Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Milchshake]

The Trump filings for a Special Master was a self PWN. DOJ has used its response to disclose damning proof of a series of crimes, which it would not otherwise have been able to do. And one very compelling photo.



Kids, check Lawtubes for a prima facie case.

There it is. In black and white.

The false certification by Trump's lawyers on June 3.

Note the yellow highlights (mine) that point directly to trouble for Donald Trump - for obstruction and concealment.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbdhVmEX...png&name=small

[postman1782]

The Trump filings for a Special Master was a self PWN. DOJ has used its response to disclose damning proof of a series of crimes, which it would not otherwise have been able to do. And one very compelling photo.



Kids, check Lawtubes for a prima facie case.

There it is. In black and white.

The false certification by Trump's lawyers on June 3.

Note the yellow highlights (mine) that point directly to trouble for Donald Trump - for obstruction and concealment.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbdhVmEX...png&name=small

And this picture right here, with SCI clearance, should be enough to fuck Trump a million ways from Sunday. Now we just have to wait for the indictment.

[Kaleredar]

And this picture right here, with SCI clearance, should be enough to fuck Trump a million ways from Sunday. Now we just have to wait for the indictment.

Well, if certain posters are anything to go off of, right wing talking points about this will be thusly:

1) The FBI planted them
2) If the FBI didn't plant them, then they had no right to go into Trump's residence to find them.
3) If they did have the right to go into Trump's residence, then it doesn't matter because Trump had every right to have those documents
4) If Trump didn't have any right to have those documents, it doesn't matter because Hillary had a thing with emails once.

Let's see how that holds up in a court of law.

[postman1782]

Well, if certain posters are anything to go off of, right wing talking points about this will be thusly:

1) The FBI planted them
2) If the FBI didn't plant them, then they had no right to go into Trump's residence to find them.
3) If they did have the right to go into Trump's residence, then it doesn't matter because Trump had every right to have those documents
4) If Trump didn't have any right to have those documents, it doesn't matter because Hillary had a thing with emails once.

Let's see how that holds up in a court of law.

Yeah, I have seen people even claiming that Biden reclassified them after Trump left office, but that wouldn't make sense, because then they wouldn't be in classified folders with classified markings. And yes, there was a guy I literally watched yesterday that ran through all of those excuses, including the reclassification one, and the Hillary bullshit.

[s_bushido]

You forgot about Hunter's laptop. You can NEVER forget about Hunter's laptop!

[Breccia]

Kids, check Lawtubes for a prima facie case.

I think this is worth a CNN point.

US government documents were "likely concealed and removed" from a storage room at Mar-a-Lago as part of an effort to "obstruct" the FBI's investigation into Trump's potential mishandling of classified materials, the Justice Department said in a blockbuster court filing Tuesday night.

More than 320 classified documents have now been recovered from Mar-a-Lago, the Justice Department said, including more than 100 in the FBI search earlier this month.

Tuesday's filing represents the Justice Department's strongest case to date that Trump concealed classified material he was keeping at Mar-a-Lago in an attempt to obstruct the FBI's investigation into the potential mishandling of classified material.

The Justice Department revealed the startling new details as part of its move to oppose Trump's effort to intervene in the federal investigation that led to the search of his Florida resort and his desire for a "special master" to be appointed to the case.

Which is what you were talking about, of course. When you ask the government what proof they have you're a criminal, don't be surprised when they say "here it is".

Trump has pushed an "incomplete and inaccurate narrative" in his recent court filings about the Mar-a-Lago search, the Justice Department said.

"The government provides below a detailed recitation of the relevant facts, many of which are provided to correct the incomplete and inaccurate narrative set forth in Plaintiff's filings," prosecutors wrote.

It presents a strong rebuttal of the criticisms of the FBI's unprecedented search of a former President's residence, laying out clearly how Trump had failed to return dozens of classified documents even after his lawyer attested that he had provided all classified material in his possession.

A picture on the final page of the filing showing classified documents strewn about on the floor of Trump's office -- full of classified markings like "HCS," or human confidential sources -- hammered home how sensitive the material Trump had taken was.

At issue is Trump's compliance with a grand jury subpoena, issued in May, demanding that he turn over classified documents from Mar-a-Lago. Prosecutors said Tuesday that some documents were likely removed from a storage room before Trump's lawyers examined the area, while they were trying to comply with the subpoena. The timeline is essential, because Trump's lawyers later told investigators that they searched the storage area and that all classified documents were accounted for.

"The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government's investigation," prosecutors wrote. "This included evidence indicating that boxes formerly in the Storage Room were not returned prior to counsel's review."

In the filing opposing Trump's request, DOJ argues that the former president lacks standing over presidential records "because those records do not belong to him," as presidential records are considered property of the government.

The Presidential Records Act makes clear that "[t]he United States" has "complete ownership, possession, and control of them," the DOJ filing states.

The DOJ's response was surgical. They were clear, specific, precise, and direct. Trump's criminal behavior is objective.

Worth noting, the fat orange text above isn't about the fat orange fuck talking in public. Lying to the American people is not a crime. Lying under oath is.

Trump may have a way out here: selling out his employees. It's really risky, they might turn on him in return to save themselves, but at this point I don't know what choices he has left.

You know what, I'm going to need @cubby on this one. Hey cubby, what happens if:

FBI: we need you to give back all that stuff you stole.
Suspect: Lawyer, tell the FBI I have already given it all back, under oath.
Lawyer: I say, under oath, the Suspect has given it all back.
FBI: We found some of that stuff you stole. You didn't give it all back.
Suspect: My lawyer lied to you. Arrest her instead.
Lawyer: No, wait, I was only saying under oath what you told me.

Now what? If you direct your lawyer to make false statements under oath on your behalf, who goes to jail? We are talking about obstruction here.

- - - Point Regained - - -

It is FOX News' top headline this morning. That's how bad this is.

The warrant was obtained after "the government developed evidence that a search limited to the Storage Room would not have uncovered all the classified documents at the Premises."

So, the video footage?

It continued, "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."

The filing gives the most detailed account of the Mar-a-Lago search so far.

The department argued in the filing that Trump's request for a special master "fails for multiple, independent reasons," saying it's both "unnecessary" and would "harm national security interests."

The filing said Trump "lacks standing" for a special master because the records in question belong to the United States, not him.

It said Trump won't suffer any injury without an injunction "and the harms to the government and the public would far outweigh any benefit" to him.

Oh, and:

The filing added that any materials that could be subject to attorney-client privilege were already separated by the government's filter team.

Yep.

"Furthermore, appointment of a special master would impede the government’s ongoing criminal investigation and—if the special master were tasked with reviewing classified documents—would impede the Intelligence Community from conducting its ongoing review of the national security risk that improper storage of these highly sensitive materials may have caused and from identifying measures to rectify or mitigate any damage that improper storage caused," the filing said. "Lastly, this case does not involve any of the types of circumstances that have warranted appointment of a special master to review materials potentially subject to attorney-client privilege."

Also:

Three classified documents were also found in a "desk drawer" during the search, the DOJ said.

Not the storage room, with or without the new lock.

Not the safe.

A desk drawer.

Now to be fair, the judge in this part of the case doesn't have to take the FBI's word for it, that a "special master" would harm national security or an ongoing investigation. That's their call. She can appoint, let's say, Mueller? Yeah, Mueller. Or someone else that clearly has both unquestionable integrity and also a security clearance. Someone who had a law degree and personal familiarity with the WH and presidential records.

Is Obama free?

[Gorsameth]

Now what? If you direct your lawyer to make false statements under oath on your behalf, who goes to jail? We are talking about obstruction here.

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.

[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?

[Milchshake]

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.