Here are the elements of offense a jury would consider in an 18 USSC 793(e) charge. The bold one is not fulfilled by this recording (tho could be if DOJ found this doc in the August search).
But if Trump DIDN'T return this doc, and DOJ didn't find it ... then we have far bigger problems.
WOW do we have far bigger problems, especially given DOJ's interest in Trump's Saudi payments.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In which Amanda accuses me of having a "fixation" because I insist that people actually base their claims on available facts, rather than just screaming and helping fascists w/o any basis in fact.
There are, as I have written OVER AND OVER, OBVIOUS things that take time. We can account for the time that DOJ has taken--but it requires actual labor rather than just SCREAMING!!!
Those who wail abt time that due process takes are helping those who hate rule of law.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Amanda doesn't realize that this totally undermines her point.
She's arguing people have to indict NOW so the 70 days they have to prepare for trial will...not give the time to prepare.
Hoping someone smarter about FARA than me, like @BVanGrack, checks my work on this. But this story of Vivek Ramaswamy advisors registering under FARA is a far bigger deal than @politico makes out.
@BVanGrack@politico But this screen cap gives a sense of how much money the Saudis are sloshing around via a golf cut-out.
And once some reasonable people believe they need to register, others might be expected to.
@BVanGrack@politico Those same reasonable people might be more likely to feel the urgency to register if they see coverage -- starting about 3 weeks ago -- that a prosecutor is looking into OTHER people receiving LIV graft.
Durham claims a Hillary staffer's effort, on 7/5/16, to f-up on a Foer story on Trump's Russian ties "provide[s] some support...campaign was engaged in an effort...in late July 2016 to encourage scrutiny of Trump's potential ties to Russia"
Here's the link to where Johnny D points to something that happened on 7/5/16 as proof that Hillary approved a plan on 7/26/16.
Here's the article. You'll note how Foer's article (which is quite detailed and factual, btw), includes a line that is rather inconvenient for Durham's narrative.
I'm a big connoisseur of stories on infighting among Trump lawyers like this one from @Jose_Pagliery. But IMO, Trump's attorneys aren't paranoid ENOUGH.
@Jose_Pagliery Unless I'm missing it, for example, this story doesn't mention that Epshteyn is a SUBJECT of the Jan6 investigation, for which investigation he had his phone seized in September and sat for 2 days of interviews in April.
@Jose_Pagliery If you're worried about the crime-fraud ruling for Evan Corcoran's notes, why aren't you worried abt a crime-fraud exception for Boris' phone, which was seized AFTER the August search?