Breaking! DOJ mistakenly (Yea Right!) exposes list of Trump files from Mar-a-Lago being vetted for privilege including medical records

[Marener]

Which will be never. I'm glad that you acknowledge that Garland could get an indictment Tuesday morning if he decided to.

The investigations are the goal of Operation Get Trump. No trial could convict him, and the DOJ knows it.

There is no operation get Trump. There is only Trump making stupid choices.

True or false: it’s legal to lie to the DoJ about your compliance with a grand jury subpoena.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Quote that law?

If just having the declassified documents is the crime, they have all the proof they need for an indictment.

Where is it?

The first code listed on the warrant is USC 18 subsection 793, which begins:

(a)
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,

Obviously that would not apply. Not going to wade through the other two subsections on the warrant, because I assume they would lead with the most applicable, and it does not apply at all.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Quote that law?

If just having the declassified documents is the crime, they have all the proof they need for an indictment.

Where is it?

Technical correction, the condition is "willfully retrained" not just "having".

To a layman (which I assume we both are) that would appear true.

However there is a lot of investigative work to establish history (all the way from noon on January, 2021 to the search warrant on August 8th). Their are investigations as to who possibly had illegal access, witnesses to be interviewed, affidavits to be generated. All takes times.

Patience. This is a high profile case and they are moving in such a manner as to not make a mistake.

WW

 

[scruffy]

Technical correction, the condition is "willfully retrained" not just "having".

To a layman (which I assume we both are) that would appear true.

However there is a lot of investigative work to establish history (all the way from noon on January, 2021 to the search warrant on August 8th). Their are investigations as to who possibly had illegal access, witnesses to be interviewed, affidavits to be generated. All takes times.

Patience. This is a high profile case and they are moving in such a manner as to not make a mistake.

WW

Complete waste of taxpayer money.

Garland needs to be impeached and removed first thing

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is no operation get Trump. There is only Trump making stupid choices.

True or false: it’s legal to lie to the DoJ about your compliance with a grand jury subpoena.

I would assume it would be, I haven't seen the statute.

If it is illegal and Trump did that, where's the indictment? That seems pretty cut-and-dried, the way you put it.

What exactly did Trump say that was a lie? Do you have the link?

 

[Marener]

The first code listed on the warrant is USC 18 subsection 793, which begins:

Keep reading. The relevant section is 793f

 

[WorldWatcher]

The first code listed on the warrant is USC 18 subsection 793, which begins:

(a)
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,

Obviously that would not apply. Not going to wade through the other two subsections on the warrant, because I assume they would lead with the most applicable, and it does not apply at all.

There is no doubt that the FPOTUS willfully retained the documents in his possession over the period of 12 months of stonewalling the NARA, 2 more months of stonewalling the NARA and FBI, failure to fully comply with a Grand Jury Subpoena all of which resulted in the search warrant.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

Technical correction, the condition is "willfully retrained" not just "having".

To a layman (which I assume we both are) that would appear true.

I guess. I don't get the point of those two sentences.

However there is a lot of investigative work to establish history (all the way from noon on January, 2021 to the search warrant on August 8th). Their are investigations as to who possibly had illegal access, witnesses to be interviewed, affidavits to be generated. All takes times.

Patience. This is a high profile case and they are moving in such a manner as to not make a mistake.

WW

That is the best case interprettation which would be applied to a trusted senior governent official.

The DOJ and the FBI have shown themselves to be anything but, especiallly when it comes to investigating Trump. If you are not aware of that google my sig as a start point to learn the sordid history of Operation Get Trump.

When do you expect an indictment? Trump's not a spring chicken, will he live to see it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Keep reading. The relevant section is 793f

Nah, no more wild goose chases. If you had time to find the relevant section, you had time to copy and paste it.

You tell me, since you're the one making the case.

 

[maybelooking]

I'm against a rogue FBI. That's what we have.

just respond to whatever he posts with. "I doubt it!"

 

[Marener]

Nah, no more wild goose chases. If you had time to find the relevant section, you had time to copy and paste it.

You tell me, since you're the one making the case.

f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

 

[Seymour Flops]

View attachment 707750

There is no doubt that the FPOTUS willfully retained the documents in his possession over the period of 12 months of stonewalling the NARA, 2 more months of stonewalling the NARA and FBI, failure to fully comply with a Grand Jury Subpoena all of which resulted in the search warrant.

WW

So, it is section (e), not section (f) as you said in the other post. For (e) to apply, Trump would have to have unauthorized possession of documents. He was authorized by himself as president, and by representatives of the next president who inspected his storage of those documents.

EDIT: Sorry, it was Marener who said section (f), not you.

Sounds like you're both guessing, though.

(f) would require that he gave the documents to a bad actor or had them stolen and not reported the theft.

The lawyers at the DoJ know this, which is why they are not going to indict him, ever.

 

[Seymour Flops]

f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

See my reply to WW.

 

[WorldWatcher]

When do you expect an indictment? Trump's not a spring chicken, will he live to see it?

IMHO?

Just speculation of course, but 6 months after August which would be next spring, not counting any delaying tactics that the FPOTUS will use. Such tactics would extend that time.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

IMHO?

Just speculation of course, but 6 months after August which would be next spring, not counting any delaying tactics that the FPOTUS will use. Such tactics would extend that time.

WW

I highly doubt there will ever be an indictment. I'd offer you a wager on it, but I have one going with forkup already, and I've had a bad experience in the past wagering with more than one poster over the same outcome.

If you want to follow the wager results, forkup predicted by the end of 2023, so either I'll be taking a week off the board before that, or Jan 1, 2024 will be celebrated by me as the kickoff of the second Trump campaign, while forkup takes a week off.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, it is section (e), not section (f) as you said in the other post. For (e) to apply, Trump would have to have unauthorized possession of documents. He was authorized by himself as president, and by representatives of the next president who inspected his storage of those documents.

EDIT: Sorry, it was Marener who said section (f), not you.

Sounds like you're both guessing, though.

(f) would require that he gave the documents to a bad actor or had them stolen and not reported the theft.

The lawyers at the DoJ know this, which is why they are not going to indict him, ever.

The search warrant identifies 18USC793 (without paragraph). The DOJ response to the court cites 18 U.S.C 793 (Willful Retention), which in my reading means (e).

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

View attachment 707756

The search warrant identifies 18USC793 (without paragraph). The DOJ response to the court cites 18 U.S.C 793 (Willful Retention), which in my reading means (e).

WW

Yes, you boxed the last phrase which talks about willful retention, but you neglect the first phrase which I circled.

Trump's possession of the documents was not unauthorized. As president, he had authority to authorize himself to have them. If President Biden had demanded them back, they might have a case. Absent that, long standing precedent allows a president to keep copies of documents that he used during his term.

Every president, since and including G. Washington, did it. Obama, who chose to give thousands of classified document to the presidential library effectively controlled by himself. We don't know what documents from the White House he took with himself personally, becuase he was the least transparent president in history.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, you boxed the last phrase which talks about willful retention, but you neglect the first phrase which I circled.

View attachment 707758
Trump's possession of the documents was not unauthorized. As president, he had authority to authorize himself to have them. If President Biden had demanded them back, they might have a case. Absent that, long standing precedent allows a president to keep copies of documents that he used during his term.

Every president, since and including G. Washington, did it. Obama, who chose to give thousands of classified document to the presidential library effectively controlled by himself. We don't know what documents from the White House he took with himself personally, becuase he was the least transparent president in history.

Trump's ability to retain government records ended at noon on January 20, 2021. Failure to surrender government property after that point in time is illegally "willfully retraining".

We are not talking about possession of records PROR to noon on January 20, 2021. We are talking about his illegal possession of government property AFTER noon on that day. May 2022, June 2022, and August 2022 all fall after the time where his term in office (and therefore is ability to retain) had expired.

WW

 

[Seymour Flops]

Trump's ability to retain government records ended at noon on January 20, 2021. Failure to surrender government property after that point in time is illegally "willfully retraining".

We are not talking about possession of records PROR to noon on January 20, 2021. We are talking about his illegal possession of government property AFTER noon on that day. May 2022, June 2022, and August 2022 all fall after the time where his term in office (and therefore is ability to retain) had expired.

WW

If that's true, then every president before Trump needs to be prosecuted first.

Again, precedent counts, even if you really hate the latest former president.

 

[bripat9643]

Absolutely. The lawyers at the DoJ are quite smart and good at what they do.

Don’t give Trump any wiggle room. He will exploit it.

The problem is that those lawyers are not honest.