Thanks, that clears it up for me
![Old Lady :oldlady:](./images/smilies/oldlady.gif)
I agree with Mike that it's an ineffective and largely pointless letter, but not otherwise.There's too much still redacted in the Trump search warrant affidavit to say much. But one thing stands out:
It looks like Evan Corcoran spectacularly failed to fully assess his client's legal exposure, leading him to send DOJ a letter that let them just utterly pants him.
Basically, he locked in on "classified," missed literally every other information handling or record retention statute, and demanded that DOJ include his letter in any submission.
So they did - in a submission that didn't implicate - at all - the statute he was worried about.
Note, the redacted affidavit makes clear DOJ is not buying Kash Patel story that Trump declassified the docs while POTUS. After noting Kash 5/2022 claim, the affidavit continues to call the docs "classified" Compare paras 53 & 61.
Import: Trump AND Kash are in DOJ crosshairs.
For this case, I doubt it will be public.
There is a very strong presumption for public trials.
One tweet indicated that handwriting from former-flotus was found on at least one document! ("a guy upthread" )Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 2:47 pm Saw a tweet saying that some of the docs retrieved had trump's handwriting on them. Making out his Christmas list mayhaps?
Documents are not magickaly self declassifying by the preachers handwave or voice. Each copy gets stamped (and dated?).Kendra wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 2:42 pm https:// twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1563229148642148355
Note, the redacted affidavit makes clear DOJ is not buying Kash Patel story that Trump declassified the docs while POTUS. After noting Kash 5/2022 claim, the affidavit continues to call the docs "classified" Compare paras 53 & 61.
Import: Trump AND Kash are in DOJ crosshairs.So were the documents mentioned here the same documents Patel said last week he never knew about until the rest of the world?
![]()
True: the federal courts are notoriously anti-camera. But pro-sketch artists!
This is where it gets ontological: If the president purportedly declassifies a document (through gesture, voice, or even thought), but there's no record of any declassification, or even evidence implying declassification had occurred, did it?
Especially if the someone wears orange makeup to court.So, to counter that, someone would have to (1) testify (2) credibly about the alleged declassification invocation. (1) is not guaranteed and (2) is highly questionable.
Yeah: The next step is relevance. Patel (or someone else) could testify about what they observed, which would be circumstantial evidence of someone's belief (or "intent," as the lawyers might say).
OK with me if he tears down the GOP and makes them start from scratch.“I think it would be the best advice to the former President to leave this to his lawyers and not to further comment on this. For two reasons. One is, it lowers his exposure legally. The other reason is to let the election conversation get back to what it ought to be about, which is about inflation, the economy, the direction of the country, and people’s views of President Biden’s competence. We’re now in our third week where we’re talking primarily about the former president’s retention of White House records, and the kerfuffle that has brought about. That’s not healthy for Republicans, it’s not healthy for former president Trump.”
Internationally the damage has been done. The former guy was already a paria among the US allies. Should the Republicans even think of letting him go to the primaries the origins of international intelligence will dry up immediatly. No one will risk sharing their assets until this threat to secrecy is merely a note in the history books.Jim wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 3:53 pm WATCH: Karl Rove Warns Donald Trump, Stolen Docs Rants Damaging Politically & Legally
OK with me if he tears down the GOP and makes them start from scratch.“I think it would be the best advice to the former President to leave this to his lawyers and not to further comment on this. For two reasons. One is, it lowers his exposure legally. The other reason is to let the election conversation get back to what it ought to be about, which is about inflation, the economy, the direction of the country, and people’s views of President Biden’s competence. We’re now in our third week where we’re talking primarily about the former president’s retention of White House records, and the kerfuffle that has brought about. That’s not healthy for Republicans, it’s not healthy for former president Trump.”