Let me Play Debbie Downer

[gab13by13]

So Trump was "asked" months ago to return the documents he stole. Trump thumbed his nose at this request.

DOJ gets a warrant and the FBI retrieves the stolen documents.

Will we know if there are still missing documents? Will we be able to prove that Trump destroyed documents?

Why is everyone so certain that Trump will be charged with a crime?

[multigraincracker]

1. I'd love to know which documents were so important as to

be locked up in his safe.

[Scrivener7]

4. My first thought on reading that is, "I bet Lindsay knows what at least one of them says."

[Karma13612]

11. Kim Jung Un's love letter to his BFF, Donnie the Con. Lolol, eom

[jimfields33]

2. Because for five years, it's been, we got him this time. Really.

Hope springs eternal.

[Kingofalldems]

41. Did you see all his yeoman-like cult at his Florida home?

[jimfields33]

54. Nope. Did you?

[Kingofalldems]

55. Sure did--on TV.

All tatted up and things.

People he would ban from his country club.

[jimfields33]

57. I found out from my neighbor and went here to see what it was about.

[Scrivener7]

3. I think we can at least confidently infer one thing: there is evidence that he held back

something or somethings significant. The FBI has that evidence or they wouldn't have gotten the warrant.

IF this is true, and it seems like it is true or, again, they wouldn't have been able to get the warrant, tfg will not run for office again.

I have not been one to anticipate a perp walk at every turn. My position has always been, "I will believe tfg will be prosecuted when I see tfg prosecuted." I still hold that position.

But right now I feel very confident that we won't have to worry about him running for office. For me, that is a HUGE relief and a cause for great joy today.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

7. ....

But right now I feel very confident that we won't have to worry about him running for office. For me, that is a HUGE relief and a cause for great joy today.

I could not agree more, the perp walk would be the cake, trial, conviction and prison would be the icing on that cake.

[Scrivener7]

13. I've been watching him for decades. He financially ruined a good friend of my dad's way back

in the day, just because he could and because he knew he would get away with it. I have read about how, as a kid, he would walk by another kid's sandcastle and just stomp on it and then laugh. He did exactly that to this guy's livelihood, the business the guy had built, that fed his family and his employees families.

I would LOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVEEEEE to see him tried and convicted of ANYTHING. But I've been disappointed in that too often. I'll take what I know, and today what I know makes me happy.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. He is the biggest Sociopath in the history of America, he has no conscience at all,

and neither do his kids.

I would LOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVEEEEE to see him tried and convicted of ANYTHING. But I've been disappointed in that too often. I'll take what I know, and today what I know makes me happy.

I get what you're saying, but, let me interject my opinion, I think there is a sea change in America, I think, except for the hard core MAGAt's, most Americans are waking up to the grave danger the Mango Menace and his hard core followers are to our democracy, especially in the wake of the J6 hearings and are starting to reject his rantings.

Of course just my opinion.

What worries me is the ones that aren't insane like him, DeSantis for example, or the lunatics in the Congress, but like you, I'll take any good news that comes our way.

[Walleye]

21. Then many multiple lawsuits to take all his money

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. Make him and his loser family destitute,

that would burn him more.

[Walleye]

34. And deny them all security clearances for the rest of their lives. No running for office

[MarineCombatEngineer]

35. I like how you think.

[Dave says]

9. That makes DeSantis the front runner

At this point, DeSantis would be a much more dangerous President than Trump.

[Scrivener7]

17. So you'd rather tfg was the frontrunner?

[Dave says]

22. Eek! No good choice there

I pine for the relative ‘sanity’ of a Mitt Romney.

[Scrivener7]

29. Lol! Except there's that dog on the car thing.

Seriously, though, I think we need to change our mindset a little. We fear the things they will do in the future. Tfg exploited that. He just had to act crazy and that bought him a lot of slack from us. "If we do this, he'll do that!" We can't do that anymore. We need to change to "We're doing this. If, in response, they're going to do that, then we'll slap that down."

Like our current fear that the magats will go civil war on us if we win. I say, if that is their inevitable response, then bring it. And if they do, we'll have no choice but to go nuclear on their domestic terrorist asses.

[Arkansas Granny]

25. DeSantis would be dangerous, but he doesn't have the cult followers that tfg has.

Also, I don't think DeSantis would give the keys to the castle to the enemy, whereas tfg would lower the drawbridge for them and throw a party when they arrived.

[Dave says]

27. Very good points

[intrepidity]

16. Why do you think that?

Many think that this makes certain he will run, if only as a defense--so he can claim political prosecution.

[Scrivener7]

20. Because if it is proven that he took classified documents, that is a crime in itself and

it would be illegal for him to be allowed to hold office. We have known since February that he took classified documents.

If, after the subpoena that yielded 15 boxes of classified documents in February, he STILL has classified documents or materials, if he flouted that subpoena and knowingly continued to break the law, that would strengthen that position.

It is being reported that the warrant would be granted only if there was fresh evidence that there was a high level of certainty that he is committing an ongoing crime. The fact that the FBI was able to get a warrant gives us a pretty high level of certainty that there is proof of a wrongdoing that would make him ineligible.

[intrepidity]

30. Wasn't that strategy debunked when the Rs tried it against Clinton

and it was asserted that a Constitutional amendment would be needed to re-define qualification for POTUS?

[Scrivener7]

38. Everyone keeps quoting this thing which specifically deals with the handling of classified material:

Link to tweet

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.)

There IS a question about whether it can be applied to a President, but Elias seems to be making the point that the need to litigate this would make him unelectable.

[intrepidity]

42. Normally, that *should* be the case

There IS a question about whether it can be applied to a President, but Elias seems to be making the point that the need to litigate this would make him unelectable.

But as with all else involving tfg, normal does not apply.

In fact, his base would consider it a plus, no doubt. "Proof" that he's anti-establishment. Or some horseshit.

[Scrivener7]

43. Yes. But I don't think he has the backing anymore from the republiQan powers that be

to pull stuff off anymore. Do you? Mitch seems to be treating him like toilet paper on his shoe. I could be wrong. I was wrong about his chances in 2016. But a candidacy from him seems more and more unlikely as proof he has committed a felony seems more and more likely.

[brooklynite]

5. The crime is taking the documents in the first place.

The taking of a public record or document is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 641. The destruction of such records may be reached under 18 U.S.C. § 1361. In both instances, however, proving a $100 loss, the prerequisite to a felony conviction, may be difficult. Thus, neither of these statutes adequately protects government records.

The necessary measure of protection for government documents and records is provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2071. Section 2071(a) contains a broad prohibition against destruction of government records or attempts to destroy such records. This section provides that whoever: willfully and unlawfully; conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys; or attempts to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; or carries away with intent to conceal, remove, mutilate, obliterate or destroy; any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document or other thing deposited in any public office may be punished by imprisonment for three years, a $2, 000 fine, or both.

There are several important aspects to this offense. First, it is a specific intent crime. This means that the defendant must act intentionally with knowledge that he is violating the law. See United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1972). Moreover, one case has suggested that this specific intent requires that the defendant know that the documents involved are public records. See United States v. DeGroat, 30 F. 764, 765 (E.D.Mich. 1887).

The acts proscribed by this section are defined broadly. Essentially three types of conduct are prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 2071(a). These are: (1) concealment, removal, mutilation, obliteration or destruction of records; (2) any attempt to commit these proscribed acts; and (3) carrying away any record with the intent to conceal, remove, mutilate or destroy it. It should be noted that all of these acts involve either misappropriation of or damage to public records. This has led one court to conclude that the mere photocopying of these records does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071. See United States v. Rosner, 352 F. Supp. 915, 919-22 (S.D.N.Y. 1972).

Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 contains a similar prohibition specifically directed at custodians of public records. Any custodian of a public record who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys (any record) shall be fined not more than $2,000 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." While the range of acts proscribed by this subsection is somewhat narrower than subsection (a), it does provide the additional penalty of forfeiture of position with the United States.

Title 18 contains two other provisions, of somewhat narrower application, which relate to public records. Section 285 prohibits the unauthorized taking, use and attempted use of any document, record or file relating to a claim against the United States for purposes of procuring payment of that claim. Section 1506 prohibits the theft, alteration or falsification of any record or process in any court of the United States. Both of these sections are punishable by a $5,000 fine or imprisonment for five years.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1663-protection-government-property-protection-public-records-and

[Deuce]

37. Yes...thank you!

[Ohio Joe]

6. Such an unusual role for you...

"Will we know if there are still missing documents?"

Yes, we will. The National Archive supplied a list.

"Will we be able to prove that Trump destroyed documents?"

Maybe some... Probably not all missing docs will be able to be proven to have been destroyed.

"Why is everyone so certain that Trump will be charged with a crime?"

Seems the likely outcome.

[gab13by13]

28. I make these comments based on, what took so long?

It was a crime to physically remove the documents, that was a year and a half ago and some of the documents were the highest classification.

So far what do we know? We know the FBI carried out a warrant to retrieve documents which should have never been removed a year and a half ago.

Whay is DOJ getting ready to charge Trump with?

[MrsCoffee]

31. Someone at the top turning on Trump perhaps?

I think the breaching of his safe means they were looking for something specific.

[Ohio Joe]

46. Because we do not just 'lock him up'

"It was a crime to physically remove the documents, that was a year and a half ago and some of the documents were the highest classification."

The National Archive saying the documents are missing through to getting a warrant is not a one step process. Evidence needs to be there in order to get a warrant and a judge to sign off on that warrant. Actual evidence must exist, be gathered and vetted... This does not happen over night if you want to get a conviction.

"So far what do we know? We know the FBI carried out a warrant to retrieve documents which should have never been removed a year and a half ago."

We also know that evidence was gathered and vetted to prove to a federal judge that said documents were in the possession of tfg and were at MAL. We also know it was a criminal warrant.

"Whay is DOJ getting ready to charge Trump with?"

I'm not certain... I expect it will depend on exactly what the retrieved and what they did not. We will have to wait until everything is reviewed and vetted. That is how a real justice department works... You simply do not get all of your answers right away.

[BlackSkimmer]

8. Good question.

I knew when I woke up this morning that this place was going to be a hoot!

[Baggies]

56. No shit!

It’s like swimming through smoke.

[Karma13612]

10. This WAS round two

They had already retrieved much of the ‘famous 15’ back in ? February.

This was round two. This time they came prepared with a search warrant. They knew there was still missing stuff.

But, you are right, what happens if he destroyed stuff or already gave/sold/bartered stuff away. The Archives will keep after it, I’m sure. But, if it’s gone, it’s gone.

Charges affiliated with this document mishandling carry a pretty high penalty if they are applied and he is convicted. From what I understand, it would mean he can’t run for Federal Office again.

[Thomas Hurt]

12. I could see the Pig throwing one of his underlings under the bus here.

"Those documents! I didn't know those documents were here. I am shocked. I didn't pack these documents. Haven't looked at them since they were packed by [insert name of scapegoat here]."

[getagrip_already]

14. The government over riding interest was getting the docs back

They knew they were there, they saw them in June.

They have been in touch with trumps lawyers, so they had info they were still there.

Trump wouldn't return them.

So, get a warrant and get them.

That is wholly separate from charging him. The government recovers a lot of stolen property without charging anyone.

[gab13by13]

32. Amazing how you clearly stated what I was trying to say.

[fightforfreedom]

15. The FBI does not raid your house for the hell of it.

It means you will most likely be indicted. they did not raid Trumps house just so they could return the documents to the archives. A crime was committed and they have the evidence.

[gab13by13]

36. What crime was committed?

[Deuce]

50. Look at post #5....

[Mr.Bill]

18. The feeling of certainty is because

of the high bar that needs to be met to get a federal search warrant for this sort of target. This isn't the DEA looking for some cocaine. It's also probably the reason it took so long. The judge signing this warrant is literally putting his life on the line, and he knows it.

[CentralMass]

19. I am doubtful that he will be charged with anything substantive.

[Mister Ed]

24. These same questions were surely posed by investigators...

...and by the judge who authorized the search warrant.

They would not have moved forward with the search if they were not satisfied with the answers to these questions:

Will we know if there are still missing documents? Will we be able to prove that Trump destroyed documents?

I'm not advising you to relax - one should not relax in such dangerous times - but I do feel confident that we in this thread are not the first to have considered these questions.

[Walleye]

33. Being prohibited from holding office again would be a much worse punishment for him than others

At this point his former presidency is his whole identity and his brand.

[bigtree]

39. give it a rest

...with the unfounded cynicism.

It's not informative at all. It's just muddling.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

47. I've learned not to expect anything else...

[gab13by13]

51. I totally agree, nice post.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

52. I'm sure you do

Keep it up!

[Kingofalldems]

40. Theft of documents is a crime.

He took them illegally and wouldn't give them back----crime.

And that's not even counting other crimes which probably were committed.

Hope this helps you with your concerns.

[gab13by13]

49. Do you have proof that Trump gave the order

to pack up the documents? I heard Ivanka was in charge of moving.

I would think he should be charged for not returning all of the documents, he kept some of them.

We also know that Trump paid off Stormy Daniels, we know he committed a crime because he was "individual one" in the Mueller investigation. Michael Cohen went to jail for giving Stormy Daniels a check that was signed by Donald Trump. Why wasn't Trump indicted? The statute of limitations has expired.

[Raven123]

44. The real question is why was he withholding?

We may never know if there are still missing documents. They have to inventory the seized materials.

Prove destruction? Were there witnesses? I don’t know.

I am not certain he will be charged.

[Irish_Dem]

45. Yes it could just be a PR stunt, a bone being thrown to Dems.

To make us believe justice is being done.

It is not Debbie Downer thinking, just reality.
Which by now should be obvious to all of us as a distinct possibility.

I think however it is a sign that the GOP elite is getting rid of Trump.
He is now a liability to them.

Dems are just the ones who agreed to do GOP dirty work.

[MineralMan]

48. WE will know when they announce it, as always.

That's how it works.

[Captain Zero]

53. If they find copies of documents he returned

And if counter intelligence has purchased a copy of one of the 'returned' documents AND if they have an audit trail of the purchase money going to one of his LLCs.

That would be really nice.