Pretty sure presidents don’t get to keep such gifts.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
True. How much difference do you think that makes to whether Trump kept such gifts?
They can if they pay “fair market value” for them.
Generally they go to the National Archives or the President’s Library.
This rule, of course, doesn’t apply to Trump. Just ask him.
It was a hair vs hair match. Vince McMahon’s chosen wrestler Umaga lost against Trump’s champion Bobby Lashley, so Vince got his head shaved. The only sharp object involved was the hair clippers.
Could be that Vince gave Trump some swag for participating, and that wound up in storage.
And republicans still have the audacity to chant ‘lock her up’ over HRC’s server? We’re living in the Twilight Zone.
Lock. Him. Up.
There are so many things wrong with that sentence as it relates to Trump.
This is completely plausible. It’s also hilarious, because ISTM voluntarily owning up to possessing the docs in an unsecured location is actually confessing to a crime, whereas if they kept them wherever they were originally they may never have been discovered.
Pretty sure presidents don’t get to keep classified documents at home after they’re no longer in office either.
kise is the prepaid, serious lawyer on the trump team. the one that keeps getting sidelined. obviously, he would be the more sane voice.
People keep saying that, but it’s not clear to me that it’s true. It’s certainly true that if the government has entrusted you with documents, then breaching that trust is a crime. And proffering such documents to foreign agents is a crime. But mere possession, or even publication? Didn’t the “Pentagon Papers” set precedent?
No. Only prosecutorial misconduct prevented a guilty verdict there. From Wikipedia:
Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston, and admitted that he had given the papers to the press: “I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision”.[30] He was indicted by a grand jury in Los Angeles on charges of stealing and holding secret documents.[30] Federal District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973, after it was revealed that agents acting on the orders of the Nixon administration illegally broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist and attempted to steal files; representatives of the Nixon administration approached the Ellsberg trial judge with an offer of the job of FBI directorship; several irregularities appeared in the government’s case including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal. Byrne ruled: “The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case.” Ellsberg and Russo were freed due to the mistrial; they were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act
Thank you, @MulderMuffin ! Much appreciated.
Reading the WaPo article, this para stands out to me:
The team offered the FBI the opportunity to observe the search but the offer was declined, the people said. It would be unusual for federal agents to monitor a search of someone’s property conducted by anyone other than another law enforcement agency.
Is the reasoning here that attending the search could be construed as “validating” it and giving it a “seal of approval”; and that by refusing to attend, nobody can imply approval by saying “Well, you were there”?
So the FBI have placed themselves in a stronger position to obtain further search warrants if they believe that they are needed?
j
Isn’t the crime in not returning them when asked and saying you don’t have any? Had Trump returned the documents when asked there would have been no issue.
Yes, that’s Trump’s crime. But I don’t think it’s a crime for others to find the documents and then return them to the authorities.
Absolute WAG ahoy:
It says federal agents wouldn’t have any issue supervising a search by another law enforcement agency. Such a search would have a warrant. This search does not.
My guess is that it’s SOP to - when possible - avoid involving federal agents in warrantless searches. Even with an invite.
I can just imagine, a landlord calls the DEA and says, “I’m about to clean out the apartment of a guy who left and I’m sure he was a drug user, do you want to come by and watch in case I find anything illegal?” That does seem weird.
Apologies if it’s a hijack, but could you ask a police officer to do it? Or would it likewise be weird?
LEOs likely won’t touch such a thing. The trick is for the landlord or whatever to do the search, cleanup, whathaveyou and call the appropriate authorities after the fact if something is found. That avoids any “probable cause” conflicts.
That’s why at school an Administrator will conduct a search of a students property/person rather than the school LEO - lower bar, since the Admin only needs “reasonable suspicion.”
Oh, the DOJ doesn’t know how to go judge shopping–only Republicans do?
And the DOJ lost the phone number to the FISA court to get more evidence?
Or, perhaps, they could just try making a good legal argument.
But that would be impolite.
My objection is to Garland smelling more and more like every typical DC lawyer i’ve ever come across. (“Let’s consider the political ramifications. Let’s consider what I can get for doing this. Will this put my club membership in jeopardy?”) Garland would have fit right in on the Supreme Court.
On a side note, let’s say the flunky going through the storage unit finds a piece of paper with the following information on it: “Our mole in the North Korean leadership is…” That’s gotta be worth at least $5M. What will he do? What will he do?