Treasonous Trump indicted

[audiophile]

So I've finally had a chance to read through most of the indictment. Here are my thoughts:

-Considering that only 31 documents are in question, I'm not sure why so much is made of the various boxes, including photos of rooms full of boxes. The vast majority of the documents in those boxes are not at issue in this indictment, and as such, this looks more like fodder for the media than anything else.

-Counts 1 through 31 are NOT going to stick. These are basically all the same count (just each one count being for a different document) and allege that Trump engaged in espionage. Here's the relevant section of US Code:

(e) 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

What is fascinating here is that the question of whether Trump was authorized to possess the documents cited is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT because if you look at section (d) in Section 793, the same exact language exists, except the word "authorized" is in place of "unauthorized." In other words, GUILTY or NOT GUILTY has nothing to do with whether your possession of said documents was authorized or not. The key question here is whether you conveyed the information to others not entitled to receive it. Assuming that some of the statements of fact in the affidavit are proven to be true, this would appear to be the case. However, there's one final element, and that's the one that's going to be impossible to prove (unless there's more on the tapes than what is quoted in the affidavit), and that is intent. The prosecution is going to have to prove that Trump not only conveyed information to others not entitled to receive it, but that he did so knowing that the information he conveyed could be used to injure the United States. And I don't know how that question can even be answered without the jury actually being able to review the classified documents in question. The prosecution appears to be relying on past executive orders that define various classification markings and is going to generically argue that any document with a "secret" or "top secret," by definition, meets the criteria. But I don't think it is that simple. For example, the information in the documents that Trump showed others could be outdated and thus no longer a threat to national security. Without seeing the actual contents of the documents, the threat they pose to national security is unprovable.

==================

The remaining counts all have to do with obstruction. I will say this - some of the lawyer memos certainly look damaging. But at this stage, it all amounts to hearsay.

I'm sure I have more to add to this, but it is getting late and I've had a BUSY work week, so I'm mentally done for the day.

EDIT - one other thing I wanted to add here - if you read through 18 USC Chapter 37, the language in most other sections applies specifically to people doing things WITH THE INTENT of damaging the US and helping the enemy. 793(d) and (e) are the exception to this as they more vaguely only require that the information conveyed could damage the US, not necessarily that the person conveying said information did so with ill-intent towards the US. In Trump's case, it appears his only motive here was one of bragging. I don't think he showed anybody the stuff he did with the intent of those people taking that information and conveying it to the enemy. So taken in its broader context, this Chapter of US Code appears to have been written for the purpose of punishing those actively engaged in espionage, which, IMO, Trump was not.

Liberal Dershowitz agrees with BMW:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... r-AA1cmc6s

[Bryce]

No wonder there was pushback from having the pledge of allegiance recited in schools. Would seem the "and justice for all." part is a problem for the left.

[Rate This]

No wonder there was pushback from having the pledge of allegiance recited in schools. Would seem the "and justice for all." part is a problem for the left.

He’ll get a trial. He’ll get a perfectly fair trial. But since we have the indictment… we are going to get to play arm chair lawyer. You got a problem with that?

[Rate This]

So I've finally had a chance to read through most of the indictment. Here are my thoughts:

-Considering that only 31 documents are in question, I'm not sure why so much is made of the various boxes, including photos of rooms full of boxes. The vast majority of the documents in those boxes are not at issue in this indictment, and as such, this looks more like fodder for the media than anything else.

-Counts 1 through 31 are NOT going to stick. These are basically all the same count (just each one count being for a different document) and allege that Trump engaged in espionage. Here's the relevant section of US Code:

(e) 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

What is fascinating here is that the question of whether Trump was authorized to possess the documents cited is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT because if you look at section (d) in Section 793, the same exact language exists, except the word "authorized" is in place of "unauthorized." In other words, GUILTY or NOT GUILTY has nothing to do with whether your possession of said documents was authorized or not. The key question here is whether you conveyed the information to others not entitled to receive it. Assuming that some of the statements of fact in the affidavit are proven to be true, this would appear to be the case. However, there's one final element, and that's the one that's going to be impossible to prove (unless there's more on the tapes than what is quoted in the affidavit), and that is intent. The prosecution is going to have to prove that Trump not only conveyed information to others not entitled to receive it, but that he did so knowing that the information he conveyed could be used to injure the United States. And I don't know how that question can even be answered without the jury actually being able to review the classified documents in question. The prosecution appears to be relying on past executive orders that define various classification markings and is going to generically argue that any document with a "secret" or "top secret," by definition, meets the criteria. But I don't think it is that simple. For example, the information in the documents that Trump showed others could be outdated and thus no longer a threat to national security. Without seeing the actual contents of the documents, the threat they pose to national security is unprovable.

==================

The remaining counts all have to do with obstruction. I will say this - some of the lawyer memos certainly look damaging. But at this stage, it all amounts to hearsay.

I'm sure I have more to add to this, but it is getting late and I've had a BUSY work week, so I'm mentally done for the day.

EDIT - one other thing I wanted to add here - if you read through 18 USC Chapter 37, the language in most other sections applies specifically to people doing things WITH THE INTENT of damaging the US and helping the enemy. 793(d) and (e) are the exception to this as they more vaguely only require that the information conveyed could damage the US, not necessarily that the person conveying said information did so with ill-intent towards the US. In Trump's case, it appears his only motive here was one of bragging. I don't think he showed anybody the stuff he did with the intent of those people taking that information and conveying it to the enemy. So taken in its broader context, this Chapter of US Code appears to have been written for the purpose of punishing those actively engaged in espionage, which, IMO, Trump was not.

Liberal Dershowitz agrees with BMW:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... r-AA1cmc6s

Dershowitz has not been a liberal in some time and like Johnathan Turley has been toting Trumps water for some time.

[MWmetalhead]

The Op-Ed piece written by Dershowitz was prior to unsealing of the indictment. His piece seems more focused on the motivation for the charges and whether justice is being applied fairly as opposed to whether Trump actually broke the law.

He makes some valid points.

. The prosecution is going to have to prove that Trump not only conveyed information to others not entitled to receive it, but that he did so knowing that the information he conveyed could be used to injure the United States.

Based on the evidence (i.e. quotes) provided by witnesses pertaining to 2 of the 31 documents, it appears Trump did know the info could be used to injure the U.S. if it were to fall into the wrong hands.

He's divulging WAR PLANS to individuals who appear to be civilians with zero security clearance for cripe's sake.

[bmw]

My comments that follow in this post concern only counts 1-31 (I'll further address the remaining counts later).

I'll be honest - it was pretty late last night when I read this (I was tired) and I overlooked the header to counts 1-31 that clarified that Trump was specifically being charged with retention rather than divulging. I assumed after reading the facts regarding divulging that this was what he was being charged with. But given that prosecutors are limited to prosecuting what is in the indictment, I believe that legally this takes going after him for divulging information to those not entitled to receive it off the table. Which, why mention in the indictment the facts regarding divulging in the first place?

And to RT - the reason I mentioned section (d) which immediately precedes section (c) in the relevant code is because even if Trump had been authorized to possess these documents, prosecutors could have charged under the same set of facts under section (d) instead of (e), meaning, whether he was authorized to possess the documents or not becomes an irrelevant point. And that (for me anyways) raises an interesting question: could a sitting President be charged with section (d) for merely refusing to allow access to classified information to other people in the government who have the proper security clearances to review it? The way the law is worded, the answer would appear to be yes. Or could he be charged under section (d) for showing classified information to those without proper clearance? It would seem absurd to me that the first action would constitute espionage, and equally absurd that the second would constitute the same considering that the President is at the top of the chain of command and has the authority to de-classify and hence make public any document described by section 793.

The real flaw in Section 793 is that it focuses on the content of the document rather than its classification status. Because if you want to get real technical, let's say a President declassifies a document that otherwise meets the definition of " could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." The mere act of declassification does not change whether the contents of the document could be argued to cause injury to the US. But after declassification, it is now a public document. Now let's say I, an ordinary citizen, obtain a copy of that document through FOIA, and my mother asks to see it. if I refuse to show it to her, I am technically in violation of section 793(d) because not only does the document contain information harmful to the US, but she is authorized to see it because it is a public record.

MY POINT IS, I could see an appeals court overturning Section 793 as unconstitutional due to its overbroad nature. Moreover, because Donald Trump did once have the authority to possess and disseminate the information contained in the documents in question, I think it is going to be really difficult to argue that anything in Section 793 was ever intended to apply to the President, past or present. And while I will concede that Trump's handling of documents post-Presidency has been reckless, recklessness does not constitute espionage, nor does it constitute a prosecutable offense (according to James Comey, anyways).

One last thing worth pointing out is that Section 798 does explicitly deal with the dissemination of "classified" information. Someone would only presumably be charged for unlawful dissemination under 793 instead of 798 only if the information in question wasn't classified, which, if it wasn't classified, then it was necessarily public information, in which case, 793 would seem inapplicable.

[MWmetalhead]

I assume the actual provisions stated in the section, subsection and line number of USC cited in counts 1 thru 31 is what's relevant as opposed to the choice of words used in the heading. If retention leading to divulgement is what is tried, I think Trump could be found guilty on 2 of 31 counts. However, if mere retention is what is tried, I agree that the constitutionality of bringing such a charge in the first place would be highly questionable.

[Matt]

Does anyone think Trump is fit for office? This is a yes or no question.

[MWmetalhead]

Not just no but HELL NO.

A man who leaks war plans to civilians is completely unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

His attempts to coerce Mike Pence to breach his constitutional responsibilities regarding the 2020 election also make him unfit.

[Rate This]

I assume the actual provisions stated in the section, subsection and line number of USC cited in counts 1 thru 31 is what's relevant as opposed to the choice of words used in the heading. If retention leading to divulgement is what is tried, I think Trump could be found guilty on 2 of 31 counts. However, if mere retention is what is tried, I agree that the constitutionality of bringing such a charge in the first place would be highly questionable.

It’s all about retention AFTER he stopped being president and refused to give the documents up. That looks pretty open and shut from where I’m sitting… he had no authority at the point he stopped being president to have the documents and retaining them after January 20 at noon was thus illegal and that was compounded when he refused to give them up when ordered to do so which is a provision in section (e) of the code. This case is extremely simple to follow if you read all 49 pages.

As for his fitness… absolutely not. But will it shake his 40%?

[bmw]

I assume the actual provisions stated in the section, subsection and line number of USC cited in counts 1 thru 31 is what's relevant as opposed to the choice of words used in the heading. If retention leading to divulgement is what is tried, I think Trump could be found guilty on 2 of 31 counts. However, if mere retention is what is tried, I agree that the constitutionality of bringing such a charge in the first place would be highly questionable.

As I noted in the edited portion of my post, divulgement of classified information would more appropriately be tried under 798, not 793. And that would actually be an EASIER case to make because then the actual contents of the documents become irrelevant; all that matters is that classification marking. So I don't think they're going after him for divulgement.

[MWmetalhead]

he had no authority at the point he stopped being president to have the documents and retaining them after January 20 at noon was thus illegal...

Not sure the actual law aligns with those remarks of yours, RT, or the associated claims to that effect found in the indictment. Divulgement of highly sensitive information is an entirely different matter, though, and I do also believe he acted to obstruct the investigation.

And yes, I did read all 49 pages word for word.

BMW - you make a compelling argument. It will be interesting to see what the judge has to say on this topic. Might the Justice Department ultimately amend its charging document accordingly? Seems like some sloppiness may have occurred on their part, which would be embarrassing given the extremely high level of attention being paid to this case.

[bmw]

BMW - you make a compelling argument. It will be interesting to see what the judge has to say on this topic. Might the Justice Department ultimately amend its charging document accordingly? Seems like some sloppiness may have occurred on their part, which would be embarrassing given the extremely high level of attention being paid to this case.

I'm not sure they can amend BECAUSE it came from a grand jury. And I remember researching this topic in the New York Trump indictment - at least under state law in NY, a prosecutor cannot charge a defendant with anything outside the bounds of what a grand jury agreed to.

It appears to me that the prosecutor is simply not pursuing illegal divulgement. Which I find interesting considering that it appears to me to be a stronger case than what they did bring. I think that rather than 31 counts of illegal retention, they should have just brought 2 counts of illegal divulgement under section 798. Why they didn't go that route, who knows.

[Matt]

I can surmise by BMW's lack of willingness to answer the question that he believes Trump is fit for office.

[Bryce]

Does anyone think Trump is fit for office? This is a yes or no question.

I would submit he is considerably more fit for office than the current holder.

Policy wise it's a no brainier.

Given a choice I would however prefer another nominee.