Scrutable

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:04 pm

New Republican defense of Trump:

Everyone has classified nuclear documents available on their phones.

Wut? Really?!?!?!

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:23 pm

What 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.

I think it’s 3pm ET which is 8pm in the UK

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:44 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:23 pm

What 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.

I think it’s 3pm ET which is 8pm in the UK

1:15 to go.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:44 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:44 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 1:23 pm

What 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.

I think it’s 3pm ET which is 8pm in the UK

1:15 to go.

He claims not to be opposing it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-62512360

https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/15 ... 8038044675

Breitbart (of all sources) suggests former President Donald Trump is being investigated for violating the Espionage Act.

Ouch

Is the Espionage Act a big deal?

It's like one of those twisty turny movies or books.

You know he'll get away with it. But you can't for the life of you see how.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:54 pm

https://twitter.com/IntelCrab/status/15 ... 8038044675

Breitbart (of all sources) suggests former President Donald Trump is being investigated for violating the Espionage Act.

Ouch

Trump leaked it to his favourite media outlets without obscuring the FBI agents names so Breitbart has doxed them.

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:02 pm

Is the Espionage Act a big deal?

Trump should know https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-get ... -all-wrong

Thread on what the WSJ has listed but there could be omissions from the official release because corrupt bastards https://twitter.com/muellershewrote/sta ... OKmgFIQFZw

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:02 pm

Is the Espionage Act a big deal?

Not sure, nor whether interference in an investigation is

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... NiuK7Ehi5w

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

WTF 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

Trump 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.

Also

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.

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:18 pm

WTF 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

Trump 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.

Also

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.

What did they have on Macron?

Corruption is traditional for senior French politicians. Thinking about Total, for example.

The 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.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:24 pm

What did they have on Macron?

Corruption is traditional for senior French politicians. Thinking about Total, for example.

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.

The conspiracy theorists are going to have fun with possibilities that confirm their worldview though.

Julian Assange is charged under the same code. Reality Winner jailed.

Would be a lovely script to have Trump sharing a cell with the cupboard hiding rapist.

bolo wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:31 pm

The 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.

That's potentially per document, I think?

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:38 pm

Julian Assange is charged under the same code. Reality Winner jailed.

Would be a lovely script to have Trump sharing a cell with the cupboard hiding rapist.

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.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:50 pm

That's potentially per document, I think?

I have no idea, sorry.

Unsealed documents here https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 7.0_10.pdf

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:51 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:38 pm

Julian Assange is charged under the same code. Reality Winner jailed.

Would be a lovely script to have Trump sharing a cell with the cupboard hiding rapist.

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?

The secret service have to obey the law, just like everyone else. And the secret service protection can be withdrawn.

I'm amazed he let this be unsealed. He should have objected, leaked lies and muddied the waters.

I'm not entirely sure whether Secret Service protection can be withdrawn, as there is a statute specifically authorizing it. (Does a law saying "the Secret Service is authorized to X" mean they are also allowed to choose not to X? IANAL.)

But I see no reason why he couldn't still have Secret Service protection while in prison.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:39 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:51 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:38 pm

Julian Assange is charged under the same code. Reality Winner jailed.

Would be a lovely script to have Trump sharing a cell with the cupboard hiding rapist.

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?

The secret service have to obey the law, just like everyone else. And the secret service protection can be withdrawn.

Not according to all the lawyers I heard discussing this on MSNBC but I claim no expertise

ETA the kids may not be safe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 11:33 pm

dyqik wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:39 pm

The secret service have to obey the law, just like everyone else. And the secret service protection can be withdrawn.

Not according to all the lawyers I heard discussing this on MSNBC but I claim no expertise

Maybe the Secret Service will insist on very close protection, so no private meetings, no private phone calls, never alone and never unsupervised.
That would work....