"It's not theirs, Its mine"

Part 3


Much as the agency’s discretion in deciding which cases to charge is informed by its prior treatment of similar cases, DOJ also looks to prior cases when it comes to proposing sentences. The decision about the length of a sentence is up to the court following a trial, as in the Ford case. But a guilty plea is an agreement between the government and the defendant, and there, the choice of sentence, which judges can but don’t often depart significantly from, is largely in DOJ’s hands. So examining cases where high-level government officials were involved is instructive.

In 2001, former CIA Director John Deutch entered into a plea agreement with the government pursuant to an information. Although most cases are indicted before a grand jury, when a defendant has reached an agreement with the government before he is charged and is willing to waive the grand jury process, the government typically charges that defendant via a document called an information that bears the relevant U.S. Attorney’s signature. After Deutch left the CIA, agents discovered he had been using his home computers, which were not configured to handle sensitive material, to store highly classified information. Deutch pled guilty to a misdemeanor and was charged with unauthorized removal and retention of 96 classified documents. In exchange for his plea, the government recommended that Deutch serve no time in prison.

In 2012, another CIA director, David Petraeus resigned and pled guilty to retaining classified documents at his residence and permitting a woman he was having an affair with to use them in connection with research she was conducting to write his biography. Petraeus lied to the FBI when they questioned him about it. The information she accessed included identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, and more. He was permitted to plead guilty, like Deutch, to one count of retaining materials and was sentenced to probation.

Those sentences sound outrageous at first glance, particularly in comparison with Ford’s. Certainly, they didn’t make anyone at DOJ happy. But they recognize the practical reality that going to trial to obtain a custodial sentence in either case would have required the disclosure of highly sensitive, classified material in order to have the necessary evidence available to convict. The government wasn’t willing to tolerate the damage that would’ve done to national security. A former senior Justice Department official calledthe outcome of Petraeus’s case the “cleanest” possible outcome for both sides.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder declined to comment at the time he approve Petraeus’s plea deal. After leaving office, he was asked if it was unfair to let Petraeus plead to a misdemeanor while people in lower-ranking jobs were vigorously prosecuted for similar crimes. Holder responded: “There were factors that made the resolution of the case appropriate. There were some unique things that existed in that case that would have made the prosecution at the felony level and a conviction at the felony level very, very, very problematic.” It’s difficult to protect a former high-ranking official—and the national secrets they have knowledge of—inside a prison. The risk is great.

This prior precedent is why, Trump, if he were smart, would have already gotten himself in front of a judge to say the word “guilty.” It would likely have been to a misdemeanor. And Trump, being Trump, would have likely called a misdemeanor conviction with no sentence a witch hunt and used it to raise money. The course he is currently on is one that makes a felony indictment, a trial, and a sentence that involves some type of custody the likely outcome.

Some defendants don’t take anything seriously until they see an indictment in front of them. That piece of paper can change things. But Trump, already under indictment in Manhattan, may not view a second indictment any more soberly than he seems to have the first one. He’s built a career on outsmarting the system, at least in his own mind.

Trump would do well, nonetheless, to take to heart the Fourth Circuit’s words when they affirmed conviction, writing that his “actions exposed classified information to discovery by a person without a security clearance and created a potential for serious harm to our nation’s security.” That’s the standard, and Trump is in serious trouble, as he should be.

Admittedly juries are fraught—anything can happen with the dual requirements of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a unanimous jury verdict. Still, the smart move, or at least the best one for someone in Trump’s position with any survival instincts, would be to try to strike a misdemeanor plea deal. His attorneys, some of whom spent time at DOJ, undoubtedly know this and have advised him accordingly. But Trump hasn’t done that, at least not so far, and no one seems to really expect it.




 
Monday night, we got the first reports that something might be happening in Florida—a grand jury was meeting there on a matter related to Trump and the documents. That wasn’t the big news everyone was geared up for, with most of the media on Trump indictment watch in Washington, D.C. But by Tuesday morning, members of the media were hightailing it to the federal courthouse in Miami in search of the proceedings. There are two other courthouses in the district, notably one in the West Palm Beach division where Mar-a-Lago is located, that have space designated for a grand jury.

(full article online)


 
Taylor Budowich, who has worked as a spokesman for Donald Trump, has arrived at the federal courthouse in Miami to appear before a grand jury as part of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the former president’s handling of classified documents.

Budowich and his attorney, Stanley Woodward, declined to answer questions as they arrived.

Still aligned closely with the former president, Budowich now runs a super PAC backing Trump called MAGA, Inc.

The grand jury based in southern Florida has heard testimony from multiple witnesses in recent weeks as part of the federal investigation that has relied for months on grand juries in Washington, DC, to help gather evidence and witness testimony.

Smith’s investigation into potential mishandling of classified materials and possible obstruction appears to be nearing the final stages of the investigation.

It remains unclear why the special counsel is using a grand jury in southern Florida after months of relying on grand juries in Washington, DC, to help gather evidence and witness testimony in the classified documents case. Sources close to Trump told CNN they are unaware of the reasoning for the Florida grand jury.

Smith has the authority to operate and bring charges in any federal court jurisdiction. He has yet to bring any charges, and Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

In the early stages of the investigation, a search warrant for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort was approved by a court in south Florida. Since then, the Washington grand jury has been gathering evidence in the documents probe but hasn’t met since early May.

Notably, an assistant US attorney from the Miami office was present last August when the search warrant for classified material was executed at Mar-a-Lago, a source familiar with the event told CNN.

Questions about the venue for the classified documents investigation were raised before Smith’s appointment last November, as the probe involves the handling of documents brought from the White House to Trump’s resort in Florida.

Elie Honig, a senior CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, said there are benefits and drawbacks to bringing a case in either Florida or Washington, DC.

The difficulty for Smith, Honig said, is that Florida would be a more obvious place to file charges based on the actions at Mar-a-Lago, but Washington may give prosecutors a more favorable jury pool at trial to win a conviction if charges are brought.






 
But prosecutors alleged in the indictment that the records didn’t only stay in Mar-a-Lago’s chandelier-bedecked bathrooms, ballrooms, and storage rooms. They claim in the document to know of at least two episodes in which Trump moved “boxes” to his estate and golf resort in Bedminster, New Jersey.

Trump brandished classified records at Bedminster, prosecutors say, including a supposed invasion plan of Iran and a map. CBS reportedlast week that Trump attorneys had told the DOJ that they couldn’t find the Iran invasion plan.


Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor who has also defended national security cases, told TPM that “we don’t know what happened with that document, but you can bet that they’ll be talking about it at trial.”

He added that questions around where the records went could supplement arguments about Trump’s motive in the case.

Prosecutors stop just short in the indictment of saying that the boxes that went to Bedminster contained the records.


But take a look at paragraph 32 of the indictment here:

Screen-Shot-2023-06-12-at-3.26.46-PM-804x235.png

Immediately after this paragraph in the indictment, federal prosecutors unveiled the only two allegations they make of Trump communicating the classified information to third parties, both instances allegedly occurred at Bedminster.


In the first instance, Trump, prosecutors wrote, “showed and described” the “plan of attack” (on what CNN reported was Iran) while meeting with two people working on Mark Meadows’ autobiography. That took place in July 2021, two months after, prosecutors wrote, Trump allegedly moved “boxes” from Mar-a-Lago to New Jersey.

In the second instance, in either August or September 2021, Trump allegedly brandished what prosecutors described as a “classified map” related to a military operation to a person from his PAC. When the person looked at the document, prosecutors said, Trump warned them not to get “too close.”

To be clear, prosecutors have not charged Trump with transmission of national defense information, only retention.


Prosecutors allege another Bedminster-related incident in the indictment, this time after a federal grand jury issued a subpoena for classified records at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump, prosecutors say, dispatched Walt Nauta to move documents away from Evan Corcoran, the attorney charged with conducting a search of Mar-a-Lago to fulfill the terms of the warrant.

After a May 23 meeting with Corcoran, prosecutors say, Trump “delayed his departure from The Mar-a-Lago Club to The Bedminster Club for the summer so that he would be present at The Mar-a-Lago Club on June 2,” when Corcoran was scheduled to return to conduct the search.


Trump’s family members were still preparing to travel north, prosecutors wrote.

In one May 30 text exchange between Nauta and a “Trump family member,” the relative messaged Nauta to say that “Plane will be full with luggage” and that “we will NOT have a room for them.”

Nauta purportedly replied that Trump “wanted to pick from them. I don’t imagine him wanting to take the boxes.”

Over the next few days, at Trump’s direction, Nauta removed 64 boxes out of the Mar-a-Lago storage room and returned 30 of them, leaving 34 out of Corcoran’s review, prosecutors alleged.

On June 3, the day that FBI agents and DOJ counterintelligence section chief Jay Bratt arrived at Mar-a-Lago to receive a certification that Trump attorneys had conducted a complete search of the premises for classified records, Nauta allegedly moved “Trump’s boxes” onto an airplane:

Screen-Shot-2023-06-12-at-3.29.49-PM-804x88.png

So, where did the records go?

Prosecutors stop short of explicitly saying that the “boxes” contained classified records. But in addition to including in the indictment the two allegations of Trump brandishing classified records at Bedminster, prosecutors said in a September 2022 court filing that they believed more classified records remained missing.

Brian Greer, a former attorney in the CIA general counsel’s office, told TPM that the question of where the documents went “amounts to circumstantial evidence that would be relevant to an obstruction charge, and to a lesser extent to the willfulness element of an Espionage Act charge.”

“You’re not required to prove motive under the Espionage Act — just that it was willful, that he knew it was unlawful. But I’d still think that if they had a story they would tell it, and it’s curious as to why they didn’t.”

The ultimate fate of those records is unclear from the indictment. CNN reported earlier this year that Trump attorneys conducted searches of his properties after the FBI swooped down on Mar-a-Lago in August 2022


(full article online )


 


THREAD: 1 of 6. Trump’s comparison of his case with Bill Clinton’s sock drawer is not only incorrect, it is nonsensical. Here’s why. The Presidential Records Act says presidential records belong to the government, not the individual who served as president. …

2. Presidential records in general are those made by or for the president for use in official business. The statute contains detailed definitions of what is and is not a presidential record. …

3. Bill Clinton’s recordings were from his own interviews, qualifying as diaries, which the Presidential Records Act says are not presidential records. No law precluded Clinton from keeping them. …

4. Trump is charged not with violating the Presidential Records Act, but instead with violating the Espionage Act. The records Trump is alleged to have illegally retained are agency records, such as records of the CIA, NSA, and Department of Defense, not presidential records. …

5. Moreover, these records are covered by the Espionage Act because of their content—information about the national defense, which could be used to the injury of the United States or advantage of a foreign nation—US nuclear program, military capabilities of US & allies, etc.

6. And Trump is being charged not only because he kept them, but because he obstructed the investigation and lied about what he still retained. This is evidence of consciousness of guilt. If he really believed he could keep them, he would not have needed to lie about it. END.
 
Painting him as a security risk, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Sunday added his voice to those critical of former President Donald Trump for his handling of classified information after his presidency.

Esper, who served in Trump’s Cabinet, said: “People have described him as a hoarder when it comes to these type of documents. But clearly, it was unauthorized, illegal and dangerous.”

“We have a case playing out right now in Massachusetts where that young airman from the Massachusetts National Guard is being charged on similar types of accounts under the Espionage Act for taking and retaining unauthorized documents that affected our national defense,” Esper told host Jake Tapper.

Esper outlined scenarios in which the mishandling of classified documents could cause trouble for the United States.

“Imagine if a foreign agent, another country were to discover documents that outline America’s vulnerabilities or the weaknesses of the United States military,” he said. “Think about how that could be exploited, how that could be used against us in a conflict, how an enemy could develop countermeasures, things like that. Or in the case of the most significant piece that was raised in the allegation about U.S. plans to attack Iran, think about how that affects our readiness, our ability to prosecute an attack.”



(full article online)


 
You post nothing worth reading. That has a lot to do with it.
You do not like to read facts.
It is not what you want to hear, that is your problem. And you do have a HUGE one. You and many others.

Laugh all the way to 11/5/24

It is going to be quite a day.
 

Forum List

Back
Top