Trump indicted in classified documents case in Florida

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Got more from the Bloomberg article:

One of former President Donald Trump's claims about having classified documents at his country club in Florida and New Jersey was that he had a "standing order" to declassify whatever he wanted. Experts have explained why the claim isn't something that is done.

In an Aug. 2022 appearance with Fox's Sean Hannity, Trump's lawyer read a statement claiming that the former president had such a "standing order" and that anything he took to the residence in the White House was automatically declassified.

Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, called the assertion “complete fiction" the following day. Another senior administration official called it “bullsh*t," and two of Trump's former chiefs of staff agreed.

“Nothing approaching an order that foolish was ever given,” said Gen. John Kelly. “And I can’t imagine anyone that worked at the White House after me that would have simply shrugged their shoulders and allowed that order to go forward without dying in the ditch trying to stop it.”

It has been a search that Bloomberg News has endeavored for the past year, finding nothing. They filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the order, suing the DOJ and ODNI for the release. But on Wednesday, government lawyers said they can neither confirm nor deny whether Trump had such an order. They claim it's due to an ongoing criminal investigation.

On Thursday, a new update came from the Justice Department and the Director of National Intelligence: they haven't been able to find the "standing order" either.

It was part of the ongoing FOIA last year. Bloomberg sued the ODNi and the Justice Department for a copy of the "standing order" — if one existed. What was revealed in that court battle is that no such document exists.

"Last month, in a court filing, government attorneys asserted to Bloomberg News that they could neither confirm nor deny whether the agencies had such a document, citing the ongoing criminal investigations against Trump," the report said.

Government attorneys told Bloomberg in a letter on Thursday that "each agency 'possesses no records responsive to your request' about the existence of a declassification standing order."

Revealed: DOJ and Director of National Intel. can't find Trump's 'standing order' to declassify docs

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: MrInquisitive

And in all those crooked POTUS you mention, Trump is the only one to ever be indicted. We also have not seen the same kind of zeal from the DoJ with the Biden family. Not nearly.

Current DoJ is crooked as a dogs hind leg. And half the country believes there are two sets of rules. That's not a good position to be in.

Nixon wasn't indicted because he was pardoned. Reagan wasn't indicted because all of his minion's "couldn't recall" this, that and the other thing. In other words they lied. Some minions were convicted but they were pardoned by Bush I. Nixon's VP, Spiro Agnew, was indicted and convicted of a crime of his own. He plead to one count and left office. Even Clinton for his sex scandal wasn't indicted but abdicated his law license and paid some kind of restitution.

None of these prior POTUS's. however, were found to have committed so many crimes (and Trump is going to have to answer for more still), nor did any of them admit to the crimes on cable tv as Trump has. Trump has dug his own legal hole with respect to the documents. We've been over this many times, but you evidently choose to ignore it. NARA and the DOJ were contacting him for about a year and a half asking for these documents back, and he only gave some back, dissembled about others, moved some items around, and claimed on tv that they were his. If another president had behaved the same way, he'd likely be indicted as well. I don't see why it is such a big deal that he is the first one to be indicted given all the crimes, the evidence and his public statements admitting guilt. Why protect a one-man-walking crime spree? Choose a better hill to plant your flag on that lyin', crimin' Don's.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Apparently it was verbal. Got a source that says in what form it has to be, and what the process would have been had he done it 'correctly'?

Did you see this post of mine?

My post

There are more details at the linked article therein.

Bottom line: some classified information, in particular nuclear secrets, can't be declassified by the president alone, and anything he declassifies needs to be done through a formal administrative procedure so all copies of the document(s) in question can be duly marked as declassified, and so that information related to the same topic can also be declassified, and so there is a record of it having been declassified.. Would it make any sense if the president or anyone else declassified information, but didn't bother to tell administrative types to make sure that it was duly noted as declassified throughout the system? Wouldn't that make things just a bit chaotic?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Threadbare
And?
Both were crapped on by Durham.

The government not finding something does not mean it does not exist.

Doesn't mean it does exist either. Seems the person asserting its existence has the burden of proof.

See this post of mine that quotes an article dealing with this matter.

post

Oh, lordy! It now appears that Trump may be indicted with another 35-40 felony charges, evidently in a superseding indictment. These appear to have to do with the documents case, but might involve a different venue, say New Jersey or DC. The DOJ is also prepared to seek indictments against multiple persons in Trump's orbit. Kitty, bar the door!

The Department of Justice is prepared to seek indictments against multiple figures in former president Donald Trump’s orbit and may yet bring additional charges against the ex-president in the coming weeks, The Independent has learned.

According to sources familiar with the matter, the department has made preparations to bring what is known as a “superseding indictment” — a second set of charges against an already-indicted defendant that could include more serious crimes — against the ex-president in the Southern District of Florida.

But prosecutors may also choose to bring additional charges against Mr Trump in a different venue, depending on how they feel the case they have brought against him in is proceeding.

The Independent understands that prosecutors’ decision on whether to seek additional charges from a grand jury — and where to seek them — will depend in part on whether they feel the Trump-appointed district judge overseeing the case against him in the Southern District of Florida, Aileen Cannon, is giving undue deference to the twice-impeached, now twice-indicted former president.

The team of federal prosecutors working under Special Counsel Jack Smith is currently prepared to add an “additional 30 to 45 charges” in addition to the 37-count indictment brought against Mr Trump on 8 June, either in a superseding indictment in the same Florida court or in a different federal judicial district. In either case, they would do so using evidence against the ex-president that has not yet been publicly acknowledged by the department, including other recordings prosecutors have obtained which reveal Mr Trump making incriminating statements.

Additionally, it is understood that Mr Smith’s team is ready to bring charges against several of the attorneys who have worked for Mr Trump, including those who aided the ex-president in his push to ignore the will of voters and remain in the White House despite having lost the 2020 election.

One of those figures is Mr Trump’s erstwhile personal attorney, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Mr Giuliani, whose law license was suspended in New York and Washington as a result of his allegedly making multiple false representations while seeking to help Mr Trump overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, reportedly participated in a voluntary interview with prosecutors working under the supervision of Mr Smith, the Justice Department special counsel whose office brought charges against Mr Trump earlier this month.

It is further understood that Mr Giuliani’s cooperation with prosecutors was undertaken as part of what is known as a “queen for a day” deal, under which the ex-mayor can avoid indictment for anything he tells prosecutors about during the interview.

This will allow the disgraced former federal prosecutor to avoid some charges, but a source familiar with the matter has said Mr Smith’s office will “most definitely” bring some charges against Mr Giuliani for his work on Mr Trump’s behalf in the weeks between the November 2020 election and the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol.

The Independent has also learned that Mr Giuliani’s “proffer” session with prosecutors dealt mainly with Mr Trump’s machinations during that time period as he sought to find a way to remain in the White House for a second term, even against the will of the voters who’d handed Mr Biden the keys to the White House by way of majorities in key swing states, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona.

Prosecutors are prepared to hit Trump and his allies with new charges, sources say

Now it could be that these additional charges have to do with Jan. 6 sedition riot, but from the sounds of reporting on the matter, this doesn't seem to be the case.

To those who think all of this is terribly unfair to the good ex-president, all I have to say is: if you can't do the time, don't do the multiple crimes. And to those who say, well how about Joe Biden? I say, let the wheels of justice turn. It's only been several years since Trump allegedly committed his crimes, and Sclerotic Joe's special counsel was only appointed in mid January of this year, and his document imbroglio is from November, 2022. Let's see where things stand in another year and a half with him. As for his alleged previous crimes as VP, Comer and friends have yet to provide any hard evidence of any crimes, let alone state what precisely those crimes are, and Jamie Raskin has provided information that the original source of the claims, which were communicated by an separate FBI informant, have been refuted by the alleged original source of the information.

a reply to: MrInquisitive
This is a textbook example of "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
Stalin would be proud of the nation we've become.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: carewemust

I wish I had a dollar for everytime I've posted that same link somewhere on a board.

I actually had one person argue with me that it was a Trump Whitehouse source so it wasn't reliable!

What can you do with something like that?

You are arguing with people who have the mind of a child.
They will make up any fantastic story, tell any lie, pretend to be an expert on everything, just to make themselves feel better that they’re finally going to get their way.
I guess that’s what the internet is for, for some people. For some of us it’s about learning, talking about interesting stuff, having a little fun.
For them, it’s about having something, anything to make their lives worthwhile, in this case the mythical victory over Trump. One day Trump will be gone, not in this type of situation anymore. They will have latched onto something or somebody else to hate, and give their lives meaning.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: MrInquisitive
This is a textbook example of "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
Stalin would be proud of the nation we've become.

And our little lefties love it. As long as it’s their favorite people screwing over people they hate, there should be no laws, no rules, no standards.
But hoo boy when they think they’ve heard a trigger word, hate speech, dog whistle phrase, micro aggression …… it’s time for the Nuremberg trials to commence. After they’ve sat in a safe space with crayons and puppies for a while, and had a good group cry.

The Progressives in charge right now want to make sure that their opponent in 2024 will not have time to campaign and will instead be in the news as a traitor. When Donald Trump gets more votes in 2024 than 2020 I want to know how they are going to explain 90 million votes for Biden.

I never thought another administration could be worse than Carter...and we have it.

More charges...a joke.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

It does indeed now look like these additional charges have to do with the classified documents, as per this article:

“Indictment 2.0”: Experts say Smith may be preparing new Trump charges as grand jury probe resumes

The Florida grand jury that indicted former President Donald Trump for his handling of classified documents is still investigating aspects of the case and issued subpoenas to multiple people in recent days, according to The New York Times and CNN.

The grand jury issued subpoenas to a "handful" of people but it's unclear who received them, according to the Times, which noted that "post-indictment investigations can result in additional charges against people who have already been accused of crimes in the case" as well as charges against new defendants.

The indictment against Trump and his co-defendant Walt Nauta "left out several threads investigators pursued as recently as May," according to CNN, including possible gaps in surveillance footage and the handling of classified documents at Trump's Bedminster, N.J. golf club, where he was recorded discussing a classified document he admitted he did not declassify.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: MrInquisitive
This is a textbook example of "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
Stalin would be proud of the nation we've become.

Stalin never required evidence or provided free and fair trials, to wit, the 6th Amendment:

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.

You saying the US constitution is Stalinesque? How jejune.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: carewemust

I wish I had a dollar for everytime I've posted that same link somewhere on a board.

I actually had one person argue with me that it was a Trump Whitehouse source so it wasn't reliable!

What can you do with something like that?

You are arguing with people who have the mind of a child.
They will make up any fantastic story, tell any lie, pretend to be an expert on everything, just to make themselves feel better that they’re finally going to get their way.
I guess that’s what the internet is for, for some people. For some of us it’s about learning, talking about interesting stuff, having a little fun.
For them, it’s about having something, anything to make their lives worthwhile, in this case the mythical victory over Trump. One day Trump will be gone, not in this type of situation anymore. They will have latched onto something or somebody else to hate, and give their lives meaning.

How ironic, you seem to be talking about Trump followers/Biden haters.

As for people with the minds of a child, it is folk from your side of the aisle calling your opponents names, just as you just did in this post of yours.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: MrInquisitive
This is a textbook example of "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
Stalin would be proud of the nation we've become.

And our little lefties love it. As long as it’s their favorite people screwing over people they hate, there should be no laws, no rules, no standards.
But hoo boy when they think they’ve heard a trigger word, hate speech, dog whistle phrase, micro aggression …… it’s time for the Nuremberg trials to commence. After they’ve sat in a safe space with crayons and puppies for a while, and had a good group cry.

It's not about my favorite people screwing over people I hate. It's about all people, including the ex-president, being held accountable to the laws of this country. You Trump lovers seem not to be able to grasp that notion. I certainly don't love Merrick Garland, and know next to nothing about Jack Smith, but I am aware of the mounting mountain of evidence incriminating Donald Trump. And no, I don't care much for lame-duck presidents who attempt to foment sedition in an attempt to remain in power, or play fast and loose and illegally with classified national security documents after they leave office. Call me a patriotic American who believes in the rule of law, if you must.

originally posted by: matafuchs
The Progressives in charge right now want to make sure that their opponent in 2024 will not have time to campaign and will instead be in the news as a traitor. When Donald Trump gets more votes in 2024 than 2020 I want to know how they are going to explain 90 million votes for Biden.

I never thought another administration could be worse than Carter...and we have it.

More charges...a joke.

You think Merrick Garland and most of the DOJ and FBI are progressives? I've got a room in the Donald Trump presidential library for which I can sell you a donation plaque.

A presidential administration worse than Carter's? How about Reagan's, Bush II's and Trump's?

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Who has the final authority?

If the POTUS and this unnamed 'process' doesn't agree, who decides.

Heres news: the classification system is already chaotic.

If the POTUS doesn't tell anyone he declassified it, then the error is on the side of caution, right? In a sense, it remains classified.

But he did. He told his staff, if I pack it up and take it out of the oval, consider it unclassified. They would then start the process. Do you think POTUS writes his own memo? Or looks up the business process documentation and performs his own steps in the process? Who determined the process? Is the process delineated in a legal document?

a reply to: MrInquisitive

So it didn't work, Trump didnt drop out of the race, didn't flea the country, didn't stop campaigning and his polls didn't drop, they went up!

So pile on even MORE charges....er, logs on the pyre. The witch refuses to burn.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

Who determined the process? Is the process delineated in a legal document?

There is a definite protocol. There's this google thing....


www.americanbar.org...

www.justice.gov...

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: MrInquisitive
This is a textbook example of "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
Stalin would be proud of the nation we've become.

I'll be posting a thread on the private intelligence company, Black Cube, in the coming days, that will dive into this aspect of lawfare. Stay tuned.

a reply to: olaru12

From your source:

Some secrets, such as information related to nuclear weapons, are handled separately under a specific statutory scheme that Congress has adopted under the Atomic Energy Act. Those secrets cannot be automatically declassified by the president alone and require, by law, extensive consultation with executive branch agencies.

In all cases, however, a formal procedure is required so governmental agencies know with certainty what has been declassified and decisions memorialized. A federal appeals court in a 2020 Freedom of Information Act case, New York Times v. CIA, underscored that point: “Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures,” the court said.

As the new ABA Legal Fact Check notes, the extent of a president’s legal authority to unilaterally declassify materials — without following formal procedures — has yet to be challenged in court.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------
Where in this source does it say who decides the Atomic Energy Act stuff? Cannot be automatically declassified....without consultation..... executive branch agencies. This reads like the POTUS needs to talk to his cabinet first.

And then it says the declassification should follow procedures. Yes, POTUS aids are supposed to prepare memo's like the one we have all seen concerning Crossfire Hurricane. That was 3 days before he left office. I'd bet that the process was not completed by then, and by reading the memo, there was pushback from the IC. So what, did they just ignore the POTUS? Technically the process doesn't finish if they don't do their part, so, can they sit on it?
Technically , is CH even declassified if they NEVER completed the process?

But y'all want to throw Trump in jail for 400 years for this.

Never mind PresidentTater. He didn't mean it!

a reply to: MrInquisitive

If you do not realize what a 'Progressive' is you need to read some history books man. The current state of our country started with Woodrow Wilson. They figured it would take 100 years to accomplish what they wanted and that was the control all aspects of our country. He called his vision the New Freedom kind of like Obamas 'Change'.

If you cannot see how one sided all of this is, how anyone who is associated is also being attacked, and how the US government is no longer, by ANY means, run by the POTUS and his circle I feel bad for you.

Can you not see that they are charging Trump with things EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT has done but since they want him out of the way they are pressuring him to get out.

They will have to kill him for him not to run in 2024.