Trump under investigation for potential violations of Espionage Act

[ozimoron]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

I did not speculate on the honesty of the FBI Director, I commented on the fact that the FBI's record on corruption and lying is not good.

OK, lets assume you are correct, how is any past conviction for corruption by the FBI relevant? The mere fact that questions have been asked exonerated Trump? Oh, I see now. You're just scratching around to find any reason to excuse Trump or cast doubt on his accusers. Unless you can keep the discussion limited to this incident and the documents then you are off topic and deflecting.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oh..............lol

 

Right, caught in a lie. That's him on ignore.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I did not speculate on the honesty of the FBI Director, I commented on the fact that the FBI's record on corruption and lying is not good.

Oh..............lol

8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There's, obviously, more to the FBI than the Director, but, so what if Trump appointed him, that doesn't prevent him from turning into another corrupt FBI official, does it?   You think that nothing untoward has ever gone on in the FBI?  

Oh, oh.  I did not comment on the honesty of the Director, I clearly referred to the FBI as a whole.    I did say that his character could change even if Trump appointed him, I didn't say that it had.

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, ThailandRyan said:

For your edification having just the papers in his possession is only part of a case for espionage or treason?  There are other factors one must have to put the entire case together.  Do you think that I can obtain a breath test on the spot for driving while drunk and being involved in an accident and arrest and prosecute you the next day?  If you do then you have no idea of what your talking about.  Cases take time, sometimes years to build and then prosecute.  

You would be behind bars though.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Oh, oh.  I did not comment on the honesty of the Director, I clearly referred to the FBI as a whole.    I did say that his character could change even if Trump appointed him, I didn't say that it had.

Right, and that's called speculation on his character. If you said it had changed that would be an accusation.

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I know of no driver who has failed to pass a sobriety test not being arrested on the spot, especially after an accident.  Courts are booked with current cases and so you're appearance goes to the end of the line.  But you will be busted on the spot.  In your given scenario your suggestion that the arrest and prosecution happens after a case is first built gives me little confidence that you understand the process well enough to provide edification to anyone.

Aside from that comment you miss my point.  Which is that to say that the prevailing consensus amongst leftists here is that the law regarding possession of classified documents is unambiguous and therefore Trump has been caught dead to rights, is guilty, and should immediately advance to Leavenworth.  What case needs to be built?  So if the left's consensus is so deadly accurate then why hasn't Trump been arrested?  The question is actually rhetorical from our perspective.

Now I and others are saying "not so fast."  There's much here that needs to be processed . . . properly.  But no, no, no.  The leftists here refuse to entertain any ideas of mitigating circumstances on this cut and dried case that would rain on their victory lap parade.  Even in your postings you seem to have concluded the case is done and dusted.   It just needs to be built up further.  That's all.

After six years of trying to get Trump on anything and everything, even a jaywalking charge, it's all been a miserable failure.  But this one I believe will backfire spectacularly.  They went too far this time.  I could be wrong but we'll wait and see.

"Even if Mr. Trump declassified the information before he left office, none of the three potential crimes cited by the department in seeking the warrant depend on whether a mishandled document has been deemed classified."

[Chomper Higgot]

58 minutes ago, Excel said:

So based upon what is known, not speculated about or dreamed off by certain members, if it turns out that there were some documents Trump should not have had in his possession and the DoJ considers that there is sufficient evidence to move forward with an intended prosecution, how long would the more learned colleagues on this forum suggest it would take to reach the first judicial hearing ?

The DoJ does not decide if there is sufficient evidence to move forward with a prosecution.

 

The DoJ makes a determination that there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution, and then (following the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution) places the evidence before a Grand Jury.

 

It is the Grand Jury that decides if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

 

Grand Juries sit in camera, their deliberations are secret and even the fact there is a Grand Jury empaneled is not declared.

 

It is also usual for the DoJ to assemble all charges against an individual, we might expect the DoJ to be particularly thorough in the case of charges against a former President.

 

Despite  the deliberations of Grand Juries being held in camera we do often learn from witnesses called before Grand Juries of their existence, especially if a witness(es) goes to court to challenge a subpoena.

 

We also know that several members of Trump’s high level administration have recently been subject to search warrants, seizures and subpoenas, the DoJ issues subpoenas to ‘witnesses’ to the activities of the ‘target’, hence it is very reasonable to assume that Trump is the target.

 

This recent raid related to theft and the laws of espionage.

From observation of arrests , searches and court filings we know the DoJ is investigating the events of J6.

We know the DoJ is investigating attempts to rig individual State election results.

We know the DoJ is investigation ‘slates of fake electors (who helpfully signed their names on fake election returns).

 

So to answer your question we would need to know how long all of this will take, and of course we can have no real idea.

 

What we can be certain of is it’s all in progress.

 

Justice is coming.

 

 

[ozimoron]

If it's true that the FBI have probable cause on an espionage charge I don't think we will have long to wait. It's not the type of indictment they would sit on unless one were president.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

37 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

But when he is no longer POTUS, his job is NOT to retain TS and TS/SCI docs. In fact, few of the docs in the inventory list at MaL would be relevant to anything he did day to day, and that is if he actually did any work, rather than call into Fox or play golf. POTUSs spend precious .little time dealing with highly classified matters; that is left to CIA/NSA/DNI and he is merely briefed---if he chooses to be briefed---via the PDB.

 

You're really stretching. You are making assumptions about something you know little or nothing. POTUSs spend almost all their time on domestic policy issues. Getting even a good POTUS to focus on classified stuff-unless it is related to a direct and current threat assessment---is not easy.

 

Jail him.

Actually, pretty much everything you said was thoroughly addressed in my first post in this thread, not many posts upthread from the one you responded to.

 

Thanks anyway, though. Lol

[Liverpool Lou]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I did not speculate on the honesty of the FBI Director, I commented on the fact that the FBI's record on corruption and lying is not good.

OK, lets assume you are correct, how is any past conviction for corruption by the FBI relevant? The mere fact that questions have been asked exonerated Trump? Oh, I see now. You're just scratching around to find any reason to excuse Trump or cast doubt on his accusers. Unless you can keep the discussion limited to this incident and the documents then you are off topic and deflecting.

"OK, lets assume you are correct, how is any past conviction for corruption by the FBI relevant?

I am correct.  If the FBI has proved to have been corrupt in the past (it has) it doesn't say much for it going forward and its involvement with this case, does it?   

 

"The mere fact that questions have been asked exonerated Trump?"

Exonerated from what?  He hasn't been charged with anything to be exonerated from!

 

"You're just scratching around to find any reason to excuse Trump or cast doubt on his accusers".

Not at all.  I'm commenting on what some ill-informed posters are saying here.

 

"Unless you can keep the discussion limited to this incident and the documents then you are off topic and deflecting".

All my comments are related to this thread so your assertion that they are "off-topic and deflecting" [sic] is wrong.   Since when have you been authorised to tell other members how to post?  

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, ozimoron said:

If it's true that the FBI have probable cause on an espionage charge I don't think we will have long to wait. It's not the type of indictment they would sit on unless one were president.

There is politics in this.

 

The DoJ cannot afford to bring one case against Trump and risk losing all other cases on the back of that single case.

 

I expect the DoJ will assemble every last bit of evidence of every single crime they can uncover.

 

I’ve given examples we know about above, but think about the fact this search came out of the blue.

 

What else then is coming down the pike?

[Excel]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The DoJ does not decide if there is sufficient evidence to move forward with a prosecution.

 

The DoJ makes a determination that there is sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution, and then (following the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution) places the evidence before a Grand Jury.

 

It is the Grand Jury that decides if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

 

Grand Juries sit in camera, their deliberations are secret and even the fact there is a Grand Jury empaneled is not declared.

 

It is also usual for the DoJ to assemble all charges against an individual, we might expect the DoJ to be particularly thorough in the case of charges against a former President.

 

Despoiled the deliberations of Grand Juries being held in camera we do often learn from witnesses called before Grand Juries of their existence, especially if a witness(es) goes to court to challenge a subpoena.

 

We also know that several members of Trump’s high level administration have recently been subject to search warrants, seizures and subpoenas, the DoJ issues subpoenas to ‘witnesses’ to the activities of the ‘target’, hence it is very reasonable to assume that Trump is the target.

 

This recent raid related to theft and the laws of espionage.

From observation of arrests , searches and court filings we know the DoJ is investigating the events of J6.

We know the DoJ is investigating attempts to rig individual State election results.

We know the DoJ is investigation ‘slates of fake electors (who helpfully signed their names on fake election returns).

 

So to answer your question we would need to know how long all of this will take, and of course we can have no real idea.

 

What we can be certain of is it’s all in progress.

 

Justice is coming.

Thanks for the clarification as being non American I would not know the system in detail.  So it could take a long time for a prosecution.  These are long shots I know but bear with me pls.   If Trump has not been convicted then he can stand as the Republican representative at the next presidential election ? Is that Nov 2024 ?. Any prosecution may well take longer than two years perhaps ? Let's say by fair means or foul he actually got elected. Would that then mean he could not even be prosecuted as he would then be the President ? 

[Liverpool Lou]

15 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

17 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I did not speculate on the honesty of the FBI Director, I commented on the fact that the FBI's record on corruption and lying is not good.

Really? Compared to which organization?

I'm not comparing it to any other organisation.  I am saying that the FBI has been proven to have conducted itself in a corrupt manner in the very recent past.

[ThailandRyan]

28 minutes ago, The Hammer2021 said:

Did I ever say you said they were above the law anywhere, if so please show me. 

My comment is to highlight the double  standards  and hypocrisy  of the woke  left.

 

???? You have me confused with the woke left I am afraid.  Going off-topic to try and derail a thread as usually happens when people try to deflect from the facts being presented.  In this case, or should I say the OP, I have given my experiences in investigations and laid out what I see is happening, much to the chagrin of others.  What happens in other cases like you wish to switch gears to has no bearing on this OP. Either create another OP to discuss your other concerns or stay on the topic at hand. The OP is: "Trump under investigation for potential violations of Espionage Act".  read the OP title again "Potential Violations ....." There is no double standard....Due Process is Due Process and all in the US are afforded such no matter what conspiracy people want to try and say is happening.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

I don"t agree. Tippaporn has raised some important points which have never been properly investigated. I suggest some introspection by yourself is necessary.

Your last sentence is classic gaslighting. It's enough for me to put you on ignore without further ado.

[ThailandRyan]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If it's true that the FBI have probable cause on an espionage charge I don't think we will have long to wait. It's not the type of indictment they would sit on unless one were president.

You have to understand there may be more than one player involved that will feel some heat as well......not just The Donald.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"OK, lets assume you are correct, how is any past conviction for corruption by the FBI relevant?

I am correct.  If the FBI has proved to have been corrupt in the past (it has) it doesn't say much for it going forward and its involvement with this case, does it?   

 

"The mere fact that questions have been asked exonerated Trump?"

Exonerated from what?  He hasn't been charged with anything to be exonerated from!

 

"You're just scratching around to find any reason to excuse Trump or cast doubt on his accusers".

Not at all.  I'm commenting on what some ill-informed posters are saying here.

 

"Unless you can keep the discussion limited to this incident and the documents then you are off topic and deflecting".

All my comments are related to this thread so your assertion that they are "off-topic and deflecting" [sic] is wrong.   Since when have you been authorised to tell other members how to post?  

 

The DoJ is an organization, it is not an individual.

 

Individuals may or may not be capable of correcting their behavior, tge ability to correct the behavior of organizations is a demonstrable fact:

 

Fire and replace the management.

Restructure the organization.

Re-write procedures and practices.

Subject the organization to oversight.

 

The list goes on.

 

Your assertion that because the FBI abused its power in the past is somehow evidence of abuse now is patent nonsense.

 

 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

21 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There's, obviously, more to the FBI than the Director, but, so what if Trump appointed him, that doesn't prevent him from turning into another corrupt FBI official, does it?   You think that nothing untoward has ever gone on in the FBI?  

It is a pattern of growing list of people Trump hired who eventually soured on him. Barr who called him crazy for his assertion that the election was fraud and was called “he sucked” by Trump (classy). Pence who disobey him was almost hang, Bolton, Mattis, Kelly and many many more. You don’t think that the problem is Trump?

[Jingthing]

If Trump makes it to be president again, Goddess forbid, he can't be prosecuted during that time. 

[Excel]

Just now, Jingthing said:

If Trump makes it to be president again, Goddess forbid, he can't be prosecuted during that time. 

So he get's off the hook 

[Jingthing]

Just now, Excel said:

So he get's off the hook 

A big part of why he will run.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

You have to understand there may be more than one player involved that will feel some heat as well......not just The Donald.

If that was a thing they'd never have raided him. Other than Donald's cohorts I don't think there's any there there.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Excel said:

Thanks for the clarification as being non American I would not know the system in detail.  So it could take a long time for a prosecution.  These are long shots I know but bear with me pls.   If Trump has not been convicted then he can stand as the Republican representative at the next presidential election ? Is that Nov 2024 ?. Any prosecution may well take longer than two years perhaps ? Let's say by fair means or foul he actually got elected. Would that then mean he could not even be prosecuted as he would then be the President ? 

He could, but there are a couple of problems.

 

Firstly he would have to get selected by the Republican Party as their candidate.

 

Secondly the moment he announces a run all his campaign finances are subject to scrutiny under Election law.

 

I doubt he wants that.

 

Finally there is the problem of Trump’s Final line of defense.

 

I’ll make a punt here, when Trump is finally cornered by criminal prosecution he’ll claim unfitness to stand trial.

 

Trump will not be a candidate in 2024, stick a fork in him, he’s done.

 

 

[ThailandRyan]

21 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

You would be behind bars though.

Not Necessarily, "Don't you know who my father is"

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

If Trump makes it to be president again, Goddess forbid, he can't be prosecuted during that time. 

There is a s no law against it, there is a DoJ memorandum but it does s not cast in stone.

[Tippaporn]

18 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Speculating on the honesty of an FBI director is a habit of Trump's. That alone undermines his credibility.

You're an Aussie.  So you can be forgiven for not knowing FBI history.  J. Edgar Hoover was as honest a FBI Director as they come.  Thanks for the injection of some much needed humour in this thread.

Back to being serious.  You suggest that questioning authority undermines one's credibility.  In actuality the reverse is true.  Those who slavishly follow authoritarians have lost all credibility.  And credibility may be the least of the noble virtues one contemptuously kicks to the gutter.

[Excel]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He could, but there are a couple of problems.

 

Firstly he would have to get selected by the Republican Party as their candidate.

 

Secondly the moment he announces a run all his campaign finances are subject to scrutiny under Election law.

 

I doubt he wants that.

 

Finally there is the problem of Trump’s Final line of defense.

 

I’ll make a punt here, when Trump is finally cornered by criminal prosecution he’ll claim unfitness to stand trial.

 

Trump will not be a candidate in 2024, stick a fork in him, he’s done.

 

 

Thanks for that

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is a s no law against it, there is a DoJ memorandum but it does s not cast in stone.

I could see SCOTUS ratifying that, if for no reason other then to protect Barr.

[ThailandRyan]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If that was a thing they'd never have raided him. Other than Donald's cohorts I don't think there's any there there.

Your view is one of skepticism.  Fingerprints on documents may say otherwise and as they follow up on more leads more people may fall under the view of investigators, I have only seen that not occur only once in my career, and that was when they only wanted the top person prosecuted and the others left to being bagged on other charges.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

You're an Aussie.  So you can be forgiven for not knowing FBI history.  J. Edgar Hoover was as honest a FBI Director as they come.  Thanks for the injection of some much needed humour in this thread.

Back to being serious.  You suggest that questioning authority undermines one's credibility.  In actuality the reverse is true.  Those who slavishly follow authoritarians have lost all credibility.  And credibility may be the least of the noble virtues one contemptuously kicks to the gutter.

I'm fine with criticizing authority, honestly. But not at the defense of the obvious perpetrator and without a shred if evidence. That's just deflecting and muck raking.