Washington Post has a story up that raises many questions about if 45 indictment is forthcoming

[NewsCenter28]

I am honestly shocked that we aren't discussing this already.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/14/trump-motive-mar-a-lago-documents/

EXCLUSIVE
Investigators see ego, not money, as Trump’s motive on classified papers
A review by agents and prosecutors found no discernible business interest in the Mar-a-Lago documents, people familiar with the matter said
By Devlin Barrett and Josh Dawsey
November 14, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. EST

Federal agents and prosecutors have come to believe former president Donald Trump’s motive for allegedly taking and keeping classified documents was largely his ego and a desire to hold on to the materials as trophies or mementos, according to people familiar with the matter.

As part of the investigation, federal authorities reviewed the classified documents that were recovered from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and private club, looking to see if the types of information contained in them pointed to any kind of pattern or similarities, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

Everyone on DU who insisted Garland wouldn't do anything is now owed an apology.

[MLAA]

1. Since when does it matter why you committed at crime at indictment time?

Save it for sentencing.

[H2O Man]

59. While it is not

required for a prosecutor to prove motive, it does make for a stronger case that juries understand.

[MLAA]

75. Good point.

[live love laugh]

62. I agree. Look at the threat to national security that resulted.

The reason pales in comparison to the laws broken.

[Freethinker65]

2. So if a President (or former President) does it, it's not illegal.

How Nixonian.

[NewsCenter28]

5. Indeed

Such bullshit, to say the least.

[emulatorloo]

57. That's not what the article says at all. OP got it wrong. Link to full article here, no paywall.

Article says it is a crime to mishandle/take classified articles, and no matter what excuses Trump has, it is still a crime.

https://wapo.st/3g4PmZQ

[Ilsa]

3. Bullshit. He wanted to monetize our national security. nt

[NewsCenter28]

7. Our esteemed AtTorNey GenERaL doesn't believe that-n/t

[Ocelot II]

13. That's not what the article says.

In fact, it discusses the fact that possessing and mishandling the documents is itself the offense regardless of what TFG intended to do with them.

[unblock]

4. Lemme try robbing a bank just to prove I can. See how that works out.

[fightforfreedom]

66. Yes I robbed the bank.

But I didn't spend the money.

[VMA131Marine]

6. You're reading too much into this.

It’s still a crime to steal classified documents even if you just want to keep them for your own amusement.

[Ocelot II]

8. That headline is wrong. Possession of the documents is the crime; the motive is irrelevant.

[emulatorloo]

46. Exactly. It says that right there in the article.

But op left out that part in his summary.

[Straw Man]

77. Correct.

The motive aspect is only relevant in that it could have led to new avenues of investigation and potential additional charges i.e. had he already sold documents and to whom, etc.

[C_U_L8R]

9. It's clearly still stealing and obstruction.

Trump's ego can suck it.

[blogslug]

10. If I rob a bank, not because of the money, but for the thrill

I would still have committed the crime.

[LonePirate]

11. JFC. He is going to get away with this, too. No one wants to hold him responsible for anything.

Joe Schmoe would be serving several life sentences for committing the same crimes as TFG. There truly is no justice in this country.

[CentralMass]

12. I'm shocked. What a fucking joke

[Ocelot II]

14. Did you read the whole article? The thread title is incorrect.

[JohnSJ]

16. The OP is intentionally misrepresenting the article and the headline. No where did they say that

no crime was NOT committed. That is the OP who choose to misrepresent it as such

[AZSkiffyGeek]

17. Now this is going to be mis-quoted for months as "proof" nt

[emulatorloo]

60. Of course. I posted a link to the full article w no paywall. But sadly that won't matter

because the narrative has been established by a poor and inaccurate summary of the article which leaves several key points made out.

[Solomon]

69. The American Way. Ask Bill Barr. Americans don't read.

[emulatorloo]

49. Why don't you read the whole article? OP's summary is not great, and they leave out key points

in the article. Mainly that whatever Trump’s motive are, it doesn’t matter. Taking and keeping classified documents is a crime.

I’ll run get you a gift link.

https://wapo.st/3g4PmZQ

[JohnSJ]

15. That is NOT the WP headline, and why the OPs interpretation is misrepresenting it makes me

wonder why?

Here is the WP headline:

“ Investigators see ego, not money, as Trump’s motive on classified papers”

There is nothing in the article that indicates that a crime was not committed as the OP is trying to represent

Why is that OP?

[NewsCenter28]

18. Knew attacks on me would be forthcoming

https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_

Link to tweet

Are Weismann and Tribe Trump supporters also?

THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF STORY THAT WOULD BE APPEARING IN THE WP IF DOJ WAS GETTING READY TO INDICT. PERIOD. FULL STOP.

I STAND BY THE OP 100%,

Tribe and Weismann are 1000% correct. WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS??

[emulatorloo]

21. No one is 'attacking you'. But your OP is very misleading and totally misrepresented the article.

You are leaving key paragraphs out of the article which state it is a crime to mishandle classified material and no matter what Trump’s motives are, it is still a crime.

I don’t believe you intended to be dishonest, but your summary of the article is untrue.

[grantcart]

45. Disagree, it was intentional as he doubles down by

completely misusing Tribe/Wiesmann:s quotes.

1) deducing the motive is based on evidence by professional prosecutors and is only revelent as to charges beyond the basic charges.

2) Nothing suggests that the AG is not going to indict.

3) longstanding DOJ policy is not to take any public action prior to an election, there is an election on Dec 8th

4) I am not an AG sceptic but my guess is that he is so cautious that he will let the career prosecutors have all the time they want Georgia will indict in January, I doubt that the first federal indictment will be before May. The upside is that the case will be ironclad and conviction 100%.

[JohnSJ]

23. Why did you misreport the what the WP article says? Show us in the article where it says a crime

was not committed?

The tweet from Tribe and Weismann does not say there will o will not be an indictment

Shame on you for creative speculation

[NewsCenter28]

26. OK, title ammended

Now, JohnSJ, can you tell me why DOJ has not acted when Weismann says it is long past time for action? Also, why should I believe you when just today DOJ refused to charge Guilani for the Ukraine affair?

[emulatorloo]

29. DU requires you to use the original title, which is 'Investigators see ego, not money ...

Investigators see ego, not money, as Trump’s motive on classified papers‘

Then you completely misrepresented the article’s point: the removal of Classified Docs is a crime. Regardless of Trump’s motives, it is still a crime.

That’s why you should self delete, because your summary is not true to the article.

Here are the key paragraphs you left out.

[NewsCenter28]

32. Your argument falls flat on it's face

But as a practical matter, motive is an important part of how prosecutors assess cases and decide whether to file criminal charges.

Also, DOJ declined to prosecute Guilani today. Also, where are the Clark and Eastman Jan. 6 indictments?

[emulatorloo]

37. Its not 'my argument.' It is in the WAPO article, whose meaning you have twisted beyond recognition

To be clear, I don’t believe you have bad motives and mean to lie about what the article actually says.

But you have not accurately summarized the article in it’s entirety. As it stands you op is misinformation.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

36. That's actually only true in LBN, not GD ... just saying (nt)

[emulatorloo]

40. Thanks for the correction.

Sadly OP as it stands is still an extremely inaccurate representation of the actual article. I am sure it is just an innocent misunderstanding on his their part.

None the less it is still misinformation.

[JohnSJ]

30. Thank-you. As for Guilani, that was dropped by Manhattan-based Federal prosecutors from the

Southern District of NY

Why they dropped it I have no idea, as I don’t no why the district attorney Bragg from NY dropped the case against trump

As for whether Garland will indict trump via a grand jury, I have no issue with debate over that, my issue was the WP headline not properly presented

[NewsCenter28]

42. OK, you're welcome!

Totally see where you're coming from. I'm glad I corrected the article. My main issue is that I trust President Biden 100%, right? In my bones, I know he does what is right and has our backs. Trying to stay within the DU rules here. So, I'll just say that Garland does not inspire the same amount of trust in me. So, seeing an article like this in the WP tonight set me off. Also, I just feel like that if all was well, Tribe and Weismann wouldn't have to post those tweets on twitter that I posted right? However, I get what you're saying. I would grant that I perhaps projected my assessment of Garland into the WP article and let my fears carry me away.

That said, again, I go back to this quote "but as a practical matter, motive is an important part of how prosecutors assess cases and decide whether to file criminal charges." That to me seems like they're saying, "oh his motive was fine so why prosecute?" If I didn't have Garland judged already in my head, perhaps I wouldn't automatically jump to that conclusion and I grant that there is not definitive proof in the article to jump to that conclusion, but, conversely, the article is DEFINITELY not what we would want to see being leaked from the DOJ inf indictments are forthcoming. That much is certain, I would argue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. But those tweets are nothing to do with motive, and therefore your OP, at all

The tweets are both saying it's time Garland did something. That's completely different from your OP's "DOJ thinks it wasn't for money, but for ego".

[NewsCenter28]

22. And for the record, it is clear that having these documents was related to espionage and treason

Like Judge Judy said "don't pee on me and tell me it's raining." The $2 billion that the Saudis gave Jared Kushner neatly ties into all these documents being held at Mar-A-Lago also. The documents also had NUCLEAR information. He wanted NUCLEAR information for a personal keepsake? Come on. It DEFIES BELIEF.

[dpibel]

27. You're a little all over the place here

But go ahead and try to argue all sides. It could work for ya!

[JohnSJ]

19. No! It is the OP who is intentionally misrepresenting what the article and headline says.

No where in the article does it say a crime was not committed

[emulatorloo]

20. You are misrepresenting the article and the DOJ's position completely. Please self delete.

[JohnSJ]

24. It is called flame bait, and then accuse anyone who points out that he is misrepresenting what

the WP says as “attacking” him

[NewsCenter28]

28. See below quote from the article

But as a practical matter, motive is an important part of how prosecutors assess cases and decide whether to file criminal charges.

It is obvious that if they are saying his motive for having the documents was relatively benign, that would have a HUGE bearing on whether or not to bring charges.

John, why are you so mad at me that I want 45 indicted? It's long past time that he was indicted. We all know that. The Mueller report alone had what was it 18 instances of obstruction of justice that Mueller, himself, said could be prosecuted upon 45 leaving office.

Time and time, again, DOJ has chosen the path away from confronting 45.

[emulatorloo]

31. Nobody's mad at you, I'm disturbed because you are misinterpreting the article by ignoring what it

actually says. The article says taking classified items is a crime. And no matter what trumps motives are, it is still a crime.

Your minterpretation is completely off base.

Here’s the meat of the article that you ignore:

The analysis of Trump’s likely motive in allegedly keeping the documents is not, strictly speaking, an element of determining whether he or anyone around him committed a crime or should be charged with one. Justice Department policy dictates that prosecutors file criminal charges in cases in which they believe a crime was committed and the evidence is strong enough to lead to a conviction that will hold up on appeal. But as a practical matter, motive is an important part of how prosecutors assess cases and decide whether to file criminal charges.

Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor, said keeping hundreds of classified documents, many marked top secret, at a private home “is such a perplexing thing to do” that it makes sense for prosecutors to search for a motive.

“It makes perfect sense as to why prosecutors would be spending time scouring through the various records and documents to look for some kind of pattern or theme to explain why certain records were kept and why others were not,” Mintz said. “In presenting a case to a jury, prosecutors typically want to explain the motive for committing a crime. It’s not necessary to prove a crime, but it helps tell the story of exactly how a crime unfolded, according to the government.”

[NewsCenter28]

33. OK, thank you so much for engaging.

Here's my concern. Again, let's look at this:

But as a practical matter, motive is an important part of how prosecutors assess cases and decide whether to file criminal charges.

I'm worried that if they find the motive to be relatively benign, and the quote above says that motive is an important part of whether or not to file, that they will use a benign motive as an excuse not to indict. Are you telling me that's not the case? That they will still indict whether or not the motive is benign? If the answer is yes, and you can demonstrate why that is the case, I'll delete the OP.

[JohnSJ]

41. Why I believe the case will be prosecuted is because they have testimony from witnesses and

his attorneys that he needed to return all the documents, and willfully refused to. That is a crime, and people have been prosecuted for it. Sandy Berger is one example

[JohnSJ]

35. I am not mad at you personally, I had an issue because the headline and article did not

say a crime was or wasn’t committed, and modification of the headline implied that the DOJ said it wasn’t

Debating whether the DOJ will indict trump I have no problem with

[NewsCenter28]

51. Thanks a lot, man, and I clarified where I was coming from in a post above

Also, Trump's epic midterm fail and the chaos within the Republican party has me questioning whether an indictment might actually strengthen him and give him a bounceback amongst Republican primary voters when he's weakest. So, it's a tough call about whether or not an indictment is best politically for us. So I go back and forth on that.

This whole thing is just terribly confusing. My main issue is I would like to get to a point where i 100% believed Garland was on our side. I guess, even if he is not, President Biden wanted a non-partisan DOJ to have it de-politicized and not an arm of a political party. That is a worthy goal. So maybe this is the price we pay.

[wnylib]

74. Perhaps your criticism would be better aimed

at the author of the article than at DOJ and Garland.

I am curious if the author had his own ax to grind and was pushing a bias in how the information was written. The point in the article about motivation being taken into consideration in filing charges has the effect of implying that charges might not be filed. Is it a necessary inclusion? If the writer wanted to raise that issue, the article should have provided more details, like specific examples of when and how intent has been handled in some specific cases. As several posters have already pointed out, it is possible to commit a crime that SHOULD be prosecuted regardless of intent due to the amount of responsibility that the criminal shirked and the dangerous consequences. An example would be parents or guardians of minors who leave them in unsafe situations, resulting in a child's death. They are not charged with first or second degree murder because death was not their intent. They are charged with criminally negligent homicide.

Intent does not necessarily mean no charges. It could be used in determining WHAT the charges will be, not whether charges will be brought. The article has made the point that DOJ might not be able to prove certain suspected motives in a court case. Trump has the mob mentality that operates in gray areas of duplicity. He will not order a crime in direct speech, but will use words that can be interpreted as harmless to outsiders, but are understood as specific orders to people who follow his mind set. As Michael Cohen has said, Trump speaks in code. He ACTS in code, too. He could and would intentionally make the stolen documents into a jumbled mess in order to obscure any pattern that would indicate intentions.

We can "know" from his character, or lack of it, what his intent was/is. But having concrete proof that stands up in court is another matter.

I would like to see Trump indicted and convicted of taking the documents and lying about having them. That is proveable. Then let a special prosecutor tackle the investigation of intent, with respect to espionage charges.

[emulatorloo]

25. Three important paragraphs the OP left out: The crime is taking the documents. Trumps motive

doesn’t matter.

The analysis of Trump’s likely motive in allegedly keeping the documents is not, strictly speaking, an element of determining whether he or anyone around him committed a crime or should be charged with one. Justice Department policy dictates that prosecutors file criminal charges in cases in which they believe a crime was committed and the evidence is strong enough to lead to a conviction that will hold up on appeal. But as a practical matter, motive is an important part of how prosecutors assess cases and decide whether to file criminal charges.

Robert Mintz, a former federal prosecutor, said keeping hundreds of classified documents, many marked top secret, at a private home “is such a perplexing thing to do” that it makes sense for prosecutors to search for a motive.

“It makes perfect sense as to why prosecutors would be spending time scouring through the various records and documents to look for some kind of pattern or theme to explain why certain records were kept and why others were not,” Mintz said. “In presenting a case to a jury, prosecutors typically want to explain the motive for committing a crime. It’s not necessary to prove a crime, but it helps tell the story of exactly how a crime unfolded, according to the government.”

[iemanja]

44. I think they are floating this excuse

about his "ego" as a way to avoid prosecuting him. Of course he committed a crime, but the question is whether they will actually prosecute. It looks less likely now.

[Meowmee]

68. Correct

Not sure why people don’t get it. This mass murderer is most likely not even going to be indicted much less held accountable for his numerous crimes and will likely run for prez again. Horrific.

[deRien]

34. Maybe it means that

The documents weren’t taken to sell to foreign governments?

[iemanja]

39. More like they don't have smoking gun proof he did

Not that he actually didn't.

[iemanja]

38. I feared this would be the case

That they would only prosecute if they had evidence that he sold state secrets. I don't have confidence that they know that isn't the case.

[emulatorloo]

43. There nothing in the article that indicates the DOJ has decided not to prosecute.

The article is very clear that it is a crime to take and mishandle classified info. And no matter what the motive is, it is still a crime.

OP left that part out. We’ll have to see what happens but OP’s summary is un-reliable.

[iemanja]

47. Then why is DOJ floating this story?

If not as an excuse for them not to prosecute?
Only recently we read that Garland wanted a special prosecutor. He seems to be doing just about everything to avoid bringing charges against Trump.

[NewsCenter28]

53. I would second that question

That's why I originally came into this OP guns blazing, hair on fire mad before people gently nudged me off the ledge. "If not as an excuse" is my question too.

[emulatorloo]

58. DOJ truly doesn't leak. Dunno who is floating this story.

[Cetacea]

61. Motive DOES make a difference when it comes to Espionage charges, no?

I see the OPS point. I, for one, no longer have much faith in our so-called liberal media. And that includes MSNBC. The 'red wave" was the final straw for me.

[JohnSJ]

48. The DOJ already has testimony from trump's lawyers, that he was told he needed to return the

documents, and he refused, as evidenced by other witnesses, and the FBI search warrant

He has also made public statements that the documents belonged to him, and has continually lied

Sandy Berger was prosecuted, and so have others

[iemanja]

50. And that makes him a criminal in our eyes

It doesn't mean that DOJ will prosecute. This story seems like an excuse DOJ floated to avoid prosecuting him. Remember they only recently floating the idea of a special prosecutor--a Republican one at that. Garland seems to be doing just about everything he can to avoid deciding to prosecute Trump himself (meaning DOJ).

[JohnSJ]

54. I don't know who floated this story. Also, it isn't criminal in our eyes, it is a violation of law

People have been prosecuted for far less.

I believe we will know shortly whether trump will be indicted, and if he is, which one’s they will be. There are quite a few

[emulatorloo]

52. Link to full article no paywall. One can see OP's summary is poor and leaves out important parts.

I beleive the OP had an honest misunderstanding of the article.

However OP leaves out one of the key points of the article. Article clearly states Doesn’t matter what Trump’s motives are, taking classified documents is a crime.

Investigators see ego, not money, as Trump’s motive on classified papers
A review by agents and prosecutors found no discernible business interest in the Mar-a-Lago documents, people familiar with the matter said

By Devlin Barrett and Josh Dawsey
November 14, 2022 at 3:00 p.m. EST

https://wapo.st/3g4PmZQ

[NewsCenter28]

55. Fanni Willis

I got to jet but I'll just leave the thread with this. Everyone knows exactly what Fanni Willis thinks of Trump and what she is getting ready to do to him. I wish we could have that same confidence in our federal AG. Everyone knows not to mess with Miss Fanni Willis. Do they know not to mess with Mr. Garland? We shall find out.

[JohnSJ]

56. I agree, and I read the full article. I have a subscription to the WP

[EndlessWire]

63. Really wondering about this story.

I wonder why this slant is taken at this time. The analysis by anonymous sources is shallow, and really questionable. It is surprising that so many "authorities" would even speak about any DOJ activities much less line up so nicely with each other about some benign intent by Trump. I think this is self serving on Trump's behalf.

How did we get so stupid?

At any rate, a pattern is already established by the stealing of classified documents pertaining to the interests of Iran, China, and others who would be singularly interested to know what we have on them. And, I can't believe that "federal authorities" accept such an incompetent analysis of Trump's "trophies" and his true intent. He's a money man, his only interest is money and self protection, and he didn't do this for his ego. His buddies are authoritarian governments, our adversaries, and they would pay the most.

Not sure why WAPO would let this slide by. Please explain about the 40 missing documents. Who has them, and why are those folders empty? Let's float THAT story. Investigate THAT. For his ego, my ass. He sold national secrets. What do we do with traitors? We send them to prison.

[chriscan64]

65. Just read full article.

Maybe it is too early in the morning and 1 1/2 cups of coffee aren't enough, but I do not find anything to lead me to believe that an indictment is any more or less likely. It seems to me that this is an article in search of an article-worthy event. What is meant by "no discernable business interest"? Nothing about golf courses or real estate? How is the leap made from that to mementos? "Remember that Iranian missile program? Good times." My speculation is that those documents point to an illegitimate business interest more than a memento. The only thing Trump would keep as a memento is a quote about how great he is. I would guess that there are very few of those and more of proof of what a failure he was, which he wants to hide.

The only thing going on here is that they looked for a pattern and haven't found one yet, or at least one that they are ready to disclose to the Washington Post. The one big pattern not mentioned is "Classified" and "Top Secret". The article is an extrapolation of a speculation, a head-scratching one at that. To put it in newspaper jargon, there is no meat on these bones. In my opinion, it just seems like they wanted to run a Trump Document story in the absence of any news on the story.

[fightforfreedom]

67. I must remind everyone, there were multiple charges listed on the warrant.

Also, Trump received a Grand Jury subpoena for all documents and he lied, hid documents. He can't say he didn't know because they found documents in his desk. That is a felony.

[USALiberal]

70. Another prediction?

[brooklynite]

71. If you read the article it said nothing about not prosecuting him...

All it did was take the espionage charge off the table.

[emulatorloo]

76. DU in a nutshell: "How To Play The Telephone Game"

https://www.wikihow.com/Play-the-Telephone-Game

But our version

- starts with something where facts have been grossly misinterpreted
- followed by lizard brain OUTRAGE based on grossly misinterpreted
- attempts to correct the gross misinterpretation, and explain what the facts really are.
- outrage at hearing the facts interpreted correctly
- doubling down on the misinformation and insisting what is false is true

[kentuck]

72. But money is a big part of his ego...

If he sees an opportunity to make money to satisfy his ego, he would sell his mother.

[Ocelot II]

73. As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, the crime isn't based on the motive

but on the fact that TFG took, kept, mishandled and refused to return classified and other government documents. It doesn't matter what he intended to do with them. If he had sold or given documents containing national security information to a foreign government, that would be the additional and separate crime of espionage, but as to crime of taking and possessing them motive doesn't matter.

But it might be entirely true that when he took them he didn't specifically intend to sell them but only to keep them as souvenirs of his presidency. We know that he loves having tokens of his importance around to feed his ego - but the thing is, those tokens are useless to an egomaniac like him if he can't show them to anyone. So sooner or later he would take some favored Mierda-Loco guest aside and show off a few of those documents, admonishing them not to tell anyone about them while flattering the person that they were special enough to be allowed to see them. Maybe the favored guest isn't a representative of a foreign government, just a political or social hanger-on - but that guest tells someone else, who tells someone else, and word gets around that TFG has the plans for the latest secret weapon and it's really cool and someone would pay big bucks for those plans. And somehow word gets back to TFG that someone might be willing to make a very attractive deal. TFG loves his souvenirs but he loves money even more...

Or, having shown them to his favored guest, he forgets to put them back in his sock drawer, and they are discovered and photographed by a maid who was planted at Mierda-Loco by the KGB, or North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or whoever.

The results are the same as if he'd taken the documents with the original intent to sell them, and it's why taking, keeping and mishandling them is a serious crime regardless of whether the motive was ego-fluffing or greed.