.

Terrible the way the FBI, during the Raid of Mar-a-Lago, threw documents haphazardly all over the floor (perhaps pretending it was me that did it!), and then started taking pictures of them for the public to see. Thought they wanted them kept Secret? Lucky I Declassified!

Um, the public didn't see them until you begged for it. Oh, and you didn't declassify.

- - - Updated - - -

ABC News spells out how the Trump case and the Clinton case are similar.

They aren't.

Comparing classified info

Some of Trump's allies claim that the way Clinton allegedly mishandled sensitive information was -- as one pundit put it -- "a lot more serious" than the way Trump allegedly did.

Just on the surface, the number of items containing classified information is different. In the Clinton case, federal authorities identified "approximately 193 individual emails" that, when sent, contained some level of classified information, according to a 2018 report from the Justice Department's inspector general.

In the Trump case, federal authorities have identified more than 322 individual documents containing classified information that were kept at Mar-a-Lago: 184 "unique documents" containing classified information were retrieved early this year, another 38 such documents were retrieved in June, and then more than 100 more documents marked "classified" were found during the FBI raid on August 8, according to Justice Department filings in court.

In Clinton's case, the most sensitive "top secret" information on her servers was deemed by authorities to be "relevant to" and "associated with" a tightly-guarded "Special Access Program" -- and the inspector general said that "investigators found evidence of a conscious effort to avoid sending classified information, by writing around the most sensitive material."

"It's not unusual for folks with clearances to sometimes discuss classified matters in unsecure settings," said Tony Mattivi, a former federal prosecutor who coordinated the Justice Department's counterintelligence and counterterrorism cases in Kansas. "You can't always be in a [secure room] when you need to talk to some people or do certain things, so the way you do that is talk around the classified part. ... [But] that's very different than possessing classified material."

In contrast, federal authorities have recovered from Mar-a-Lago more than 100 "unique documents" marked "secret" and dozens of other documents marked "top secret," including "Special Access Program materials," according to the Justice Department and National Archives. Some of those documents marked "classified" were found inside Trump's desk in his office, the Justice Department said.

Accordingly, there "is a meaningful distinction" between Trump's alleged handling of classified documents and what the Justice Department's inspector general says transpired in the Clinton case, according to Mattivi, a Republican who recently lost a primary race to become attorney general of Kansas.

Where's the evidence -- literally?

In accusing the FBI of treating Trump and Clinton differently, Trump's allies have publicly noted that -- even though Clinton potentially compromised classified information -- "we didn't raid her home," as Trump's former CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recently put it.

But in his report on the Clinton matter, the Justice Department's inspector general made clear that federal investigators in that case were able to obtain the materials at issue -- Clinton's private email servers and the emails themselves -- without raiding her home.

"Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement after the raid on Trump's estate.

As described in the inspector general's report on the Clinton matter, "the FBI obtained more than 30 devices" from Clinton and her aides, and "received consent to search Clinton-related communications on most of these devices." Among those 30 devices were two of Clinton's three private email servers, after the third server had been "discarded" years earlier "and, thus, the FBI was never able to access it for review," the inspector general's report said.

In Trump's case, the evidence at the center of the ongoing investigation was still being held at Mar-a-Lago, even after a federal grand jury subpoena three months earlier instructed that "any and all documents" marked "classified" be turned over.

Trump's lawyers have emphasized that "documents were provided" to the FBI in response to the subpoena, but in a court filing Tuesday, the Justice Department said, "Through further investigation, the FBI uncovered multiple sources of evidence indicating that the response to the May 11 grand jury subpoena was incomplete and that classified documents remained at [Mar-a-Lago]."

"The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room [at Mar-a-Lago] and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation," the Justice Department said.

What's the intent?

The final decision over whether to charge Trump or his aides may rest on what prosecutors find about their intent in taking documents marked "classified" to Mar-a-Lago and then rebuffing the U.S. government's efforts to reclaim those documents.

Publicly-released portions of the affidavit used to support the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago say that the FBI is investigating, among other potential crimes, whether Trump engaged in the "willful" mishandling of documents or information relating to the national defense, as defined by section 793(e) of U.S. code 18.

Federal prosecutors looked at the same statute when contemplating charges against Clinton and her aides for the classified information found on her private email servers.

To charge any of them with violating 793(e), prosecutors would have had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clinton or her aides acted "willfully" and "with the intent to do something the law forbids," the Justice Department's inspector general said in its report on the case.

Prosecutors determined that the evidence and facts of Clinton's case showed "a lack of intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems," especially since "[n]one of the emails Clinton received were properly marked to inform her of the classified status of the information," and investigators found evidence that Clinton and her aides "worded emails carefully in an attempt to 'talk around' classified information," according to the inspector general's report.

"There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information," prosecutors concluded, according to the inspector general.

So prosecutors decided "there was no basis" to charge Clinton or her aides, the inspector general said.

That decision "was consistent with the Department's historical approach in prior cases under different leadership," the inspector general said, noting his office "found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations."

Nevertheless, in his controversial July 2016 press conference announcing the FBI's findings, Comey said that -- despite a lack of sufficient evidence to bring charges -- Clinton and her aides were still "extremely careless" in handing "very sensitive, highly classified information," noting that "none" of the emails they sent "should have been on any kind of unclassified system."

Records 'torn up' by Trump

According to the redacted affidavit released in Trump's case, the FBI is also now investigating whether Trump or his aides may have violated a federal law that criminalizes the "willful" concealment, removal or mutilation of federal records.

In 2016, federal prosecutors contemplated charging Clinton or her aides for violating the same law -- Section 2071 of U.S. Code 18 -- after more than 30,000 emails, which her legal team erroneously deemed personal in nature, were deleted from a server.

"The purpose of this statute is to prohibit conduct that deprives the government of the use of its documents, such as by removing and altering or destroying them," the Justice Department's inspector general said in his report about the Clinton investigation.

Witnesses in the Clinton case told investigators they "expected that any emails sent to a state.gov address would be preserved" -- and many of those emails were acquired from other devices -- so "there was no evidence that Clinton or anyone else" intended to conceal, remove or destroy the emails from government systems, the inspector general said.

In addition, federal prosecutors concluded that, unlike the electronic communications underpinning Clinton's case, "every prosecution under Section 2071 has involved" the "physical removal" or destruction of a document, the inspector general said.

Federal authorities now suggest Trump's actions might fit that mold.

In January, after a months-long effort to retrieve government records from Trump, the National Archives publicly released a statement saying "some of the Trump presidential records" it received from Mar-a-Lago "included paper records that had been torn up by former President Trump." The National Archives then referred the matter to the Justice Department, flagging that it could constitute a violation of Section 2071, the Justice Department said in its Tuesday filing.

There. That's basically all of it.

From now on, anyone playing But Her Emails on New Game+ mode must first specifically address this article and the experts quoted in it. Failure to do so will be admission of trolling.

[Kaleredar]

well just looking at the letter from the lawyer posted earlier.
"Based on the information provided to me"
"I swear the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge".

The problem with perjury is proving someone knowingly lied, rather then not knowing the truth.
And yes that gives a lot of outs, including for Trump.

That is, for example, why the big deal with trumps loans and IRS statements was that he likely filed different numbers for his properties to the government and the bank. Because then you can prove at least one of them was a known lie.

I mean, even if trump didn’t knowingly lie… that would have to mean he didn’t know how the documents were stored.

And if he didn’t know how they were stored, isn’t that proof that he mishandled top secret documents?

[AntiFascistVoter]

Wow the new editor at the NYT really needs Trump to stop loss of engagement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/u...documents.html

"But department officials are not expected to file charges imminently, if they ever do."

The article never explains WHO thinks department officials aren't going to file charges immediately. It's just presented as a fact of nature without evidence.

It's the writers and editors laundering their own opinions.

The media is failing worse than it did in 2016.

Is this like how the DOJ would never indict Bannon or like how the DOJ would never take any action against Trump.

[Breccia]

I mean, even if trump didn’t knowingly lie… that would have to mean he didn’t know how the documents were stored.

And if he didn’t know how they were stored, isn’t that proof that he mishandled top secret documents?

Yes.

It could be argued that it would be worse for Trump, that he willingly took documents with him...and then forgot where they were. Because that would imply there were options, and one of the options would be "not in a secure place" or even "not in Mar-a-Lago" or even "not in my possession anymore".

The only reason the deed to my house and my will wouldn't be in my safe, is if someone snuck in and stole them. But I know they're not in my office, my bathroom, or posted on my Twitter account. If I still have them, they're only in the one place. If Trump stole documents, but at least had them safe and secure where nobody could see them, that'd narrow down the bad things that happen when WH records get loose. If Trump stole documents, but has no idea where they are, that's mishandling.

And as we've covered, losing them by accident is still a crime.

[Gorsameth]

I mean, even if trump didn’t knowingly lie… that would have to mean he didn’t know how the documents were stored.

And if he didn’t know how they were stored, isn’t that proof that he mishandled top secret documents?

Trump should be screwed. He is tied to this 6 ways from Sunday. My point was that the lawyer who filed an official document saying everything had been returned, when that wasn't true, can make a reasonable case to not having knowingly lied.

[Breccia]

My point was that the lawyer who filed an official document saying everything had been returned, when that wasn't true, can make a reasonable case to not having knowingly lied.

Yes, but hopefully even that won't save Trump.

Articles are left and right, har har FOX News joke, but seriously this one's from NPR.

Another Trump ally, described in the court papers as the custodian of the records, signed a letter to authorities certifying that Trump had conducted a "diligent search" for other materials sought by the National Archives and prosecutors. The letter said "all responsive documents" were included and that Trump had kept "no copy, written notation or reproduction."

Based on the boxes of top secret and even more highly classified papers the FBI extracted during its search Aug. 8, that too, proved false. The Justice Department said during its June visit, Trump's representatives barred them from looking through boxes in the storage room, giving them no chance to substantiate the claims. By August, they were armed with a court-approved search warrant.

"That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the 'diligent search' that the former President's counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter," authorities wrote.

So, that custodian's fucked.

But if Trump told people he looked and found nothing, and those people told the cops, then that's obstruction on Trump's part. "Obstruction of justice" is pretty broad, and not just lying to the cops.

Plus, of course, the underlying crime: Trump stole documents and still had them. He doesn't need to perjure himself to be objectively guilty of that crime.

EDIT: And we still don't know what's still missing.

[masterhorus8]

Plus, of course, the underlying crime: Trump stole documents and still had them. He doesn't need to perjure himself to be objectively guilty of that crime.

This is my favorite part of all of this, tbh.

[Skjaldborg]

I know this is so obvious that it's almost trivial, but I think it bears repeating that after everything since 2015...

1) The Mueller Report (and everything leading up to it)
2) Blackmailing Ukraine to pull up dirt on Biden (impeachment #1)
3) Fomenting January 6 (impeachment #2)

*There's just so much nested in - and in addition to - those three points...enough to fuel a 4000-page mega-thread for 7 years...*

What really might end up bringing this guy down is that he brought a piece of paper "home from work" and lied about having it. We might need to redefine "anticlimax" after this.

[beanman12345]

https://twitter.com/hugolowell/statu...fs3QrhRpdMqY2w

Interesting. So when they took Trump's passports it wasn't just standard procedure, it was gathered and marked as relevant evidence, that because the passports and the Documents were in the same drawer, it's evidence Trump himself was reviewing it and he can't just pass the blame to whomever and try the plausible deniability crap.

[Kathandira]

I know this is so obvious that it's almost trivial, but I think it bears repeating that after everything since 2015...

1) The Mueller Report (and everything leading up to it)
2) Blackmailing Ukraine to pull up dirt on Biden (impeachment #1)
3) Fomenting January 6 (impeachment #2)

*there's just so much nested in those three points...enough to fuel a 4000-page mega-thread for 7 years...*

What really might end up bringing this guy down is that he brought a piece of paper "home from work" and lied about having it. We might need to redefine "anticlimax" after this.

If everything isn't tied together, and he is only guilty of mishandling classified documents, he will likely get what most would consider a slap on the wrist.

It would not increase my faith in our justice system.

[Endus]

If everything isn't tied together, and he is only guilty of mishandling classified documents, he will likely get what most would consider a slap on the wrist.

It would not increase my faith in our justice system.

As a counterpoint to uphold your lack of faith; a man was just released and exonerated after spending 36 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit. https://thehill.com/changing-america...er-exonerated/
He was 17 when he was arrested; a minor.
His trial lasted a whole single day.
The police analyst lied about the blood and semen analysis, which confirmed he couldn't be the attacker.
His defense lawyer was too overloaded/incompetent to catch this at trial, given the whole day they had to go over stuff.
The only witness was the victim, and clearly, she got it wrong.

Go on, guess what color Sullivan Walter's skin is.

The American legal system is a joke. A truly awful one that no one finds funny. Anyone expecting justice out of it hasn't been paying attention, and there seems little interest in properly reforming it.

[Breccia]

Interesting. So when they took Trump's passports it wasn't just standard procedure, it was gathered and marked as relevant evidence, that because the passports and the Documents were in the same drawer, it's evidence Trump himself was reviewing it and he can't just pass the blame to whomever and try the plausible deniability crap.

Let's assume this is true.

What else do we know was taken? A framed picture of...a TIME 2019 article about all the Democrats coming to unseat him in 2020. Which, well, they did. I don't know why Trump would keep and frame this, I mean yeah it's worth fifty bucks, but it's a monument to his loserdom.

*ahem*

But.

If the FBI took Trump's passports because they were in the same desk...and also took framed pictures...does that mean Trump framed WH documents and hung them on his wall?

[Kaleredar]

Let's assume this is true.

What else do we know was taken? A framed picture of...a TIME 2019 article about all the Democrats coming to unseat him in 2020. Which, well, they did. I don't know why Trump would keep and frame this, I mean yeah it's worth fifty bucks, but it's a monument to his loserdom.

*ahem*

But.

If the FBI took Trump's passports because they were in the same desk...and also took framed pictures...does that mean Trump framed WH documents and hung them on his wall?

I mean, they could have been pulling things apart to see that no documents were hidden as well.

[solinari6]

What is crazy to me is, as Micheal Cohan tweeted, there's a SUPER high probability that Trump has copies of this stuff and other confidential stuff at his other residences. For National Security reasons, the government should be able to just ransack every home Trump has now. Legally though, I'm guessing they would need probably cause to KNOW that there is something at another residence to get a warrant. But if they can't prove to a judge they know he's got more, Trump gets to just keep it?

[Gorsameth]

What is crazy to me is, as Micheal Cohan tweeted, there's a SUPER high probability that Trump has copies of this stuff and other confidential stuff at his other residences. For National Security reasons, the government should be able to just ransack every home Trump has now. Legally though, I'm guessing they would need probably cause to KNOW that there is something at another residence to get a warrant. But if they can't prove to a judge they know he's got more, Trump gets to just keep it?

If it was an ordinary citizen I have little doubt that every place where you could possibly have stored a possibly copy would have already been completely ransacked, and the mere chance that you could have possibly have made copies is all the 'probable cause' that a judge would need.

[Kaleredar]

What is crazy to me is, as Micheal Cohan tweeted, there's a SUPER high probability that Trump has copies of this stuff and other confidential stuff at his other residences. For National Security reasons, the government should be able to just ransack every home Trump has now. Legally though, I'm guessing they would need probably cause to KNOW that there is something at another residence to get a warrant. But if they can't prove to a judge they know he's got more, Trump gets to just keep it?

I don’t imagine they would need much more than having found copies that were made of the documents they were looking for at mar-a-lago.

[Breccia]

I mean, they could have been pulling things apart to see that no documents were hidden as well.

Maybe, but, based on the passport discussion earlier, if they looked behind a non-classified picture and found nothing classified, there was no reason to take the picture. If, by contrast, Trump had a framed picture of him and Kim getting busy in a DKRP knock-off Burger King bathroom, and that picture itself was on top of a classified document, it could be used as evidence that Trump knew about the document. Those look like wall-hanging frames to me.

Or, if there were documents behind them, concealing them is a crime.

---

I am by no means obligated or honor-bound to discuss dissenting opinions, but sometimes they bring up a point that needs to be addressed. I refer to you this article in the National Review in their attempt to defend Donald Trump.

The Trump legal team’s inexplicable delay in seeking court intervention, in the form of a so-called special master, has had the predictable consequence: Even before the court could rule on the belated request, the Justice Department completed its review of the documents and made unilateral determinations about what was potentially privileged.

The DOJ’s “privilege-review team” has presumably--

"Paywall, and no way am I signing up for that shit."

Uh, okay, the punchline is, basically, that the FBI went through looking for only attorney-client privilege, not Executive Privilege. And they'd only be so aggressive if they didn't care if the search was tossed, because they were never going to file charges anyhow.

"But Biden waived privilege."

The NR says Biden only waived Jan 6th document privilege, not everything Trump ever read.

"Executive Privilege is a specific thing, like classified. You can't just say something and it becomes privileged."

The NR seems to disagree.

"Also, if it's Executive Privilege it still doesn't belong to him. In fact, if it's Executive Privilege, it's WH owned and illegal for him to take it."

Oddly enough the NR never mentions that part.

"Why did you even post this?"

Because the defenses of Trump's supporters are crumbling faster than if Trump was standing on them. There really is nothing left. Even the NR does point out that the FBI only had this ability because Team Trump didn't file anything when they had the chance.

In other news:

1) Sen. Graham has a new defense to why he shouldn't testify: he has absolute immunity.

Senator Graham was duty bound to actually vote as to whether to certify the election, and so he had to run those allegations down — and he therefore called….the one person who would know best: Secretary Raffensperger

-- his lawyer

He...he does know that call was probably recorded, right? And that he's being subpoena'd because, no, he wasn't calling to ask how he could help, he was calling to tell them what to do. As a Senator, and from the wrong state, he can't do that.

Besides, if that was his concern, we should have calls from Graham to other states. Um, ignore the calls to NYState, that's, um, something else.

2) A Trump lawyer, no not that one, filed in court that

The attorney, Alina Habba, told a New York State court that on May 5, she conducted a search of Trump’s private residence and office at Mar-a-Lago that was so “diligent” it included “all desks, drawers, nightstands, dressers, closets, etc.” She was looking for records in response to a subpoena issued by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is investigating matters related to the Trump Organization.

The same filing also includes an affidavit from Trump himself, indicating that he “authorized Alina Habba to search my private residence and personal office located at The Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida for any and all documents responsive to the Subpoena.” Habba indicated she conducted similar searches at Trump’s residences and office at his Bedminster estate.

The filing submitted to the New York AG’s office raises key questions in relation to the separate Mar-a-Lago probe, chiefly, whether Habba ended up handling any of the documents that DOJ later discovered at Trump’s club; and, if so, whether she has the clearance to have done so. In her sworn affidavit, Habba said that she searched many of the locations that would later be scrutinized by the FBI during its Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago — and where investigators say they uncovered a significant volume of highly classified government secrets. The documents, those investigators stated, “had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status” making clear their significance.

So...here we have yet another potential issue. One, she might have read, touched, or even taken WH records without permission. Which is why you don't leave them in random-ass desks, for fuck's sake. Two, what did NYState ask for that Trump didn't know which fucking state it was in? Three, did Trump send a different lawyer as a "cleaner" behind Bobb's back, who could then feign ignorance?

"That sounds like a conspiracy theory."

No, it sounds like me considering someone accused of violating the Espionage Act as acting like a spy.

3) Bannon and Giuliani discussed in public the idea of a contingent election, to put Trump in the WH.

"Is that a thing?"

It is, if neither candidates gets to 270 votes. Trump was short, but Biden wasn't. What he's suggesting is impossible and literally treason. But Giuliani's desperate and Bannon's insane, so, they might as well try at this point.

If this sounds familiar, it shouldn't, because it would mean you're following Steve Bannon. But he has brought up the topic before.

This is far from over. This is far from over. And remember, the only date that's hardwired into the Constitution is high-noon on the 20th of January. And the worst-case there, if one of the two individuals that have gotten electoral votes are not selected by that time either through the electoral college or a contingent election which is still a big possibility, YouTube.

It's still a big possibility to have a contingent election. If that's not done, the worst case is that Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, or if she selected a Speaker of the House on the 5th, she becomes acting president. Until that time that one of the two that got electoral votes are selected by the House of Representatives voting by state delegation. So, we have a long way to go on this thing.

"YouTube?"

He was raging about his channel being politely warned about broadcasting misinformation, for saying Trump won. The above quote is from December 9, 2020. He was kicked off YouTube one month later because he got three strikes of such in 90 (well, fewer) days. It remains down to this day.

I look forward to their filing in federal court the paperwork to have a contingent election. Even judges should have something entertaining to watch.

4) Politico reports that frustrations continue to build in the Party of Trump, because its members have to keep shifting stances every time Trump's lies are Will Smith'd in public.

“Republicans should focus on defeating Democrats, and every Democrat should have the word Biden in front of their name,” said Trump ally and former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich. “The Republican focus should be to win the election in November. Trump will do a fine job defending himself. He’ll be fine.”

Some top Republicans acknowledge the growing angst and concern, as it’s become clearer that Trump may have been warehousing some of America’s most sensitive secrets in an unsecured basement — and even refused to turn them over when the National Archives and Justice Department tried to recover them. One top Republican fundraiser asked to describe the mood among donors, said, “There is enormous frustration.”

“The question is, is there willingness to express that frustration,” the fundraiser added. “I don’t know the answer to that. But there is real frustration, and with the exception of people who are too stupid to understand the need to be frustrated, it is nearly universal.”

Gee, wonder what he means by that. /SARCASM

“After five years of this,” he said, “I think a lot of these Republican members are sick of it all and just punch back. It’s Pavlovian at this point. They punch back at the media who they think is always unfair to Trump and none of these things are as bad as they’re made out to be in the press. They’re not going to frog march him out of Mar-a-Lago.”

But the current issues facing Trump are also different in critical ways. For starters, he doesn’t have the powers of the presidency anymore. And, more uncharacteristically, he’s so far avoided the spotlight.

In the weeks since the search of Mar-a-Lago, the former president has been off the airwaves, even eschewing appearances on friendly shows. Instead, he’s blasted out self-defenses on his social media site Truth Social and through his Save America super PAC.

The more he speaks for himself, however, the more political headaches he creates for Republicans. On Monday, he bluntly proposed that he be crowned the “rightful winner” of a 2020 election fairly won by Biden, or that a determination be made that the ballot was “irreparably compromised.” He suggested a do-over of the election in the case of the latter.

Trump is expected to address the FBI search at his first public appearance for a Saturday Save America rally in support of endorsed candidates in Scranton, Pa. this coming weekend.

“I think people would expect him to go on Fox, go on radio shows, go on primetime shows, Newsmax, OAN, one on one interviews, and do a media blitz,” said one person close to the Trump operation. “He’s not doing media, but the surrogates are out there, the lawyers are out there, which is smart from a legal standpoint.”

Trump is a slow learner, but he is learning. By not even going on FOX News, which may be turning against him as I continue posting with boundless enthusiasm, he removes the chance someone will ask him a question he has no reasonable answer for. That won't happen at a rally.

5) Trump accidentally quoted a fake Ivanka Trump message on his own social media platform.

Fake Ivanka called the vaccine a hoax. Yes, the one Trump took credit for.

And I end--

"Promise?"

Shut up, you. I end, of course, with the NYTimes.

Trump’s Lawyers May Become Witnesses or Targets in Documents Investigation

Hoo boy, they are not going to like reading that one.

Two lawyers for Trump are likely to become witnesses or targets in the investigation into how he hoarded documents marked as classified at Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate — and secretly held onto some even after the lawyers claimed all sensitive materials had been returned, legal specialists said.

The lawyers, M. Evan Corcoran and Christina Bobb, handled Mr. Trump’s interactions with the government over a subpoena in May seeking additional material marked as classified. In a court filing late Tuesday, the Justice Department strongly suggested that people in Mr. Trump’s circle concealed documents in defiance of that subpoena, putting a spotlight on the lawyers’ actions.

Quick aside here: this came out before the Habba article I posted earlier. She might also be on the list.

“They are potentially witnesses — if not defendants,” Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan from 2010 to 2017, said of the two lawyers.

The filing did not identify which lawyers for Mr. Trump took the key actions. But The New York Times has reported that after receiving the subpoena, Mr. Corcoran searched through boxes kept in a storage area in Mar-a-Lago’s basement for files with classified markings.

In its filing late Tuesday, the Justice Department pointedly noted that Mr. Trump’s lawyers had not been as cooperative and open as they could have been at the June 3 meeting.

“Critically, however, Trump’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained,” the filing said.

The Justice Department’s account clashes with that of Mr. Trump’s legal team. In a complaint filed on Aug. 22 and signed by Mr. Corcoran and two other lawyers, they describe Mr. Trump and his team as providing “complete cooperation.” After Mr. Bratt asked to inspect the storage room, investigators were escorted there and once their inspection was completed, the complaint states, an F.B.I. agent said: “Thank you. You did not need to show us the storage room, but we appreciate it. Now it all makes sense.”

All this has increased scrutiny on whether the lawyers knowingly misled the government in coordination with Mr. Trump as their client, knowingly misled both the government and Mr. Trump, or were themselves left in the dark by Mr. Trump or others and so lacked any criminal intent.

I'm sure enough on this one that I don't need to call in MMO-C's favorite lawyer. Normally, you can't ask someone's lawyer about them. That's privileged information.

*ahem*

Unless they're co-conspirators in a crime. Like obstruction of justice.

So, that custodian's fucked.

I believe Corcoran is that custodian. He dealt with the FBI first and most.

"If they're targets, couldn't they plead the Fifth?"

Let them. We already know what happens when your lawyer pleads the Fifth. Also, while pleading the Fifth isn't admission of a crime, it's begging to be treated as such by a lied-to FBI who already found the evidence of guilt. Charging them both/all with conspiring to obstruct seems fairly obvious to me, but then, I am a vindictive motherfucker. But, again, we know the FBI were lied to. They were told "you got all 38 documents" and then they found hundreds more. Either they lied in parallel, or lied in series. Either way, it's time to up the voltage and see whose resistance is lowest. They get to go ohm. Everyone else fries.

- - - Updated - - -

as Micheal Cohen tweeted

I have been saying this since the FBI raid…I believe #Trump has copies, potentially other documents as well, at other locations including his children’s homes, Weisselberg’s florida home, Bedminster, NJ golf course, Fifth Avenue apartment, etc…

Just so we're all on the same page.

[Gorsameth]

The lawyer who signed off on everything having been turned over saying they searched every drawer is going to come back to haunt them.

You can claim the documents were not in the storage room at the time and Trump lied to you saying he got everything. But if you say you did a very thorough search and then they find this much stuff, apparently all over the place it becomes a lot harder to convince a judge you didn't actually find anything when writing a sworn statement that turned out to be untruthfull.