Honestly, this actually looks like the end for him. The fact that they found classified documents just in random PUBLIC places at his resort is just bad news for him. That, plus the recordings,...
Honestly, this actually looks like the end for him. The fact that they found classified documents just in random PUBLIC places at his resort is just bad news for him. That, plus the recordings, really makes this a slam dunk case.
The cynic in me is worried it happened to soon and the Republicans will manage to regroup behind someone else instead. I'm just hopeful he continues to run and splits the voters on that side.
The cynic in me is worried it happened to soon and the Republicans will manage to regroup behind someone else instead.
I'm just hopeful he continues to run and splits the voters on that side.
My bigger concern are nutjobs deciding to use this as a reason to go on shooting sprees. I don't think we're at super-serious risk of civil war or an organized uprising, and all the "calls to...
My bigger concern are nutjobs deciding to use this as a reason to go on shooting sprees. I don't think we're at super-serious risk of civil war or an organized uprising, and all the "calls to arms" and such on Twitter are just hot air. But there's enough mentally unstable fanatics with guns to have me worried about random incidents.
There are sitting congresspeople calling for “eye for an eye” over this. Stay safe out there, everyone. https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1667245094343254016?s=20
There are sitting congresspeople calling for “eye for an eye” over this. Stay safe out there, everyone.
Ya that was the first big indicator that the evidence is pretty damning against him. These lawyers don’t want to go down with the ship, so they bailed.
Ya that was the first big indicator that the evidence is pretty damning against him. These lawyers don’t want to go down with the ship, so they bailed.
It does look that way, until you learn that the judge assigned to the case is Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, who has already ruled egregiously in favor of Trump (in the initial proceedings...
It does look that way, until you learn that the judge assigned to the case is Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, who has already ruled egregiously in favor of Trump (in the initial proceedings around the classified documents).
DOJ can request that Cannon recuse herself, given the history, but they can't force her to, so there's no reason to believe she will. That means that at any point up until the jury returns a verdict, she can rule for acquittal and the whole thing goes away. (She can rule for acquittal even after a jury verdict I think but the rules are somewhat different iirc.)
If we're lucky we might still see a fair trial, but the cards are stacked against DOJ's case already I'm afraid.
While he was shown what appeared to be favortism before with Cannon, it might be different this time. She will have to consider her reputation when making a move like that. What side of that will...
While he was shown what appeared to be favortism before with Cannon, it might be different this time. She will have to consider her reputation when making a move like that. What side of that will be more detrimental? Of course, a judge SHOULD be completely impartial and uphold the law to the letter and the spirit....
Will she though? She's a federal judge. Doesn't she have a lifetime appointment, short of doing something criminal? I was gonna say short of unethical as well, but that doesn't seem to get judge...
She will have to consider her reputation when making a move like that.
Will she though? She's a federal judge. Doesn't she have a lifetime appointment, short of doing something criminal? I was gonna say short of unethical as well, but that doesn't seem to get judge (or pols) tossed these days. Even if Judge Cannon was to leave the courts, there will be some group or company ready to pick her up. Because of her reputation.
Anyway, I was definitely disappointed after seeing that Judge Cannon was assigned the case. Hopefully the DOJ's case is airtight. I read the whole indictment and it was pretty damning, but I will fully admit that I'm biased. And also not a lawyer.
Like you, I would hope she remains impartial. But she doesn't have a record of that. The opinion and order from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned her decisions in the initial documents lawsuit last fall was scathing and unambiguous. Definitely worth a read.
I have hope that in a case such as this one, she will actually let it play out. With how damning the evidence is, it could be very likely that if she unjustly does anything to help him get off...
I have hope that in a case such as this one, she will actually let it play out. With how damning the evidence is, it could be very likely that if she unjustly does anything to help him get off that she will be removed from the bench. Federal judges can be impeached just as much as any other official.
Edit: there is also this tweet that discusses other possibilities.
I do remember how that unfolded. I'm just thinking that this case might be kryptonite and she won't be able to "spin" it enough and come out of it with only a minor blemish. We shall see what...
I do remember how that unfolded. I'm just thinking that this case might be kryptonite and she won't be able to "spin" it enough and come out of it with only a minor blemish. We shall see what happens though!
Do you mean the "special master" decision? I haven't been following closely, but my superficial impression is that it was cautious rather than egregious.
Do you mean the "special master" decision? I haven't been following closely, but my superficial impression is that it was cautious rather than egregious.
I'd suggest reading either the summary of the case from the judge's wiki article or the full wiki entry. In general, if the government takes your stuff per a subpoena, you can't just go to a court...
In general, if the government takes your stuff per a subpoena, you can't just go to a court and get it back before they're done investigating. It doesn't even matter if they're searching for drugs and accidentally scoop up your rock collection -- indeed, if the drugs were stuffed in your geodes, that rock collection is evidence. To even bring a lawsuit against the government about seized property, you need to show all of the following (the Richey test):
The government displayed a “callous disregard” for your rights,
You have a need in the material that you want returned,
You would be irreparably harmed by the government’s retaining it, and
No other adequate remedies exist elsewhere.
As all four of these prongs must be satisfied, and as prongs 1-3 very clearly were not satisfied, Trump never even had standing to sue. The lawsuit should have been immediately dismissed. Indeed, three months later, the Eleventh Circuit did eventually order this lawsuit be dismissed for exactly this reason.
Nevertheless, let's consider the privilege argument. Of course, privileged material are excluded from an investigation -- and to that end, the government does have independent "taint teams" that sort this matter out -- but the notion that all of these documents were privileged was absurd on its face. At the very least, a fair judge would have asked Trump which subset of the documents he believed were privileged.
By the time the DOJ was required to respond to the lawsuit, they had already finished reviewing the documents for attorney-client privilege and were in the process of conducing a damage assessment with the US intelligence community. The judge stayed the criminal investigation pending a review for privilege while allowing the damage assessment to continue. My understanding is that the two investigations can't be neatly separately and that what she allowed for was effectively impossible. Nevertheless, consider the contradiction: the judge simultaneously ruled that privilege might apply to one part of the executive branch but not the other -- but if a document were truly privileged, it should have been barred from both investigations.
In his lawsuit, Trump took the maximalist position that executive privilege applied to all of the materials until proven otherwise, including the classified documents, without specifying why that privilege applied to any particular document. It was basically a lazy effort by Trump to have the court work out the details for him -- and it worked! To quote from wikipedia:
The Eleventh Circuit found that under [Judge] Cannon, "the district court stepped in with its own reasoning" multiple times to argue in favor of Trump, sometimes even taking positions that Trump would not argue before the appeals court.
(Notably, all three of the judges involved in the Eleventh Circuit decision were appointed by Republican Presidents, with two of them appointed by Trump himself.)
When it became clear the judge would appoint a special master, the DOJ tried to offer a compromise: at least let us continue our investigation of the classified documents. After all, some of these documents were so highly classified that the investigators needed extra security clearances just to review them. However, Judge Cannon rejected that motion, too, refusing to accept that the documents were classified "without further review by a neutral third party". Let me reiterate: Judge Cannon believed that a third party would be better equipped to determine whether a document was classified than the government. To make the matter worse, Trump never even argued in his filings that these documents were declassified. (Of course, he did famously say that he could declassify documents with his mind, but statements on Fox aren't subject to sanctions).
I haven't even discussed some of Trump's worst arguments (e.g., the Presidential Records Act isn't criminally enforceable, therefore this seizure was illegal). At the end of the day, Trump filed a poorly-pleaded lawsuit and never even demonstrated standing -- the absolute minimum requirement to this lawsuit -- yet the judge sided with him on virtually every issue, demonstrating extreme deference to the former President while maintaining extreme skepticism towards the government.
I guess it depends on what you consider 'cautious'. The special master ruling effectively put the FBI's investigation on hold at the request of Trump's counsel for no good reason and was reversed...
I guess it depends on what you consider 'cautious'. The special master ruling effectively put the FBI's investigation on hold at the request of Trump's counsel for no good reason and was reversed on appeal. Even a lot of conservatives (up to and including Barr) thought it was a bad call made most likely out of favor to Trump over any kind of thoughtfully considered jurisprudence.
You would think. If the law was applied equally you would be 100% correct. The problem is that there is a precedent set previously by former FBI Director James Comey in regards to Hilary Clinton...
You would think. If the law was applied equally you would be 100% correct. The problem is that there is a precedent set previously by former FBI Director James Comey in regards to Hilary Clinton not being prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. Again, if the law was applied evenly like it should then Trump should be held accountable. But selectively prosecuting people based off of politics is a terrible road to take, and we started down that path in 2016.
I don't think I can agree with the use of "equally" here. Surely the decision whether to prosecute something is, or should be, related to the weight of evidence. Wasn't there a preliminary...
I don't think I can agree with the use of "equally" here. Surely the decision whether to prosecute something is, or should be, related to the weight of evidence. Wasn't there a preliminary investigation of the allegations against Clinton, with no prosecution following because there simply wasn't much of a case? Whereas in Trump's situation there is a whole lot more there prima facie. The two situations seem hardly comparable.
For reference this is the statement released by then FBI Director James Comey. It pretty explicitly states what their investigation found which among other things were several classified...
For reference this is the statement released by then FBI Director James Comey. It pretty explicitly states what their investigation found which among other things were several classified documents. Some were as high as Top Secret, but that fact is incidental. The level of classification is irrelevant to the legal statute as far as I am aware. My reading of that statement is, paraphrasing, "yes she mishandled classified material, but we can't prove intent." The problem with this is that intent has no bearing on the law here. I myself have held a Secret clearance way back in the day. It was made painfully clear to me, repeatedly, that I was responsible for the handling of any classified material in my possession, and that any violation regardless of circumstance or intent would be punished.
Edit: Apparently intent absolutely does matter here as pointed out in a reply
Trump received 31 charges for violating a provision of the Espionage Act, which absolutely does require proving intent, so there really isn't a double standard here. U.S. Code Title 18 PART I...
Trump received 31 charges for violating a provision of the Espionage Act, which absolutely does require proving intent, so there really isn't a double standard here.
U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 37 § 793(e) (Willful Retention of National Defense Information):
(e)Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over 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 communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;
(Emphasis added.)
The other 5 charges were related to him obstructing justice.
You're right. This is why I'm just a dumb plumber and not a lawyer. I went to the text of Title 18 and read Code §793 and Code § 1924 and intent absolutely does matter. Thank you for giving me the...
You're right. This is why I'm just a dumb plumber and not a lawyer. I went to the text of Title 18 and read Code §793 and Code § 1924 and intent absolutely does matter. Thank you for giving me the impetus to actually read up on this and clear this up in my head.
No worries! I'm not a lawyer, either; I just listen to too many legal podcasts. :p I understand why you would have that impression about classified documents, though -- I'm sure your superiors...
No worries! I'm not a lawyer, either; I just listen to too many legal podcasts. :p I understand why you would have that impression about classified documents, though -- I'm sure your superiors were trying to scare you into being careful. For what its worth, I don't know of any cases where someone was convicted for possessing/removing a document merely by accident (but maybe there's a case somewhere?). I believe these cases always involve some sort of intention/deception.
There is even a completely different term for the accidental mishandling of classified information: spills. Spills occur with high frequency if you work in a high enough classified setting. My...
There is even a completely different term for the accidental mishandling of classified information: spills.
Spills occur with high frequency if you work in a high enough classified setting. My boss was recently responsible for a spill. She reported it to security, and nothing happened to her because it was clear it wasn't her intent. Hell, there is one guy who earned the nickname Spill for accidentally sending a highly classified email on the unclass system (it is typical to have 3 or more computers linked via a KVM switchboard on the same set of monitors and peripherals, one for unclass and each different classified system). He was a contractor too, which the government is typically less forgiving towards, but again, everything turned out fine for him.
The biggest difference in all these instances, including Biden and Pence having classified documents, is that reports were made to the proper channels to address the spill once it was learned about by the at fault party. Trump had an easy way out of this issue if he had returned the documents without fuss once they were discovered. Instead he demonstrated intent to retain these records for personal gain.
At this point, I'm assuming the blindfold Lady Justice wears is made out of pantyhose or window screen mesh lol. It's been obvious that there's at least two different justice systems for decades now.
At this point, I'm assuming the blindfold Lady Justice wears is made out of pantyhose or window screen mesh lol. It's been obvious that there's at least two different justice systems for decades now.
I am having a hard time mentally letting myself believe he might finally be held accountable for something. I've just been let down too many times! The world seems so so corrupt.
I am having a hard time mentally letting myself believe he might finally be held accountable for something. I've just been let down too many times! The world seems so so corrupt.
Ya, I decided to make a new thread as this links to the actual indictment charges that were announced today rather than just talking about him being indicted. Can remove it though if we want to...
Ya, I decided to make a new thread as this links to the actual indictment charges that were announced today rather than just talking about him being indicted. Can remove it though if we want to clean things up and keep them within the previous threads.
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to imply this topic wasn't worthy of its own submission. No need to remove it. I just wanted to point people to more articles/discussions on the overall issue, should they...
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to imply this topic wasn't worthy of its own submission. No need to remove it.
I just wanted to point people to more articles/discussions on the overall issue, should they want to read them. I do this for a lot of topics, even if the related topics are really old (e.g.). And in the past we have even talked about potentially automatically linking related topics together based on the unique combinations of topic tags, to help people more easily find related stuff.
With all the new users here, I probably should have been a bit more clear about the purpose of my comment though. Sorry about that.
All good! Makes perfect sense to include the other links as well! I’ll try to remember to do that myself if I post something that is related to another thread that is already posted (not a repost...
All good! Makes perfect sense to include the other links as well! I’ll try to remember to do that myself if I post something that is related to another thread that is already posted (not a repost but of similar top or developing news on a topic such as this one).
That would be cool. A few other people also do related topics comments as well, but the more the merrier, IMO. p.s. If something is actually a repost, as in it's the exact same link, we usually...
That would be cool. A few other people also do related topics comments as well, but the more the merrier, IMO.
p.s. If something is actually a repost, as in it's the exact same link, we usually apply the duplicate post tag to it. But even then that doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted (unless it's posted on the same day/week as the last time), since new people will likely be seeing it for the first time, and different discussions on the subject can still be had.
I have such trouble actually getting my hopes up about this kind of stuff. Seems like I've been seeing articles titled "this time Trump is ACTUALLY going to be held accountable!" for 7 years now....
I have such trouble actually getting my hopes up about this kind of stuff. Seems like I've been seeing articles titled "this time Trump is ACTUALLY going to be held accountable!" for 7 years now. I do want for something to actually come from this, but until they announce the prison time or whatever comes from this, it's just so hard for me to let myself get excited in any way.
Maybe my bar for expectations is pretty low, but so long as he can't hold public office again I'm strangely ok with him not being imprisoned. Pennsylvania was a nose hair away from having Senator...
Maybe my bar for expectations is pretty low, but so long as he can't hold public office again I'm strangely ok with him not being imprisoned.
Pennsylvania was a nose hair away from having Senator Dr. Oz. That told me everything I meed to know about the state of affairs, and any inching back from that ledge is much appreciated.
I'm pretty sure this can't bar him from holding office. The part of the relevant law that implies that is almost certainly unconstitutional if it came to it. I'm still hopeful this is the end of...
I'm pretty sure this can't bar him from holding office. The part of the relevant law that implies that is almost certainly unconstitutional if it came to it. I'm still hopeful this is the end of his political options at the very least
I’m curious as to how it is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment allows the the revoking of the ability to hold public office in cases of insurrection and treason. So the ability to block...
I’m curious as to how it is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment allows the the revoking of the ability to hold public office in cases of insurrection and treason. So the ability to block someone’s right to hold office is in the constitution. They probably can’t apply to the 14th Amendment to this case unless they can prove Trump sold documents or shared documents with foreign agents. Curious though, how the part of the law they are looking at in this case would be seen as unconstitutional?
He isn’t charged under that statute anyway which makes it moot. This is the law that bans people from holding office https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 But it’s not listed:...
He isn’t charged under that statute anyway which makes it moot.
This is the law that bans people from holding office
Without defending or supporting either ones' actions, here is how I see the difference: Snowden - Leaks classified information to the entire world so that anyone can see/read it. Things that you...
Without defending or supporting either ones' actions, here is how I see the difference:
Snowden - Leaks classified information to the entire world so that anyone can see/read it. Things that you average citizen probably shouldn't have any knowledge on, now has access to everything. Former government employee. Flees the country after leaking documents.
Trump - Keeps and hides classified/top secret documents but doesn't release them to for the entire world to see. Does still show them to certain people, but we do not know to what extent. Former President of the US, does not flee the country.
Now, if Trump is caught selling secrets to our enemies, then yes, he will absolutely be labeled a traitor and SHOULD be held accountable. However, he currently has something that Snowden did in that, Trump is a former President. Even though it shouldn't matter, it very much comes with a bit of a protective bubble. Also, Trump has a massive following and has been a well known person for decades. No one had any idea who Edward Snowden was until he leaked the files.
Do you think that if he didn't sell any of the documents, then he did nothing wrong? Because it's still illegal just for him to have them -- and he's on tape admitting that.
Now, if Trump is caught selling secrets to our enemies, then yes, he will absolutely be labeled a traitor and SHOULD be held accountable
Do you think that if he didn't sell any of the documents, then he did nothing wrong? Because it's still illegal just for him to have them -- and he's on tape admitting that.
Many people have considered Trump a traitor for quite a long time? And he may yet end up in prison. That's the point of this upcoming trial. Maybe he's not considered a flight risk since the...
Many people have considered Trump a traitor for quite a long time? And he may yet end up in prison. That's the point of this upcoming trial. Maybe he's not considered a flight risk since the secret service knows where he is?
Snowden isn't in prison because he fled. The reasons for that are pretty understandable, because his chances in court would not be good. The flight risk is extremely obvious, so if he were caught he would likely be in jail before the trial.
Republicans are counting on people not to read the Trump indictment https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-are-counting-people-not-read-trump-indictment-rcna88881
Of course, because if you actually read it, it is clear as day he is guilty. If only it were a law that members of Congress were required to read such reports before being allowed to make a...
Of course, because if you actually read it, it is clear as day he is guilty. If only it were a law that members of Congress were required to read such reports before being allowed to make a comment on them and participate in any proceedings related to that report. The number of republican senators who chose not to read the Mueller Report and then vote to acquit Trump during his first impeachment is just staggering. Thankfully, this time it is a federal criminal trial vs. a political trial in Congress, so there should be more integrity there...
Related to all of this, this image of Aileen Cannon keeps popping up online saying she is the one on the left. It usually comes up with articles and tweets criticizing her. While I agree that she...
Related to all of this, this image of Aileen Cannon keeps popping up online saying she is the one on the left. It usually comes up with articles and tweets criticizing her. While I agree that she should recuse herself due to her affiliation with Trump, I would like to point out that Aileen Cannon is NOT in that picture at all. This unfortunately is just another example of misinformation being spread by the media and social media. People need to be cautious about this stuff as spreading this type of easily disprovable misinformation does not help sway people's opinion in your favor.
Honestly, this actually looks like the end for him. The fact that they found classified documents just in random PUBLIC places at his resort is just bad news for him. That, plus the recordings, really makes this a slam dunk case.
The cynic in me is worried it happened to soon and the Republicans will manage to regroup behind someone else instead.
I'm just hopeful he continues to run and splits the voters on that side.
My bigger concern are nutjobs deciding to use this as a reason to go on shooting sprees. I don't think we're at super-serious risk of civil war or an organized uprising, and all the "calls to arms" and such on Twitter are just hot air. But there's enough mentally unstable fanatics with guns to have me worried about random incidents.
There are sitting congresspeople calling for “eye for an eye” over this. Stay safe out there, everyone.
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1667245094343254016?s=20
Two of his lawyers just resigned from this case, I would say that's a big indicator that this may not play out the same way it has in the past.
Ya that was the first big indicator that the evidence is pretty damning against him. These lawyers don’t want to go down with the ship, so they bailed.
It does look that way, until you learn that the judge assigned to the case is Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, who has already ruled egregiously in favor of Trump (in the initial proceedings around the classified documents).
DOJ can request that Cannon recuse herself, given the history, but they can't force her to, so there's no reason to believe she will. That means that at any point up until the jury returns a verdict, she can rule for acquittal and the whole thing goes away. (She can rule for acquittal even after a jury verdict I think but the rules are somewhat different iirc.)
If we're lucky we might still see a fair trial, but the cards are stacked against DOJ's case already I'm afraid.
While he was shown what appeared to be favortism before with Cannon, it might be different this time. She will have to consider her reputation when making a move like that. What side of that will be more detrimental? Of course, a judge SHOULD be completely impartial and uphold the law to the letter and the spirit....
Will she though? She's a federal judge. Doesn't she have a lifetime appointment, short of doing something criminal? I was gonna say short of unethical as well, but that doesn't seem to get judge (or pols) tossed these days. Even if Judge Cannon was to leave the courts, there will be some group or company ready to pick her up. Because of her reputation.
Anyway, I was definitely disappointed after seeing that Judge Cannon was assigned the case. Hopefully the DOJ's case is airtight. I read the whole indictment and it was pretty damning, but I will fully admit that I'm biased. And also not a lawyer.
Like you, I would hope she remains impartial. But she doesn't have a record of that. The opinion and order from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that overturned her decisions in the initial documents lawsuit last fall was scathing and unambiguous. Definitely worth a read.
I have hope that in a case such as this one, she will actually let it play out. With how damning the evidence is, it could be very likely that if she unjustly does anything to help him get off that she will be removed from the bench. Federal judges can be impeached just as much as any other official.
Edit: there is also this tweet that discusses other possibilities.
I do remember how that unfolded. I'm just thinking that this case might be kryptonite and she won't be able to "spin" it enough and come out of it with only a minor blemish. We shall see what happens though!
Do you mean the "special master" decision? I haven't been following closely, but my superficial impression is that it was cautious rather than egregious.
I'd suggest reading either the summary of the case from the judge's wiki article or the full wiki entry.
In general, if the government takes your stuff per a subpoena, you can't just go to a court and get it back before they're done investigating. It doesn't even matter if they're searching for drugs and accidentally scoop up your rock collection -- indeed, if the drugs were stuffed in your geodes, that rock collection is evidence. To even bring a lawsuit against the government about seized property, you need to show all of the following (the Richey test):
As all four of these prongs must be satisfied, and as prongs 1-3 very clearly were not satisfied, Trump never even had standing to sue. The lawsuit should have been immediately dismissed. Indeed, three months later, the Eleventh Circuit did eventually order this lawsuit be dismissed for exactly this reason.
Nevertheless, let's consider the privilege argument. Of course, privileged material are excluded from an investigation -- and to that end, the government does have independent "taint teams" that sort this matter out -- but the notion that all of these documents were privileged was absurd on its face. At the very least, a fair judge would have asked Trump which subset of the documents he believed were privileged.
By the time the DOJ was required to respond to the lawsuit, they had already finished reviewing the documents for attorney-client privilege and were in the process of conducing a damage assessment with the US intelligence community. The judge stayed the criminal investigation pending a review for privilege while allowing the damage assessment to continue. My understanding is that the two investigations can't be neatly separately and that what she allowed for was effectively impossible. Nevertheless, consider the contradiction: the judge simultaneously ruled that privilege might apply to one part of the executive branch but not the other -- but if a document were truly privileged, it should have been barred from both investigations.
In his lawsuit, Trump took the maximalist position that executive privilege applied to all of the materials until proven otherwise, including the classified documents, without specifying why that privilege applied to any particular document. It was basically a lazy effort by Trump to have the court work out the details for him -- and it worked! To quote from wikipedia:
(Notably, all three of the judges involved in the Eleventh Circuit decision were appointed by Republican Presidents, with two of them appointed by Trump himself.)
When it became clear the judge would appoint a special master, the DOJ tried to offer a compromise: at least let us continue our investigation of the classified documents. After all, some of these documents were so highly classified that the investigators needed extra security clearances just to review them. However, Judge Cannon rejected that motion, too, refusing to accept that the documents were classified "without further review by a neutral third party". Let me reiterate: Judge Cannon believed that a third party would be better equipped to determine whether a document was classified than the government. To make the matter worse, Trump never even argued in his filings that these documents were declassified. (Of course, he did famously say that he could declassify documents with his mind, but statements on Fox aren't subject to sanctions).
I haven't even discussed some of Trump's worst arguments (e.g., the Presidential Records Act isn't criminally enforceable, therefore this seizure was illegal). At the end of the day, Trump filed a poorly-pleaded lawsuit and never even demonstrated standing -- the absolute minimum requirement to this lawsuit -- yet the judge sided with him on virtually every issue, demonstrating extreme deference to the former President while maintaining extreme skepticism towards the government.
That does sound pretty bad. Thanks for getting me up to speed!
I guess it depends on what you consider 'cautious'. The special master ruling effectively put the FBI's investigation on hold at the request of Trump's counsel for no good reason and was reversed on appeal. Even a lot of conservatives (up to and including Barr) thought it was a bad call made most likely out of favor to Trump over any kind of thoughtfully considered jurisprudence.
They're in some of the most bizarre places, too. I saw a picture of boxes piled up in his bathroom.
You would think. If the law was applied equally you would be 100% correct. The problem is that there is a precedent set previously by former FBI Director James Comey in regards to Hilary Clinton not being prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. Again, if the law was applied evenly like it should then Trump should be held accountable. But selectively prosecuting people based off of politics is a terrible road to take, and we started down that path in 2016.
I don't think I can agree with the use of "equally" here. Surely the decision whether to prosecute something is, or should be, related to the weight of evidence. Wasn't there a preliminary investigation of the allegations against Clinton, with no prosecution following because there simply wasn't much of a case? Whereas in Trump's situation there is a whole lot more there prima facie. The two situations seem hardly comparable.
For reference this is the statement released by then FBI Director James Comey. It pretty explicitly states what their investigation found which among other things were several classified documents. Some were as high as Top Secret, but that fact is incidental. The level of classification is irrelevant to the legal statute as far as I am aware. My reading of that statement is, paraphrasing, "yes she mishandled classified material, but we can't prove intent."
The problem with this is that intent has no bearing on the law here.I myself have held a Secret clearance way back in the day. It was made painfully clear to me, repeatedly, that I was responsible for the handling of any classified material in my possession, and that any violation regardless of circumstance or intent would be punished.Edit: Apparently intent absolutely does matter here as pointed out in a reply
Trump received 31 charges for violating a provision of the Espionage Act, which absolutely does require proving intent, so there really isn't a double standard here.
U.S. Code Title 18 PART I CHAPTER 37 § 793(e) (Willful Retention of National Defense Information):
(Emphasis added.)
The other 5 charges were related to him obstructing justice.
You're right. This is why I'm just a dumb plumber and not a lawyer. I went to the text of Title 18 and read Code §793 and Code § 1924 and intent absolutely does matter. Thank you for giving me the impetus to actually read up on this and clear this up in my head.
No worries! I'm not a lawyer, either; I just listen to too many legal podcasts. :p I understand why you would have that impression about classified documents, though -- I'm sure your superiors were trying to scare you into being careful. For what its worth, I don't know of any cases where someone was convicted for possessing/removing a document merely by accident (but maybe there's a case somewhere?). I believe these cases always involve some sort of intention/deception.
There is even a completely different term for the accidental mishandling of classified information: spills.
Spills occur with high frequency if you work in a high enough classified setting. My boss was recently responsible for a spill. She reported it to security, and nothing happened to her because it was clear it wasn't her intent. Hell, there is one guy who earned the nickname Spill for accidentally sending a highly classified email on the unclass system (it is typical to have 3 or more computers linked via a KVM switchboard on the same set of monitors and peripherals, one for unclass and each different classified system). He was a contractor too, which the government is typically less forgiving towards, but again, everything turned out fine for him.
The biggest difference in all these instances, including Biden and Pence having classified documents, is that reports were made to the proper channels to address the spill once it was learned about by the at fault party. Trump had an easy way out of this issue if he had returned the documents without fuss once they were discovered. Instead he demonstrated intent to retain these records for personal gain.
At this point, I'm assuming the blindfold Lady Justice wears is made out of pantyhose or window screen mesh lol. It's been obvious that there's at least two different justice systems for decades now.
I am having a hard time mentally letting myself believe he might finally be held accountable for something. I've just been let down too many times! The world seems so so corrupt.
Related topics:
https://tildes.net/~news/15ug/trump_lawyers_notified_he_is_a_target_of_classified_documents_probe
https://tildes.net/~news/15vo/former_president_trump_indicted_for_second_time_sources_say#comments
Ya, I decided to make a new thread as this links to the actual indictment charges that were announced today rather than just talking about him being indicted. Can remove it though if we want to clean things up and keep them within the previous threads.
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to imply this topic wasn't worthy of its own submission. No need to remove it.
I just wanted to point people to more articles/discussions on the overall issue, should they want to read them. I do this for a lot of topics, even if the related topics are really old (e.g.). And in the past we have even talked about potentially automatically linking related topics together based on the unique combinations of topic tags, to help people more easily find related stuff.
With all the new users here, I probably should have been a bit more clear about the purpose of my comment though. Sorry about that.
All good! Makes perfect sense to include the other links as well! I’ll try to remember to do that myself if I post something that is related to another thread that is already posted (not a repost but of similar top or developing news on a topic such as this one).
That would be cool. A few other people also do related topics comments as well, but the more the merrier, IMO.
p.s. If something is actually a repost, as in it's the exact same link, we usually apply the duplicate post tag to it. But even then that doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted (unless it's posted on the same day/week as the last time), since new people will likely be seeing it for the first time, and different discussions on the subject can still be had.
I have such trouble actually getting my hopes up about this kind of stuff. Seems like I've been seeing articles titled "this time Trump is ACTUALLY going to be held accountable!" for 7 years now. I do want for something to actually come from this, but until they announce the prison time or whatever comes from this, it's just so hard for me to let myself get excited in any way.
According to the penalty sheet, it seems none of the counts have mandatory minimum sentences.
Maybe my bar for expectations is pretty low, but so long as he can't hold public office again I'm strangely ok with him not being imprisoned.
Pennsylvania was a nose hair away from having Senator Dr. Oz. That told me everything I meed to know about the state of affairs, and any inching back from that ledge is much appreciated.
I'm pretty sure this can't bar him from holding office. The part of the relevant law that implies that is almost certainly unconstitutional if it came to it. I'm still hopeful this is the end of his political options at the very least
I’m curious as to how it is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment allows the the revoking of the ability to hold public office in cases of insurrection and treason. So the ability to block someone’s right to hold office is in the constitution. They probably can’t apply to the 14th Amendment to this case unless they can prove Trump sold documents or shared documents with foreign agents. Curious though, how the part of the law they are looking at in this case would be seen as unconstitutional?
Here’s a post on Lawfare that goes into the arguments.
He isn’t charged under that statute anyway which makes it moot.
This is the law that bans people from holding office
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
But it’s not listed:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/06/09/trump-charges-classified-documents/
Good point-out, I should've caught that
How come snowden leaks documents and he is considered a traitor before even standing trial, but Trump has documents and he isnt in jail
Without defending or supporting either ones' actions, here is how I see the difference:
Snowden - Leaks classified information to the entire world so that anyone can see/read it. Things that you average citizen probably shouldn't have any knowledge on, now has access to everything. Former government employee. Flees the country after leaking documents.
Trump - Keeps and hides classified/top secret documents but doesn't release them to for the entire world to see. Does still show them to certain people, but we do not know to what extent. Former President of the US, does not flee the country.
Now, if Trump is caught selling secrets to our enemies, then yes, he will absolutely be labeled a traitor and SHOULD be held accountable. However, he currently has something that Snowden did in that, Trump is a former President. Even though it shouldn't matter, it very much comes with a bit of a protective bubble. Also, Trump has a massive following and has been a well known person for decades. No one had any idea who Edward Snowden was until he leaked the files.
Do you think that if he didn't sell any of the documents, then he did nothing wrong? Because it's still illegal just for him to have them -- and he's on tape admitting that.
It is still illegal. However, in the eyes of the law and the Constitution, just illegally having classified documents isn't treason.
Many people have considered Trump a traitor for quite a long time? And he may yet end up in prison. That's the point of this upcoming trial. Maybe he's not considered a flight risk since the secret service knows where he is?
Snowden isn't in prison because he fled. The reasons for that are pretty understandable, because his chances in court would not be good. The flight risk is extremely obvious, so if he were caught he would likely be in jail before the trial.
Republicans are counting on people not to read the Trump indictment
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-are-counting-people-not-read-trump-indictment-rcna88881
Of course, because if you actually read it, it is clear as day he is guilty. If only it were a law that members of Congress were required to read such reports before being allowed to make a comment on them and participate in any proceedings related to that report. The number of republican senators who chose not to read the Mueller Report and then vote to acquit Trump during his first impeachment is just staggering. Thankfully, this time it is a federal criminal trial vs. a political trial in Congress, so there should be more integrity there...
Related to all of this, this image of Aileen Cannon keeps popping up online saying she is the one on the left. It usually comes up with articles and tweets criticizing her. While I agree that she should recuse herself due to her affiliation with Trump, I would like to point out that Aileen Cannon is NOT in that picture at all. This unfortunately is just another example of misinformation being spread by the media and social media. People need to be cautious about this stuff as spreading this type of easily disprovable misinformation does not help sway people's opinion in your favor.