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,
This is what passes as Espionage. Yes, it is part of the Espionage Act, the same law that President Wilson signed into law and persecuted over 2,000 American citizens that he saw as political enemies. We all know that Biden would never do that to his primary political rival.
Lawyers are particularly welcome, as I am not a lawyer. My question of greatest interest pertains to the part quoted above. Does Jack Smith have to prove that Trump could have used the documents to injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation? Is this the intent? Can Trump just be found guilty of retaining documents? (Even though there are defenses for the retention aspect of the charged.)
I saw “unauthorized possession of” and concluded - there goes their case. He was the president.
I also heard the ‘audio clip’ that’s being hyped. I heard people laughing when he said, this is classified. Secret. I can imagine him waxing hyperbolic on the ridiculousness of most classification, and holding up a menu and saying, ‘This is classified. Secret.” Especially as they now say they don’t have the ‘document’ he was supposedly displaying at the time.
Why do Freepers give crediblity and even discuss the minutiae of a POLITICAL WITCH HUNT and fake indictment with “Trumped up” charges that are going to be thrown out or jury nullified?
I’m not an attorney, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in years, but would they maybe have an audio clip of President Trump admitting this? Or, just ask him? Again, this presumes he was waiving around classified documents, not just golf course plans, newspapers, and magazines as he now claims.
There is no way in Hell that Trump is guilty of violating that law. No way.
Unacceptable when you have the democrat shenanigans we all know about.
Some formating can make a law easier to understand.
18 U.S. Code § 793 -
Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(d)Whoever,
>lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with 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 on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
Ҥ 2203. Management and custody of Presidential records
(a) Through the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions, the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of the President’s constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are preserved and maintained as Presidential records pursuant to the requirements of this section and other provisions of law”
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html#2203
I’ll repeat:
“the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of the President’s constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented”
read:
https://www.archives.gov/research/recover/notable-thefts.html
“Samuel Richard “Sandy” Berger (October 28, 1945 – December 2, 2015) was an attorney who served as the 18th US National Security Advisor for US President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 after he had served as the Deputy National Security Advisor for the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1997.
“On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the United States Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration’s handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003, allegedly by stuffing the documents into his socks and pants. Berger subsequently lied to investigators when questioned about the removal of the documents.
“In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
“Berger was fined $50,000, sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for three years. The Justice Department initially said Berger only stole copies of classified documents and not originals, but the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger
“CNN
Friday, April 1, 2005
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Federal prosecutors will recommend that former national security adviser Sandy Berger be fined $10,000 and lose his security clearance for three years, but receive no jail time, sources said.”
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/01/berger.plea/
“Time after time in the Clinton years, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was reluctant to approve military strikes against Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda, according to the 9/11 commission report.”
https://nypost.com/2004/07/24/sandy-burglar-vetoed-attacks-on-bin-laden/
"having unauthorized possession of..."
They will need to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President of the United States is not authorized, by the Constitution, Presidential Records Act and any other relevant law, to possess records from his term in office, after he leaves office. I think that's already a pretty high bar.
Second problem:
"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"
So they will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump believed the information he was in possession of could be used to harm the country. This might be a bit easier for them to achieve, since Trump isn't usually too careful with his words, so they may be able to find statements from him that suggest he did believe this. But still, it's something they are going to have to prove; it can't just be assumed to be true because the prosecutor asserts it.
I believe in my heart of hearts that Trump has learned his lesson and will use the utmost care when handling classified documents. He should be given the opportunity to prove himself.