Posted on 06/16/2023 8:50:10 AM PDT by CFW
(This is a guest post from our friend Shipwreckedcrew, a former federal prosecutor who currently represents 13 January 6 defendants facing trial. (He also represents three January 6 defendants whose cases are on appeal.) All revenue from his paid subscriptions is used to cover expenses incurred in representing clients charged with crimes related to January 6. You can contribute directly to that cause at the January 6 Legal Defense Fund page on GiveSendGo.)
The Presidential Records Act is not a clear path to exoneration for former President Trump.
But the Espionage Act is not “cut and dried” in its prohibitions when applied to a former POTUS who on his last day in office had absolute — ABSOLUTE — authority to see and possess every document and piece of information held by the Executive Branch.
Trump has been charged by the Smith SCO with 31 counts of violating the “Espionage Act” — Title 18 United States Code Section 793.
Section 793(e) reads as follows:
(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 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 entitled to receive it
(Excerpt) Read more at technofog.substack.com ...
“They didn’t do that for Trump. I suspect they were setting him up for the “documents hoax”.”
I think you are correct. They were/are planning ahead with several plots to get Trump whether they eventually use them all or not. This was just one. NARA refused to assist with the sorting of documents and then went after Trump for the ones he didn’t provide. Even though he originally had no idea the NARA categorized them as “Presidential records”. He thought they were his “personal” papers.
The “Trump exception” to all laws, rules, and regulations has gotten way out of hand.
“(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of...”
“or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United entitled to receive it...”
Authorized, unauthorized, that is the question.
Trump’s primary defense is that he had authorized possession of all the materials listed in the indictment. This is a question of LAW, for the judge, and appeal courts all the way to SCOTUS to decide before the case can proceed. Once that question has been determined, the case should be dismissed. If it is not dismissed on the questions of law, Trump is toast on the question of physical possession, unless jurors nullify this political persecution.
There are two prerequisites to “willfully retaining unauthorized materials.” First, Trump would have to possess materials that he is indeed not unauthorized to possess. (That is an unclear matter of law).
Second, Trump must have believed that he was not authorized to possess the materials. If Trump believed his possession of the materials named in the indictment was “authorized” under the Constitution and Constitutionally valid law, he cannot have formed the will to retain “unauthorized” materials he did not believe he possessed.
He can form the will to retain what he believes he is Constitutionally and legally entitled to retain. So long as Trump maintains that he had a right to retain the materials, he cannot be in violation of this statute.
Smith has filed a case against a former President who is a leading candidate for nomination and reelection. You would think such an extreme action would only be brought when the law is clear and there is some sort of actual danger. All Smith has is a very shaky legal interpretation. If the law on this is open to interpretation Trump’s way, it is an outrageous abuse for any case to be brought.
Right on the Brian Boitano PJ.
“And the jury can acquit simply because they or one of them believes the law is being misapplied or abused no matter what judge/lawyers say.”
And that is what worries them about the case being in Florida rather than in D.C. where the jury is sure to be stacked with Trump-hating Democrats only.
Jack Smith is a hit man & his job is to “take out” the 45th President.
Heck yeah. He was picked because he’s happy to be a scoundrel.
I want the case thrown out and Jack Smith humiliated on questions of law BEFORE a jury is even selected.
> Reasonable Suspicion.
aha, thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.