Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Mar-a-Lago raid
#15
Quote:The warrant is based upon probable cause to believe, first, that taking large quantities of materials to Mar-a-Lago violated the core federal criminal document preservation statute related to presidential records. It forbids the willful concealment, removal, or destruction of documents -- classified or not -- belonging to the government of the United States. The maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment.

More serious still is the possible violation of the federal Espionage Act, also listed on the warrant. Its violation carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Individuals are subject to conviction under the act if they willfully retain and fail to deliver information "relating to the national defense" upon the demand of a federal officer entitled to receive such information that has come into the individuals' possession. This statute comes into play because the FBI retrieved 11 sets of classified documents from Mar-a-Lago last Monday. Information is marked "secret" if its unauthorized release would cause "serious damage to national security." Information that would cause "exceptionally grave damage to national security" is marked "top secret." If information is marked "TS/SCI," it is even more highly protected -- "top secret/sensitive compartmented information," meaning that it comes from sensitive sources or methods. In short, while all the material recovered could be considered stolen government property, the classified documents that the FBI retrieved and that were marked "top secret" and "various classified/TS/SCI" are of special concern. Although the Espionage Act does not require that "information related to the national defense" be classified, these highly sensitive documents would likely fall under the definition of "information relating to the national defense" under the Espionage Act.

Finally, there is the offense of obstructing a pending federal investigation by concealing documents relating to that investigation. It carries the heaviest potential penalty: up to 20 years in prison. As grave as violations of the first two statutes are, interfering with a Justice Department investigation is especially serious...

Reporting has already detailed the concerning pattern of document turnover. It started with negotiations and voluntary requests from national archivists in 2021, resulting in the return of 15 boxes of materials in 2022. That was followed in the spring by a grand jury subpoena evidently compelling production of documents. Then investigators visited in June, taking still more documents with them and at some later point securing the recently reported, evidently false statement that all material marked as classified had been returned...

Note that if Trump or others did not honestly comply with the subpoena, that's a separate possible crimeThat might be why the department reportedly subpoenaed the surveillance footage of people going in and out of the document rooms. Government officials were also understandably concerned about who had access to classified documents.

Further, if Trump and those around him, including his lawyers, made intentionally inaccurate statements to the government, they may be criminally liable for making false statements.
Opinion: Trump is worried after FBI search -- and he should be - CNN
  • The three possible crimes
  • Remember, A Trump lawyer argued a couple of months ago that all classified documents were returned
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-10-2022, 02:19 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-10-2022, 05:58 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-11-2022, 01:11 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-11-2022, 01:47 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-11-2022, 07:41 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-13-2022, 01:38 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-13-2022, 02:49 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-13-2022, 02:23 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-13-2022, 06:07 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-14-2022, 06:43 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-14-2022, 03:25 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-14-2022, 05:45 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-15-2022, 05:07 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-16-2022, 01:52 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-18-2022, 05:44 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-20-2022, 01:40 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-20-2022, 10:25 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-23-2022, 03:12 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-24-2022, 01:28 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-24-2022, 03:17 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-25-2022, 02:27 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-29-2022, 05:02 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 08-31-2022, 09:41 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 09-02-2022, 06:54 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 09-07-2022, 07:57 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 09-08-2022, 03:56 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 09-11-2022, 12:03 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 09-11-2022, 02:49 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 09-14-2022, 03:32 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 09-20-2022, 12:30 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 10-15-2022, 10:19 PM
Indicted! - by Admin - 06-09-2023, 02:53 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 06-10-2023, 10:55 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 06-11-2023, 11:39 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 06-13-2023, 02:07 PM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 06-21-2023, 11:53 AM
RE: Mar-a-Lago raid - by Admin - 10-06-2023, 02:06 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)