[Trump Criminal Exposure] 2 Many Crimes, 2 Many Coverups.
MorganV
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
This thread is for Trump criminality as a result of his Presidency, that is not directly related to the coup, or isn't primarily related to his business criminal exposures.
Looks like the National Archives are opening yet ANOTHER avenue of exposure for Donald to face indictments.
It's already been reported that Trump was continuing to rip up documents that needed to be archived, despite knowing it was illegal. This was reported on while he was in office too. But the recent court rulings releasing documents to the Jan 6 commission has it at the forefront, as some of those documents were part of those released.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/05/trump-ripping-documents/
And also that he absconded with cartons of documents that should have gone to the National Archives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/07/trump-records-mar-a-lago/
But the latest has the potential to be the most damning.
"NEW: The National Archives and Records Administration discovered what it believed was classified information in documents Donald J. Trump had taken with him from the White House as he left office."
- Michael Shmidt works for the New York Times.
I mean, it's still illegal to take documents regardless of content. But if they've got classified information in them, that's a whole other level of "What the fuck?". I mean, we know that Trump's opsec rigor was fucking crap, but "Imma steal classified documents" sure is a take from someone who surfed to victory about someone using an off-site email server (which people in his Administration also did).
cardboard delusions posted a great summary of the events up until Trump's filing of a response to the suit (30th August).
Looks like the National Archives are opening yet ANOTHER avenue of exposure for Donald to face indictments.
It's already been reported that Trump was continuing to rip up documents that needed to be archived, despite knowing it was illegal. This was reported on while he was in office too. But the recent court rulings releasing documents to the Jan 6 commission has it at the forefront, as some of those documents were part of those released.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/05/trump-ripping-documents/
And also that he absconded with cartons of documents that should have gone to the National Archives.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/07/trump-records-mar-a-lago/
But the latest has the potential to be the most damning.
"NEW: The National Archives and Records Administration discovered what it believed was classified information in documents Donald J. Trump had taken with him from the White House as he left office."
- Michael Shmidt works for the New York Times.
I mean, it's still illegal to take documents regardless of content. But if they've got classified information in them, that's a whole other level of "What the fuck?". I mean, we know that Trump's opsec rigor was fucking crap, but "Imma steal classified documents" sure is a take from someone who surfed to victory about someone using an off-site email server (which people in his Administration also did).
cardboard delusions posted a great summary of the events up until Trump's filing of a response to the suit (30th August).
cardboard delusions wrote: »Not that any of this is new, but I liked that it was a pretty concise timeline of events from a blue check national security lawyer (@BradMossEsq) which paints the clear picture of where we are today:
- NARA negotiated in 2021 for the missing records and finally got 15 boxes. After going through them and finding all sorts of classified records, they raised the alarm. They wanted to make a referral to the FBI but first had to consult with trump's team per the PRA procedure. trump's team delayed for weeks and weeks and never substantially responded. Finally, NARA told them they were making the referral and rejected the "protective" assertation of Executive Privilege
- At no time did his legal team file an action *at that point* to prevent FBI referral
- FBI reviewed the records and the criminal inquiry was opened. A grand jury subpoena was issued to trump's team and they continued to delay until June 2022 they agreed to meet at MAL to comply. They turned over more classified records and swore out a statement they did a diligent search, they had not found any more classified records and any records that remained were in the storage room. They refused to let FBI look at those boxes.
- FBI gathered new evidence that there were more classified records at MAL, including locations outside the storage room. They got the search warrant and found ~100 additional classified records, some in trump's own office.
- That is straight up obstruction and concealment of classified records, and willfully retaining them in an unauthorized location.
- Now come the legal arguments. First, DOJ says trump lacks standing. The records are not his: they are the property of the US. Even if he wanted to claim them as personal records, he never did so. He never did so in 2021, he did not do so when subpoenaed, he never did it. He has no possessory interest in the records.
- Second, they argue trump is not entitled to any injunctive relief. Again, these are not his records, he waited way too long to stop the FBI from getting the records, he's not entitled to relief given Executive Privilege would not apply, and even if it did the criminal investigative need outweighs it.
- Third, the special master is moot. A/C privilege records were already separated and are set to be evaluated by the magistrate. The records trump claims are covered by EP are not his anyway, and the Nixon precedents make clear he cannot invoke it to override the need to conduct a criminal investigation.
To sum it up: trump took plainly marked classified records to MAL, he delayed and obstructed and resisted government efforts to recover them, he (or his staff) concealed the records from investigators and they got caught doing so. Anything else we learn at this point is just more crimes, I know it feels like we've been here before, but I can't help but feel the DOJ would go through this song and dance if they didn't intend to see it through, especially because they've signaled in the right lane 2 miles before every exit and been waived off.
Echo on
+7
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Which people are pointing out now clears up that weird obsession he had with the strength of the White House toilets throughout the end of his term.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-archives-asks-doj-investigate-trumps-handling-white/story?id=82781128&cid=social_twitter_tw
Now, whether the DOJ do anything, remains to be seen.
I get Garland doesn't want to be seen as partisan, but the longer he leaves this unresolved, the harder it's going to be to actually charge Trump without it being seen to be such.
If it's after July, it'll be "an attempt to influence the election".
If it's after November, and Republicans take the House (and disband the Committee), it'll be "propping up a failed Democrat witch hunt".
You're going to get attacked regardless. Might as well avoid any added bullshit, and be seen that you're actually putting forward the idea that noone is above the law. Because if you don't do something, then you're saying they are.
Fuck Maggie Haberman so fucking much. I think only Greenwald rivals her for pure hypocritical bullshit that still inexplicably still has a platform. In a just world, she would have been blacklisted from all reputable press a decade ago, and yet she's still out there whitewashing and running pure propaganda for this fucking asshole. "Improperly disposing of documents," it's a federal fucking crime, you piece of shit, you know, the kind you breathlessly speculated about Democrats committing for goddamned years straight, but you chose here to conceal and now underplay to sell a book.
"Read til the very end: “Trump was very secretive about the packing of boxes that were retrieved from Mar-a-Lago last month, and did not let other aides — including some of his most senior advisers — look at them, according to people close to him.”"
- Jacqueline Alemany is a political reporter for Wapo.
So, if that holds up, there goes any excuse about someone else having done it.
Sadly, they'll probably get away with arguing Trump was just too dumb/ignorant to know that what he was doing was against the law.
Ignoring the fact that if true, that should be fucking disqualifying from him ever running again.
I'm so fucking sick of that argument being made. If Trump should be excused from his lack of knowledge on personnel decisions, on obstruction, on emoluments, on diplomacy, on operational security, on records keeping, on national disaster response, on pandemic response, on and on and on and on, then he's got no fucking business being President.
I could forgive a lapse or two, but his entire fucking Presidency can be summed up by his adherents as "He doesn't know what the fuck he's doing, give him a break!".
Oof
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
People would pay good money for that stuff! Why should it go to Biden?
It's hard to get too mad at her when Bob Woodward did the same damn thing.
If Garland ignores this, he should be removed.
My black heart has enough hate for the both of them.
He does, and he will claim it's actually several billion things.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
Wilful might be the hardest part to prove, don't know what the requirements are from a legal perspective. But I bet reports that he packed them himself, and refused help from others to do so, might be enough? But everything else appears cut and dry.
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-reportedly-packed-white-house-053722130.html
Trump reportedly packed White House boxes in secret, took 'top secret' documents to Mar-a-Lago
I'm really trying not to bite on this, but holy shit.
That "barred from holding office" is one hell of a bargaining chip to use on the sort of grasping, ambitious intermediaries to whom he likely delegated this activity.
Edit: Would that include congressional office?
I believe it would prohibit him from running for any office or being appointed to any position, yes. Probably means he can't be hired by any department too?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
My good friend and renowned constitutional scholar, G. O. Ogle..thorpe, says that "office[rs] under the United States" refers to judges, principle officers (senate confirmed), and 'inferior officers;' and excludes mere 'employees' or members of congress.
Which is disappointing, because whichever deputy assistant douchebag wants to take the fall for this could still spin it into a successful (Article I) political career or continue serving as a mid-level spite-hire.
He would put a proxy up and stand next to them on stage and immediately take over when they would go to talk. And give a "vote for [proxy] WINK WINK" and say wink out loud. I would bet at some point the proxy stops showing up and its just Trump running as a different candidate.
Let him off on this by barring him from office.
Proceed to charge him with everything that they've held off on since it's no longer politically motivated.
There have been several key rulings against Trump the person, including by SCOTUS judges he nominated. And there is a DA who is hungry to put his head on her wall. Assuming he’ll walk away scot free isn’t an unrealistic expectation but I think it’s important for the public to be disappointed and outraged if that happens, and to not be resigned to that outcome before it even gets there.
It's still a fucking travesty that the DOJ is fighting to defend this. I get that there's a precedent that the President should get the benefit of protection while in office.
But...
1) He's no longer in office.
2) The incident in question happened before he was in office.
3) It was clearly not in his role as President he defamed Ms Carroll.
I did get confused a little by the article, as both the judge and the plaintiff's attorney share the same name (Kaplan), but AFAICT there's no relation (otherwise there'd have been many screams for recusal, and that's not been the case).
The irony that there's a DNA "sample" on the dress (part of the suit is getting Trump's DNA for comparison) is just proof reality writers are hacks.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/nyregion/donald-trump-fraud-investigation-new-york.amp.html
The big recent news is that some of the emails on the laptop have been found to be authentic, which has the usual suspects claiming victory, and the rest of us wondering if they can't see one of the most blatant scammer's tricks.
No, you don't understand, the EMAILS are AUTHENTIC.
Edit: sorry, that was snarky. I'm just looking for a straight answer.
That’s basically the opposite of what happened though.
All the usual suspects have been whinging that this proves the left wing media killed the story. When actually nothing's changed. The big media companies didn't run the story because the machine's provenance couldn't be verified, the cover story had more holes in it than swiss cheese, and the laptop/information on it had to have been stolen. Plus if there were dynamite emails on that machine the post would have published them anyway. The same scenario is playing out with Ashley Biden's diary as we speak. I seem to recall not even Fox News would touch the laptop story directly at the time.
From the NYTimes article the right wing is claiming this stuff about.
The important part is same as Hillary, not what was on the emails, but the fact that anything exists at all, which is therefore ironclad proof of all previous conspiracy theories and speculations.
As long as you or your dad isn't running for President against Biff Tannen you are probably safe.
An email saying he must follow the law, shit
MWO: Adamski
(it's lawdog quoting CNN reporter)
NEW: Unsealed court document in DC reveals DOJ investigating an alleged "secret lobbying scheme" and a bribery conspiracy that offered "a substantial political contribution in exchange for a presidential pardon or reprieve of sentence.”
I don't think that ever went anywhere. The barrier to proving bribery is really high, so there's a good chance it was an actual bribery or attempt but didn't rise to the level of handing off a sack of cash with "bribe" written on the side, so they decided not to pursue.