Special Counsel Jack Smith: Judgement Day (one way or the other)

[MsDaisy 2]

Trump has been indicted again! And Pat Robertson is dead!

Whatta great week!!

[AndyinPA]

[Volkonski]

Thought this would never happen. So happy to have been wrong.

[Kendra]

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski

Ron is busy posting reactions, I'm too lazy to post them all here.

[Kendra]

He’s not in jail. We still have due process here.

[Patagoniagirl]

While I doubt we'll see this POS in an orange jumpsuit, this makes me happy.

[Luke]

Phillip Bump offers a no-paywall story.

Philip Bump @pbump 2m
In case you think the issue here is "Trump had a document in a box," this article (no paywall) will disabuse you of that notion.






CNN has been going for 35 minutes without a commerical break and going...


Rooting for an Espionage Act count. That puts it in a whole other league for the "process crimes" MAGAts.

[bob]

NEW confirming per source familiar: Trump has been indicted in the Mar-a-Lago docs case on willful retention of national security material, obstruction and conspiracy.

Mark Meadow: "Tell him it was just business."

[much ado]

Gift link to NY TImes live updates...

Trump Indicted - Trump Is Charged in Classified Documents Inquiry

Shouldn't that be 'Trump Indicated'?

[Greatgrey]

[Shizzle Popped]

NSFW…

[Luke]

Gift link to NY TImes live updates...

Trump Indicted - Trump Is Charged in Classified Documents Inquiry

Shouldn't that be 'Trump Indicated'?

Thank you so much, Much Ado! Those gift links are the best, the pages with live updates are terrific with gift links. And absolutely, Trump Indicated is a must.

[SuzieC]

But no Espionage Sec. 793 charge?

[Flatpoint High]

But no Espionage Sec. 793 charge?

I think "Willful retention" may fall under that

[bob]

But no Espionage Sec. 793 charge?

Well:

NEW confirming per source familiar: Trump has been indicted in the Mar-a-Lago docs case on willful retention of national security material, obstruction and conspiracy.

Willful retention is a section 793 crime:

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

[somerset]

But no Espionage Sec. 793 charge?

I was wondering about this too, and wondering, "is this all?" Would all charges be wrapped up into one indictment, or is it possible that the work of the DC Grand Jury could result in a separate indictment?

[SuzieC]

Ah thanks Bob. Willful retention describes his crime to a T.

[keith]

Pointer Sisters have been consulted, the Muse is sated, just waiting for Jack so I can drop one on you, FogBow.

Holding our waters in anticipation, oh great and marvelous Poet Laureate

ETA:guess who posted withou reading to the bottom of the thread

[bob]

Would all charges be wrapped up into one indictment, or is it possible that the work of the DC Grand Jury could result in a separate indictment?

While it is possible, I also would say doubtful.

It would, at this point, have to be a crime committed in DC entirely.

[sad-cafe]

HELL YEAH

[somerset]

Would all charges be wrapped up into one indictment, or is it possible that the work of the DC Grand Jury could result in a separate indictment?

While it is possible, I also would say doubtful.

It would, at this point, have to be a crime committed in DC entirely.

Thanks bob!

[Maybenaut]

But no Espionage Sec. 793 charge?

It could be Sec. 793(d) or (e) (depending on whether the government is alleging authorized or unauthorized original possession of defense information); or it could be 18 USC 1924, retention of classified information. Or both, or all three.

We’ll have to see the charging document to know for sure.

Edit: Ninja’d by bob (sort of). I think 793(d) is possible, at least theoretically. Trump was clearly in lawful possession of these documents at some point while he was President. When he didn’t give them back, a crime under 793(d) would be complete (theoretically).

Also arguably, once he removed them from the White House, his possession was unauthorized, and his retention was a crime under 793(e).

The problem is you can’t be in both authorized and unauthorized possession of the same document at the same time. So the government is going to have to pick one.

There’s also a willfulness element that they’d have to prove under 793 that they wouldn’t have to prove under 1924.

So we’ll have to wait and see.

[RVInit]

I really wish Garland had been prepared to give a press conference the moment after informing Trump's lawyers. The DOJ is just letting tis known liar get out ahead of everything and allowing him to own the narrative.

Edit: Now someone on CNN saying the same thing.

[Luke]

Hannity brings Dershowitz on as guest 1 after he whines about Clinton. Sean looks unusually circumspect. Sean quotes NY Times reporting that a count is in the Espionage Act. "How can you not look immediately at classified information on Hillary Clinton's server? How about Joe Biden? BleachBit! Hammers! What about what about what about???" Gregg Jarrett says conclusively that there's a double standard and Garland "bastardized the law". Hacks on parade.

[northland10]

I really wish Garland had been prepared to give a press conference the moment after informing Trump's lawyers. The DOJ is just letting tis known liar get out ahead of everything and allowing him to own the narrative.

Edit: Now someone on CNN saying the same thing.

The people who will fall for his narrative wouldn't listen to Garland anyway.