2. Audio recording is a meeting with several people who don't have security clearances.
If Trump discussed content of document it is even worse - and raises its own criminal exposure.
These individuals are all likely good witnesses, with disincentive to lie given their number.
3. Bedminster
CNN: The audio recording shows prosecutors "are not only looking at Trump’s actions regarding classified documents recovered from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, but also at what happened at Bedminster" summer 2021.
That's where meeting occurred.
4. War plans are among the most highly classified documents.
Puts pressure on DOJ to indict, and a jury to convict.
5. As CNN reporting notes, this recording also goes to show knowledge and intent:
"The recording indicates Trump understood he retained classified material after leaving the White House."
6. The recording also appears to knock a hole in already very weak (non-defense) defense of declassification:
"On the recording, Trump’s comments suggest he would like to share the information but he’s aware of limitations on his ability post-presidency to declassify records."
7. Make no mistake. This is squarely an Espionage Act case. It is not simply an "obstruction" case.
There is now every reason to expect former President Trump will be charged under 18 USC 793(e) of the Espionage Act.
The law fits his reported conduct like a hand in glove.
8. Prosecutors do not need to show motive for conviction, but it helps with a jury.
CNN report suggests motives: To hold onto docs as trophies, to use to settle scores or try to retain control over the narrative - here to try (in vain) to contradict @sbg1's reporting on Milley.
9. NYT corroborates CNN scoop plus with this specificity:
“Trump then began referencing a document that he had with him,”
saying it was compiled by Gen. Milley and related to attacking Iran.
1/ I worked at DoD. I literally cannot imagine lawyers coming up with a legal basis for lethal strike of suspected Venezuelan drug boat.
Hard to see how this would not be "murder" or war crime under international law that DoD considers applicable.
Read this expert analysis⤵️
2/ The author of the expert analysis worked at the State Department under several administrations with these types of use of force issues as his portfolio.
Former top official of the National Guard Major Gen. Randy E. Manner
Listen to this excerpt of it.
- Our Guard is not trained for this
- "Negatively impacts military readiness"
- Being as "political props"
2 "This is ... changing the entire context of the way that the average citizens in these cities are going to start viewing ... our military...
We should not have military on our streets, in our American cities. It is absolutely the way that dictatorships run, not democracies."
3
Q: "Joint Task Force ... said that all service members deployed will get an initial briefing on the mission and operational environment, and that prepares them. Is that enough?
General Manner: "No, absolutely not. ... This is a very potentially dangerous situation."
"Epstein was actually still on the Mar-a-Lago membership logs up to 2007. ... That of course is a year after Jeffrey Epstein's arrest in Florida."
So Trump didn't kick him out for many years after knowing Epstein 'stole' Virginia Giuffre from MAL in 2000.
🧵
2/ Here's the Miami Herald piece that @barryscoopking referenced:
"A footnote in the book says the authors were shown the club’s registry from more than a decade earlier and that Epstein in fact had been a member until October 2007."
@barryscoopking @KevinGHall 3/ Here's from the book by then-Miami Herald journalists @Blaskey_S, @NickNehamas and @jayhweaver and Wall Street Journal's @ceostroff.
2/ Along with the Heat Map is essential analysis by leading expert @thomasjoscelyn.
He explains how the Proud Boys orchestrated January 6th attack and risks of resurgence – especially in the event of pardons that former President Trump has suggested.
1/@jacklgoldsmith wrote a NY Times piece attacking special counsel Jack Smith.
@AWeissmann_ and I are refuting the baseless attack.
Compare:
Goldsmith 2020: Bill Barr has "enormous discretion" to ignore 60 day rule
Goldsmith 2024: "Crucial" for Garland to comply with the rule
2/ On left:
Goldsmith piece, “Jack Smith Owes Us an Explanation”
(He thinks DOJ defied a 60-Day rule in recently filing a brief showing details of alleged Trump crimes, and demands explanation)
On right:
Goldsmith shows no awareness DOJ gave the explanation TWICE.
3/ The DOJ explanation is solid.
Simply put, DOJ’s 60-Day Rule against taking actions before an election DOES NOT APPLY and apparently never has to a case after an indictment has been filed. . At that point, it is an open matter and in the hands of the court.