"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,"
FBI agents who searched former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home Monday removed 11 sets of classified documents, including some marked as top secret and meant to be only available in special government facilities, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The list includes references to one set of documents marked as “Various classified/TS/SCI documents,” an abbreviation that refers to top-secret/sensitive compartmented information. It also says agents collected four sets of top secret documents, three sets of secret documents, and three sets of confidential documents. The list didn’t provide any more details about the substance of the documents.
USAToday has the warrant with a list of documents retrieved... https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22131375/warrant.pdf It includes various classified, secret and top secret documents. Edit:...
USAToday has the warrant with a list of documents retrieved...
Former President Donald Trump said in a lengthy statement Monday that the FBI was conducting a search of his Mar-a-Lago estate and asserted that agents had broken open a safe. A person familiar with the matter said the action was related to a probe of whether Trump had taken classified records from his White House tenure to his Florida residence.
The action, which the FBI and Justice Department did not immediately confirm, marks a dramatic escalation in law enforcement scrutiny of Trump and comes as he has been laying the groundwork to make another bid for president. Though a search warrant does not suggest that criminal charges are near or even expected, federal officials looking to obtain one must demonstrate that they have probable cause that a crime occurred.
I have to imagine the benchmark for "probable cause" is a hell of a lot higher when requesting a warrant against a former president.
Though a search warrant does not suggest that criminal charges are near or even expected, federal officials looking to obtain one must demonstrate that they have probable cause that a crime occurred.
I have to imagine the benchmark for "probable cause" is a hell of a lot higher when requesting a warrant against a former president.
The timing of this also makes me wonder if it's somehow related to the Alex Jones trial, where his attorneys accidentally sent the opposing attorney all of Jones' text messages, which were...
The timing of this also makes me wonder if it's somehow related to the Alex Jones trial, where his attorneys accidentally sent the opposing attorney all of Jones' text messages, which were recently handed over to the Jan 6th committee. Worth noting:
Most of the people Jones was texting were his employees and members of his family, the person familiar with the matter said.
But, the person familiar with the matter added, some of the text messages indicate Jones was in touch with Trump allies.
Jones was a central player on January 6. He was on restricted US Capitol grounds that day, riling up protesters, though he did not enter the building itself. He has rejected any suggestion that he was involved in the planning of violence, and claims he tried to prevent people at the Capitol from breaking the law.
Jones testified before the January 6 committee earlier this year, but he later said on his show that he repeatedly asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during the closed-door deposition.
p.s. This also makes me wonder if Jones' attorneys might not have actually done this by accident after all, and instead saw something of such importance in the texts that they felt compelled to bring it to light, despite the risks to their own careers by doing so. And the fact that they didn't even attempt to prevent the texts from being examined by claiming them as attorney-client privileged information, even after being informed of their supposed screw-up, and which they had every right (and an ethical obligation) to do, kind of backs up that theory.
I absolutely think this is the case. Occam's and Hanlon's razors are a bit at odds here but the probability that this could have been done by accident is … oof, it's ridiculously low. Even with...
This also makes me wonder if Jones' attorneys might not have actually done this by accident after all
I absolutely think this is the case.
Occam's and Hanlon's razors are a bit at odds here but the probability that this could have been done by accident is … oof, it's ridiculously low. Even with the sleaziest, cheapest, stupidest attorneys for the clients they would care the least about, it's really hard to accidentally do this.
It's also fun to picture lawyers as soulless beings who would never betray their clients no matter how bad things are, but they're actually humans and again, even the sleaziest ones have their limits. Jones either tested those limits, or regrets set in, or maybe this was their plan all along…
Or maybe humans are just multidimensional beings and these are lawyers who believe Jones deserves legal representation but justice can only meaningfully be served if all the context is available for all parties, and that context has implications beyond the client, thus they took the decision to share this material while retaining the plausible deniability that this is an accident.
It just makes me wonder what they saw that could possibly shock them into sharing it. I'm curious what it takes to rustle jimmies in a room full of lawyers.
It just makes me wonder what they saw that could possibly shock them into sharing it. I'm curious what it takes to rustle jimmies in a room full of lawyers.
I don't even think it has to be something so shocking. I'm not even certain they (defense lawyers) themselves found anything revolutionary. I would totally buy that the initial disclosure was...
I don't even think it has to be something so shocking. I'm not even certain they (defense lawyers) themselves found anything revolutionary. I would totally buy that the initial disclosure was indeed an accident, it was an easy and simple enough one to make. However the complete lack of follow-through is the crux of it. And there's a huge difference IMO between "I'm going to actively turn this over to prosecution" and "disclosure occurred and I should deal with it, buuuuuuuuuuut [REASONS]".
I feel like if you're getting a warrant against El Cheeto and you say to a judge that's been paying attention that you have "probably cause" the judge is going to ask you to narrow it down since...
I feel like if you're getting a warrant against El Cheeto and you say to a judge that's been paying attention that you have "probably cause" the judge is going to ask you to narrow it down since it's a likely to be a long list.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(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.
Some reports are highlighting this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias/status/1556794749377454080
Update: FBI recovered eleven sets of classified documents in Trump search, inventory shows
Not Even the President Can Declassify Nuclear Secrets
(Also, Biden might have reclassified the material.)
USAToday has the warrant with a list of documents retrieved...
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22131375/warrant.pdf
It includes various classified, secret and top secret documents.
Edit: Breitbart an unredacted version with the name of the special agent clearly outed (presumably from Trump)
I have to imagine the benchmark for "probable cause" is a hell of a lot higher when requesting a warrant against a former president.
Popehat says something similar, and implies something new may have emerged, possibly from January 6th investigations.
The timing of this also makes me wonder if it's somehow related to the Alex Jones trial, where his attorneys accidentally sent the opposing attorney all of Jones' text messages, which were recently handed over to the Jan 6th committee. Worth noting:
p.s. This also makes me wonder if Jones' attorneys might not have actually done this by accident after all, and instead saw something of such importance in the texts that they felt compelled to bring it to light, despite the risks to their own careers by doing so. And the fact that they didn't even attempt to prevent the texts from being examined by claiming them as attorney-client privileged information, even after being informed of their supposed screw-up, and which they had every right (and an ethical obligation) to do, kind of backs up that theory.
I absolutely think this is the case.
Occam's and Hanlon's razors are a bit at odds here but the probability that this could have been done by accident is … oof, it's ridiculously low. Even with the sleaziest, cheapest, stupidest attorneys for the clients they would care the least about, it's really hard to accidentally do this.
It's also fun to picture lawyers as soulless beings who would never betray their clients no matter how bad things are, but they're actually humans and again, even the sleaziest ones have their limits. Jones either tested those limits, or regrets set in, or maybe this was their plan all along…
Or maybe humans are just multidimensional beings and these are lawyers who believe Jones deserves legal representation but justice can only meaningfully be served if all the context is available for all parties, and that context has implications beyond the client, thus they took the decision to share this material while retaining the plausible deniability that this is an accident.
It just makes me wonder what they saw that could possibly shock them into sharing it. I'm curious what it takes to rustle jimmies in a room full of lawyers.
I don't even think it has to be something so shocking. I'm not even certain they (defense lawyers) themselves found anything revolutionary. I would totally buy that the initial disclosure was indeed an accident, it was an easy and simple enough one to make. However the complete lack of follow-through is the crux of it. And there's a huge difference IMO between "I'm going to actively turn this over to prosecution" and "disclosure occurred and I should deal with it, buuuuuuuuuuut [REASONS]".
I feel like if you're getting a warrant against El Cheeto and you say to a judge that's been paying attention that you have "probably cause" the judge is going to ask you to narrow it down since it's a likely to be a long list.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
Let’s not forget 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) – Gathering, transmitting or losing national defense information
John Mayall- Plan Your Revolution- recorded 1969 (youtube) https://youtu.be/tuw4BPMO6G0