"It's not theirs, Its mine"

[Sixties Fan]

Mueller, She Wrote
Oct 12


According to the email, the company was supposed to pick up packed boxes from the federal warehouse the Tuesday before Biden’s inauguration, and then scheduled to pick up boxes at the White House early on Inauguration Day. The contract was cancelled just days ahead of move. 2/
https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote

Mueller, She Wrote
Oct 12

A person familiar with the matter - who spoke on the condition of anonymity - says the cancellation was strange. “Not just any old company can do [this job], given the background checks, waivers, & legal documents. It’s not just something you can reschedule last minute” 3/



https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote
Mueller, She Wrote
Oct 12

An email confirming the move dates was received by the company from the Haley Rivero (executive assistant to the chief usher) and Timothy Harleth (chief usher). Todd Robinson (facilities) was copied. 4/

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote
Mueller, She Wrote
Oct 12

Per the email, after they were picked up, some boxes were to be delivered to Palm Beach, while others were to be delivered to Trump Tower in New York at a later date. END/

 

[SeaMajor7]

How does this poster get to have his own ECHO CHAMBER bullshit spam thread not get bounced to the rubber room?????

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

Donald Trump appeared to concede in his court filing over the seizure of materials from his Florida resort that he unlawfully retained official government documents, as the former president argued that some of the documents collected by the FBI could be subject to executive privilege.

The motion submitted on Monday by the former president’s lawyers argued that a court should appoint a so-called special master to separate out and determine what materials the justice department can review as evidence due to privilege issues.

But the argument from Trump that the documents are subject to executive privilege protections suggests those documents are official records – which he is not authorized to keep and should have turned over to the National Archives at the end of the administration.

The motion, in that regard, appeared to concede that Trump violated one of the criminal statutes listed on the warrant used by the FBI to search the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort – 18 USC 2071 – concerning the unlawful removal of government records.

“If he’s acknowledging that he’s in possession of documents that would have any colorable claim of executive privilege, those are by definition presidential records and belong at the National Archives,” said Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent and former associate dean at Yale Law School.

“And so it’s not clear that executive privilege would even be relevant to the particular crime he’s being investigated for and yet in this filing, he basically admits that he is in possession of them, which is what the government is trying to establish,” Rangappa said.

Trump appears to concede he illegally retained official documents

Court motion submitted by ex-president’s lawyers argues some materials seized by FBI could be subject to executive privilege

www.theguardian.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

In the days since former President Donald Trump announced on his social media platform that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had executed a search warrant at his home and business at Mar-a-Lago, there has been much discussion as to what authorities Trump has or had as a former president and what laws or regulations he may have violated by possessing documents with classification markings outside of proper controls. This has led to the repeating of many myths and misunderstandings, often by the former president himself, as to presidential authority relating to classified information.

I spent over 30 years overseeing the proper handling of such information, initially in the Department of Defense and ending my government service responsible for the oversight of classified information within the entire executive branch as Director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO).

What follows is my attempt to address some of the more common myths and misunderstandings regarding a president and classified information that have recently circulated.

Myth #1: As former president Nixon once said, “When the president does it that means that it is not illegal.”​

(full article online)

Myths & Misunderstandings Relating to Mar-a-Lago Documents Investigation

Five myths - about the MAL documents - broken down by J. William Leonard who, in government service, was responsible for the oversight of classified information for the entire executive branch.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

The criminal statutes that are most likely to be considered in a situation like this are the same ones implicated in the Trump investigation. DOJ identified three in connection with obtaining the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago:

• 18 USC 793, the Espionage Act, which covers multiple crimes ranging from intentional use of sensitive information to damage national security to careless loss of national security information.
• 18 USC 2071, which involves willful removal, concealment, destruction, etc., of government records or the attempt to do so.
• 18 USC 1519, a statute criminalizing obstruction of federal investigations. This third statute is not implicated in the Biden matter; it’s involved in Trump’s case because of his efforts to conceal materials and deceive and interfere with the federal investigation in his case.

Both the 793 and 2071 violations for the most part require an element of willfulness. The 2071 violation requires that a defendant must have done the acts prohibited by the law intentionally with knowledge that he is violating the it. It does not appear, at least based on what we currently know, to apply to Biden. That leaves the Espionage Act, subsections (d) and (e) of which prohibit willfully refusing to return material related to the national defense, whether the defendant was properly or unlawfully in possession of it, at the request of a government official. Again, there seems to be no possible application to Biden, who voluntarily alerted the National Archives to materials it was unaware were missing.

There is one additional provision of the Espionage Act that could come into play. Subsection (f) provides that:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document … relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer.”

On its face, the provision seems to criminalize gross negligence, an extreme degree of carelessness in handling national defense information. We do not know if there is gross negligence involved in the Biden case. But even if there is, sloppiness is not a crime. The Supreme Court, in a 1941 case, Gorin v. United States, suggested that the statute must be interpreted to require proof that a defendant intended that their conduct benefit a foreign power to violate 793(f). After Gorin, prosecutors have largely avoided indicting cases based solely on a gross negligence theory because of the likelihood that the Court would reverse any conviction they obtained.

One exception that is instructive and interesting involved James Smith, a Los Angeles base FBI agent who had a 20-year affair with a Chinese national he recruited as a source. She gained unauthorized access to national defense material, because he sometimes had it when they were together. Although charged under a gross negligence theory, he instead pled guilty to making false statements when he concealed the nature of their relationship, and spent no time in prison. Given precedent and DOJ’s long-standing practice of requiring an aggravating factor beyond mere possession before charging Espionage Act cases, it seems unlikely that even this “gross negligence” crime applies here. Those who are careless with national security information may pay for it politically or professionally, but in the absence of a possible criminal violation, there is no reason to initiate an investigation.

We may well see the appointment of a special counsel here for prudential reasons or because DOJ has obtained more information than is publicly available. But unless the facts change significantly, criminal charges or anything that merits impeachment seem unlikely. Republicans will try to pillory the president, but that’s politics, which these days are largely divorced from any sense of what’s fair, or even what’s true. As for Merrick Garland, he would do well to follow the advice of one of his predecessors, Janet Reno, who frequently pointed out that since prosecutors could not make everyone happy with their decisions, they should do what was right.

Classified documents were found in spaces under the control of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. That’s where the similarities here end. Cases that are similar should be treated the same, but these two are not. Loud, angry voices shouldn’t be permitted to turn this situation into something it isn’t, although they will undoubtedly try to. It’s up to us to arm ourselves with the facts and be prepared to confront people who try to alter them—with the truth.

(full article online)

One of these things is not like the other

First tonight, a programming note. After a full day of teaching on Thursday, I’ll be getting a colonoscopy on Friday. I suspect that means you won’t hear from me again before this Sunday’s “The Week Ahead.” I share this personal information so you’ll know why I’m away during the rest of this...

joycevance.substack.com

 

[healthmyths]

Just a question, Mike. Did you think Nixon should have been able to protect, keep and withhold records of his presidency also? You are no doubt aware of the Presidential Records act of 1978.

Your comment reflects your absence of awareness of the role of a moderator.

"Another important aspect for a moderator to keep in mind is that the conversation should not be biased," says Khurana. "It should not favor any one particular speaker's point of view over another, and the moderator should ensure that the conversation is balanced."

10 Do's and Don'ts for Moderating a Panel Discussion

Moderators are never the star but, if they do their job well, every member of the panel will feel like one.

www.entrepreneur.com

 

[struth]

The criminal statutes that are most likely to be considered in a situation like this are the same ones implicated in the Trump investigation. DOJ identified three in connection with obtaining the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago:

• 18 USC 793, the Espionage Act, which covers multiple crimes ranging from intentional use of sensitive information to damage national security to careless loss of national security information.
• 18 USC 2071, which involves willful removal, concealment, destruction, etc., of government records or the attempt to do so.
• 18 USC 1519, a statute criminalizing obstruction of federal investigations. This third statute is not implicated in the Biden matter; it’s involved in Trump’s case because of his efforts to conceal materials and deceive and interfere with the federal investigation in his case.

Both the 793 and 2071 violations for the most part require an element of willfulness. The 2071 violation requires that a defendant must have done the acts prohibited by the law intentionally with knowledge that he is violating the it. It does not appear, at least based on what we currently know, to apply to Biden. That leaves the Espionage Act, subsections (d) and (e) of which prohibit willfully refusing to return material related to the national defense, whether the defendant was properly or unlawfully in possession of it, at the request of a government official. Again, there seems to be no possible application to Biden, who voluntarily alerted the National Archives to materials it was unaware were missing.

There is one additional provision of the Espionage Act that could come into play. Subsection (f) provides that:

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document … relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer.”

On its face, the provision seems to criminalize gross negligence, an extreme degree of carelessness in handling national defense information. We do not know if there is gross negligence involved in the Biden case. But even if there is, sloppiness is not a crime. The Supreme Court, in a 1941 case, Gorin v. United States, suggested that the statute must be interpreted to require proof that a defendant intended that their conduct benefit a foreign power to violate 793(f). After Gorin, prosecutors have largely avoided indicting cases based solely on a gross negligence theory because of the likelihood that the Court would reverse any conviction they obtained.

One exception that is instructive and interesting involved James Smith, a Los Angeles base FBI agent who had a 20-year affair with a Chinese national he recruited as a source. She gained unauthorized access to national defense material, because he sometimes had it when they were together. Although charged under a gross negligence theory, he instead pled guilty to making false statements when he concealed the nature of their relationship, and spent no time in prison. Given precedent and DOJ’s long-standing practice of requiring an aggravating factor beyond mere possession before charging Espionage Act cases, it seems unlikely that even this “gross negligence” crime applies here. Those who are careless with national security information may pay for it politically or professionally, but in the absence of a possible criminal violation, there is no reason to initiate an investigation.

We may well see the appointment of a special counsel here for prudential reasons or because DOJ has obtained more information than is publicly available. But unless the facts change significantly, criminal charges or anything that merits impeachment seem unlikely. Republicans will try to pillory the president, but that’s politics, which these days are largely divorced from any sense of what’s fair, or even what’s true. As for Merrick Garland, he would do well to follow the advice of one of his predecessors, Janet Reno, who frequently pointed out that since prosecutors could not make everyone happy with their decisions, they should do what was right.

Classified documents were found in spaces under the control of both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. That’s where the similarities here end. Cases that are similar should be treated the same, but these two are not. Loud, angry voices shouldn’t be permitted to turn this situation into something it isn’t, although they will undoubtedly try to. It’s up to us to arm ourselves with the facts and be prepared to confront people who try to alter them—with the truth.

(full article online)

One of these things is not like the other

First tonight, a programming note. After a full day of teaching on Thursday, I’ll be getting a colonoscopy on Friday. I suspect that means you won’t hear from me again before this Sunday’s “The Week Ahead.” I share this personal information so you’ll know why I’m away during the rest of this...

joycevance.substack.com

not looking good for xiden

 

[The Original Tree]

Donald Trump was warned that the records he was holding on to were illegally retained, but the former president refused to give them back because he disagreed with that assertion, a new report claims.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Mr Trump flat-out refused to return boxes of documents, including some that apparently were marked classified, when approached by his former deputy White House counsel, Patrick Philbin.

And he wasn’t alone – multiple other aides to the president reportedly told him the same thing. But Mr Trump resisted, telling them “it’s not theirs, it’s mine” on several occaisions, referring to the stash of documents.

The new reporting could help the Justice Department prove its case if charges are brought against him for the retention of classified materials, as it demonstrates that Mr Trump could or should have known that what he was doing was criminal in nature.

‘It’s not theirs, it’s mine’: Trump resisted advisers’ calls to return White House documents

President ignored advice from counsel to heed National Archives’ demands for records

news.yahoo.com

To be continued.......

 

[healthmyths]

As Vice President did Biden have authority to retain classified documents.

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

GOP Lawmaker Rips Biden On Docs; Jake Tapper Throws Video Trump Defense In His Face

“Do you only care about documents being mishandled when Democrats do the mishandling?” Tapper jabbed at Kentucky Rep. James Comer.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]