FBI Raid at Mar-A-Lago

[TSherbs]

All that will matter is what the DOJ decides to do.

Given the results of the midterm election. The Republican crooks in the senate let Trump off the hook more than once. No doubt they are planning to do it again.

What could congress do about a criminal indictment (if it were to occur)?

[Chip]

If they gain control of either house, they will pursue all sorts of phony investigations and work (perhaps via the budget) to undermine the DOJ, FBI, and any other threats to Trump.

[Lloyd]

As Trump (allegedly) barely read documents while in office, I'm surprised he'd take them after he was dethroned ...unless they were to show off to his cronies.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[TSherbs]

If they gain control of either house, they will pursue all sorts of phony investigations and work (perhaps via the budget) to undermine the DOJ, FBI, and any other threats to Trump.

jeez

[Chuck Naill]

The unredacted office photo.

[kazoolaw]

If they gain control of either house, they will pursue all sorts of phony investigations and work (perhaps via the budget) to undermine the DOJ, FBI, and any other threats to Trump.

Well, they've got a couple impeachments to catch up on.

[kazoolaw]

Why are you bringing up what a sitting president can do (although, a worthy sitting president wouldn't declassify a TS+ document without altering the markings and distributing which information is no longer classified as the impact to related documents would be impacted), Trump is NOT an sitting president.

Lloyd, I'm sure you understand dneal's point that a sitting President can declassify documents. Trump was a sitting President and could have declassified documents during his term, up to his last day in office apparently.

Can you point us to a written standard for how that's done? I've not seen one. Producing a list of which documents were declassified and when would move the discussion beyond "did to," "did not."

[Lloyd]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-de...031803971.html
and from justice.gov:

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STANDARD DECLASSIFICATION MARKINGS?

The intent of uniform, conspicuous and standard markings is to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information. If standard declassification markings are not affixed to declassified records uncertainty is created for cleared holders of the record as to its classification status.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

Dneal doesn't have a point.

I'll repeat this one last time: as a criminal matter it doesn't matter why he took the documents. Or if some were classified (which would be an aggravating circumstance).

It doesn't matter if he thought, lacking any written evidence or substantive proof, that he had declassified some of them (which did not entitle him to take them out of the White House and treat them as personal property.)

What matters is that he stole documents that by any definition belong to the US Government, for his personal use, and when asked to surrender them, after a long delay, complied only in part, while his lawyers (on his instructions, no doubt) lied in a signed statement to the FBI.

Does that clear this up for you?

[kazoolaw]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-de...031803971.html
and from justice.gov:

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STANDARD DECLASSIFICATION MARKINGS?

The intent of uniform, conspicuous and standard markings is to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information. If standard declassification markings are not affixed to declassified records uncertainty is created for cleared holders of the record as to its classification status.

Thanks Lloyd. Some of this sounds like a "standard of practice" as opposed to a bright line test. Which isn't uncommon but leaves room for endless wrangling: "uncertainty " indeed.

[Lloyd]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-de...031803971.html
and from justice.gov:

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STANDARD DECLASSIFICATION MARKINGS?

The intent of uniform, conspicuous and standard markings is to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information. If standard declassification markings are not affixed to declassified records uncertainty is created for cleared holders of the record as to its classification status.

Thanks Lloyd. Some of this sounds like a "standard of practice" as opposed to a bright line test. Which isn't uncommon but leaves room for endless wrangling: "uncertainty " indeed.

At the least, it implies that he didn't follow what most with a clearance would call very important protocols meant to protect the country. At worst, it would imply grounds for charges. Either way, it should mean that he shouldn't have access to classified documents in the future.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Bold2013]

If they gain control of either house, they will pursue all sorts of phony investigations and work (perhaps via the budget) to undermine the DOJ, FBI, and any other threats to Trump.

Probably will after seeing how it was used by the authoritarian leftists (and not just to undermine but also employ politically).

[Chuck Naill]

Wow, you guys can't see the forest for the trees. The photo, the real one, clearly shows cover pages with classified designations. Why would Trump or anyone declassify a document still containing top secret information? Why would someone not have removed the cover pages?

How many times did Trump classify a document? Most reports say he was not interested in daily briefings.

[TSherbs]

If they gain control of either house, they will pursue all sorts of phony investigations and work (perhaps via the budget) to undermine the DOJ, FBI, and any other threats to Trump.

Well, they've got a couple impeachments to catch up on.

you don't even mean this statement

[TSherbs]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-de...031803971.html
and from justice.gov:

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STANDARD DECLASSIFICATION MARKINGS?

The intent of uniform, conspicuous and standard markings is to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information. If standard declassification markings are not affixed to declassified records uncertainty is created for cleared holders of the record as to its classification status.

Thanks Lloyd. Some of this sounds like a "standard of practice" as opposed to a bright line test. Which isn't uncommon but leaves room for endless wrangling: "uncertainty " indeed.

At the least, it implies that he didn't follow what most with a clearance would call very important protocols meant to protect the country. At worst, it would imply grounds for charges. Either way, it should mean that he shouldn't have access to classified documents in the future.

Hey, we all know that Trump did not "de-classify" any of that shit. Come on. This may never be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," but we all know that this slime-bucket did no such act of declassification. He did not give a shit about any of that kind of protocol, especially as he was leaving the office of the presidency in such an aggrieved and faux-victimized state. Garland is in a tough spot. He knows that Trump will not stop transgressing boundaries until he is made to by the law. He brags about how he is bigger than the law, and when he isn't, then the law is wrong. Trump wrote in his book that he made the mistake only once of admitting that he had been wrong. He then writes that it is a necessary mantra never to admit an error or apologize. So Garland will have to decide whether this negligence on Trump's part (and subsequent delay and obfuscation) is finally enough to press criminal charges. I say go for it, let's get to the riots and deal with them, and then move on once we have cauterized the country of this Maga maniac. The GOP brought this fuckface of a disease into the White House. The carnage is on their hands as we try to rid the country of the scourge.

[Chuck Naill]

I'd like to know how many times Trump classified information while in office. Then, how would he know what information was no longer needing to be classified?

This is a man who pleaded the 5th 400 times recently regarding his business.

How can people, some of them here, be so brain washed?

[TSherbs]

There were so many people foretelling this kind of outcome if Trump took on the presidency. We were told repeatedly that we were being political and negative and that Trump would rise to the station of the office and that wiser minds would temper his injudiciousness.

How'd that turn out?

Someone said, right, that democracy always gives you the type of president that you deserve. Damn. Remember how weak the GOP primary slate of choices was? It was a losers' row. Well, you got your winner, didn't you? He's just been such a fine example of leadership, wisdom, diplomacy, and ethics.

[TSherbs]

I suppose that as an Independent who did not participate in the primaries (we had an antiquated caucas system in 2016), I should apologize for not helping to put forward a stronger candidate than Hilary Clinton who could have/woud have defeated DTrump. I am sorry.

[Chuck Naill]

There were so many people foretelling this kind of outcome if Trump took on the presidency. We were told repeatedly that we were being political and negative and that Trump would rise to the station of the office and that wiser minds would temper his injudiciousness.

How'd that turn out?

Someone said, right, that democracy always gives you the type of president that you deserve. Damn. Remember how weak the GOP primary slate of choices was? It was a losers' row. Well, you got your winner, didn't you? He's just been such a fine example of leadership, wisdom, diplomacy, and ethics.

Like J.D. Vance?

[Chuck Naill]

I suppose that as an Independent who did not participate in the primaries (we had an antiquated caucas system in 2016), I should apologize for not helping to put forward a stronger candidate than Hilary Clinton who could have/woud have defeated DTrump. I am sorry.

Brooks is talking about the unthinkable Sanders/Trump ticket.

I forgive you, but 3 million more voters wanted her than Trump. The problem is the system, not your lack of participation. At least you chose to vote unlike one troll here.