Trump under investigation for potential violations of Espionage Act

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

This warrant is useless for shedding any light on the reason for the raid as it doesn't include any predicate.

Someone's been visiting crazy websites again.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

This warrant is useless for shedding any light on the reason for the raid as it doesn't include any predicate.

Wait, joined the land of the "woke" now have we.....lol

 

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Wake me up when this story pans out.

 

[pegman]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I wonder how this news is being received in the capitols of America’s enemies.

 

Either their spies got hold of this information while it was deposited at Mar-a-Largo or they need to answer for why they did not.

 

Certainly US Defense and Intelligence need to assume that whatever has been recovered has also been seen by America’s adversaries.

 

What a right Trump mess this is.

 

 

My  assumption was that any entity that wanted some or all of these documents would have paid for copies of them by now. 

[ThailandRyan]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

This warrant is useless for shedding any light on the reason for the raid as it doesn't include any predicate.

Since when does a warrant require a predicate.....? The search warrant may be found to be Tainted if the facts and scope were not identified or the officers exceeded their scope.  A warrant lays out what is being looked for.

 

https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/warrant-requirement/

[Tippaporn]

35 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

58 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Wake me up when this story pans out.

Like we didn’t know you don’t want to hear it.

There's no predicate identified in the warrant.  Given that fact then how could Politico come up with this statement in their article?

A search warrant viewed by POLITICO reveals that the FBI is investigating Donald Trump for potential violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice laws.

The redacted warrant, which I'm sure everyone has read, reveals no such thing.  The article itself uses the qualifier "potential" when referring to the Espionage Act.  In other words, so far it's all speculation thus far.

Anyone who wants to get excited over this specultation then go knock yourselves out.  Again, wake me up when this story pans out per it's sensational headline.

[Lacessit]

43 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Alarm bells started ringing in my head when he wrapped himself in the flag and accused others of treachery.

 

 

 

 

It goes back to Dr. Samuel Johnson's aphorism: " Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

There's no predicate identified in the warrant.  Given that fact then how could Politico come up with this statement in their article?

A search warrant viewed by POLITICO reveals that the FBI is investigating Donald Trump for potential violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice laws.

The redacted warrant, which I'm sure everyone has read, reveals no such thing.  The article itself uses the qualifier "potential" when referring to the Espionage Act.  In other words, so far it's all speculation thus far.

Anyone who wants to get excited over this specultation then go knock yourselves out.  Again, wake me up when this story pans out per it's sensational headline.

I guess you are in for a rude awakening, then. Forked over $45 to the great man yet?

[LarrySR]

15 minutes ago, pegman said:

My  assumption was that any entity that wanted some or all of these documents would have paid for copies of them by now. 

Yep, I bet some of those files are priceless and Trump was salivating at the opportunity to abscond with them.

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

Since when does a warrant require a predicate.....? The search warrant may be found to be Tainted if the facts and scope were not identified or the officers exceeded their scope.  A warrant lays out what is being looked for.

 

https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/warrant-requirement/

The question isn't whether or not a search warrant requires a predicate but since there is none given anywhere or by anyone then I'm correct in saying that the search warrant sheds no light on the reason for the raid.  Knowing what they were looking for and giving a useless inventory of items taken doesn't indicate why they were looking for whatever they were looking for.  All reasons for the raid here and elsewhere are nothing more than speculation.

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I guess you are in for a rude awakening, then. Forked over $45 to the great man yet?

You're speculating.  Good luck to you.

[ballpoint]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

If this is what finally sinks the insurrectionist grifter it will be like getting another mob boss Al Capone on taxes. We'll take it.

While agreeing with your sentiment, what you say does tend to trivialise what we have just seen.  Although it did somewhat come out of left field, this is a very serious allegation.  To remove top secret documents, and refuse to hand them back following their subpoena, is only part of the story.  The thought of just what he was planning on doing with them, or worse, what he has already done with them, takes it to a whole different level.  Certainly equally serious, if not more so, than the many other investigations currently focussing on him.

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, DezLez said:

You will probably need a "handsome Prince" to do that!

What do you have in the form of evidence or proof?  Short answer:  Nothing.

[Excel]

3 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

Trump was salivating at the opportunity to abscond with them

Which raises the question when or if will he ? Given the future is not looking bright for him which countries that do not have an extradition treaty with the US do you think he may abscond to ?  Guess the UAE must be high up on his list of preferences.

[pomchop]

15 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

There's no predicate identified in the warrant.  Given that fact then how could Politico come up with this statement in their article?

A search warrant viewed by POLITICO reveals that the FBI is investigating Donald Trump for potential violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice laws.

The redacted warrant, which I'm sure everyone has read, reveals no such thing.  The article itself uses the qualifier "potential" when referring to the Espionage Act.  In other words, so far it's all speculation thus far.

Anyone who wants to get excited over this specultation then go knock yourselves out.  Again, wake me up when this story pans out per it's sensational headline.

It appears from your take on Trump and lack of understanding of basic rules of investigations and legal wordings of  search warrants that you have been asleep for a long time.

[ThailandRyan]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The question isn't whether or not a search warrant requires a predicate but since there is none given anywhere or by anyone then I'm correct in saying that the search warrant sheds no light on the reason for the raid.  Knowing what they were looking for and giving a useless inventory of items taken doesn't indicate why they were looking for whatever they were looking for.  All reasons for the raid here and elsewhere are nothing more than speculation.

I think your a little bit confused.  Read the link and then look at attachment B of the unsealed warrant for what ye seek.

 

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2071&num=0&edition=prelim

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/12/politics/read-search-warrant-trump-mar-a-lago/index.html

Edited August 13, 2022 by ThailandRyan

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, pomchop said:

It appears from your take on Trump and lack of understanding of basic rules of investigations and legal wordings of  search warrants that you have been asleep for a long time.

See this:
 

 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

I think your a little bit confused.  Read the link and look at attachment B of the unsealed warrant for what ye seek.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/12/politics/read-search-warrant-trump-mar-a-lago/index.html

It's an inventory of items taken.  So where within that inventory do you find the reason for the raid?

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Tippaporn

[Nickelbeer]

As the entire world laughs at the United States.  I have started telling people that I am from Canada.  What a sad development.  Trumpers have destroyed the country.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The question isn't whether or not a search warrant requires a predicate but since there is none given anywhere or by anyone then I'm correct in saying that the search warrant sheds no light on the reason for the raid.  Knowing what they were looking for and giving a useless inventory of items taken doesn't indicate why they were looking for whatever they were looking for.  All reasons for the raid here and elsewhere are nothing more than speculation.

Nonsense.

"In a legal sense, the term predicate means to base something, such as a fact, statement, or action, on another thing. For instance, a person may agree to give a crate of baseball bats to the local little league, predicated on (or based on) a parent’s withdrawal of a lawsuit."

https://legaldictionary.net/predicate/#:~:text=In a legal sense%2C the,parent's withdrawal of a lawsuit.

 

Or it could be based on a potential illlegal possession of documents, a search of the premises is warranted.

 

All crimes alleged in a warrant are potential. Whether an actual crime has been committed is for a judge or jury to decide.

 

 

 

 

[ThailandRyan]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

What do you have in the form of evidence or proof?  Short answer:  Nothing.

You must be a successfully retired Federal Defense prosecutor with many wins under your belt if what you say is true, but alas your not even in the same ballpark as the federal statutes and what is laid out.  You need to read the statutes to see what he is being accused of and why they served the warrant read the whole thing which I attached above and ye shall find what you are missing.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Nonsense.

"In a legal sense, the term predicate means to base something, such as a fact, statement, or action, on another thing. For instance, a person may agree to give a crate of baseball bats to the local little league, predicated on (or based on) a parent’s withdrawal of a lawsuit."

https://legaldictionary.net/predicate/#:~:text=In a legal sense%2C the,parent's withdrawal of a lawsuit.

 

Or it could be based on a potential illlegal possession of documents, a search of the premises is warranted.

 

All crimes alleged in a warrant are potential. Whether an actual crime has been committed is for a judge or jury to decide.

"All crimes alleged in a warrant are potential. Whether an actual crime has been committed is for a judge or jury to decide."

Well I'm glad that at least you have admitted to the fact that Trump is innocent of any crime until proven guilty.  We can speculate all day long as to whether he is or isn't.  That's useless, too.

[300sd]

7 minutes ago, Nickelbeer said:

As the entire world laughs at the United States.  I have started telling people that I am from Canada.  What a sad development.  Trumpers have destroyed the country.

The swamp is destroying the country. Unfortunately what happens in the US happens in Canada.

[placeholder]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

"All crimes alleged in a warrant are potential. Whether an actual crime has been committed is for a judge or jury to decide."

Well I'm glad that at least you have admitted to the fact that Trump is innocent of any crime until proven guilty.  We can speculate all day long as to whether he is or isn't.  That's useless, too.

I have never denied it. And I'm not surprised to see that since you've been caught out on your nonsensical understanding of "predicate", you're resorting to a deflection.

[ThailandRyan]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's an inventory of items taken.  So where within that inventory do you find the reason for the raid?

 

Try again, read the warrant, and then look up the sections indicated in the section right under the top part of Attachment B ergo the 18 U.S.C. sections 793, 2071 or 1519.  Each of those 18 U.S.C. sections explains the crimes associated with what is being searched for. Ie...They were searching for the fruits of the crime.  Your understanding of law is lacking.

 

Here is section 2071

(a)

Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b)

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by ThailandRyan

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

It's an inventory of items taken.  So where within that inventory do you find the reason for the raid?

 

Why look at the inventory when you can look at this:

 

 

 

Now look up what those acts refer to.

 

Here's the first one I've done for you:

 

18 U.S. Code ss 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information:

 

 

The Times points out that Lawrence Franklin recently pleaded guilty to Espionage Act charges related to his disclosure of classified information to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee and that two former employees of AIPAC face Espionage Act charges for relaying information from Franklin to the Israeli government. Disclosure of Ms. Plame’s classified status could well fall within the prohibitions of the Espionage Act, specifically those in 18 U.S.C. section 793(e), which prohibit disclosure of information relating to the national defense by persons who have such information without authorization.

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

You must be a successfully retired Federal Defense prosecutor with many wins under your belt if what you say is true, but alas your not even in the same ballpark as the federal statutes and what is laid out.  You need to read the statutes to see what he is being accused of and why they served the warrant read the whole thing which I attached above and ye shall find what you are missing.

I highlighted the important part of your post.  Why is there no mention of the fact that Trump was fully cooperating with the National Archives and therefore why a raid was necessary?  Any takers on answering that question?

[LarrySR]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

A timeline which is void of all details is just as useless.

What did the Maralogo CCTV reveal? Installed on June 8, subpoenaed on the June 22.

Someone messing around in that locked room.

Just wait for the next Jan 6 committee public hearing.

Handyman at Maralogo star witness?

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"All crimes alleged in a warrant are potential. Whether an actual crime has been committed is for a judge or jury to decide."

Well I'm glad that at least you have admitted to the fact that Trump is innocent of any crime until proven guilty.  We can speculate all day long as to whether he is or isn't.  That's useless, too.

Have you shared your knowledge of the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" with ex-President Trump?

Actually he supports a doctrine of "guilty even after being proven innocent."

Donald Trump Says Central Park Five Are Guilty, Despite DNA Evidence

Wading into a racially-charged case from his past, Donald Trump indicated that the "Central Park Five" were guilty, despite being officially exonerated by DNA evidence decades after a notorious 1989 rape case.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-says-central-park-five-are-guilty-despite-dna-n661941

[ThailandRyan]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

I highlighted the important part of your post.  Why is there no mention of the fact that Trump was fully cooperating with the National Archives and therefore why a raid was necessary?  Any takers on answering that question?

You have lost the plot.  Was he truly cooperating or was he obstructing and delaying? Better yet was he in possession of items he was not allowed to have in his possession.  Why do you not try and remove items from the Archives which are sealed and kept from the public as they are documents marked as classified.  Do you believe he was allowed by law to keep documents such as he had in his possession?  Many people have gone before him and been prosecuted for the mishandling of Government classified documents.  Why should he be treated any differently.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I highlighted the important part of your post.  Why is there no mention of the fact that Trump was fully cooperating with the National Archives and therefore why a raid was necessary?  Any takers on answering that question?

And we know that Trump was fully cooperating because he and his team say so. And why would anyone doubt that?