Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

True, they couldn't control him completely by any stretch, but they did keep him from walking when he left office like he wanted to and has, so far, kept him from announcing a 2024 run already which is really wants to do with it.

At this point, Trump doesn't know how much he needs the RNC. If he does turn on them, he'll end up with nobody during visiting hours.

[tehdang]

The drivel you're spewing is just one of several iterations of Trump's lying defense - one that continues to change on an almost daily basis.

The only thing that doesn't change with you is accusing me of just repeating talking points that have been given to me, repeated by you in a post this week in fact. If you want to start allowing people their own opinions on politics, stated honestly, this would be a departure for you ... but a welcome one. State it for the record so we're actually talking to each other.

And many people have pointed out that your assessment is anything but unbiased

I'm not taking a poll of the forum for their assessment of me. If they had better arguments to offer, I'm sure they would've said them by now.

...and yet you wont separate it from the FBI's actions against Hillary Clinton.

I never claimed it was tied up in Republican concern on social issues. You did. Now, apparently, you do not.

You're conflating unrelated things with the raid on Trump's illegitimately held documents.

First and foremost the Nunes memo was decried as partisan drivel that was bitter that they were digging into Trump's ties to Russia. Upon review, the inspector general in Trump's DOJ found no political motivation for the inquiry, and the subsequent wiretaps were approved by four conservative justices.

But once again, you're moving goalposts. Avoiding talking about Trump. Conflating other things.

Because you don't have a defense for this. You want a reason to believe it isn't true, or, as I've asserted, a reason for you not to care.

The Nunes memo is the most glaring example of a reason not to trust FBI statements on types of classified documents. It's germane to anyone that wishes to speculate on things unknown about the case. And you've mentioned nothing that indicates you know about the claims Democrats and FBI officials made when it was to be declassified. My conclusion is that you have no clue what the Nunes memo said, how many figures stated it would damage confidential sources or national security if it was declassified, and how tame the actual substance is. In fact, it was only embarrassing to the FBI when the truth came out ... and later caused several firings/resignations (and, relatedly, one guilty plea).

So, please, read up if you really think it's distracting from the point. I do consider it to be a cautionary tale to putting blind trust in FBI or DOJ statements before they've seen testing in court or independent investigation.

And multiple people have pointed out why you continuing to claim this is a fundamental misunderstanding.

I'm sure they'll be here to remind you. Again. Maybe try recanting their assertions directly, instead of just pretending like you don't see them.

Again, I'm not taking a poll of who thinks I'm wrong.

Remember, at least one dude actually wanted to lynch a former cabinet member of the president of the United States not ten pages ago. And people listened and only partially disagreed with him. When lynching is not beyond the pale for members, I don't think polling their thoughts on getting real justice for the person they hate to actually revelatory.

Let me know when someone other than the guy that got raided claims things weren't done appropriately. And I don't mean feckless congressmen, I mean... people with actual legal, judicial experience. Because while Trump's bloviating has been quite loud, I've yet to hear a peep of dissent from anyone who actually matters.

I've taken care to provide other factual evidence than certain claims from the hated man in a resort in Florida. If you can't tell the difference between quoting Trump and examining things without citing his claims as facts themselves, then I guess we're really done here. If you really want to make this a case of Trump's words vs everybody else you pay attention to, I'm not going to demand you pay attention to past FBI cases, misconduct, statutes in question, and legal proceedings. It's your choice in the end.

So, you'd be fine with the Obamas having a binder of nuclear secrets in their bookshelf then?

I think the Obamas more preferred the drone strikes, to be honest. They're more a nuclear-free vision, well, excepting Iran.

You haven't in the least bit, but it's super adorable that you believe you have.

I respect your contrary opinion.

The "did what she was supposed to do" was afterwards, but it's no surprise you didn't catch that, where she wasn't trying to hide shit. I love you ignored the investigation into her once again and turns out what she deleted was of no consequence. You keep trying to get that Hillary boogeyman though, one day Trump might notice you.

This is the first I heard that deleting the documents was a real way to not hide them from subpoenas for documents. If you do happen to find a full record of what she deleted, which has not materialized to date, please submit it to the FBI so we can discover if it was "of no consequence."

This part is the most hilarious. Yeah, you're right, he only kept them because they were super declassified and he was keeping them safe. You're smart.

We do agree that your hypothetical was hilarious.

[Breccia]

Remember, at least one dude actually wanted to lynch a former cabinet member of the president of the United States not ten pages ago.

Pence isn't technically part of Trump's cabinet, so, technically your fellow Trump supporters just wanted to lynch an elected official.

[Dontrike]

I respect your contrary opinion.

You can't even tell the truth here, let alone the rest of your response to me.

Perhaps you should ask the FBI why they thought Hillary's emails were of no consequence.

We do agree that your hypothetical was hilarious.

Oh do tell then what Trump was doing with nuclear secrets then. I'm sure what you'll say won't be stupid or insane in the least bit.

[Fugus]

At this point, Trump doesn't know how much he needs the RNC. If he does turn on them, he'll end up with nobody during visiting hours.

Agreed, he doesn't understand just how much they are protecting him out of self preservation right now. But he also doesn't seem to live in reality and thinks its all about him, so wondering if he would be dumb enough to do that if they don't protect him over this as it would be suicide for them if they tried.

[Kaleredar]

I'm not taking a poll of the forum for their assessment of me. If they had better arguments to offer, I'm sure they would've said them by now.

It's not opinions of you. It's opinions on your statements regarding Clinton. And you didn't recant any of their arguments; you just ignored their posts like they didn't happen.

I never claimed it was tied up in Republican concern on social issues. You did. Now, apparently, you do not.

Like I think you willfully misread that part of my post early on. Nobody could otherwise be so dense.

The Nunes memo is the most glaring example of a reason not to trust FBI statements on types of classified documents. It's germane to anyone that wishes to speculate on things unknown about the case. And you've mentioned nothing that indicates you know about the claims Democrats and FBI officials made when it was to be declassified. My conclusion is that you have no clue what the Nunes memo said, how many figures stated it would damage confidential sources or national security if it was declassified, and how tame the actual substance is. In fact, it was only embarrassing to the FBI when the truth came out ... and later caused several firings/resignations (and, relatedly, one guilty plea).

So, please, read up if you really think it's distracting from the point. I do consider it to be a cautionary tale to putting blind trust in FBI or DOJ statements before they've seen testing in court or independent investigation

The investigation into the allegations of the Nunes memo found no political motivation to their potentially misfiled application to look into Trump's ties with Russia. That is what the Nunes memo acquiesced to.

The Nunes memo, above all, alleged that the inquiry was political and therefore not to be trusted. The DOJ review found clerical errors in the way the FISA warrants were submitted. They found no issue with the actual information obtained being fraudulent or false. You seem to be claiming that they made up the information, like you're claiming that they're... making up that Trump had these documents?

Yeah, I'm bringing it back to the documents Trump had. You're trying to whataboutism real hard, but I'm not going to let you.

And regardless, no judgement of misconduct has been made on the FBI's raid on Mar-a-lago, as signed off on by a judge and done legally to the letter, so far as anyone with any insight into how the legal world operates has opined for now. A judge Trump appointed, no less. Just like the conservative judges that approved continued action on the FBI's continued surveillance that the Nunes Memo was so pissy about.

Again, I'm not taking a poll of who thinks I'm wrong.

When it's your analysis vs everyone else's, maybe you're just in the wrong.

Remember, at least one dude actually wanted to lynch a former cabinet member of the president of the United States not ten pages ago. And people listened and only partially disagreed with him. When lynching is not beyond the pale for members, I don't think polling their thoughts on getting real justice for the person they hate to actually revelatory.

And a whole bunch of people stormed the capitol building trying to lynch the former vice president. People died over it.

They were republicans.

Say, while we're at it, what's your opinion on the raid on the capitol building? Was that all just a "democrat overreaction" like Trump having nuclear secrets printed out in a box?

I've taken care to provide other factual evidence than certain claims from the hated man in a resort in Florida. If you can't tell the difference between quoting Trump and examining things without citing his claims as facts themselves, then I guess we're really done here. If you really want to make this a case of Trump's words vs everybody else you pay attention to, I'm not going to demand you pay attention to past FBI cases, misconduct, statutes in question, and legal proceedings. It's your choice in the end.

You're alleging mass conspiracy because of a misfiling of documents four years ago.

And I mean, if you're talking about past cases, misconduct, statute violations and legal proceedings, Trump isn't exactly the poster boy to be rallying behind on the matter.

You also keep harping on about guilty testimonies and firings and the mass shame of the FBI. I can't actually find any sources on that. The only associated "guilty plea" I can find is Trump advisor George Papadopoulos pleading guilty to lying to the FBI which actually began the probe.

I think the Obamas more preferred the drone strikes, to be honest. They're more a nuclear-free vision, well, excepting Iran.

That is, hilariously, not actually an answer to his question.

Is your natural state to default to whataboutism?

This is why I don't think you care what Trump did. Because you'll tell yourself that somewhere, somehow, a democrat might have done something also bad.

...as if I had reason to believe you ever cared about drone strikes anyway.

I respect your contrary opinion.

This is the first I heard that deleting the documents was a real way to not hide them from subpoenas for documents. If you do happen to find a full record of what she deleted, which has not materialized to date, please submit it to the FBI so we can discover if it was "of no consequence."

The FBI themselves decided it was of no consequence.

We do agree that your hypothetical was hilarious.

So why do you think Trump had those documents?

He just plum forgot to return them? He thought he deserved to keep them?

Or... like I've been saying, you really don't care why he had them.

[Muzjhath]

I think the Obamas more preferred the drone strikes, to be honest. They're more a nuclear-free vision, well, excepting Iran.

That wasn't the question.
The question was if you're fine with the Obamas having documents covered by the National Nuclear Security Administration Act in their bookshelf. Or in boxes in their basement.

So, are you fine with the Obamas having those kinda documents at home?

[beanman12345]

"Why are people so mean?"
- Trump


lol

[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.