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

[sugar magnolia]

Looks like a Joan Miro painting.

[Reality Check]

I doubt it. The burden on the DOJ to obtain a stay is greater than to prevail on the appeal itself, and losing a stay motion creates bad momentum and potentially bad language that might influence the merits panel. At this stage, the percentage play is just to try to win the appeal on the merits. They don't need to try to get Cannon removed, because if they win, the case goes away.

You are probably correct chancery. I did not consider the optics of the DoJ going back for a full stay after asking for and being granted a partial stay on Cannon's ruling. I believe there is a good chance the same panel would have granted a full stay had the DoJ sought that but the DoJ weighed their options and went after the more limited stay covering only the documents with classified markings. I am sure they figure they can engage in Cannon's charade over the rest and eventually prevail on most of those documents.

[RTH10260]

Trump news - live: Trump reportedly tried to trade Mar-a-Lago records for documents about Russia investigation
This allegation would confirm that Mr Trump knew last year that he had documents that belonged to the federal government

Bevan Hurley, Alisha Rahaman Sarkar
20 minutes

The saga with former president Donald Trump and the classified or sensitive government documents he had in his home or office continues.

On Saturday, The New York Times reported that Mr Trump allegedly offered the National Archives a “deal to return the boxes” of documents he had in his possession last year “in exchange for documents he believed would expose the Russia investigation” as an FBI “hoax.”

The report notes that Mr Trump didn’t know what the archives had but knew “there were items he wanted.”

This allegation would confirm that Mr Trump knew last year that he had documents that belonged to the federal government. The Times also notes that Mr Trump and his representatives did not tell the archives that the boxes contained classified information.

On Friday, reports suggested that FBI special agents had interviewed multiple witnesses regarding whether former president has hidden classified or sensitive government documents at his Trump Tower home and office or his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.




https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 98485.html

NYT reference below

[RTH10260]

How Trump Deflected Demands for Documents, Enmeshing Aides
The former president exhibited a pattern of dissembling about the material he took from the White House, creating legal risk not just for himself but also some of his lawyers.


By Maggie Haberman and Michael S. Schmidt
Oct. 8, 2022

Late last year, as the National Archives ratcheted up the pressure on former President Donald J. Trump to return boxes of records he had taken from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago club, he came up with an idea to resolve the looming showdown: cut a deal.

Mr. Trump, still determined to show he had been wronged by the F.B.I. investigation into his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia, was angry with the National Archives and Records Administration for its unwillingness to hand over a batch of sensitive documents that he thought proved his claims.

In exchange for those documents, Mr. Trump told advisers, he would return to the National Archives the boxes of material he had taken to Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Fla.

Mr. Trump’s aides never pursued the idea. But the episode is one in a series that demonstrates how Mr. Trump spent a year and a half deflecting, delaying and sometimes leading aides to dissemble when it came to demands from the National Archives and ultimately the Justice Department to return the material he had taken, interviews and documents show.

That pattern was strikingly similar to how Mr. Trump confronted inquiries into his conduct while in office: entertain or promote outlandish ideas, eschew the advice of lawyers and mislead them, then push lawyers and aides to impede investigators.

In the process, some of his lawyers have increased their own legal exposure and had to hire lawyers themselves. And Mr. Trump has ended up in the middle of an investigation into his handling of the documents that has led the Justice Department to seek evidence of obstruction.




https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/08/us/p ... wyers.html

Hidden Content

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

[Chilidog]

My feeling is that the DOJ has developed some pretty good evidence that there are indeed more documents at those other properties.

I suspect that they are leaning on a number of people who might be predisposed to say "screw this, I'm not going to prison to protect Trump."

[Foggy]

The DOJ has not one, but two briefs due this week. Check the Fogbow Calendar for details.

[jemcanada2]

I like that he is referred to as Mr. Trump. And I like that NARA kept saying that they understood if the transition was chaotic with TFG’s abrupt departure from the White House. A nice way of saying big one-term loser.

Also, TFG blames Cannon for the whole thing because he gave correct, lawyerly advice when TFG decided to believe the non-lawyer Fitton.

[Kendra]

This is what we call a summation exhibit.
Proof from the defendant’s own mouth. And on video.

[Kendra]

Trump: They plant documents. Let’s see, is there a book on nuclear destruction or building of a nuclear weapon, let’s put that book in with Trump

[Uninformed]

Well, that seems to be confirmation that tfg had some nuclear related documents.

[AndyinPA]

The stupid just falls out of his mouth.

[Foggy]

The DOJ has until mañana to file a brief explaining to the Supremes why Trump is a neo-maxie-zoom-dweebie wrong to ask that Judge Dearie look at the classified documents.

But with its track record in this case, I expect the DOJ to file the brief today, before close of business.

[Chilidog]

The stupid just falls out of his mouth.

I bet Kise is saying to himself, "3 mil was too little"

[andersweinstein]

Christina Bobbs and weaves:

Bobb, who was Trump’s custodian of record at the time, did not draft the statement, according to the three sources who do not want to comment publicly ... Instead, Trump’s lead lawyer in the case at the time, Evan Corcoran, drafted it and told her to sign it, Bobb told investigators according to the sources. Bobb also spoke to investigators about Trump legal adviser Boris Epshteyn, who she said did not help draft the statement but was minimally involved in discussions about the records, according to the sources. ...

Before Bobb signed the document, she insisted it be rewritten with a disclaimer that said she was certifying Trump had no more records “based upon the information that has been provided to me,” the sources said of what she told investigators. Bobb identified the person who gave her that “information” as Corcoran, the sources said.

“She had to insist on that disclaimer twice before she signed it,” said one source who spoke with Bobb about what she told investigators. “She is not criminally liable. She is not going to be charged. She is not pointing fingers. She is simply a witness for the truth.”

[Foggy]

Oh man, see if she gets a nice Christmas card from Mr. and Mrs. Trump this year!

[Uninformed]

So who carried out the reported “diligent search” of Mar de Lardo?

[RTH10260]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1579269320315502592

Trump: They plant documents. Let’s see, is there a book on nuclear destruction or building of a nuclear weapon, let’s put that book in with Trump

that's so absurd to begin with. Administration documents are not books. They are from thin few page memos to perhaps in the low hundreds for a special discussion issue. Books do not carry Top Secret security markings with a handful of further restriction codes thrown in. "Books" can be bought thru Amazon by foreign governments at any time. But US nuclear secrets get only handed out like candy by a single former government official.

[Foggy]

So who carried out the reported “diligent search” of Mar de Lardo?

According to Boob Bobb, Evan Corcoran.

[Reality Check]

So who carried out the reported “diligent search” of Mar de Lardo?

Frankly IMO the entire corrupt gaggle of his attorneys should be charged with conspiracy. They all knew there were classified documents that had not been returned and decided the young stupid one should sign the letter lying to the FBI that everything had been returned. She was at least smart enough to insist the disclaimer be added but despite what the anonymous source for the article thinks it probably will not save Bobb.

Isn't this where the DoJ calls them in one at a time and tells them they have one deal to offer and see who folds first?

[chancery]

The DOJ has until mañana to file a brief explaining to the Supremes why Trump is a neo-maxie-zoom-dweebie wrong to ask that Judge Dearie look at the classified documents.

But with its track record in this case, I expect the DOJ to file the brief today, before close of business.

I doubt it. No operational reason to finish early, they've got lots of work on their plate, and the layers of internal required in this proceeding are extensive. So no.

[Kendra]

So who carried out the reported “diligent search” of Mar de Lardo?

According to Boob Bobb, Evan Corcoran.

Moar.

Excellent take from
@hugolowell
. Glad someone is asking why Corcoran didn’t sign the attestation himself.

[boogiebach]

So who carried out the reported “diligent search” of Mar de Lardo?

Frankly IMO the entire corrupt gaggle of his attorneys should be charged with conspiracy. They all knew there were classified documents that had not been returned and decided the young stupid one should sign the letter lying to the FBI that everything had been returned. She was at least smart enough to insist the disclaimer be added but despite what the anonymous source for the article thinks it probably will not save Bobb.

Isn't this where the DoJ calls them in one at a time and tells them they have one deal to offer and see who folds first?

IANAL. It seems to me that if I am requiring a disclaimer before signing something I have doubts that what I'm signing is accurate/truthful/fully forthcoming. If I have doubts and sign anyway, how on earth is a dislaimer "cover" for maybe/possibly/I'm not sure/whatever lying to the DOJ.

[Chilidog]

The DOJ has until mañana to file a brief explaining to the Supremes why Trump is a neo-maxie-zoom-dweebie wrong to ask that Judge Dearie look at the classified documents.

But with its track record in this case, I expect the DOJ to file the brief today, before close of business.

I doubt it. No operational reason to finish early, they've got lots of work on their plate, and the layers of internal required in this proceeding are extensive. So no.

Also, it's Indigenous people's day. No clerks in the office.

[Chilidog]

On August 8, when the FBI gave her the initial inventory of the things that were recovered, and it clearly stated that documents with classified markings were found, did Christina Bobb think to yerself, "Oh, Shit!" Before she signed the receipt?

[noblepa]

IANAL. It seems to me that if I am requiring a disclaimer before signing something I have doubts that what I'm signing is accurate/truthful/fully forthcoming. If I have doubts and sign anyway, how on earth is a dislaimer "cover" for maybe/possibly/I'm not sure/whatever lying to the DOJ.

Isn't that kind of like TFG putting a disclaimer on the financial statements that he gave to the banks and insurance companies, saying that those same statements were not reliable and then arguing that he can't be charged with fraud because it was the banks' fault if they trusted him?

IANAL, either, but I believe there are some liabilities that can not be brushed away by a disclaimer. Negligence is one. If, for example, I run a sky-diving school, and you sign a waiver acknowledging that you may die by jumping out of a plane, but I negligently pack your parachute incorrectly, I can't tell your heirs to take their lawsuit and go away because you signed a waiver.

Can a lawyer weasel out of a situation like hers, by saying that she's relying on hearsay? Isn't a lawyer supposed to only sign declarations like that, based on their own knowledge of the subject?