BREAKING: One of the Witnesses at the Trump Bedminster meeting testified they had no memory of Trump displaying Classified Documents to interviewers

[struth]

Folder, envelope, whatever. I don't care. It's irrelevant.

Is that the entirety of your evidence?

hahaha well actually folks can get in trouble if it's just one document in one folder....but in this case it's not just one folder...there were numerous documerts found in a number of locations. It is true, that one of the documents was found in one folder, that he had labeled "personal" in his private office. It is also very relevant that the document was moved from it's orginal folder, and placed in a folder labeled personal...that shows his intent to convert the document to his own.

 

[mudwhistle]

What are you talking about? The documents noted in the indictment were all recovered from Mar a Lago.

Exactly.
So why did they claim that Trump had no right to move those documents from one place inside his estate to another?
Why did they claim that he had two vans backed up to Mar-a-Lago using it as probable-cause to say he was moving documents to another location?
According to the Presidential Records Act Trump was supposed to separate those documents, putting classified docs in one set of boxes, and his own personal stuff in another.
Was the DOJ trying to say everything he took with him wasn't his own property, because according to the law, it was?

 

[Marener]

Exactly.
So why did they claim that Trump had no right to move those documents from one place inside his estate to another?
Why did they claim that he had two vans backed up to Mar-a-Lago using it as probable-cause to say he was moving documents to another location?
According to the Presidential Records Act Trump was supposed to separate those documents, putting classified docs in one set of boxes, and his own personal stuff in another.
Was the DOJ trying to say everything he took with him wasn't his own property, because according to the law, it was?

He had no right to those documents period. He was instructed to turn them over responsive to a grand jury subpoena and didn't. Moving boxes around from one location to another is evidence that Trump was intentionally hiding them from the DoJ.

Intentionally hiding documents that are under subpoena is illegal.

 

[Marener]

hahaha well actually folks can get in trouble if it's just one document in one folder....but in this case it's not just one folder...there were numerous documerts found in a number of locations. It is true, that one of the documents was found in one folder, that he had labeled "personal" in his private office. It is also very relevant that the document was moved from it's orginal folder, and placed in a folder labeled personal...that shows his intent to convert the document to his own.

Only if you can prove that retention of those documents was willful.

If all you have is a folder marked personal, you don't have much.

 

[mudwhistle]

The court disagrees which is why the judge ruled in favor of the DoJ as able to penetrate attorney client privilege with the crime fraud exception. The notes are evidence of illegal activity.

The raid was because Trump didn't comply with the grand jury subpoena to turn over the required documents. That's it.

No.....the raid was illegal and this indictment is overreaching.
The court they used to begin this shitfest was convened in another venue in D.C. which is also illegal. D.C. has no jurisdiction in Florida. The Federal District Court in Miami does. But Jack Smith didn't want any judge that wasn't bought to look at this case till they got a DC Grand Jury to okay the indictment.

 

[Marener]

No.....the raid was illegal and this indictment is overreaching.
The court they used to begin this shitfest was convened in another venue in D.C. which is also illegal. D.C. has no jurisdiction in Florida. The Federal District Court in Miami does. But Jack Smith didn't want any judge that wasn't bought to look at this case till they got a DC Grand Jury to okay the indictment.

The raid wasn't illegal. The judge who signed the search warrant is in the southern district of Florida.

Bruce Reinhart, the Magistrate Judge Who Approved the Mar-a-Lago Search (Published 2022)

Judge Reinhart has faced a wave of criticism, disinformation and online threats over his involvement in the F.B.I.’s search.

www.nytimes.com

The search warrant was obviously justified, since they found the exact documents they suspected they were going to find.

 

[Nostra]

Where did I claim such a thing occurred?

Either someone forced him to take the docs, or he willfully took them. You claim he didn’t willfully take them.

 

[Marener]

You claim he didn’t willfully take them.

Why don’t I get to claim that?

 

[Nostra]

Only if you can prove that retention of those documents was willful.

If all you have is a folder marked personal, you don't have much.

Who forced him to retain them?

 

[Marener]

Who forced him to retain them?

What does that mean?

 

[Nostra]

Why don’t I get to claim that?

You are free to claim any batshit crazy thing you want. Doesn’t mean any thinking person will buy it.

 

[Nostra]

What does that mean?

You are trying to claim he didn’t willfully retain them, Simp.

Your batshit crazy position is falling apart so know all ya got is trolling posts like this one.

Funny shit.

 

[Marener]

You are free to claim any batshit crazy thing you want. Doesn’t mean any thinking person will buy it.

What's batshit crazy about it?

 

[Marener]

You are trying to claim he didn’t willfully retain them, Simp.

Your batshit crazy position is falling apart so know all ya got is trolling posts like this one.

Funny shit.

It wouldn't be willful if he didn't know he had them in the first place.

 

[Nostra]

It wouldn't be willful if he didn't know he had them in the first place.

Provide your evidence.

 

[Marener]

Provide your evidence.

I don't have to. There's this thing called the presumption of innocence.

 

[mudwhistle]

He had no right to those documents period. He was instructed to turn them over responsive to a grand jury subpoena and didn't. Moving boxes around from one location to another is evidence that Trump was intentionally hiding them from the DoJ.

Intentionally hiding documents that are under subpoena is illegal.

Trump had every right to those documents.
The PRA clearly states that the president owns those documents, but it's up to him to separate the public documents from the private documents so that the NARA can take possession of them before he leaves office.

However, the NARA director refused to cooperate with Trump and this wasn't done.

As soon as he left office they started demanding him to turn over documents. So he gave them 15 boxes of files. Then they demanded more, claiming Barack Obama's congratulatory letter to Trump didn't belong to Trump. Also, they claimed a letter for Little Kim didn't belong to him. The last time they went to Mar-a-Lago they just told Trump's lawyers to put another lock on the files and left them under Trump's care.
Evan Corcoran made a claim that Trump had no more classified documents. Course the rest of Trump's lawyers wouldn't sign the same statement.

In May 2021, the National Archives became aware of missing documents. Among the missing material were correspondence letters with Kim Jong-un and a congratulatory letter from former President Barack Obama. On May 6, Gary Stern—the general counsel for the National Archives—emailed Trump's representatives, including Patrick F. Philbin, to inform them that such material was missing. In the email, Stern named Pat Cipollone as a witness to the documents, identifying two dozen boxes that were in the White House but had not been transferred to the National Archives. Scott Gast, a representative for Trump, responded to Stern by giving him a note informing him that Trump would return his correspondence letters with Kim, although Trump was unclear on how to proceed. An archive official recommended FedEx as a method of transferring the documents; Trump aides objected to this idea, and Trump did not return the letters. Trump displayed these letters to people in his office, leading to Meadows contacting Philbin in an effort to figure out how to facilitate the return of these documents.[27]

Trump's lawyers informed the National Archives in December that they had found 12 boxes of documents at the Mar-a-Lago.[27]

FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978​

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents, and subsequently NARA, must manage the records of their Administrations. The PRA was amended in 2014, which established several new provisions.


Specifically, the PRA:

• Establishes public ownership of all Presidential records and defines the term Presidential records.
• Requires that Vice-Presidential records be treated in the same way as Presidential records.
• Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President.
• Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
• Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.
• Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.
• Establishes a process by which the President may restrict and the public may obtain access to these records after the President leaves office; specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to twelve years.
• Codifies the process by which former and incumbent Presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege prior to public release of records by NARA (which had formerly been governed by Executive order 13489).
• Establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent Administrations to obtain “special access” to records from NARA that remain closed to the public, following a privilege review period by the former and incumbent Presidents; the procedures governing such special access requests continue to be governed by the relevant provisions of E.O. 13489.
• Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts: any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account. (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)
• Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of...

www.archives.gov

 

[konradv]

This is astonishing. The Special Counsel has just had their narrative obliterated. This is grounds for Judge Eileen Cannon to dismiss the case.




Read this feed and look at the date.

Tweets are evidence?!?!

 

[mudwhistle]

Only if you can prove that retention of those documents was willful.

If all you have is a folder marked personal, you don't have much.

The Presidential Records Act:

• Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
• Establishes in law that any incumbent Presidential records (whether textual or electronic) held on courtesy storage by the Archivist remain in the exclusive legal custody of the President and that any request or order for access to such records must be made to the President, not NARA.

 

[Nostra]

I don't have to. There's this thing called the presumption of innocence.

I accept your admission of defeat.