FBI raids Maralago (Trumps home)

submitted by Rob3122 from self.politics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Sorry, you are wrong about this.

Nope. Lawfare has a detailed post about the declassification process, and the circumstances under which it is legal: The Classification Status of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Documents.

As per Richard Immerman “The procedure is far more formal,” said Immerman, who is now a historian at Temple University. “Documents must be declassified page by page; in fact, if TS/SCI [Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information] line by line. The document then is marked declassified (often sanitized) by the authorizing agent along with the date. Consequently, former President Trump’s claim is to me implausible.”

No, you are wrong about this too. They visited in mid-Jully and told him to improve the lock.

1) Nope, they told him to put a lock on it. That shitty little bicycle lock that you've seem pictures of was what was put on the room after that.

2) Asking him to put a lock on it, does not mean that they didn't also try to get the documents back without a search warrant. And in fact it is on the record that they did.

No, the warrant is just boiler plate looking for lost confidential documents.

Nope, that's not what a search warrant is. You need "probable cause" of a crime. In this case those three crimes mentioned on the warrant. Given that they are out of sequential order, you will suspect, as I do, that there was some toing and froing with the crimes to be investigated.

It can be deceptively characterized about all the scary things that could entail, but this was just the National Archive wanting their schwag to show in the museum......which is why they took the golf ball and rain coat...because this was NEVER about espionage or destruction of record.

All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, [...]

That's espionage.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, some guy from Lawfare guessed at the situation, bemoaning the process to declassification, but didn't know if they were classified or not.

1) Nope, they told him to put a lock on it.

Yes, I told you that they knew he had boxes and boxes of documents left to sift through, after turning over more than a dozen boxes full earlier this year, and a few confidential things were probably in those leftovers. They wanted him to improve security, implying acceptance of the location of the material.

2) Asking him to put a lock on it, does not mean that they didn't also try to get the documents back without a search warrant.

Sure. They wanted someone to drop what they were doing and sift though boxes and boxes of papers. We know how long they take to redact paperwork in the government, taking years, but it seems the government expects unrealistic and much different ability, but only when the partisan attack legal-concern-troll is activated.

All physical documents and records constituting

You basically cited a law that said having illegal things is illegal. Espionage is a bit different, but frequently involves illegal evidences too.

So, to conclude, we are still talking about a non-illegal thing, that was known and accepted, and how we are being gaslit into looking at these normal and legal things as if they were some extreme nefarious thing, by making assumptions and projecting motivations. This one-trick-wonder of deception gets really old.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

but didn't know if they were classified or not.

But he makes clear that the label "classified" on the document is changed, and the change dated before a document's classification is changed. So we know when the receipt says "classified documents" then the documents were still classified at the time they were recovered during the execution of the search warrant.

They wanted him to improve security, implying acceptance of the location of the material.

It implies they didn't want people looking at the documents. It does not imply they accepted their non-return.

So, to conclude, we are still talking about a non-illegal thing ...

There were three sections of 18 USC cited on the warrant. Violations of all three are a crime.

Read 18 USC section 753 again, if you don't think it's espionage:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

And none of them matter if the documents are classified or not.

So to conclude we are talking about illegal things, and the obvious bullshit about standing declassification orders makes no difference to that.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, a document's classification status does not rely on its marking.

Yes, declassification is a long process and they eventually get around to changing the marking, but it will always mention "classified" still. Stupid FBI seeing "classified" with a big "declassified" stamp over it, would be expected to still list it as (possibly) classified in their very vague and quickly done receipt. FBI don't bother confirming the classification status, that is for others to deal with. Considering the situation, if it a document appears to mention classified at all, the FBI are probably not permitted to look at the document any farther.

The President has sweeping declassification authority and can declassify documents at a whim, with a word, and that long declassification process is left to others. We'll probably be slow rolled the results of this after the midterm election so they can ham up the gaslighting campaign to influence the elections.

It does not imply they accepted their non-return.

They told him to improve security and left, implying they accepted that they would be suitable to stay there a bit longer. No one implied they wouldn't be returned eventually, if required.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The marking indicates the classification. It didn't really on it, but it is a necessary step.

The President has sweeping declassification authority and can declassify documents at a whim, with a word, and that long declassification process is left to others.

Not even close.

He has to got through the process that involves consultation with the department. In this case defense.

They told him to improve security and left, implying they accepted that they would be suitable to stay there a bit longer.

No. That only means they didn't have the search warrant.

No one implied they wouldn't be returned eventually, if required.

Where are you getting this from?

No. Less invasive means we're attempted. Trump refused. They got a search warrant, mentioning the crimes that they have probable cause for finding evidence of. They took what relevant documents they could find.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not even close.

Yes. Sweeping authority! He IS the de-facto head of classification when in office. He says the word, others work the process.

No. That only means they didn't have the search warrant.

You seem to be misleading here...

They didn't need a search warrant, they gave them a tour and took them down to where the documents were store, which is wear the suggestion of a bigger lock was made.

Where are you getting this from?

When the classification authorities all piled into Trump's basement closest to see the boxes of papers he hadn't finished sifting through for classified material yet, back in mid-July, after producing more than a dozen boxes of classified material in mid January.

Trump refused.

This is a false statement. Trump never refused and continuously worked with the excessively and abnormally impatient National Records archive and classification authorities.