Posted on 06/11/2023 5:42:02 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Two days ago (June 8) a federal grand jury in Florida, at the behest of Justice Department “special prosecutor” Jack Smith, indicted ex-President and current presidential candidate Trump over matters related to the retention of classified documents generated during his time in the White House. The full text of the indictment can be found here.
You might think that indictment of the currently-leading opposition candidate to the incumbent president in the upcoming election would be something reserved for a case of extraordinary significance. After all, using the criminal justice system to prosecute political rivals is one of the hallmarks of the Banana Republic. Among those who have used the strategy are Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and, of course, Vladimir Putin of Russia (whose lead political rival, Alexei Nalvalny, languishes in jail on a charge of “fraud,” which seems to consist of raising campaign funds while supposedly disqualified from running for office due to being on parole from a previous phony charge). Surely the American President and Justice Department would not resort to a flimsy indictment to take out the leading political rival.
Initial reactions to the indictment from both sides of the political aisle have been that it appears strong. There is even a transcript of a recorded conversation involving Trump where he concedes that certain of the documents in question involve things that are “still a secret,” and a staffer responds “now we have a problem.” (paragraph 34). What could be the possible answer to that?
In my case, I prefer to take a couple of days and investigate things before reacting prematurely to something that might appear plausible on its face.
If you read the introductory paragraphs of the indictment, you can be forgiven for getting the impression that the case is about the mis-handling of “classified” documents. For example, from paragraph 2: “Among the materials that TRUMP stored in his boxes were hundreds of classified documents.” And from paragraph 3: “The unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States. . . .”
But then you might be surprised that when you get to the actual crime charged, it arises under a statute that does not relate to “classified” documents per se, and is independent and separate from the whole system of classified documents. The statute in question is 18 U.S.C. Section 793(e). Here is the text of it:
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 . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Nothing in there mentions classified information, or turns on whether the information in question is “classified” or not. The relevant issues are, instead, whether the person has “unauthorized possession or, or access to” information “relating to the national defense” and “causes it to be communicated to” someone “not entitled to receive it.”
Now, you might think that, in evaluating whether a case against Trump might have those elements, it would be rather critical to consider the importance of the Presidential Records Act of 1978. That is the statute that made presidential records the property of the government (previously they were understood to be the personal property of the President or former President). But in making presidential records the property of the government, the act contained this rather important carve-out (22 U.S.C. Section 2205(3)):
Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208 of this title . . . (3) the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President's designated representative.
Somehow the indictment that has been issued does not anywhere mention this section.
So by the clear words of this statute the ex-President is absolutely entitled to have “access” to the “Presidential records” generated during his own term, and also he can further legally provide access to whoever he designates as his “designated representative.” So how could Trump fit the element of Section 793(e) that he had “unauthorized possession of, or access to” the documents in question, whether classified or not? And, since he has the complete ability to make people his “designated representative,” how can he have given access to the documents to people not “entitled” to receive them?
The Presidential Records Act does make the records in question — or at least the originals, to the extent that that term is meaningful in today’s mostly electronic world — the property of the government. But if that is the case, why isn’t this whole Mar-a-Lago document brouhaha only a question of whether Trump could keep the originals, or on the other hand whether he had to make a copy and send the originals back to the National Archives? And if that’s all this is about, is the Justice Department really serious in bringing this indictment against the leading candidate of the opposition party?
Other than 18 USC Section 793(e), all the other “crimes” pleaded in this indictment are the usual FBI/Justice Department litany of process crimes — “lying” to the investigators, hiding things, saying things had been turned over when they had not, etc. OK, but remember that we now know that the thing that FBI/Justice was supposedly investigating is not a crime at all. Granted that the position of the FBI and Justice is that any failure to be completely forthright with them is a crime, even when they are torturing you by corruptly investigating you for something that you have an absolute right to do. I’m not sure that a Florida judge or jury will agree with FBI/Justice on this one.
I thought there was a report that Jack Smith was also going to get indictments in DC. If it's for the same list of supposed crimes, wouldn't that be double jeopardy? Maybe the idea would be to have the DC jury come up with a verdict first and then dismiss the other trial.
Of course its weak. Its lawfare.
Total set up!
////////
May be. But as this drags out the facts/truth will
finally come forth. It may take a few years or maybe
something much shorter. We don’t know until the powers
that be provide what the next step(s) are. It ought to
be an easy determination as to what the classification
is at this time. If they have been declassified then that
ought to be a fairly easy process to determine. jmo.
The first Trump Impeachment was shockingly weak.
The second Trump Impeachment was shockingly weak.
The NYC Stormy Daniels indictment was shockingly weak.
Why shouldn’t the Classified Documents indictment be shockingly weak?
.
Let them try to take me. They’ll all die.
Nah. He’s toast. F. U. Barr said so.
Barr says if “half” of this one is true Trump is toast.
So vague and attention seeking from that tub of fat Barr.
Disloyal from the start.
Dems still have that biased woman from the Southern District of New York and others to come to bat if the first try strikes out.
This is a conspiracy and a banana republic assault on a political opponent. People have to learn that.
To me the relevant part of the law is this,
“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, “
Intent matters.
Intent matters. The problem is that the goal of the two parties is opposite. Trump really did want to make America great again. The left wants to destroy it. Thus the problem.
I agree. Hillary was selling classified information to our enemies.
Not only did they not care if it is or is not a witchhunt, they are all on board with it.
Scratch the skin of a Leftist, RINO, or a Deep Stater, and you see a tyrant.
Yep, totally agree. They all need to be prosecuted in jurisdictions where they are sure to be convicted.
And the thing is, that is the domain of the State and Defense Departments, maybe even Homeland Security, but not DoJ.
-PJ
Can’t be true. Bill Barr says trump is toast. With butter and plenty of strawberry jam. And boy is Bill ever hungry.
This is what they got Scooter Libby on, despite the fact he was 100% innocent.
Why will no judge rule that these "process crimes" are unconstitutional, and that "lying to the FBI" (who can and do lie with impunity), and "conspiracy" are invalid?
THIS! Because even though acquittal is certain in the Senate, they can subpoena and compel tesimony on an immense range of evidence that will be very damaging to Democrat electoral prospects, and at the same time muddy the waters with any Trump jury.
If the media bothers to cover it.
Constant repeat of impeachments with no conviction will play into the media and the Rats hands. They’ll label it as the GOP wasting taxpayer money & time. Without convictions the public will bore of it and agree!
** Conspirators **
****** Vs ******
** The Accused **
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.