The media is missing the really, really big reason why the raid today is a potential blockbuster

[kpete]

.👇
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(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.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, § 552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071
https://www.justsecurity.org/73265/destroying-federal-documents-during-a-presidential-transition-is-a-federal-crime/

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=EB3DLpkll3fXdKFuSMssKQ

[Scrivener7]

1. I don't understand why people keep saying this. They already pulled 15 boxes of material

out of his house in February. A lot of it has been identified as classified. If they were going to apply this statute, they already had all the evidence they needed to do so since February.

What am I missing?

[Novara]

5. Because simply taking classified documents isn't as serious as ...

... 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.

Concealing? Likely. Falsifies? Maybe. Destroys? Probable. Mutilates? I'll bet, yeah.

[Scrivener7]

7. I get that. This strengthens the ability to apply that statute. It shows that even after

he broke that law and took documents, when a subpoena was served demanding that he return them he STILL held back classified documents.

But the crime was already proven the minute they found those documents to be classified. It really surprised me at the time that more people weren't talking about this statute then.

My expectation here is that, if they did not get destroyed during the lead time we are being told the FBI gave the SS, we are going to be truly horrified by what those held back documents show. I think they'll show truly traitorous activity, like selling secrets or blackmailing legislators (looking at you, Lindsay!) or selling out an important ally to Russia or Saudi Arabia for profit.

[Novara]

9. I'm going by what the legal experts have been saying ...

... that there is FRESH evidence of an ONGOING CRIME.

So it may be much more than not returning some of the documents, much more than simply keeping some of them. When you think about it, if that is the case (pure speculation here), then why did this come to light now? Supposedly they've been going through the returned documents to catalogue what should be there. Okay, so if they found documents were missing, why issue a search warrant now?

I think the legal talking heads are right, that there is fresh evidence of an ongoing crime. Perhaps espionage. Selling of America's national security to the highest bidder. It isn't just the documents, it's what he's been doing with them. And that isn't simply hanging onto them. I'm thinking along the same lines you are - that he was going to - or already has been - selling them.

This would be truly traitorous.

[Scrivener7]

10. I agree. And the idea of fresh evidence means someone new is talking, either to the DOJ or

the Committee, and they know stuff.

[PortTack]

11. Fresh evidence....possibly of him selling that classified material?

Comey said when testifying in front of congress, about the Hillary email nonsense that they would not charge someone unless there was a 3rd party involved

[Hortensis]

2. "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office"

a very interesting piece of information even if this law turned out not to apply to presidents.

I'm wondering what is IN some of those documents and whether any could be tied to, or have ability to be used to abet, tRump's traitorous activities, including furthering a coup d'etat. Why those documents? Taking any of them is clearly a crime in itself, though.

[samnsara]

3. i heard this point made several times yesterday...maybe the whole thing is to bust him on this one

.....charge.. one that carries the penalty of never again holding office. The biggest threat from trump is if he becomes prez again. Maybe the 'raid' was brought on suddenly by the photos of docs in the ol turlet?

[Arkansas Granny]

4. At this point, I would be happy if the only outcome was to bar tfg from ever holding office again.

I'd love to see him suffer worse consequences, but I could live with that.

[Novara]

6. Yeah.

I want to see him in prison or dead but I'd be reasonably happy if he were barred from any office forever. I'd love to see the GQP abandon him then. Imagine if he committed espionage on top of all his other crimes. I'm not so sure the GQP can defend THAT.

I'll bet McConnell is deep in discussions with others in the cabal, trying to decide just how far they're all willing to keep defending him.

[PortTack]

12. Same

[tritsofme]

8. You cannot restrict the eligibility requirements for president by statute beyond

what is defined by the Constitution.

Elias, in the tweet you quote, concedes the legal argument here is very weak, but sees a big political upside in making Trump litigate it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Seems to me (a) applies to people who shouldn't have the document

and (b) applies to people "having the custody", ie it's their job to keep it safe. Both (a) and (b) have a fine and/or up to 3 years' imprisonment, but only (b) has the "disqualified from holding any office". But in this case, Trump had left office, so I'd think he comes under part (a).

[librechik]

14. Then, eventually, it lands in the Supreme Court...

[BannonsLiver]

15. He would sue

And if it got to the SCOTUS the Council of 6 would rule in his favor.

[RussBLib]

16. this is the rationale that Fox, et al, are using

that the Dems are so SCARED of T**** running again they are doing this search, as if the DoJ does the bidding of any one party. Despite the DoJ largely doing what T**** wanted, that is NOT the way it is supposed to work. I reckon since DoJ did T****'s bidding (sometimes), then Fox, et al, think they would do the Dems bidding. They don't seem to understand that the DoJ does not work for the president or any one party.

T**** turned everything to shit.

[summer_in_TX]

17. Unfortunately, the Constitution's description of the

qualifications to be president supersede anything in that code.

That provision would apply to any elective office that does not have an enumeration of qualifications in the Constitution, as I understand it.

But there's a strong possibility, it seems to me, that there will be found to be grounds for charges of espionage in the particulars of the documents squirreled away by Trump.