FBI Raids Mar-A-Lago

[Luke Warm]

Could it be related to the contracts with Saudi Arabia that Trump approved and was revealed in Congress in the Spring of 2019? One wonders if Trump has received any payments from MbS for his 'assistance' in the Kingdom of 9/11's nuclear ambitions, and as this is ongoing, maybe Trump sees more opportunities to make money? And how secure is Mar-a-Lago from, say, Russian or Chinese spies?

Jared Kushner got a 2 billion dollar investment deal with Saudi Arabia since Trump left office. Trump himself, I don’t know. Do people remember way back when Republicans were outraged about Sandy Berger (I think he was a Clinton staffer) stole one classified document from the National Archives? Guy was a lazy underachiever in comparison, the key seems to be stealing documents by the boxful. Then Republicans will rush to defend you.

[broncofan]

Sandy Berger was the National Security Adviser under Clinton.

I think that's the basis of the speculation about Saudi Arabia. I read today that under the espionage act as it's written one doesn't actually have to be trying to sell such things to a foreign power. This is the statute everyone is talking about known as the espionage act. Multiple ways to violate it. Look at section (f).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

[broncofan]

I think that's the basis of the speculation about Saudi Arabia.

That refers to Jared's 2 billion dollar investment deal with Saudi Arabia. If I had to guess it would be that he violated the espionage act simply by being negligent with top secret security info or in part (d) by refusing to hand it over upon request.

[filghy2]

Do people remember way back when Republicans were outraged about Sandy Berger (I think he was a Clinton staffer) stole one classified document from the National Archives?

Let's not forget the furore about Hillary Clinton's emails. They wanted to jail her for that but any move against Trump is a political witchhunt.

In that case the FBI found that the law may have been broken but decided not the prosecute due to lack of evidence of criminal content. I assume the same standard would be applied to Trump. Could withholding documents after being asked to return them constitute criminal intent?

[Fitzcarraldo]

Much more details now that the warrant has been released:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/12/polit...ion/index.html

[Fitzcarraldo]

Let's not forget the furore about Hillary Clinton's emails. They wanted to jail her for that but any move against Trump is a political witchhunt.

In that case the FBI found that the law may have been broken but decided not the prosecute due to lack of evidence of criminal content. I assume the same standard would be applied to Trump. Could withholding documents after being asked to return them constitute criminal intent?

Oh, he made it a felony to mishandle classified documents:
https://www.salon.com/2022/08/11/sig...t-him_partner/

[Stavros]

Oh, he made it a felony to mishandle classified documents:
https://www.salon.com/2022/08/11/sig...t-him_partner/

Exactly! He refined the law he is trying to evade by claiming fabricated evidence, and appointed the head of the FBI who masterminds the 'witch-hunt'! Any hope that by now even Kevin McCarthy would 'see the light' has been dashed, but what do the people think who see this farce playing out? The blind leading the blind. And will Trump be prosecuted, as some think is essential if the law is to be upheld, or will some excuse be found?

And even then, if found guilty, is he too old to go to prison?

[Fitzcarraldo]

And even then, if found guilty, is he too old to go to prison?

No one is too old to go to prison in this country.

[broncofan]

In that case the FBI found that the law may have been broken but decided not the prosecute due to lack of evidence of criminal content. I assume the same standard would be applied to Trump. Could withholding documents after being asked to return them constitute criminal intent?

I think one reason why intent standards might be loosened in this statute is because of the significance of the documents.

Very few criminal statutes impose liability for negligence. When people think of intent, they imagine someone performed an act intentionally with knowledge of all relevant facts to achieve some illicit purpose.

There's a reason that (f) of the espionage act makes it a felony to handle these documents with gross negligence. Or in the second part of (f) imposes an affirmative obligation to return such documents once one's aware they're not where they should be. Very few statutes make a failure to act a crime (though there are a few: child abuse reporting statutes, requirement to file tax returns).

I didn't pay super close attention to the Hillary Clinton email scandals but remembered thinking "if she was simply careless why would that be criminal?" I think it really does depend on the kind of information we're talking about. It's not unreasonable to make someone who takes custody of nuclear secrets criminally liable if they don't return them to their lawful custodian once told to do so.

As you point out in that example it does show a more guilty mindset because he can no longer claim ignorance or carelessness. Still, I think there's a very small subset of state secrets that one should be held liable for compromising, even if it's because they did something they should have known (but didn't know) they shouldn't do, like bring them to a resort.

He's not President anymore. It would be grossly negligent to have those documents at Mar-a-lago if he were President, but it's something worse than that since he isn't. They shouldn't be in his possession anywhere.

[Stavros]

What about all those lawyers the man hires? Did none of them explain the law to him? Is it the case that he lied to them about the documents he took to Florida, or does he just not care thinking he has got away with it for so long he is untouchable?