Re: US 2021 Capitol insurrection
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:18 pm
I think it’s 3pm ET which is 8pm in the UKlpm wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:23 pmWhat do we reckon to the odds of Trump objecting? He has to respond at 3pm foreign time, I believe.
I'm assuming he'll refuse to let them be unsealed. It sounds like the judge is supposed to give preference to his views - the judge can in theory decide to unseal despite Trump's objections, but would be unlikely to do so in practice.
1:15 to go.Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:44 pmI think it’s 3pm ET which is 8pm in the UKlpm wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:23 pmWhat do we reckon to the odds of Trump objecting? He has to respond at 3pm foreign time, I believe.
I'm assuming he'll refuse to let them be unsealed. It sounds like the judge is supposed to give preference to his views - the judge can in theory decide to unseal despite Trump's objections, but would be unlikely to do so in practice.
He claims not to be opposing it.dyqik wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:44 pm1:15 to go.Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:44 pmI think it’s 3pm ET which is 8pm in the UKlpm wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:23 pmWhat do we reckon to the odds of Trump objecting? He has to respond at 3pm foreign time, I believe.
I'm assuming he'll refuse to let them be unsealed. It sounds like the judge is supposed to give preference to his views - the judge can in theory decide to unseal despite Trump's objections, but would be unlikely to do so in practice.
OuchBreitbart (of all sources) suggests former President Donald Trump is being investigated for violating the Espionage Act.
Trump leaked it to his favourite media outlets without obscuring the FBI agents names so Breitbart has doxed them.jimbob wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:54 pmhttps://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/15 ... 8038044675
OuchBreitbart (of all sources) suggests former President Donald Trump is being investigated for violating the Espionage Act.
Trump should know https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-get ... -all-wrong
Not sure, nor whether interference in an investigation is
Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1
The FBI search related to possible violations of 3 statutes:
- The Espionage Act
- A law prohibiting the destruction/concealment of documents to obstruct an investigation
- The unlawful removal of government materials
AlsoTrump could have violated all three criminal statutes *even if* he previously declassified the material in question, although there is no evidence that he did.
That takes one of his potential defenses—that he declassified the material without following procedure—off the table.
The Espionage Act is a broad statute. Violating it does *not* necessarily mean you’re spying on the United States.
Most experts expected the search warrant to cite the Espionage Act.
The unexpected statute cited was 18 USC 1519, usually used to prosecute obstruction.
Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:18 pmWTF did they have on Macron?
https://twitter.com/robertmaguire_/stat ... OKmgFIQFZw
Looks like noting was declassified despite Trump supporters saying that (it can’t be done telepathically) but anyway all three charges could apply whether or not the stuff was declassified
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/sta ... OKmgFIQFZw
AlsoTrump could have violated all three criminal statutes *even if* he previously declassified the material in question, although there is no evidence that he did.
That takes one of his potential defenses—that he declassified the material without following procedure—off the table.
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/sta ... OKmgFIQFZw
The Espionage Act is a broad statute. Violating it does *not* necessarily mean you’re spying on the United States.
Most experts expected the search warrant to cite the Espionage Act.
The unexpected statute cited was 18 USC 1519, usually used to prosecute obstruction.
Yeah, but it could just be a state department report on what he's said about the Faroe Islands too. That bit wasn't lumped in with the "miscellaneous top secret documents", so I imagine it wasn't that bad. Of course, there could be other stuff about Macron in the Top secret and confidential bits, but I suspect we'll never find out, 'cos Top Secret and whatnot.
That's potentially per document, I think?bolo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:31 pmThe section of the Espionage Act that addresses "willfully retaining" sensitive documents and "failing to deliver them on demand" is 18 U.S.C. 793. The penalty is a fine or up to 10 years in prison. I have no idea how much a typical fine would be, or how much "up to 10" would typically be. Not that this case is typical anyway.
He and his family have Secret Service protection so they’re never going to prison although with a bit of luck we could get house arrest.
Eh?Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:51 pmHe and his family have Secret Service protection so they’re never going to prison although with a bit of luck we could get house arrest.
Not according to all the lawyers I heard discussing this on MSNBC but I claim no expertisedyqik wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:39 pmEh?Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:51 pmHe and his family have Secret Service protection so they’re never going to prison although with a bit of luck we could get house arrest.
The secret service have to obey the law, just like everyone else. And the secret service protection can be withdrawn.
Maybe the Secret Service will insist on very close protection, so no private meetings, no private phone calls, never alone and never unsupervised.Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 11:33 pmNot according to all the lawyers I heard discussing this on MSNBC but I claim no expertise