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.
3/ "Applying even the OLC’s expansive view from its recent opinions to Operation Absolute Resolve, the Executive action clearly crosses the threshold for requiring congressional authorization."
WSJ report is extraordinary in implicating Mar-a-Lago in Epstein systematic sexual abuse.
It takes a close read, but looks like WSJ is reporting Trump was informed and told Mar-a-Lago manager to "kick out" Epstein in 2003 not from Mar-a-Lago, but from the Mar-a-Lago Spa.
With Admiral Bradley's lawyer speaking to Congress this upcoming week.
Threshold question is how ANY of these strikes are legal.
On Sept 2 strike: Q is whether they applied standard Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology.
Because look what it says (declassified 2012)⤵️ 1/
2/ The Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology goes to the heart of the latest DoD claims about the strike.
The claim is that the second strike was targeting the (possible) cocaine, not the shipwrecked.
I do not see how that could have possibly complied with the Methodology.
3/ As shown in the screen shot, the Methodology states:
The laws of war (LOW) require anticipated "noncombatant" deaths must not be excessive in relation to expected military advantage to be gained (the possible cocaine).
"The Senate Armed Services Committee ... has asked Adm. Alvin Holsey ... to testify before the committee next week, according to Blumenthal and another person familiar with the matter."
3/ "A spokesperson for Rep. Adam Smith (Washington), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said that panel also requested briefings with U.S. Southern Command, though not with Holsey specifically."
How is U.S. military killing these 11 people keeping drugs (fentanyl) out of the United States?
DOD knew the drugs (cocaine) were headed to Suriname.
Yes, that's the OTHER DIRECTION.
Read what Bradley-Caine told lawmakers:
Scoop by @NatashaBertrand
🧵 1/
2/ Problems for Bradley's credibility.
On left:
Bradley argued to lawmakers "still a possibility" drugs could've made way to US.
On right:
Trump State Dept: "Suriname is a transit country for South American cocaine, the majority of which is likely destined for Europe."
3/ And, yes, the administration's attempted constitutional and other legal claims unravel if boats are delivering drugs (let alone, cocaine not fentanyl) to Europe instead.