Trump under investigation for potential violations of Espionage Act

[LarrySR]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Well I'm glad that at least you have admitted to the fact that Trump is innocent of any crime until proven guilty. 

Yea, it would be idiotic to go around chanting "LOCK HIM UP" until he is proven guilty.

[Thailand]

48 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. 

$2 billion to Jared from the Saudis perhaps? And they have spent a lot of time at Mar- a - lago recently.

 

And the "fee" for the rental of his golf course to LIV- perfect way to launder a few million.

 

[Bkk Brian]

4 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?

Who told you he was fully cooperating? 

[jvs]

54 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. 

Yes for sure and i hope Trump is no friend of this idiot!

 

[Chomper Higgot]

46 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’s an investigation, even those suspected of espionage are afford innocence before conviction.

 

The  ‘predicate’ argument you are repeating has been blown out of the water by ThailandRyan:

 

49 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/

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

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.

 

Exactly!  They were looking for any items illegally in Trump's possession which would be legitimately in violation of those three statutes.  But no predicate given as to why the FBI or DOJ believed Trump was in violation of any of those statutes, if indeed he was.  If they give no reason as to why then it's what's called called a fishing expedition.

Everything discussed here or elsewhere is therefore nothing more than pure speculation that Trump was indeed in violation and some of the most outlandish conspiracy theories are given here as to what Trump's intentions were for possessing whatever documents he had at Mar-a-Lago.  Which reasons can be no different to the reasons of any other FPOTUS for taking with them documents into their own personal possession after leaving office.

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Who told you he was fully cooperating? 

Who told you he wasn't?

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

But no predicate given as to why the FBI or DOJ believed Trump was in violation of any of those statutes, if indeed he was.  If they give no reason as to why then it's what's called called a fishing expedition.

No its called gathering evidence that should not have been there in the first place contrary to the said acts, thats where your list of items recovered now comes into it

[metisdead]

A post with unsubstantiated facts and the replies have been removed. 

[Chomper Higgot]

21 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?

If Trump were fully cooperating, there would be no documents at his residence, he would have already returned them to their rightful custodian.

[Tippaporn]

13 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

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.

"Was he truly cooperating or was he obstructing and delaying?"

What one believes about that depends on one's source.  I trust the sources I use that confirm he had been fully cooperating.

"Better yet was he in possession of items he was not allowed to have in his possession."

That remains to be seen, doesn't it?

"Do you believe he was allowed by law to keep documents such as he had in his possession?"

It doesn't matter what I, you or anyone else believes.  Only the truth matters.  Which truth no one here knows as yet.  Speculate all you want.

"Why should he be treated any differently."

I never stated Trump should be treated differently.  If he's guilty of a crime then send him up.  All I've been saying, from the beginning, is wake me up when something concrete emerges.  Until then, speculate about all things under the Trump sun as much as you like.  Speculation is worthless.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Who told you he wasn't?

You have made the claim that Trump is fully cooperating, it is for you to back up your claim.

 

You don’t get to say anything you can imagine and then place the onus on others to prove the products of your imagination wrong.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

22 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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

Only his team?  You sure about that?  Any evidence you could provide that it's not the case?  Other than, "Well I believe. . . . "

[placeholder]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

Only his team?  You sure about that?  Any evidence you could provide that it's not the case?  Other than, "Well I believe. . . . "

You're the one who asserted that Trump was cooperating. You're the one who made the definitive statement. It's up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim. That should be obvious.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You have made the claim that Trump is fully cooperating, it is for you to back up your claim.

 

You don’t get to say anything you can imagine and then place the onus on others to prove the products of your imagination wrong.

Go back and read the many posts speculating about Trump selling classified info to the Russians or selling them for profit and put the onus on them to back up their conspiracy theories.  I don't see you challenging them, Chomper.  Of course those theories all fit with your accepted narrative of Orange Man bad.  Should I laugh now or later?

[ThailandRyan]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

"Was he truly cooperating or was he obstructing and delaying?"

What one believes about that depends on one's source.  I trust the sources I use that confirm he had been fully cooperating.

"Better yet was he in possession of items he was not allowed to have in his possession."

That remains to be seen, doesn't it?

"Do you believe he was allowed by law to keep documents such as he had in his possession?"

It doesn't matter what I, you or anyone else believes.  Only the truth matters.  Which truth no one here knows as yet.  Speculate all you want.

"Why should he be treated any differently."

I never stated Trump should be treated differently.  If he's guilty of a crime then send him up.  All I've been saying, from the beginning, is wake me up when something concrete emerges.  Until then, speculate about all things under the Trump sun as much as you like.  Speculation is worthless.

You really have no clue as to what laws he has violated.  Look at the Receipt of property and you will see he was in possession of items he should not have been in possession of.  Yet you try to believe other things. Clips from your quoted post above.

"Better yet was he in possession of items he was not allowed to have in his possession."

"That remains to be seen, doesn't it?" - Look at the items seized for your edification.

"Do you believe he was allowed by law to keep documents such as he had in his possession?"

"It doesn't matter what I, you or anyone else believes.  Only the truth matters.  Which truth no one here knows as yet.  Speculate all you want."  - The truth is he was in possession of classified documents your rose colored Trump glasses and MAGA hat are obstructing your vision.  I am not a trump hater, nor a Biden lover, but when laws are broken all need to pay the price.  Trump does a good job of playing the victim, he deflects often just like you are doing in this OP. 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Go back and read the many posts speculating about Trump selling classified info to the Russians or selling them for profit and put the onus on them to back up their conspiracy theories.  I don't see you challenging them, Chomper.  Of course those theories all fit with your accepted narrative of Orange Man bad.  Should I laugh now or later?

It's not incumbent upon any of us to challenge a post. But it is incumbent upon a poster to either provide evidence to back up an assertion or say nothing. Just more deflection coming from you.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Go back and read the many posts speculating about Trump selling classified info to the Russians or selling them for profit and put the onus on them to back up their conspiracy theories.  I don't see you challenging them, Chomper.  Of course those theories all fit with your accepted narrative of Orange Man bad.  Should I laugh now or later?

Deal with your unsubstantiated statement I have responded to.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're the one who asserted that Trump was cooperating. You're the one who made the definitive statement. It's up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim. That should be obvious.

Then I put it to you as I did to Chomper.  There are so many on the left here speculating this and that but you never ask them to verify any of what they claim to be true.  Why are you and others only interested in verifying evidence that goes in Trump's favour but never when it goes against him?  I don't need an answer because it's too obvious.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-legal-team-was-talks-justice-department-spring-records-stored-m-rcna42319

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Then I put it to you as I did to Chomper.  There are so many on the left here speculating this and that but you never ask them to verify any of what they claim to be true.  Why are you and others only interested in verifying evidence that goes in Trump's favour but never when it goes against him?  I don't need an answer because it's too obvious.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-legal-team-was-talks-justice-department-spring-records-stored-m-rcna42319

There is no evidence that goes in Trump’s favor.

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

You really have no clue as to what laws he has violated.  Look at the Receipt of property and you will see he was in possession of items he should not have been in possession of.  Yet you try to believe other things. Clips from your quoted post above.

"Better yet was he in possession of items he was not allowed to have in his possession."

"That remains to be seen, doesn't it?" - Look at the items seized for your edification.

"Do you believe he was allowed by law to keep documents such as he had in his possession?"

"It doesn't matter what I, you or anyone else believes.  Only the truth matters.  Which truth no one here knows as yet.  Speculate all you want."  - The truth is he was in possession of classified documents your rose colored Trump glasses and MAGA hat are obstructing your vision.  I am not a trump hater, nor a Biden lover, but when laws are broken all need to pay the price.  Trump does a good job of playing the victim, he deflects often just like you are doing in this OP. 

Your fail in logic is that you conclude that just because the FBI took into possession the items they did means that Trump did not have rightful possession of them.  As I remember from the NBC article I posted above Trump was engaged in talks with the DOJ.

We don't know yet what he had the right to possess and what he did not.  The DOJ can make their claims and Trump can make his.  It then gets litigated.

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is no evidence that goes in Trump’s favor.

That's an impossibility.  Be serious, Chomper.

[Tippaporn]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Deal with your unsubstantiated statement I have responded to.

Then deal with my contention that you have nada to say to any poster who makes outlandish claims against Trump with no evidence.  Don't be evasive on answering.  You can if you want but I know the answer already.

[Phoenix Rising]

44 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

Yea, it would be idiotic to go around chanting "LOCK HIM UP" until he is proven guilty.

Ooooooh, buuuuurn!

[ThailandRyan]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Your fail in logic is that you conclude that just because the FBI took into possession the items they did means that Trump did not have rightful possession of them.  As I remember from the NBC article I posted above Trump was engaged in talks with the DOJ.

We don't know yet what he had the right to possess and what he did not.  The DOJ can make their claims and Trump can make his.  It then gets litigated.

How can an individual who has lost all security clearances be allowed to have classified documents.  I will let you ponder that one.  When I retired from my former employer, I lost all of the clearances I had including computer access to data bases and everything I had overseen was audited to ensure items were not missing....sounds to me like what occurred with the former president.

[Phoenix Rising]

36 minutes ago, jvs said:

Yes for sure and i hope Trump is no friend of this idiot!

 

Friend? Those guys don't have friends.

Is trump a massive fanboy? Most definitively!

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Then I put it to you as I did to Chomper.  There are so many on the left here speculating this and that but you never ask them to verify any of what they claim to be true.  Why are you and others only interested in verifying evidence that goes in Trump's favour but never when it goes against him?  I don't need an answer because it's too obvious.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-legal-team-was-talks-justice-department-spring-records-stored-m-rcna42319

So you think repeating a deflection will make it valid? I'm under no obligation to police the forum. I am under an obligation to provide evidence for assertions I make when challenged. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Then deal with my contention that you have nada to say to any poster who makes outlandish claims against Trump with no evidence.  Don't be evasive on answering.  You can if you want but I know the answer already.

I’m not inclined to disagree with people who dislike Trump.

 

I have far more inclination to challenge those who defend him with unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

I trust you will allow me to decide which posts I respond to and in what manner I choose. 

[Phoenix Rising]

Key lines from the search warrant and receipt for Trump's Florida home

 

"That document reveals FBI agents removed more than 20 boxes from Trump's resort and residence in Palm Beach, as well as binders of photos, sets of classified government materials and at least one handwritten note.
According to the search warrant receipt, federal agents seized 1 set of "top secret/SCI" documents, 4 sets of "top secret" documents, 3 sets of "secret" documents, 3 sets of "confidential" documents.

The warrant receipts were signed by Trump attorney Christina Bobb, who has since complained that she and other Trump lawyers weren't permitted to observe the search while it happened, but it is not standard FBI procedure to allow observers during a search.

[stevenl]

53 minutes ago, placeholder said:

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

well apparently they were negotiating for a long time already. I do think that only in the mind of a real estate developer or a second hand car salesman can there be any negotiations about illegally obtained materials.