Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 27 Next >>
Topic: FBI Raids Mar-a-Lago Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Geoffrey Langford
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 December 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 237
Posted: 12 September 2022 at 1:30pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

So the search warrant cites the statutes under which documents are considered classified -- this is boiler plate.

The Agent's sworn probable cause statement is about improper storage of sensitive materials.  That's it ?

Seriously.  ?!?!

C'mon.  This is literally the same as not locking your computer workstation when you go on a break - and hence anyone could look at your work.  If anyone thinks he's getting strung up on this - get a reality check.  Any judge looking at the case probably has a dozen case files sitting on his coffee table at home instead of his secured court chambers.

There's nothing to see here, people, I suggest just moving along to the next hangable offense...

There are real issues in the world which need time and attention.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2000
Posted: 12 September 2022 at 1:51pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

>>improper storage of sensitive materials<<

The word you're looking for is "stolen."  They're not his.  They asked for them back and he refused. His lawyers lied to the FBI that they had given all of them back.

If YOU took one of those TS/SCI documents, they'd send you up the river for years.  Ask Reality Winner.  Stole 1, got 5 years.  What makes Trump special? Why does the law not apply to him? How do you know what's on those documents?  How do you know he didn't show them to unauthorized people just to show off?  He has a history of it. The guy gave code-word classified information to the Russians without anyone else in the room when he first got in office just to show off.  He's tweeted intel photos. As president, he (sadly) had the authority to do stuff like that.  Today, not so much.  He's not the president, he's just some guy. He has no more privilege than you unless Biden decides otherwise.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 129247
Posted: 12 September 2022 at 2:07pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

One out of every three Trump supporters is just as stupid as the other two. And many of them are heavily armed.

I’m quite certain there is genuine fear in Washington that any actual move against Trump, however well founded, would unleash a tsunami of violence that would make January 6th pale to insignificance.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg McPhee
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 August 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4931
Posted: 12 September 2022 at 2:19pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

My bigger fear is what happens if he runs again. We can kiss democracy goodbye.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rebecca Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 February 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 3740
Posted: 12 September 2022 at 5:35pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

The "land of the free and the home of the brave" operating out of and living in fear? That's what you most don't want. If that's the case it all over already, all hail the new again revolution...

Oh well, nothing serious, certainly nowhere near as bad as an evil Democrat/Liberal somewhere unprovably was at least thinking about doing. By the way, there's only one party now, you're either with us or 'the enemy'. Done; rest in pieces.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
John Wickett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 July 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 458
Posted: 12 September 2022 at 5:56pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Paragraph 1 of the warrant says the investigation concerns "the improper removal and storage of classified documents in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records."

That covers a very broad range of activities.  

With respect to USC 793(c), the government is alleging at least the following:
  • That Trump possessed information relating to the national defense;
  • That Trump had reason to believe the information could be used to injure the United States or create an advantage for a foreign power; and 
  • That Trump willfully retained the information, or failed to turn it over to the person who should have received it when he left office.
At worst, the allegation is that Trump attempted to communicate the national defense information to a person who was not entitled to receive it.  

So no matter how you slice it, this is about more than simply the improper storage of sensitive materials.  

What we don't know:
  • The type of national defense information that was contained in the documents.  There is no indication that "nuclear secrets" were involved, but we do know the government believes the information is significant enough that exposure would injure the United States, or provide an advantage to a foreign power.
  • Whether the government believes Trump intended to share the information with third parties.  That's a possibility under the statute, but again, the provisions only require that he "willfully retained" the information.
Paragraph 1 of the warrant makes no suggestion or indication that Trump was suspected of sharing classified information with third parties, so as far as we can tell, he's not being accused of violating that part of the statute.  Any suggestion to the contrary is pure speculation.

However, the only purpose of this document is to show there is probable cause for a search warrant.  The document likely doesn't contain all of the information known by the government, and may not address all potential allegations against Trump.  So to suggest that Trump is not suspected of sharing classified information is equally speculative.


Edited by John Wickett on 12 September 2022 at 6:01pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 14878
Posted: 12 September 2022 at 6:40pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply



 Michael wrote:
Read what I wrote Peter.

I did. You referred to the search warrant. Do you have access to it? I didn't realise it had been released and therefore assumed you were referring to the affidavit that the DOJ submitted in order get the search warrant (maybe my mistake), which talks at length about classified materials and includes an explanation that that cited statute of 18 USC 793 (e) does not use the term "classified information" but criminalises the unlawful retention of "information relating to the national defense", which the statute does not define, but the affidavit notes this has been broadly construed by courts and is a term that is usually taken to mean a generic concept of broad connotations referring to military establishments and related activities of national preparedness.  

The summation of the thrust of the affidavit is this (once again, verbatim): "There is probable cause to believe that documents containing classified [the stress is mine] NDI and presidential records remain at the premises."

I wasn't taking issue with the thrust of your argument, but commenting on the factual inaccuracy of your claim that "the actual search warrant says nothing about classified information."

*Edited to correct a typo


Edited by Peter Martin on 12 September 2022 at 6:40pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1136
Posted: 12 September 2022 at 7:22pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

  • The type of national defense information that was contained in the documents.  There is no indication that "nuclear secrets" were involved, but we do know the government believes the information is significant enough that exposure would injure the United States, or provide an advantage to a foreign power   __________________________________________________
With all the talk of "launch codes" and whatnot I've seen in these types of discussions, it should probably be noted that these 'codes' are likely they type of passwords/passcodes that are changed frequently enough that whatever 'launch code' Trump had in January 2020 probably isn't the 'launch code' that Biden could use this very moment.
HOWEVER, the danger is in a foreign power who could provide similar 'launch codes' derived from the algorithm that generates those codes at whatever frequency they change them. Sussing out the correct current code may be a statistically improbably, but it goes toward knowing our processes. HOW we do things in our military, our precise capabilities, our assets around the world, our intelligence agencies, whether on the ground or through cyber intelligence capabilities.
If he had documentation that was crucial in detailing how we get intelligence from foes or friends alike, THAT is an serious issue. Even those things that are considered innocuous in it's own vacuum, combined with other gleaned intel that a country may have on the US (that's the 'compartmentalized' part of SCI), could be enough to pose a threat.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14468
Posted: 12 September 2022 at 8:34pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

I did. You referred to the search warrant. Do you have access to it? I didn't realise it had been released and therefore assumed you were referring to the affidavit that the DOJ submitted in order get the search warrant (maybe my mistake)

————

I was referring to the search warrant and not the affidavit, although I do have to admit I was incorrect in that the attachments to the warrant do refer to the warrant covering documents with classification markings.

However the point remains that the warrant refutes Geoffrey’s assertion that the nature of the classified material was not part of the probable cause for the raid. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Charles Valderrama
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4538
Posted: 16 September 2022 at 1:26pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

Judge Cannon's latest ruling: "In the absence of any affidavits and declarations contesting the Government's affidavits and declarations, the court agrees with the absent affidavits and declarations."

In these rulings, Cannon makes it clear that there is NO law; there is NO order.

-C!


Back to Top profile | search | www
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7045
Posted: 16 September 2022 at 2:54pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

Is that actual wording Charles?

No one contested, so we agree with those who didn’t contest & grant
against what was not contested.



Is that really what has happened here? Bloody hell, don’t even bother to
hide what you think why don’t you.can this decision be appealed? I can’t
see how it stands in law.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 14878
Posted: 16 September 2022 at 3:14pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

The ruling (8-page PDF you can view in your browser): LINK
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 27 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login