Trump had 'no idea there were any records in any private office space': New Mar-a-Lago raid details

[mystery-ak]

Trump had 'no idea there were any records in any private office space': New Mar-a-Lago raid details emerge from unredacted FBI affidavit

    New details of FBI affidavit were unsealed on Tuesday by Florida magistrate
    It shows that Trump's writing was on returned classified documents
    And his lawyers did not say they had been declassified when they returned them
    That was a key defense of Trump when it emerged he kept classified documents
    It also revealed that his lawyer said he had been advised there were no government files kept anywhere apart from a secure storage area
    Yet several were found in a drawer in Trump's office on August 8

By Rob Crilly, Senior U.S. Political Reporter For Dailymail.Com

Published: 17:13 EDT, 13 September 2022 | Updated: 17:37 EDT, 13 September 2022


A magistrate in Florida unredacted more details on Tuesday of the FBI affidavit outlining its case to search Donald Trump Mar-a-Lago home, revealing that the former president's lawyer said he had been told there were no sensitive records stored in private offices there.

In fact, court filings show agents recovered three classified documents from a desk drawer in Trump's office on August 8.

And it said some documents returned in June bore Trump's handwritten notes - and that his lawyer's made no mention of any presidential effort to declassify them.

The details will only raise more questions about why Trump kept the documents and whether he made enough of an effort to return them when asked.

Critics of the former president jumped on the new details to claim that wrongdoing went all the way to the top.

It came after federal prosecutors asked for more details from the affidavit to be unredacted.

Magistrate Judge Aileen Cannon agreed, with an order signed on Tuesday.

more
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11209149/FBI-affidavit-Trump-counsel-says-wasnt-advised-records-private-office.html

[libertybele]

Indictment is inevitable. 

[Smokin Joe]

Planted?

[Cyber Liberty]

According to Brits, "the walls are closing in" on Trump.   

[Hoodat]

    Yet several were found planted in a drawer in Trump's office on August 8

There.  Fixed it.

[Hoodat]

Indictment is inevitable. 

Still no Florida grand jury.  No grand jury.  No indictment.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Comey's precedent of not prosecuting Hitlary for her illegal e-mail server is going to bite the DOJ/FBI in the rump.

[Hoodat]

Comey's precedent of not prosecuting Hitlary for her illegal e-mail server is going to bite the DOJ/FBI in the rump.

No it won't.  They have zero qualms about double-standards.

[Kamaji]

Still no Florida grand jury.  No grand jury.  No indictment.

Why would it have to be in Florida?

[aligncare]

Comey's precedent of not prosecuting Hitlary for her illegal e-mail server is going to bite the DOJ/FBI in the rump.

And she didn’t even have the clearance that a president has. Yet, Comey bizarrely affirmed that there was something to see there—but, no prosecutor official would actually bother to bring charges. Yeah…

This DOJ would charge Trump for negligent grooming if they could get a media bounce out of it.

[libertybele]

No it won't.  They have zero qualms about double-standards.

Exactly!!

[Hoodat]

Why would it have to be in Florida?

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[Kamaji]

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Where the crime was committed could have just as easily been in D.C., when the documents were originally removed from the White House.

[Hoodat]

Where the crime was committed could have just as easily been in D.C., when the documents were originally removed from the White House.

The statutes cited in the Florida raid all centered on possession of the documents only.  Not one of them cited removal from Washington.  This is purely a Florida matter.  An indictment coming from outside Florida would violate the 6th Amendment.

[Kamaji]

The statutes cited in the Florida raid all centered on possession of the documents only.  Not one of them cited removal from Washington.  This is purely a Florida matter.  An indictment coming from outside Florida would violate the 6th Amendment.

Respectfully disagree.  An indictment coming from outside Florida would not violate the 6th Amendment.  The raid took place in Florida because that is where the documents were at the time of the raid - to expect a raid anyplace else would be like the drunk looking for his keys under the street light - because that's where the light is.

[Hoodat]

Respectfully disagree.

I highly recommend you read the statutes:

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

The documents in question were shipped to Mar-A-Lago by the GSA.  So any references to the word "removes" do not apply.  All other references apply to actions taken at the residence only.  Florida jurisdiction.


18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

This statute centers again on actions allegedly taking place at Mar-A-Lago.  Florida jurisdiction.  It should also be pointed out that violation of this statute requires "intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration".  Good luck prosecuting that one.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Every single item in this statute refers to 'possession with intent'.  Nowhere does it cite 'removal'.  Hence, this statute can only apply to the Florida residence.  Again, Florida jurisdiction.

An indictment coming from outside Florida would not violate the 6th Amendment.

It most certainly would.  Again:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The raid took place in Florida because that is where the documents were at the time of the raid - to expect a raid anyplace else would be like the drunk looking for his keys under the street light - because that's where the light is.

If you want to prosecute Trump in DC, then you have to find a statute he violated while in DC.  Not one of the statutes mention in the warrant application addressed anything that took place in Washington.

[Free Vulcan]

The question that needs asked is whether the documents were taken by, or sent to, Trump.

[Hoodat]

The question that needs asked is whether the documents were taken by, or sent to, Trump.

Already answered.  The DNC press has repeatedly shown clips of moving vans being unloaded in Florida.  And there have been several reports that the GSA loaded those vans in Washington.

[Kamaji]

I highly recommend you read the statutes:

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

The documents in question were shipped to Mar-A-Lago by the GSA.  So any references to the word "removes" do not apply.  All other references apply to actions taken at the residence only.  Florida jurisdiction.


18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

This statute centers again on actions allegedly taking place at Mar-A-Lago.  Florida jurisdiction.  It should also be pointed out that violation of this statute requires "intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration".  Good luck prosecuting that one.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Every single item in this statute refers to 'possession with intent'.  Nowhere does it cite 'removal'.  Hence, this statute can only apply to the Florida residence.  Again, Florida jurisdiction.


It most certainly would.  Again:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


If you want to prosecute Trump in DC, then you have to find a statute he violated while in DC.  Not one of the statutes mention in the warrant application addressed anything that took place in Washington.

Whatever you say, chief-o.

[Hoodat]

Whatever you say, chief-o.

It's not me.  It is James Madison who wrote Amendment VI.  Take it up with him.

Or maybe you would like to read Article III, Sec 2:

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Either you believe what the Constitution says, or you do not.

[Hoodat]

Supreme Court seems to think so as well.

Beavers v. Henkel (1904)

[DCPatriot]

IMO, at a minimum here, he's going to use the Jim Comey [NO INTENT - U.S.A. vs Sec of State Hillary Rodham Clinton] Rule