Trump's Classified Docs Theft: Mar-A-Lago, FBI Subpoenas, Searches & Seizures - DOJ, Garland, GOP Madness - Spy Hard

[RVInit]

Has anyone noticed that Mar-a-Lago went from being Trump's private, exclusive club for wealthy members only to being his "home"?

Oh, a lot of us noticed that, especially since that was a violation of the agreement allowing Merde-Lardo to be built*.

*not sure if built is the right word here

From Wikipedia and other sources:

In September 2019, Mar-a-Lago became the primary residence for Donald and Melania Trump, who previously held primary residence in New York City.[93][94] The legality of this has been disputed because, in 1993, Trump signed a "use agreement" with the town of Palm Beach, Florida, that changed Mar-a-Lago's designation from a single-family residence to a private club and specified that guests, including Trump, could not stay there more than three non-consecutive weeks per year

[noblepa]

Thanks for that information, Chancery.

On the Motion, Ali Akbar is claiming credit like this is some big, never-before-seen idea that he had to fight SO HARD for.


Akbar Motion.JPG



Akbar Motion 2.JPG

Now, the FBI search was a break-in? I think I missed that one.

Didn't I hear that the FBI had to break into his safe, without benefit of the combination?

[RVInit]

Has anyone noticed that Mar-a-Lago went from being Trump's private, exclusive club for wealthy members only to being his "home"?

Oh, a lot of us noticed that, especially since that was a violation of the agreement allowing Merde-Lardo to be built*.

*not sure if built is the right word here

From Wikipedia and other sources:

In September 2019, Mar-a-Lago became the primary residence for Donald and Melania Trump, who previously held primary residence in New York City.[93][94] The legality of this has been disputed because, in 1993, Trump signed a "use agreement" with the town of Palm Beach, Florida, that changed Mar-a-Lago's designation from a single-family residence to a private club and specified that guests, including Trump, could not stay there more than three non-consecutive weeks per year

Of course, the town of Palm Beach decided to just let it slide.

[noblepa]

Has anyone noticed that Mar-a-Lago went from being Trump's private, exclusive club for wealthy members only to being his "home"?

Oh, a lot of us noticed that, especially since that was a violation of the agreement allowing Merde-Lardo to be built*.

*not sure if built is the right word here

I seem to remember that there was some rationale that was used and the City Attorney declined to pursue the matter and enforce the clause in the permit that was issued when he created the private club.

[sugar magnolia]

Now, the FBI search was a break-in? I think I missed that one.

Didn't I hear that the FBI had to break into his safe, without benefit of the combination?
[/quote]

He specified his "home" in the post. They didn't break into that.

[Foggy]

Gold Codes, the launch codes blah blah blah



For an extra level of security, the list of codes on the card includes codes that have no meaning, and therefore the president must memorize where on the list the correct code is located.

I think I see the problem ...

[much ado]

Thanks for that information, Chancery.

On the Motion, Ali Akbar is claiming credit like this is some big, never-before-seen idea that he had to fight SO HARD for.


Akbar Motion.JPG



Akbar Motion 2.JPG

Now, the FBI search was a break-in? I think I missed that one.

Didn't I hear that the FBI had to break into his safe, without benefit of the combination?

Well, Peter Ustinov did it in "We're No Angels" (1955) without benefit of the combination or key. I'm sure the FBI have technicians who can accomplish the same thing on a mere "hotel safe" without breaking anything. They just open it. Is that breaking?

From the 1955 trailer...



Always loved that movie.

[RTH10260]

Didn't I hear that the FBI had to break into his safe, without benefit of the combination?

The former guy himself mentioned that the safe was "hotel style", no major obstacle for an expierienced picker. (1) check electronic master key number for the safe type, very often never reprogrammed. (2) screw open the small access shield to the mechanical emergency lock, lock pickers just laugh at them. In rare occaisons it's still possible to trick the lock mechanism with a metal coat hanger, or a strip of aluminium from a soft drink can (or beer), the strong magnet trick could work too, the FBI would have the gadget in their toolbox.

Check The Lockpicking Lawyer on Youtube

[pipistrelle]

Gold Codes, the launch codes blah blah blah



For an extra level of security, the list of codes on the card includes codes that have no meaning, and therefore the president must memorize where on the list the correct code is located.

I think I see the problem ...

The nucyulear codes are:

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Ben-Prime]

Has anyone noticed that Mar-a-Lago went from being Trump's private, exclusive club for wealthy members only to being his "home"?

Oh, a lot of us noticed that, especially since that was a violation of the agreement allowing Merde-Lardo to be built*.

*not sure if built is the right word here

I seem to remember that there was some rationale that was used and the City Attorney declined to pursue the matter and enforce the clause in the permit that was issued when he created the private club.

I believe the argument became that employee on-site housing was permissible and TFG was effectively now an employee of the club as its owner. Or something like that. My eyes rolled so hard in my head that the tugging on my optic nerve caused me temporary brain damage-induced memory loss.

[bob]

Didn't his request for a Special Master mention attorney-client privilege?

There's been no motion, for a special master or anything else.

It has been suggested this "major motion" (if it is ever actually filed) would contain a request for a special master. And privileged attorney-client communications certainly would be the type of information the special master would endeavor to separate from other seized materials.

But of course there are exceptions, like no attorney-client relationship, confidentiality waived, or exceptions to the privilege, like the crime-fraud one.

At this point, however, I think the primary goals of any motion would be to continue the grift and to create delay.

[Foggy]

I am going out on a limb and predicting that not a single document seized by the FBI in the search is found to be protected by attorney client privilege.

To qualify, it would have to be:

1) a document addressed to Trump by one of his personal attorneys, or conversely, a document addressed to one of his personal attorneys by Trump himself, and

2) it can't be a memo with a distribution list of attorneys and non-attorneys, because he already waived the privilege by including other people, and

3) it can't be anything where the attorney works for the United States of America, and not Trump personally, and it matters not a farthing that he thought anything he said to Bill Barr was privileged, and

4) if there really are any attorney-client privileged documents - I'm talking about legitimate, actual, documents that the vast majority of judges in this great land of ours would agree are inadmissible, then

5) they would not have been placed in any of the boxes the FBI took.

That's my prediction and the reasons why I predict it.

Let's see what happens.

[Maybenaut]

I am going out on a limb and predicting that not a single document seized by the FBI in the search is found to be protected by attorney client privilege.

To qualify, it would have to be:

1) a document addressed to Trump by one of his personal attorneys, or conversely, a document addressed to one of his personal attorneys by Trump himself, and

2) it can't be a memo with a distribution list of attorneys and non-attorneys, because he already waived the privilege by including other people, and

3) it can't be anything where the attorney works for the United States of America, and not Trump personally, and it matters not a farthing that he thought anything he said to Bill Barr was privileged, and

4) if there really are any attorney-client privileged documents - I'm talking about legitimate, actual, documents that the vast majority of judges in this great land of ours would agree are inadmissible, then

5) they would not have been placed in any of the boxes the FBI took.

That's my prediction and the reasons why I predict it.

Let's see what happens.

I agree with all but five, and I sort of agree there.

The privileged nature of some of the documents might not be readily apparent, and if not, it goes in the box. They’ll often have “taint teams” review the documents if there is reason to believe any of it is privileged (we saw that with Cohen, IIRC). But you’re right to the extant that if the privileged nature of the document is apparent, the agent won’t seize it.

[Foggy]

Second prediction:

And this one is REALLY going out on a limb. So, reasons first, prediction second.

Whether the review of the documents is done by a special master or by the judge himself, or (less than possible) agreement of the parties, the bottom line is that a ruling is made (or stipulated) that certain documents cannot be used by the government in a criminal prosecution.

That's the ONLY thing this sub-controversy is about - if Trump is charged with a crime and put on trial, can the prosecution enter the documents into evidence? Can the jury see them?

Of course, that means that if there's no criminal trial, any decision about so-called attorney-client privileged documents is MEANINGLESS.

There has to be a trial, or the whole thing is an exercise in futility.

But I am not ready to predict that the DOJ is going to charge Trump with any crime at all. I think they'll back down in cowardice instead. And so, my prediction is conditional:

I predict that IF there is a criminal trial of Trump in the future, his lawyer(s) will not even bother wasting time on the issue, because the government wouldn't have any good reason to try to get a legitimately privileged document into evidence.

The bottom line is, the whole issue is kind of silly. 'Course, a lot of what we see would be silly if'n it wasn't so stinkin' dangerous.

[bob]

But I am not ready to predict that the DOJ is going to charge Trump with any crime at all.

Foogy is basically correct that all this talk about privilege is cart before horse, because it is reliant on there being either a trial, or at least the threat of a trial.

It is possible some future FOIA request may cause some of the information eventually to become public. Possible, some, and may doing the work.


I'm undecided on whether he'll be charged. The compromise may be to charge people in the inner circle, but not him personally.

[p0rtia]

Posting this cause I just love Sherrilynn Ifill.

[humblescribe]

But I am not ready to predict that the DOJ is going to charge Trump with any crime at all.

Foogy is basically correct that all this talk about privilege is cart before horse, because it is reliant on there being either a trial, or at least the threat of a trial.

It is possible some future FOIA request may cause some of the information eventually to become public. Possible, some, and may doing the work.


I'm undecided on whether he'll be charged. The compromise may be to charge people in the inner circle, but not him personally.

Yeah, me too. On the one hand, it places the entire country in an awkward predicament. What venue would be appropriate for said trial where twelve citizens and any pinch hitters are completely ignorant of the facts not only in this case but also the unsavory reputation of the defendant? Yet on the other hand, if a president is free to commit any number of felonious acts against the country, then what is to stop the next guy (like the dude from Florida who is just as bad?) Garland would be seen as spineless and cowardly if nothing came of all this.

And, don't shovel manure to the public by using prosecutorial discretion or this classic: We considered that we could not prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Perhaps the best result possible would be as Bob suggested--charge people in his inner circle with the stipulation that tfg must testify under oath against them under a plea deal.

[Foggy]

Garland would be seen as spineless and cowardly if nothing came of all this.

I wish I could rely upon that motivation, but Democrats have a terrible tendency to let the top crooks go, or maybe someone can remind me, what happened to the banksters that drove our economy off the cliff in the autumn of 2008 by bundling bad real estate loans THAT THEY KNEW WERE BAD and selling them in "tranches," which is just such a sexy word! I bet it's French! Yeah, a totally sexy French word! Of course I want a tranche, on a croissant with a few cranberries and some crême de la crême or sumpin'! Hit me up!

No, wait ... none of those assholes who crashed our economy and damn near caused a second Great Depression spent a night behind bars. And I'm supposed to think Trump will be criminally prosecuted?

[sugar magnolia]

Was Hillary Clinton's residence ever searched?

[keith]

[bob]

Was Hillary Clinton's residence ever searched?

I've heard the assertion she voluntarily gave investigators what they were looking for. Hence, no search.

But the sources for the claim aren't entirely reliable.

[noblepa]

There is one thing I haven't seen mentioned with regard to possibly charging Trump with a crime having to do with the documents seized in Mar-a-Lago.

If he were charged with mishandling classified documents, would those documents have to be shown to the jury in such a trial? If so, this raises the possibility that the DOJ may not be willing to release top-secret documents and may, therefore not charge him, calculating that the harm to national security by such a release outweighs the prosecution of TFG.

Some might interpret such a decision to decline prosecution as cowardice on the part of the DOJ and Merrick Garland, but would it be?

I believe that this sort of thing has happened before when sensitive information is involved.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text ... /section-6

Spoiler tag because you need the entire text to understand the nuances.

► Show Spoiler

(a)Motion for Hearing.—
Within the time specified by the court for the filing of a motion under this section, the United States may request the court to conduct a hearing to make all determinations concerning the use, relevance, or admissibility of classified information that would otherwise be made during the trial or pretrial proceeding. Upon such a request, the court shall conduct such a hearing. Any hearing held pursuant to this subsection (or any portion of such hearing specified in the request of the Attorney General) shall be held in camera if the Attorney General certifies to the court in such petition that a public proceeding may result in the disclosure of classified information. As to each item of classified information, the court shall set forth in writing the basis for its determination. Where the United States’ motion under this subsection is filed prior to the trial or pretrial proceeding, the court shall rule prior to the commencement of the relevant proceeding.
(b)Notice.—
(1)Before any hearing is conducted pursuant to a request by the United States under subsection (a), the United States shall provide the defendant with notice of the classified information that is at issue. Such notice shall identify the specific classified information at issue whenever that information previously has been made available to the defendant by the United States. When the United States has not previously made the information available to the defendant in connection with the case, the information may be described by generic category, in such forms as the court may approve, rather than by identification of the specific information of concern to the United States.
(2)Whenever the United States requests a hearing under subsection (a), the court, upon request of the defendant, may order the United States to provide the defendant, prior to trial, such details as to the portion of the indictment or information at issue in the hearing as are needed to give the defendant fair notice to prepare for the hearing.
(c)Alternative Procedure for Disclosure of Classified Information.—
(1)Upon any determination by the court authorizing the disclosure of specific classified information under the procedures established by this section, the United States may move that, in lieu of the disclosure of such specific classified information, the court order—
(A)the substitution for such classified information of a statement admitting relevant facts that the specific classified information would tend to prove; or
(B)the substitution for such classified information of a summary of the specific classified information.
The court shall grant such a motion of the United States if it finds that the statement or summary will provide the defendant with substantially the same ability to make his defense as would disclosure of the specific classified information. The court shall hold a hearing on any motion under this section. Any such hearing shall be held in camera at the request of the Attorney General.
(2)The United States may, in connection with a motion under paragraph (1), submit to the court an affidavit of the Attorney General certifying that disclosure of classified information would cause identifiable damage to the national security of the United States and explaining the basis for the classification of such information. If so requested by the United States, the court shall examine such affidavit in camera and ex parte.
(d)Sealing of Records of In Camera Hearings.—
If at the close of an in camera hearing under this Act (or any portion of a hearing under this Act that is held in camera) the court determines that the classified information at issue may not be disclosed or elicited at the trial or pretrial proceeding, the record of such in camera hearing shall be sealed and preserved by the court for use in the event of an appeal. The defendant may seek reconsideration of the court’s determination prior to or during trial.
(e)Prohibition on Disclosure of Classified Information by Defendant, Relief for Defendant When United States Opposes Disclosure.—
(1)Whenever the court denies a motion by the United States that it issue an order under subsection (c) and the United States files with the court an affidavit of the Attorney General objecting to disclosure of the classified information at issue, the court shall order that the defendant not disclose or cause the disclosure of such information.
(2)Whenever a defendant is prevented by an order under paragraph (1) from disclosing or causing the disclosure of classified information, the court shall dismiss the indictment or information; except that, when the court determines that the interests of justice would not be served by dismissal of the indictment or information, the court shall order such other action, in lieu of dismissing the indictment or information, as the court determines is appropriate. Such action may include, but need not be limited to—
(A)dismissing specified counts of the indictment or information;
(B)finding against the United States on any issue as to which the excluded classified information relates; or
(C)striking or precluding all or part of the testimony of a witness.
An order under this paragraph shall not take effect until the court has afforded the United States an opportunity to appeal such order under section 7, and thereafter to withdraw its objection to the disclosure of the classified information at issue.
(f)Reciprocity.—
Whenever the court determines pursuant to subsection (a) that classified information may be disclosed in connection with a trial or pretrial proceeding, the court shall, unless the interests of fairness do not so require, order the United States to provide the defendant with the information it expects to use to rebut the classified information. The court may place the United States under a continuing duty to disclose such rebuttal information. If the United States fails to comply with its obligation under this subsection, the court may exclude any evidence not made the subject of a required disclosure and may prohibit the examination by the United States of any witness with respect to such information.

[RTH10260]

Just a comment cause i cannot reseach deeper just now. but the US had in the past court cases re espionage and there sensitive documents were not mde public iirc.

[RTH10260]

From the discussion so far I take it that the prior guy can only be liable under espionage and nuclear laws, not of mishandling classified government documents. It was explained that classified document handling was defined by presidential EO.