FBI Raids Mar-A-Lago

[Fitzcarraldo]

Things are getting interesting:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-mar-lago-home-was-raided-large-group-fbi-agents-rcna42133

[filghy2]

What took them so long? The clock really is ticking because prosecution needs to be completed before the next administration takes office in January 2025, and there is lots of scope to delay trials through challenges, no matter how dubious. It's obvious that a Republican president would quash the case, even if it's not Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/04/justice-department-must-indict-and-convict-trump

[Stavros]

So Cry-Baby Trump employs a Squadron of Lawyers, none of whom can tell him the difference between a burglary and an FBI investigation? He is not obliged to familiarise himself with the law, but ignorance is no protection.

Or maybe he thinks he is above the law? And maybe, finally, the law is closing in on this serial liar, forever-in-debt scam merchant?

"What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democrat National Committee? Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States."
Trump says the FBI raided his Mar-a-Lago home (cnbc.com) (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/08/trump-says-fbi-raiding-his-mar-a-lago-home.html)

*Note for the ignorant -the FBI is not the same as the Democrat Party. And the head of the FBI was appointed by Dopey Donald.

[broncofan]

I do agree that it's a bit of a problem that the action is coming so late.

I'll just say one thing I've been impressed with so far is that Garland's DOJ doesn't leak. They don't seem to have anyone talking to the press in advance and even after they do things no information is coming from them. I like that better than all of the public relations we've had in the past with both Republicans and Democrats in DOJ.

[Fitzcarraldo]

So Cry-Baby Trump employs a Squadron of Lawyers, none of whom can tell him the difference between a burglary and an FBI investigation? He is not obliged to familiarise himself with the law, but ignorance is no protection.

Or maybe he thinks he is above the law?

He doesn't care. He dictates his own reality ... and the world has indulged him in that for practically his entire life.

[filghy2]

He doesn't care. He dictates his own reality ... and the world has indulged him in that for practically his entire life.

He also knows the deep state conspiracy victimhood stuff plays well with the Republican base. Trump probably thinks he can milk this to get the 2024 nomination by turning it into another loyalty test - anyone not with me must be with 'them'. Most of them are obligingly echoing his claims on the raid.
https://www.vox.com/2022/8/9/23298080/mar-a-lago-raid-trump-florida-desantis-republicans-regime

How does anyone in the party run against this guy if they are unwilling to contradict him?

[filghy2]

I'll just say one thing I've been impressed with so far is that Garland's DOJ doesn't leak. They don't seem to have anyone talking to the press in advance and even after they do things no information is coming from them. I like that better than all of the public relations we've had in the past with both Republicans and Democrats in DOJ.

Is there a problem though, that the absence of any public information leaves a vacuum for Trump and his acolytes to fill with wild speculations? It seems that Garland's strategy is that the best way to deal with Trump is to be as meticulous as possible about proper process, which may be why they have taken so long to act. But is that enough?

Democrats seem to have spent the past few years assuming that if they just play by the normal rules the public will eventually reject Trump and the Republicans because their awfulness will be so self-evident. That hasn't really worked.

One thing we know is that no matter how careful they are about proper process it will make no difference to Trump. If he becomes President in 2025 the first priority will be to purge the DoJ, FBI etc and install his own loyalists. He wants to run again for revenge.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-2025-radical-plan-second-term

[Stavros]

Defund the Police! Defund the FBI! Defund the DoJ! Hell, Defund Everything!

"Following the FBI (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/fbi) raid on former President Donald Trump’s (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/donald-trump)Mar-a-Lago (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/mar-a-lago-0) estate in southern Florida (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/florida), state lawmaker Anthony Sabatini called for the arrest of federal agents and urged the state to “sever all ties” with the Department of Justice.
...In response to the raid, Mr Sabatini tweeted on Monday night that “it’s time for us in the Florida Legislature to call an emergency legislative session and amend our laws regarding federal agencies”.He said the state should “sever all ties with DOJ (https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/doj) immediately” and that “any FBI agent conducting law enforcement functions outside the purview of our State should be arrested upon sight”.
Florida lawmaker calls for arrest of FBI agents and for state to ‘sever all ties with DOJ immediately’ (yahoo.com) (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/florida-lawmaker-calls-arrest-fbi-140549658.html)

[broncofan]

Is there a problem though, that the absence of any public information leaves a vacuum for Trump and his acolytes to fill with wild speculations? It seems that Garland's strategy is that the best way to deal with Trump is to be as meticulous as possible about proper process, which may be why they have taken so long to act. But is that enough?

Democrats seem to have spent the past few years assuming that if they just play by the normal rules the public will eventually reject Trump and the Republicans because their awfulness will be so self-evident. That hasn't really worked.

I don't want to say, well maybe nothing will work when it comes to getting Republicans to play by the rules and reject Trump. Clearly something has to be done to prosecute Trump for things he did during the transition, whether it be inciting the insurrection or removing documents to cover his bad acts.

Republicans have shown they are going to try to incite violence while denying responsibility for their incitement. But they can say it looks like a banana republic to prosecute a former president but when someone commits as many crimes as Trump did in broad daylight, if you don't prosecute him you undermine your entire system.

I see your point and am not sure. Public info would definitely help Democratic politicians make a better argument, which might reach some people. Hopefully Garland is maintaining secrecy not just for the appearance of propriety (which I agree Trumpers won't give a shit about anyway) but also because it will enable him to get evidence without telegraphing it and allowing his targets to first destroy it.

The difficulty in prosecuting Trump reminds me of the difficulty the feds had in trying to prosecute mafia bosses and why we had to pass laws like RICO that allowed greater imputation of crimes among co-conspirators. Those prosecutions usually involved going after lower-level people and getting them to flip. That takes years which we don't have.

Anyway, has anyone seen the kind of incitement the Republicans are engaged in? The Judge who issued the warrant definitely needs credible protection.

[Fitzcarraldo]

But they can say it looks like a banana republic to prosecute a former president but when someone commits as many crimes as Trump did in broad daylight, if you don't prosecute him you undermine your entire system.

Exactly. Either we're a nation of laws or we aren't. The president is not supposed to be above the law. And declaring that you're running for president is no excuse to break the law or to put ongoing cases on hold.

The silence is because they haven't charged him with anything yet. That's how our legal system works. They are still in the investigation mode. If they don't find evidence of a crime, the matter ends here.

But Trump has a copy of the warrant. He could release it at any time, but of course he won't.

[Stavros]

Trump may be the main attraction, but what ought to worry Americans most, is the support he has, and the language of threat and intimidation that is being issued by members of Congress who know perfectly well that the FBI and the DoJ are independent of the White House. It is the ease with which they condemn their own political system that raises the question -what do they want? The plethora of drivel from the Usual Suspects -McCarthy, Rubio, Cruz and MTG is evidence of the legitimacy crisis that has been engineered in the US, evidently by people who no longer believe the Constitution is fit for purpose, and who believe in Monarchy -rule by one person- rather than democracy. Though they may only represent 30-35% of the public.

It was said of the Terror in France, 'Ten men can make ten thousand tremble'. A handful of Senators and Congressional Representatives can wreak havoc. Terror indeed.

[filghy2]

The difficulty in prosecuting Trump reminds me of the difficulty the feds had in trying to prosecute mafia bosses and why we had to pass laws like RICO that allowed greater imputation of crimes among co-conspirators. Those prosecutions usually involved going after lower-level people and getting them to flip. That takes years which we don't have.

The additional problem with getting insiders to flip against Trump is they know they can count on pardon if he becomes President again.

As I recall, Al Capone was convicted for tax evasion in the end. Perhaps conviction for mishandling of official records could serve an analogous function for Trump.

[filghy2]

It is the ease with which they condemn their own political system that raises the question -what do they want?

Something like this, no doubt. Orban is clearly a role model for the US right nowadays.
https://www.vox.com/2022/8/5/23292448/orban-cpac-dallas-2022-speech-trump

Most of the Republican Party seems comfortable with moving in an authoritarian direction by manipulating the system to ensure the other side can't win and stacking independent institutions with partisans. They justify this by telling themselves lurid stories about the supposed liberal threat to their way of life. As you suggest, this is not just about Trump. Another leader would move the same way.

The big question is whether uncommitted voters will wake up to this before it's too late, or whether they will be so distracted by anger about inflation that they can't see beyond punishing the incumbents. My guess is that a shift in focus from the economy to Trump's misdeeds would help the Dems to some degree, but who knows? I'm continually amazed at how the Republicans seem able to avoid reckoning for their increasing extremism.

[Stavros]

The big question is whether uncommitted voters will wake up to this before it's too late, or whether they will be so distracted by anger about inflation that they can't see beyond punishing the incumbents. My guess is that a shift in focus from the economy to Trump's misdeeds would help the Dems to some degree, but who knows? I'm continually amazed at how the Republicans seem able to avoid reckoning for their increasing extremism.

For how long can people vote for Trump and his apostles because they are angry and feel alienated? Evidence appears to show that Roe-v-Wade being removed from the jurisdiction of the Federal Govt has sparked a reaction that begs the question I have asked elsewhere -what if all States were to hold a referendum on Abortion and the majority say they want it to remain a woman's right to choose? And at some point, will the incessant need for Trump to be front, back and centre of everything the Republicans talk about weary the voter, so they either abstain or vote Democrat? I don't think the US has had such a domineering personality cult since Elvis, and Trump ain't he.

If I were in the US I would implore the Democrats to create a campaign which emphasises a positive future for all, one that would run counter to the forever-backwards of Trump and the Republicans. And is it the case that inflation actually declined in the last mohth?

And I read I think, in The Guardian, that Trump is convinced someone in his 'camp' flipped and tipped off the FBI about the classified documents in Mar-a-Lago -there is more to this event than is being discussed in the open.

[filghy2]

And I read I think, in The Guardian, that Trump is convinced someone in his 'camp' flipped and tipped off the FBI about the classified documents in Mar-a-Lago -there is more to this event than is being discussed in the open.

Trump and his allies are now claiming that the FBI planted evidence, which is a pretty strong indication that they found something incriminating. It will be interesting to see whether Trump agrees to release the warrant now that the AG has moved to unseal it.

[broncofan]

Trump and his allies are now claiming that the FBI planted evidence, which is a pretty strong indication that they found something incriminating. It will be interesting to see whether Trump agrees to release the warrant now that the AG has moved to unseal it.
We now know what they were looking for. Documents labeled "top secret" and pertaining to nuclear secrets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/11/garland-trump-mar-a-lago/

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Things are getting interesting:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-mar-lago-home-was-raided-large-group-fbi-agents-rcna42133Indeed they are.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Trump and his allies are now claiming that the FBI planted evidence, which is a pretty strong indication that they found something incriminating. It will be interesting to see whether Trump agrees to release the warrant now that the AG has moved to unseal it.Donald-D.A.M.N-Trump and his enablers are full of horseshit,because he and his allies knows how much legal trouble he's in and there's no way out for him.

[Stavros]

We now know what they were looking for. Documents labeled "top secret" and pertaining to nuclear secrets. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/11/garland-trump-mar-a-lago/

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?

[broncofan]

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?
I would say the majority of guesses I've seen are about Saudi Arabia. I don't think Mar-a-Lago is at all secure when it comes to spies and it's anyone's guess whether the material has been compromised. I suppose the fact that we don't know who's seen it is a degree of it being compromised. You have top secret classification so that you can have truly secret high-level documents AND rely on your certainty or near certainty that no other country's spies have seen them.

I'm going to wait to find out bc I have trouble believing anyone would be so crazy to risk selling nuclear secrets. I know that Trump has shown a high degree of crazy and corruption but the plan seems to risk unequivocal treason in exchange for traceable money from despots. People have done brazenly stupid things before and Trump in particular but I just don't feel confident even guessing.

[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/politics/trump-mar-a-lago-investigation/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/signed-law-making-mishandling-of-classified-info-a-felony--now-it-may-come-back-to-haunt-him_partner/

[Stavros]

Oh, he made it a felony to mishandle classified documents:
https://www.salon.com/2022/08/11/signed-law-making-mishandling-of-classified-info-a-felony--now-it-may-come-back-to-haunt-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?

[broncofan]

I've never practiced criminal law and don't litigate but there's a really broad range of competency among lawyers. We have 170+ law schools in the United States and though the bar exams are reasonably well-written, one can take the exam as many times as they need to pass. Taking this further, no matter how well you prepare someone in legal theory and legal reasoning there are people who just don't have common sense, which the bar exam does try to screen for, but not well enough. Trump does not hire talented lawyers and since he's run for President his saving grace has been the protections Presidents get from prosecution, lawsuits, and disclosure in some cases. He's also defended by vast media organs that do public relations work for him gratis and a mob who threatens the people who would investigate or prosecute him.

From what I've read the FBI is going to be fingerprinting the documents taken from Mar-A-Lago to see who has handled them. I don't know how well fingerprints will show up on paper but the idea is that these documents are supposed to only be seen and handled by certain people.

I do worry that people who think there will necessarily have been a plot to sell secrets will be disappointed. We don't have Trump on tape on 1/6 saying "attack the Capitol, overturn the elections, and kill every Democratic Congress person". But I did hear him tell Georgia's Secretary of State that he wants him to find the number of votes he needs to win and that he may have liability if he doesn't. We have to accept that these kinds of actions are often criminal and should be punished. Putting nuclear secrets in a country club storage locker when you're not President and not returning them when demanded should be enough to convict him of a felony.

[Stavros]

Thanks for this post, Broncofan. I think it not only explains the lawyers who come across as being a little 'unhinged' -Sidney Powell drinking Dr Pepper is an enduring image- but also why Trump in effect make up his own rules, and either ignores the lawyers who tell him in simple language that every document, from a classified report into the USA's nuclear arsenal, to a receipt from McDonalds, is Government Property and he can't pocket it, rip it up, or flush it down the toilet. Or just says 'so what?'.

The man just doesn't care about rules, it is characteristic of his life and the Presidency, and thus even lawyers just give up trying to get him to be obedient to the rules that matter. What does one do with such an anarchic bully? It makes you wonder if any lawyer wants to represent him in Court, unless their only advice is, 'Take the Fifth'! because that's the only advice they can give that won't land their client in prison.

Then there is the question -do these people ever get paid? How many of the 16+ lawyers representing him I have identified are still waiting on Trump to settle their bills?

[broncofan]

How many of the 16+ lawyers representing him I have identified are still waiting on Trump to settle their bills?
:D:tongue: That's funny. Maybe it's free advertising to show people how low they're willing to go. Like I will defend you no matter how bad you are.

Trump violates rules that are often laws but people have gotten so used to his way of doing things that they really think prosecutors should need more than criminal acts to convict him. When looking at incomplete information, they need the unknown facts to be the worst permutation possible or it's like he hasn't done anything wrong.

[filghy2]

Then there is the question -do these people ever get paid? How many of the 16+ lawyers representing him I have identified are still waiting on Trump to settle their bills?

Possibly including Rudi Giuliani, according to past reports.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/14/trump-refusing-to-pay-rudy-giuliani-legal-fees-after-falling-out

[Stavros]

Does this mean Trump's lawyers have broken the law?

"The FBI searched Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after it obtained evidence there was probably an effort to conceal classified documents in defiance of a grand jury subpoena and despite his lawyers suggesting otherwise, the justice department said in a court filing.
...
As Trump’s lawyer and custodian turned over the folder to Jay Bratt, the justice department’s chief counterintelligence official, the custodian produced and signed a letter certifying a “diligent search” had been conducted and all documents responsive to the subpoena were being returned."
FBI searched Trump Mar-a-Lago home over ‘likely’ efforts to hide classified files, justice department says | Donald Trump | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/31/fbi-searched-trump-mar-a-lago-home-over-efforts-to-hide-classified-files-justice-department-says)

[Stavros]

Something occurs to me with regard to the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. I have worked on original documents in archives in the UK, Europe, the US and the Middle East, and in most cases the documentation is meticulous. I assume therefore, that for example, any of the US intelligence services providing the President with briefing or background papers, will have given them an identifiable reference, so that the Archivists should be able to look at the list of documents sent to the Oval Office, and check them off against the list that were handed over to them. The President and his staff would then have to explain the absence of a document that was sent to the Oval Office, but not to the Archive. I wonder if this has also been the basis of the DoJ search of Trump's property?

Meanwhile, this article by Andrew Feinberg looks at the security and intelligence implications, on the basis that if Trump retained documents that contain highly sensitive information on human intelligence sources and also SIGINT, these may have or could compromise American security in the US and abroad. Mention is made of Trump's cavalier attitude to sensitive intelligence, referring to a US agent that had to be exfiltrated from Moscow because of Trum's incompetence -if that is what it was, as

"The extraction operation reportedly took place not long after Mr Trump revealed highly classified intelligence which Israeli officials had provided to the US regarding Isis to then-Russian ambassador to the US Sergei Kislyak and foreign minister Sergei Lavrov during a 2017 Oval Office meeting."
‘We’re gonna blind ourselves’: Ex-intel officials say Trump’s document hoarding could ruin years of work | The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-maralago-documents-intelligence-sources-b2157004.html)

Russia, Russia, Russia indeed!