THREAD: what to make of Trump having classified documents in Florida?
Everyone wants to know if this is a criminal matter, and if Trump can evade liability. The answers are: maybe and maybe. Let me explain.
First off, let's dispense with the "Trump can just declassify things" issue. While President, and up until noon on 1/20/2021, Trump had complete authority to declassify anything he wanted. No dispute. He could disseminate otherwise classified information with impunity too.
That is the privilege of being POTUS.
To actually declassify something, though, he absolutely had to take that action before he left office. He lost his authority when the clock struck noon. And to actually declassify a document, the letter of the law requires actual follow
through. This isn't me saying it: this is what DOJ and the White House conceded in FOIA litigation during the Trump years when he would tweet out declassification orders, or issue them via press statements. Unless he actually followed through with a declassification order that
went to the agency with control over the document, the agency did not treat the statements as self-executing declassification orders and insisted the documents were still classified.
So in the case of any documents that found their way to Florida, unless Trump took actual
steps to declassify those records before he left, they remained classified. Given that - per press reports and the statement from NARA - the records still retained their classification markings, there is no indication Trump actually declassified those records.
That leads us to
the next issue: how on earth did those records get into those boxes? Classified records at the White House would have been in secure areas. In theory, that would include the President's personal residence and study, if he deemed it necessary. So if he had those classified
documents sitting around the White House, it was incumbent on him and/or staff to ensure they were returned to a secure area for storage. Boxing them up and shipping them to Florida is NOT a secure transportation or storage mechanism. The fact Trump personally did not box things
up is irrelevant if the documents came from his offices. So not only did the staff potentially violate security rules and criminal provisions, but so did he.
So will he face indictment on this? Maybe. I certainly think he SHOULD, as it's no different than General Petraeus taking
classified notebooks and storing them at his unsecured house. Or Reality Winner removing a classified document and disseminating it to an unauthorized party.
The Trump records were not transported via secure means. They were not stored in a SCIF. They were unsecured in Florida.
That meets, in my opinion, the legal requirements for 18 USC 793(d) and (f).
Whether DOJ will bring an indictment will depend on numerous details, such as where the documents were originally located, how boxing them up was handled, and what steps Trump took to ensure he was
not holding onto classified records in unsecured locations. That he was not a "file clerk" is not going to save him here. Hillary Clinton was not a system administrator, but that didn't save her from an invasive FBI investigation into her e-mail server. Trump should not be spared
a similarly invasive investigation simply because he's disconnected from the details on paperwork. The moment he left the presidency, he became a regular private citizen like anyone else. He could not retain classified documents in an unsecured location at his residence. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Personal rant coming. And yes, before some troll gets off on a rant, this is "first world problems". I don't care.
Many of you, like me, have a credit card tied to a hotel chain. Mine is the @MarriottBonvoy AMEX. I've had it for a decade. Never had an issue.
Until now.
I booked an upcoming hotel reservation relying upon Marriot e-certificates, so the reservation is free. Those certificates were derived from the credit card, which is a joint card with my wife. There's no such thing as a "family" Marriot account, so the points from the card
accumulate on my account. I get the status, the points, etc.
So I booked the reservation. But I'm not the one staying. It's a reservation for my wife for a work thing. The problem? Marriot won't let her check in WITHOUT me. They say the certificates "can't be gifted".
Some of you on this website need to crack open a beer, pour a glass of wine, or simply log off for a moment. Enough with the "why hasn't Garland arrested person A over crime X" stuff already. You're starting to sound like the MAGA folks towards the end of Trump's tenure.
If there is a case to be made against a Member of Congress, or their staff, tied up in what happened on January 6th, I'm confident Garland will let DOJ pursue it to the end. I've seen nothing that indicates he views the events of that day as anything less than an attempted coup.
What he is not going to do is authorize arrests just to make you all feel better. He wants a case that will win, not just a case for the sake of having a case and the media splash. That requires time, effort and patience. It requires leveraging lower-hanging fruit first.
Ok, I’ve had a chance to read the Sussman indictment. My view: do stupid things, win stupid prizes.
If the allegations in the indictment are true, Sussman was careless about how he described his background when reaching out to the FBI. It’s not like the FBI didn’t know
one of his clients was the Clinton Campaign. He mentioned it during the meeting, and it’s reflected in the notes of the meeting. The billing records and calls with other firm colleagues certainly indicate his work was on behalf of at least one client, if not two clients.
So why not say that? The underlying details in the indictment about the work of the Tech executive and coordination of data with the Clinton campaign does not seem to have raised any criminal liability issues. So why be misleading?
For absolutely no particular reason, I am going to start posting some stories from the Obama years that are in no way related to the current media and political attacks on @MarkSZaidEsq and me.
Really, read nothing into this: this is all random.
There will be plenty more releases from the Mueller file thanks to the @BuzzFeedNews and @CNN actions but I want to comment on some of the 👀 stuff people are tweeting out.
Yes, what Gates and Bannon said to Mueller shows how the campaign was craven, sleazy and willing to
push Russian disinformation in order to win. They didn’t care. They were willing to be the beneficiary of foreign interference.
That doesn’t change the legal assessment Mueller made. That the RNC somehow knew when WikiLeaks dumps were going to come doesn’t prove they had
any role in the hack nor demonstrate that they had themselves coordinated that timing with WikiLeaks. Nor does Bannon’s recognition of having Manafort around prove anything beyond identifying an optics vulnerability.
The law simply didn’t contemplate a campaign willing to
On just about a weekly basis @MarkSZaidEsq and I spend time defending clients before U.S. Government agencies on concerns of foreign loyalties or interests. It is a critical part of any assessment of any individual seeking to hold a security clearance. “Dual loyalty” is something
we contend with on a regular basis. Needless to say, when it comes to national security the government always errs on the side of caution. If they believe the person is too exposed to foreign interests, the person is not getting a clearance.
That’s what makes the attacks
over the last 12 hours by the likes of @IngrahamAngle@RepSeanDuffy@kilmeade (none of whom, as far as I know, have ever held a clearance) and others so offensive. LTC Vindman was already vetted (more than once) on these very issues, and the vetting for someone with an