Yet several werefoundplanted in a drawer in Trump's office on August 8
Indictment is inevitable. **nononono*
Comey's precedent of not prosecuting Hitlary for her illegal e-mail server is going to bite the DOJ/FBI in the rump.
Still no Florida grand jury. No grand jury. No indictment.
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.
Why would it have to be in Florida?
Amendment VI (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment)
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.
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.
The question that needs asked is whether the documents were taken by, or sent to, Trump.
I highly recommend you read the statutes:
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071)
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 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1519)
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 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793)
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.