Post New

An audio recording from the summer of 2021 meeting in which former president Trump acknowledges he held onto a classified Pentagon document about a potential attack on Iran is in the hands of federal prosecutors. "On the recording, Trump's comments suggest he would like to share the information but he's aware of limitations on his ability post-presidency to declassify records..."

Gee, that kinda' undercuts his argument that he declassified everything.

The July 2021 meeting was held at Trump's golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, with two people working on the autobiography of Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows as well as aides employed by the former president, including communications specialist Margo Martin. The attendees, sources said, did not have security clearances that would allow them access to classified information.

Well, yeah, that sounds like Trump. If he'd share top secret information with Russians in the White House, why not writers in Bedminster?

Still waiting for the outrage from the republicans who demanded Clinton go straight to federal prison now that the evidence is pretty clear that what Trump has done with respect to top secret and classified documents is so obviously illegal.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/31/politics/trump-tape...

Still waiting for the outrage from the republicans who demanded Clinton go straight to federal prison now that the evidence is pretty clear that what Trump has done with respect to top secret and classified documents is so obviously illegal.

Still very few abandoning Trump. I'm not even sure a conviction would make a dent. There must be a tipping point though. Were you New Echota?

Gee, that kinda' undercuts his argument that he declassified everything.

Exactly what his ex-attorney Ty Cobb has just said.

And Trump brilliantly said this knowing that the entire meeting/event was being recorded. All of the information-gathering sessions for people who were writing books were recorded. And this particular one was one of the ones held for the memoir that Mark Meadows was writing about his 10 months or so as Trump's Chief of Staff.

Gee, that kinda' undercuts his argument that he declassified everything.

It's far worse than that for Trump, if the description of the tape is accurate (which it might not be).

Trump's claim that he had declassified everything was always a bit farcical. His strongest defenses against criminal liability were elsewhere, particularly in the intent requirements for the statutes in question. To get a criminal conviction under many of these statutes, prosecutors can't just prove that the documents were classified and in Mar-a-Lago (which is easy). They have to prove that Trump was aware that documents were in the boxes at Mar-a-Lago that shouldn't have been, and that they hadn't been returned to the government upon demand.

That's not easy to prove, because the actual handling of the boxes and the papers within them would have been mostly handled by third parties - staff and lawyers and others. It's hard to assemble proof that Trump was actually aware on an ongoing basis of the specific contents of the boxes and documents and that the retention of documents was willful on his part - rather than simply a mistake or oversight or criminal activity committed by staff and not Trump.

With a tape that had the discussion as described in the article, though, Trump is in a lot of jeopardy for violating 18 USC 793(d), which makes it a crime for:

"[w]hoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation....willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

Note that for this statute to apply, the person has to willfully retain a document relating to the national defense upon demand. They have to know they obtained lawful possession of the document, know it relates to the national defense, know that it has been demanded by an officer or employee of the U.S., and know that it was not returned. It's hard to prove that - because you have to prove what Trump actually knew and when he knew it. For any random document in a box in a storage room in a vault, Trump could (quite credibly) just claim he had no idea what specific papers were in there - and that he thought all the important stuff had been returned already.

If they've got him on tape accurately describing the contents of a document relating to the national defense and stating that he still possessed it on a date after the subpoena, though, he's in real trouble. Because now they've got some proof of specific intent. It demonstrates that he was aware of that specific document still being at Mar-a-Lago after it was demanded back by the government.

That, more than puncturing the ridiculous de-classification defense, is the real damage to his case the tape might do.

That, more than puncturing the ridiculous de-classification defense, is the real damage to his case the tape might do.

Who in the US government has the power to declassify a document?

Who in the US government has the power to declassify a document?

The President does, among many others.

But the power to declassify a document isn't the same as declassifying a document. President Trump had the power to declassify every single government document when he held office. It's rather obvious that he did not declassify every single government document. The set of documents the President has the power to declassify (all of them) is not the same as the set of documents that the President has declassified (not all of them).

So his claim that he declassified every single government document brought to Mar-a-Lago, despite giving absolutely no external sign or direction or indication to any other person that he had done so, is a rather specious assertion.

The President does, among many others.

Okay, so Trump had the power to declass documents.

So his claim that he declassified every single government document brought to Mar-a-Lago, despite giving absolutely no external sign or direction or indication to any other person that he had done so, is a rather specious assertion.

What's the procedure for declassifying a document?

What's the procedure for declassifying a document?

Something. The President probably can set up whatever procedure he chooses, via Executive Order - or even informally. But it would have to be something, some externally verifiable indicia that the President has actually acted. That the status of the documents that have previously been classified has now been changed - that someone has received some instruction from the President that the classification has been lifted.

For the President to have exercised a power of his office, he has to actually exercise that power. He has to do something in furtherance of exercising that power, not just think it quietly in his head but never do or say anything.

Albaby

Albaby wrote: Trump's claim that he had declassified everything was always a bit farcical. His strongest defenses against criminal liability were elsewhere, particularly in the intent requirements for the statutes in question.

I just read the story in the NYT and thought, 'Aha, maybe this is the intent Albaby has been writing about" with respect to many of the Trump investigations.

How will TeflonDon slither out of this?

albaby1: Something.

The Brennan Center has a good run-down.

One thing the president cannot do, though, is declassify information 'by thinking about it' ' i.e., without communicating that decision to anyone else. This conclusion follows not from any particular legal requirements but rather from the very essence of what it means to classify or declassify information. As noted above, these are two-step processes: first, an official determines whether the information requires protection, and second, the information is flagged to ensure that the protections are applied or removed. If an official claims to have classified or declassified information after taking the first step but not the second, it's like a customer saying she ordered food at a restaurant when she has decided what she wants to eat but hasn't told the waiter.

The article also notes that the classification status is immaterial with respect to documents at Mar-a-Lago:

Nor does the classification status of the documents affect Trump's criminal liability. The Department of Justice has publicly cited three criminal statutes that might apply in this investigation. None of them require that the information be classified. The most serious charge, the Espionage Act, criminalizes mishandling of information 'relating to the national defense.' Generally, judges consider classification to be strong evidence that information relates to the national defense. But unclassified or declassified information can still qualify ' particularly when the declassification happened entirely outside the usual process, involving no consultation with the relevant agencies about the national security implications of removing protections.


https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-re....

How will TeflonDon slither out of this?

Well, the simplest way for him is if the document he refers to in the tape was actually returned to the government in one of the earlier tranches of material. From the article, the meeting took place in July of 2021. The Archives requested all the classified documents be returned in May of 2021. Just under thirty boxes of material were sent to the Archives in December and January thereafter.

His lawyers could argue that although it took a few months, this constitutes compliance with the statute with respect to all those materials. It's not a terrible argument, especially since I don't think the DOJ will pursue charges for those materials, or consider them to be part of an effort to obstruct. He could then plead ignorance about the other materials, claiming that he thought that the return of documents in December/January was complete compliance with the Archive request.

That gets less tenable if the document described in the descriptions of the tape (which we still haven't heard, so it's a description of a description) was still in Trump's possession when the warrant was served.

The President probably can set up whatever procedure he chooses, via Executive Order - or even informally. But it would have to be something, some externally verifiable indicia that the President has actually acted. That the status of the documents that have previously been classified has now been changed - that someone has received some instruction from the President that the classification has been lifted.

Okay, so
*Trump has the power to declassify
*The procedure isn't clear, but the President determines the procedure.

Dope1: Okay, so
*Trump has the power to declassify
*The procedure isn't clear, but the President determines the procedure.


Umm, no. You completely ignore the fact that he issued no EO or other informal directive. And that there's no evidence of "some externally verifiable indicia that the President has actually acted. That the status of the documents that have previously been classified has now been changed - that someone has received some instruction from the President that the classification has been lifted."

And again, the classification status is immaterial to his other legal jeopardy. Trump is not in trouble because of his non-compliance with NARA but from his other potentially criminal acts.

*Trump has the power to declassify
*The procedure isn't clear, but the President determines the procedure.

Trump had the power to declassify. He obviously doesn't now - which is why it matters whether he did, in fact, exercise that power in the past.

The procedure is fairly clear - there's an Executive Order laying it out - but Trump could have changed that if he wanted to. There's no indication that he did, though. Which is why a court would probably require something in the way of evidence if he wanted to assert that he declassified something without following that procedure. The most obvious would be if he disseminated the information - if he discussed something that was previously classified on national television, for example, then that information might no longer be classified (though I don't think the rules on that are crystal clear, as people have gotten in trouble for circulating information that was already leaked).

One way to think about it is to compare it to his power to fire people. Most senior officials serve at the pleasure of the President - he can fire any of them at any time. But to fire someone, he would have to, you know, fire them. Tell them, "you're fired" - or tell someone else that the official is fired. Could the President just think to himself in the middle of the night, "I'm firing the Secretary of Labor," but not tell anyone that he did so? Would the Secretary be fired at the moment he thought it? Or is some action of the President, other than silent thought in his head, actually necessary to fire him?

Albaby

Umm, no. You completely ignore the fact that he issued no EO or other informal directive.

I think you don't read what other people write. You're aware that EO's come from the President, right? That's kind of fundamental.

All I'm merely asking for is the exact procedure here. You're waving your hands again.

The procedure is fairly clear - there's an Executive Order laying it out

You mean this one?
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B014...

It dates from Nixon, btw.

1. "Both unnecessary classification and over-classification shall be avoided. Classification shall be solely on the basis of national Approved For Release 2005/06/07 : CIA-RDP80B01495R000200090013-0  Approved For Rele se 2005/06/07: CIA-RDP80B01495R0O 200090013-0 security considerations. In no case shall information be classified in order to conceal inefficiency or administrative error, to prevent embarrassment to a person or Department, to restrain competition or independent initiative, or to prevent for any other reason the release of information which does not require protection in the interest of national security. "

Hmm. Wonder if that's the case.
https://metrovoicenews.com/cocktail-napkin-among-i...
Items recovered in the raid, which some political observers say has created a serious constitutional crisis because Trump will likely face Joe Biden in 2024, includes notes from North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and even a cocktail napkin. Also taken from the home is a personal letter from former President Barack Obama to Trump, sources told the Wall Street Journal.

A list of the unclassified items found in the boxes was about 100 pages long ' and included the cocktail napkin and a birthday dinner menu, according to a Washington Post.

Dope1: You're aware that EO's come from the President, right?

And you're aware there was no such EO issued, right?

And there's no apostrophe in EOs... it plural.

Dope1: All I'm merely asking for is the exact procedure here.

I gave you the link. Use it.

And there's no apostrophe in EOs... it plural.

Is that all you have? Limp.

And you're aware there was no such EO issued, right?

Sure. Are future Presidents bound by past Presidents' EOs?

And BTW. It's beyond amusing watching you people suddenly become concerned with protecting classified information.

You mean this one?

No. That's the Nixon-era one, as you noted. Subsequent Presidents have issued their own variations on it. I think the most recent one was the Obama-era one, since I don't believe that Trump issued a replacement one - so this would be it:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-off...

Hmm. Wonder if that's the case.

Perhaps not, though the article you linked isn't really relevant to that point. Something doesn't necessarily need to be classified in order to remain governmental property and a Presidential record (like the notes from Kim Jong Un). Certain governmental records are the subject of criminal statutes (like the one I linked to upthread). Other governmental records are simply the property of the government, not the President as an individual, and are required to remain with the government even though they are not classified.

The cocktail napkin and birthday dinner menu are certainly not among them - they were almost certain taken simply because they were in the same box as other materials that were properly seized (and were likely given back to the President, assuming he asked for them).

None of that affects his liability for the records that he did take and retain even though they were either classified or related to national defense.

Perhaps not, though the article you linked isn't really relevant to that point. Something doesn't necessarily need to be classified in order to remain governmental property and a Presidential record (like the notes from Kim Jong Un). Certain governmental records are the subject of criminal statutes (like the one I linked to upthread). Other governmental records are simply the property of the government, not the President as an individual, and are required to remain with the government even though they are not classified.

Except that the kerfluffle here is over superdupersecret classified info. I agree with you that a baseball bat and a cocktail napkin aren't that. I would disagree with you in characterizing *either* as government property.

None of that affects his liability for the records that he did take and retain even though they were either classified or related to national defense.

As I said upthread, I find this whole thing really amusing. As you guys build your case against Trump and prepare his jail cell, you're also building one for Hillary! and one for Biden.

Except that the kerfluffle here is over superdupersecret classified info. I agree with you that a baseball bat and a cocktail napkin aren't that. I would disagree with you in characterizing *either* as government property.

Classified info is government property. A cocktail napkin almost certainly isn't. The baseball bat might be - some gifts to the President as President aren't his to keep, personally. Some belong to the U.S.

As I said upthread, I find this whole thing really amusing. As you guys build your case against Trump and prepare his jail cell, you're also building one for Hillary! and one for Biden.

I think the only reason you find it amusing is because you're not paying attention to specifics of the criminal statutes.

It's not a crime to retain classified documents you're allowed to have. It's (generally) not a crime to keep classified documents you acquired when you were legally allowed to obtain them, even after your authority to have classified information has ended. Trump frequently used Mar-a-Lago for business when he was President, and it was perfectly fine for him to have classified documents there - and merely having them stay there after his term ended would not have constituted a crime.

The criminal violations all would have occurred after the government asked for that material back. Once they've notified you that you have national defense documents, if you willfully refuse to give them back then you are committing a federal crime. If you take steps to conceal the fact that you are failing to give them back, you are committing another federal crime. If you lie about the steps you took to conceal your failure to give them back, it's yet another crime. The crime isn't "mishandling" classified material that you're legally entitled to possess - it's when you willfully refuse to return the material that you start facing criminal jeopardy.

None of that is present with Clinton or Biden.

Classified info is government property. A cocktail napkin almost certainly isn't. The baseball bat might be - some gifts to the President as President aren't his to keep, personally. Some belong to the U.S.

It would be interesting to see some prosecutor try Trump for a baseball bat.

I think the only reason you find it amusing is because you're not paying attention to specifics of the criminal statutes.

Heh. I've family in the classified info business. I'm well aware of classification levels and what revealing stuff means.

It's not a crime to retain classified documents you're allowed to have.

Double heh. As I said, as you measure the curtains for Trump's cell, take care to ensure that Biden's windows get some also: He had docs from back when he was a Senator. So there is no legal defense - tenuous or otherwise - for him.

Still want to go here?

None of that is present with Clinton or Biden.

Sure about that?
In Hillary!'s case, she stored Top Secret or better material on an unsecured server (also a violation) in an unsecured location (another violation).

"As you guys build your case against Trump and prepare his jail cell, you're also building one for Hillary! and one for Biden."

As long as the tRump goes to jail, I'll happily pay that price.
He's the biggest threat to democracy in US history.
He's literally an existential threat!

As long as the tRump goes to jail, I'll happily pay that price.
He's the biggest threat to democracy in US history.
He's literally an existential threat!

Sure, okay :)

Still want to go here?

None of that is present with Clinton or Biden.

Sure about that?

Yes and yes.

Again, the criminal statute that Trump probably violated is 18 U.S. Code § 793. You can find a link at the bottom of my post - but in a nutshell, that section of the Code makes it a crime to refuse to give back national defense material that you possessed legally, when asked to return it by the government.

Neither Biden nor Clinton did that.

Mishandling classified information is often a violation of the rules governing classified information - but many such violations are not criminal. Only specific actions are crimes. Taking classified information out of where it is supposed to be kept for the purpose of giving it to someone not authorized to see it is a crime. Taking classified information out of where it is supposed to be kept if you have the authority to do that generally is not (there are exceptions); it is a violation of the non-criminal rules for how classified information is supposed to be treated, but it is not a crime under the relevant statute (18 USC 1924, also linked below).

These are not meaningless distinctions. Section 793 and Section 1924 are two very different statutes, they have very specific and very different elements that need to exist before a crime has been committed, and no one can be prosecuted unless all of those elements are present. Trump's behavior establishes all of the elements of Section 793 - he lawfully possessed national defense information, but then willfully refused to return it to the government upon the request of an officer or agent of the government. There is some pretty strong evidence that his behavior in failing to return the documents to the government was knowing, intentional, and done for the purpose of wrongfully retaining possession.

Biden and Clinton's behavior does not establish all of the elements of Section 1924 - although they retained documents at an unauthorized location, they both had the authority to remove the documents from their initial repositories (and there is no evidence of the requisite intent of willful and intentional (not negligent) mishandling of documents necessary to support criminal charges under various other statutes).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

The War Party wanted Trump to attack Iran.

he didn't .


Of course, the Google Jockey can explain it away.


In the end, they want more war.

Some die, some get paid.

I made the mistake of supporting the first boondoggle.

Ok, the Establishment needs mass war for eventual resets. To fulfill their duty to defense companies, think tanks, and to be Israel's mule. Fine I get it.

Thank you President Trump for not taking the bait that time. But, you are still an idiot for not selling these people out, taking all the info, selling it to Saudi and Russia and China, and having your pick of the litter business and lifestyle wise abroad. I hate wasted opportunities.

Again, the criminal statute that Trump probably violated is 18 U.S. Code § 793. You can find a link at the bottom of my post - but in a nutshell, that section of the Code makes it a crime to refuse to give back national defense material that you possessed legally, when asked to return it by the government.

Neither Biden nor Clinton did that.

You're forgetting this one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924
(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

That's both Biden and Hillary!. When do the trials start?

Biden and Clinton's behavior does not establish all of the elements of Section 1924 - although they retained documents at an unauthorized location, they both had the authority to remove the documents from their initial repositories (and there is no evidence of the requisite intent of willful and intentional (not negligent) mishandling of documents necessary to support criminal charges under various other statutes).

They most certainly DID NOT have said authority. As a Senator, Biden possessed no such authority and just about zero as Vice President. Hillary!, while cleared for some NO FORN material, did NOT have the authority to set up an unauthorized server and fling classified material around the internet.

Still very few abandoning Trump. I'm not even sure a conviction would make a dent. There must be a tipping point though. Were you New Echota?

What the democrats and the left fail to understand the republicans and those of the right seldom pay attention to all the Trump accusations anymore.

It has been one constant witch hunt after another, sometimes two and three at a time from the moment Trump announced he was running for president.
So it's shrug, another witch hunt? Big eye roll. Who cares?

Yes, commonone is New Echota.

You're forgetting this one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

That's both Biden and Hillary!.

I didn't forget it. I linked to it in my post.

It's neither Biden or Hillary.

The elements of the crime cited above are:

- becomes possessed of documents containing classified materials
- knowingly removes them without authority
- has the intent to retain them at an unauthorized location

Neither Biden nor Hillary meet the second or third element. The second element relates to removal of the documents from where they are. Senators and Vice Presidents and Secretaries of State routinely travel as part of their official duties, and are (generally) allowed to take classified information out of their government offices and take it with them to work on in other locations. Just like Trump, there also doesn't appear to be anything that proves that Biden (as opposed to a third party) was the one who actually removed the documents to bring them to his home/office or that he was aware that the documents contained classified information.

The third element requires the government to prove that their intent was to retain the documents at an authorized location - but both Biden and Clinton asserted that they were genuinely unaware that classified information remained in the locations it wasn't permitted to be. There's no evidence that Biden intended the documents found in his home or office to be retained there, rather than returned when he was done with them.

If there was evidence that Biden or Clinton was guilty of violating Section 1924, then such evidence would also exist for Trump. I don't think it exists for any of them. You have to prove that the removal (not where they brought the documents) was unauthorized, and I don't think that can be established for any of them.

When do the trials start?

Republicans spent a lot of years investigating HRC, and very little came out of it that was actionable. However, I have no problem with prosecution if there is something actionable. No one is above the law. I think less has been made of Biden, but if he broke the law then have at him.

There is sufficient partisanship (i.e. Republicans in positions of power) that if something were there, it would be acted upon. So far, nada. Even after four years of Trump and hyper-republicans like Bill Barr, nothing. So either Republicans are incompetent, and there was not sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. I tend to think that the right has at least some people of sufficient competence that if there was something, trials would have been held and people would have been fined (or imprisoned).

It's neither Biden or Hillary.
Nope, both.

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.


(a) Officer, employee, contractor, etc. - check
(b) Became in posession of docs and materials w/classified information? Check
(c) Knowingly removed said documents without authority? Check
(d) Intent to retain? Check, despite the BS that Comey laid out for Hillary!. She had that server running for a long time.
(e) Unauthorized location? Check.

Neither Biden nor Hillary meet the second or third element.

How can you possibly argue this? Taking satellite photos out of the SCIF is enough intent right there, in Hillary!'s case. You're also seriously arguing that Hillary!'s server didn't represent document retention in an unauthorized place.

Come on, man.

but both Biden and Clinton asserted that they were genuinely unaware that classified information remained in the locations it wasn't permitted to be.

Do you know where the highest concentration of innocent men are on Planet Earth? Answer: any jail. How do you know? Answer: Just ask them.

Come on, man.



The second element relates to removal of the documents from where they are. Senators and Vice Presidents and Secretaries of State routinely travel as part of their official duties, and are (generally) allowed to take classified information out of their government offices and take it with them to work on in other locations.

No and no. You're not allowed to waltz into the NRO, ask to see stuff in a SCIF, then say, "Hold on a second, I need to forward this to my bathroom server". No. Doesn't happen.

Republicans spent a lot of years investigating HRC, and very little came out of it that was actionable.

Hillary!
1. Illegally removed classified information from government servers
2. Set up a server in her house where this stuff was stored
3. Routinely transmitted said information all over the place in an unsecure way
4. Routinely allowed access to all the information to those not authorized to have it

Those facts aren't in dispute. James Comey didn't want democrats rioting in the streets if he clapped her in irons before the Presidential election, so he invented this "no reasonable prosecutor" nonsense and went on TV with it. Never mind that his role did not allow him to make that determination as he wasn't a prosecutor himself.

This thread is a masterpiece of wishcasting by those who want the law to apply to 1 guy but not allow it to apply to other - and even more egregiously guilty people - by virtue of who belongs to which political party.

Taking satellite photos out of the SCIF is enough intent right there, in Hillary!'s case. You're also seriously arguing that Hillary!'s server didn't represent document retention in an unauthorized place.

You have proof that Clinton was the one who took the satellite photo out of the SCIF? I would expect nearly all of the instances of classified information in her servers came from people sending it to her. But I'm open to being shown that's not the case.

Do you know where the highest concentration of innocent men are on Planet Earth? Answer: any jail. How do you know? Answer: Just ask them.

True, but irrelevant. For a specific intent crime, you need to prove that they had the requisite knowledge and intent. Absent evidence, you can't convict. So you have to prove that Biden knew there were some classified documents in a box in a closet in his old office at the think tank. Not an easy thing to do.

You're not allowed to waltz into the NRO, ask to see stuff in a SCIF, then say, "Hold on a second, I need to forward this to my bathroom server". No. Doesn't happen.

Again - any evidence that this is what happened? That Clinton entered the SCIF and forwarded classified material to herself? That she was the one who removed it?

You can't pin that label on me. If you have a case, prosecute her. I don't care. No one is above the law, and if someone breaks it -no matter how much I like or dislike them-, prosecute.

I also don't think you can hit albaby with that label. He just analyzes the law, and the facts available, and explains what is required to achieve a given hurdle set up within the law (e.g. intent). For years on TMF he was saying there wasn't enough (at the time) to prosecute Trump, much to the consternation of the left. He doesn't seem to be particularly partisan in his analyses.

You can't pin that label on me. If you have a case, prosecute her. I don't care. No one is above the law, and if someone breaks it -no matter how much I like or dislike them-, prosecute.

Sadly, we live in an age where the rule of law isn't being equally applied across the spectrum, so we won't see that.

You have proof that Clinton was the one who took the satellite photo out of the SCIF? I would expect nearly all of the instances of classified information in her servers came from people sending it to her. But I'm open to being shown that's not the case.

She was caught with raw satellite images on her server, the kinds of things that live in SCIFs:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-spy-satellite-se...

After months of denials and delaying actions, Hillary Clinton has decided to turn over her private email server to the Department of Justice. As this controversy has grown since the spring, Clinton and her campaign operatives have repeatedly denied that she had placed classified information in her personal email while serving as secretary of state during President Obama's first term. ('I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received,' she said last month.) Her team also denied that she would ever hand over her server to investigators. Now both those assertions have been overturned.

(I paste the above to get past the 'intent to hold on to' the information argument, as she clearly did)

So what did she have?
Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of 'TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,' according to the inspector general's report.

Top secret - self explanatory
SI = Special intelligence, which is info derived from intercepted communications
TK = Talent Keyhole. The original bunch of spy satellites were designated "KH-(some number)" and were referred to as "Keyhole" (as in, looking through someone's keyhole). TK therefore refers to material gleaned from a satellite asset.

So. She had spy sat data on her server. There's no universe where SI data derived from a spy satellite isn't classified and there's really no universe where that information would be allowed outside a SCIF.

So who removed it? The cool thing about high levels of clearance is that the number of people with access to it is very small. Nobody on Herself's staff at State would have had such access.

But, wait! There's more!
Any personal items'computers, electronics'where federal investigators suspect the classified material wound up, wrongly, will be impounded and searched. If it has TOP SECRET//SI information on it, 'your' computer now belongs to the government, because it is considered classified.

So her closet server, since it had all that info on it, was technically government property all along.

Oh, and I forgot to mention - she erased several emails from it. Isn't destroying evidence a crime? Because destroying government property sure is.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-de...
In late 2014, the State Department asked Clinton and other former secretaries of state to hand over any work-related emails they may have.

By then, Clinton had already "deleted some [emails] over time as an ordinary user would," FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers at a July congressional hearing.

And she tasked her legal team to determine which of the roughly 60,000 emails still on her server were work-related.

"Clinton told the FBI that she directed her legal team to provide any work-related or arguably work-related emails to State; however she did not participate in the development of the specific process to be used or in discussions of the locations of where her emails might exist," the FBI concluded in its investigative summary of the case.

And by the way. Her lawyers that were examining the server...did they have security clearances? Bet they didn't.

Dope1: How can you possibly argue this? Taking satellite photos out of the SCIF is enough intent right there, in Hillary!'s case.

Never happened. And no one has ever accused Clinton of removing anything from a SCIF (except in CrazyTown).


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-top-secre...

LOL. It's clear you don't know the first thing about how info is handled at that level.

Do you honestly think somebody sits around and hand-stamps TOP SECRET with a big red ink thing on the literally millions of pieces of information that flows into the government every hour?

Do you understand that some information comes from sensitive places and that we don't want it out there? And sometimes even if the information isn't that revealing, we still don't want to give away HOW we obtained it or how accurate/precise our methods of gathering it are?

All your PBS linky does is further hammer home what she did
they have since been slapped with a 'TK' marking, for 'Talent Keyhole,' suggesting material obtained by spy satellites

LOLOLOLOL. Do you think that ANYTHING that comes off a spy satellite ISN'T classified TS/TK?

Tell me you don't know anything about how we gather intelligence without telling me you don't know anything about how we gather intelligence.

She was caught with raw satellite images on her server, the kinds of things that live in SCIFs:

So? Again, you have to prove up the actual elements of the crime. One of the elements is that the person has to remove the classified material. Not be in possession of it. They have to be the one to remove it.

Again, if you have anything that shows that Clinton removed that photo from the SCIF, I'd like to see it. The most likely scenario is that someone sent it to her, not that she sent it to herself. But if there's any evidence that shows that she was the one who sent that particular file to herself, let's see it.

Isn't destroying evidence a crime?

Usually not. There are specific, limited circumstances where it would be. Here in Florida, for example, we have a statute that prohibits tampering with physical evidence - and even then, only when they know there's a pending criminal trial, proceeding, or investigation by a law enforcement agency and the destruction is with the intent to impair its availability in such proceeding. Destroying things for other purposes, even if it later turns out to have been evidence, isn't a crime. The federal provision doesn't apply to Congressional inquiries, so it's not applicable:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519

Her lawyers that were examining the server...did they have security clearances? Bet they didn't.

They did. Most had held senior positions at State, and would have had high-level security clearances as part of that service. The others, David Kendall and Katherine Turner, separately obtained security clearances so that they could work on representing Clinton in this matter.

Never happened. And no one has ever accused Clinton of removing anything from a SCIF (except in CrazyTown).


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-top-secre...

Only one person on TMF was this good with detailed past information. Used to amaze me.

Dope1: LOL. It's clear you don't know the first thing about how info is handled at that level.

As albaby1 has established, you're the one in the dark here.


Dope1: LOLOLOLOL. Do you think that ANYTHING that comes off a spy satellite ISN'T classified TS/TK?

Two points:

1.) First, these were discussions, not photographs, of a U.S. drone strike that was part of a covert program that was "widely known and discussed" in newspapers, online, and on the air.

2.) Second, since these programs were "public," the information could have been collected independently by reviewing news outlets. Ultimately, there was ZERO EVIDENCE Clinton shared or retained anything TS/TK.

As Comey testified under oath, that although material was later "up classified" and determined by the owning agency to be classified, nothing was classified AT THE TIME it was emailed and not a single document had been correctly marked classified.

Dope1: Do you honestly think somebody sits around and hand-stamps TOP SECRET with a big red ink thing...

The owning agency has a responsibility to mark top secret documents top secret. Or do you think someone should know a document buried inside of a dozens-of-messages long email chain is the one that is top secret but unmarked?

And what exactly did the Inspector General determine?

Quoting the Inspector General here:

"There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information. The emails in question were sent to other government officials in furtherance of the senders' official duties. There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized systems.

Finally, no one is arguing that Clinton wasn't careless, she was. But nothing she did was criminal.

Trump taking the documents wasn't criminal behavior.

His potential crimes are:

1. Unauthorized retention of national security documents.
2. Obstruction. In this case, a possible charge that Trump knew he had records that the government was trying to find, and he willfully kept them from obtaining them.

And what is it with you Trump apologists? The guy is under investigation for multiple crimes and currently under indictment for one of them:

1. The New York State business fraud case (civil, not criminal).
2. Interference with the 2020 election results and presidential transfer of power in 2021. That includes the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 (including conspiracy, obstruction, and inciting insurrection).
3. Possession of classified documents at Trump's residence in Florida.
4. Wire fraud and money laundering through the Save America PAC.
5. The Georgia election (election violations, racketeering, and threatening public officials).

As albaby1 has established, you're the one in the dark here.

That's you hiding behind someone else now.

Your points that you think are advancing your argument aren't, actually: it doesn't matter if some strike had been in the news. You don't get to share TK data with anybody.

You don't get to remove it from the SCIF.
You don't get to house it on an unauthorized server.
You don't get to house the stolen material on an unauthorized server in an unauthorized location.
You don't get to house the stolen material on the unauthorized server in an unauthorized location and then allow people who don't have clearances to access it.

Hillary! did all of those things. And just the other day you complained about people not calling out Trump. Huh.

Thanks Albaby for making that clear. Helped me understand and remember.

Hillary! did all of those things.

You keep saying that - but you still haven't pointed to anything to suggest that Clinton was the one who initially removed the information from the SCIF, which is one of the things you list. The IG report on the matter actually suggests otherwise. It generally describes the classified information as being in emails that were sent to Clinton, not originating with her:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics/read-doj-i...

...which is one reason why Clinton wasn't charged with violating Section 1924. And the main reason why Trump is not going to be charged with violating it, either. There's no evidence that he removed those classified materials from their original locations, and it's very unlikely that he personally did it. Since being the one to remove the documents is one of the elements of that crime, and since neither he nor Clinton can be proven to be the one that removed the documents (and almost certainly weren't), neither of them is chargeable under Section 1924.

Albaby

You keep saying that - but you still haven't pointed to anything to suggest that Clinton was the one who initially removed the information from the SCIF,

Fine. She still was using a non-governmental email and was receiving classified information on it (which is an FOIA violation). Whoever sent it to her there is also is a felon.

She's still guilty of the rest of it. That's beyond question.

Hillary! wasn't charged because Comey didn't want riots. That's all.

She still was using a non-governmental email and was receiving classified information on it (which is an FOIA violation). Whoever sent it to her there is also is a felon.

She's still guilty of the rest of it. That's beyond question.

The "rest of it" isn't a crime, though. Which is the real reason she wasn't charged. FOIA violations aren't criminal. Many violations of procedures for handling classified information aren't criminal. The violations that are crimes require certain specific elements to be present, which elements weren't present here - for example, as we've discussed, to violate Section 1924 it is not enough to possess classified materials in an unauthorized location, but you have to have been the one who removed them from their initial location in the first place.

That's why Clinton wasn't charged with a crime. She didn't commit one. That's why Trump hasn't been charged with violating Section 1924. He didn't commit that crime.

If Trump is charged with a crime, it will almost certainly be based on a violation of the statutes that make it a crime not to give the classified material back, and because he tried to conceal his refusal to return the material from the government. Not simply because he had classified material in a place he wasn't supposed to.

That's why the situations are different, and why noting that Trump violated a criminal statute is not fitting a jail cell for Biden or Clinton.

The "rest of it" isn't a crime, though.

Welp, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Much like you don't have to actually steal the TV to be charged with possession of stolen goods Hillary! still violated the law 40 ways from Sunday.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us...

Here's merely one example of how seriously the feds take these sorts of things. Unless you're politically connected, that is.

Much like you don't have to actually steal the TV to be charged with possession of stolen goods Hillary! still violated the law 40 ways from Sunday.

That's because there is a separate criminal statute making it an offense to be in possession of stolen goods. If you didn't actually steal the TV, you can't be charged under the statute that makes it a crime to steal a TV. You can only be charged if there's another statute that makes what you're doing a crime.

This is not just an "agree to disagree" point. Clinton didn't violate the statute you were claiming she violated, because that crime requires the person to have actually removed the classified material from its initial location - not just to possess it in an unauthorized location. There are other criminal statutes that govern the unauthorized retention of classified information, but in order to violate those you have to have refused to return that material upon request. Trump did that, but Clinton and Biden did not.

Here's merely one example of how seriously the feds take these sorts of things.

Saucier was charged with a different provision of the law - 18 USC 793, which prohibits (among other things) taking photographs of military equipment for your own personal purposes.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/20...

In criminal law, there's no "these sorts of things." To charge someone with a crime, you need to have evidence that each of the specific elements of that crime have been met. You can't walk into court and claim that the defendant's behavior involved "the sorts of things" that other people have been convicted of. You have to identify the statute, and provide evidence that each and every element of the statutory crime has been met.

The reason Saucier was charged and Clinton wasn't is because Saucier actually committed a violation of a criminal statute, and Clinton didn't. Both mishandled classified information. But Saucier mishandled classified information in a way that constituted a federal crime as set forth in 18 USC 793....and Clinton did not.

What the democrats and the left fail to understand the republicans and those of the right seldom pay attention to all the Trump accusations anymore.

Kinda like the Catholics and the RCC pedophiles. They may be pedophiles, but they're their pedophiles, so it's coooool.

Albaby,

Thanks for this thread. Your rational, systematic approach to explaining the legal differences between Trump's potential crimes and the behavior of Clinton, Biden, Pence and others is very enlightening. Your willingness to engage unserious propaganda with serious consideration has been truly educational. You've convinced me that Trump might actually go to jail. My question is, can he still run in the primary if he's under indictment? If so, could he run if convicted?

PhoolishPhilip

If Trump goes to jail, what does the Secret Service do?

PhoolishPhilip: My question is, can he still run in the primary if he's under indictment? If so, could he run if convicted?

Yes and yes.

Under the constitution, all natural born citizens who are at least 35 years old and have been a resident of the U.S. for 14 years can run for president. There is no legal impediment to Trump continuing his presidential campaign while facing criminal charges ' even if he were jailed, legal experts say.

Besides, Trump will not go on trial before the election, let alone the primaries.

Another besides: the next republican president will pardon Trump (even if, keeping this on topic, heaven forbid, it's Trump himself).

https://time.com/6267458/can-trump-still-become-pr...

It's an interesting question about secret service and Trump in prison. I would assume he would be handed-off to corrections officials, and the secret service would stand down until such time as he is released.

...the next republican president will pardon Trump (even if, keeping this on topic, heaven forbid, it's Trump himself)

I don't think that will happen. He's too toxic. He can't win again because too many people will show up to oppose him (including some Republicans). And issuing a pardon (let's say DeSantis wins) doesn't really have any benefit. You appease a few hardcore Trumpies, and p-off practically everyone else. There's a reason most politicians are trying to distance themselves from him.

Way too early to call, but I'm not really seeing a Rep candidate that is exciting people. DeSantis was almost a shoe-in, and then he picked a fight with Disney. He's been floundering ever since. His own party is criticizing him for it, but he continues to double-down. I hear that Chris Christie is considering a run. He might actually get more support than DeSantis at this point. Not sure who else is in their stable right now.

With the economy improving, it's shaping up to be Biden in 2024. Lots of stuff could happen in the interim, so I'm not making a prediction. The QOP is a mess right now, and the economy is producing lots of jobs. If (big if) that continues, it doesn't look good for the Red Team.

You've convinced me that Trump might actually go to jail. My question is, can he still run in the primary if he's under indictment? If so, could he run if convicted?

I think there's a relatively low probability that he would ever go to jail. Mostly because there's a pretty low likelihood that he'd ever get convicted.

First there's the political side. He probably wouldn't go to trial until after the 2024 election. And if Trump were elected President in 2024, he would certainly pardon himself and the DOJ would stand down the prosecution. If another Republican is elected President, Trump will get pardoned as well.

Then there's the difficulty of getting a conviction. When I wrote my earlier posts about how this tape might affect the likelihood of conviction, I assumed that Trump was actually telling something close to the truth in his recorded statements. That he did, as he claimed, have a classified document in his possession that supported his position. That was a mistake. Apparently the Feds subpoenaed Trump for the document, though, and his lawyers have said they can't find it:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/02/politics/donald-tru...

Which raises the distinct possibility that Trump was just making up the existence of the document. That he was just lying - trying to bluff the journalists into not reporting the narrative Trump was trying to stop, by falsely claiming he had the receipts to refute it. He might have just made the whole thing up.

* * *

Finally, even if Trump were convicted of a crime, wasn't pardoned, and the conviction stuck on appeal, sentencing him to a term in jail seems very unlikely also. The security logistics of putting a former POTUS into a correctional facility would be insanely difficult to manage. Far more likely would be a for a judge to sentence him to house arrest - if not necessarily at his own house, which is far too luxurious, but perhaps in a residence on a military base.

Post New

Mechanical Investing FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.