“Nukes sold separately”
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Forgive the slight hijack, but I seem to recall an urban legend of a DOD representative visiting Mattel in the early sixties, livid about how the toy manufacturer had managed to so closely copy the internal schematic of the Polaris submarine. The Mattel guys basically said, “We went with what made sense to us.”
Pffft. Why would I but that one, sight unseen, when the seller was willing to drive this one right into my harbor?
The company was Revell and their model of the USS George Washington used details publicly released by the Navy. Admiral Rickover (a security hawk and all around curmudgeon) famously told congress that we were selling designs of our most sophisticated weapons to the Soviets for $2.98 a pop.
I guess that raises a second question. Given Trump’s tendency to lie about easily checked facts, he probably claimed it could hold 32 ICBMs and could travel 200 miles an hour, and was invisible. Is it really revealing state secrets if you lie about it?
Well, there’s the philosophical issue. If he lies about it enough, the opposition could narrow down the possible real answers by eliminating all the known lies.
“Okay, so he’s said they can carry 20, 22, 24 and 26 missiles, so now we know, it’s more likely they carry 21, 23, or 25 missiles!”
Trump’s primary motivation is self aggrandizement. He tells ridiculous lies in his speeches and tweets and whatnot because he knows the rubes will eat it up. But in the presence of intelligent people who he desperately wants to impress (see stuff like the Woodward interview) he’s more likely to use his access to secrets as a proxy for his own intelligence.
So I think he’s plenty likely to have carefully studied something like nuclear sub stats for the explicit purpose of impressing somebody at some point.
I doubt he’s carefully studied anything ever.
What about Ivanka?
That’s a lot more work than making up an impressive sounding number on the spot. He hates work.
Sure, but he loves power and prestige, and what’s more prestigious than knowing super duper sekrit information?
If you read the deposition from the NY case it’s clear that he knows about stuff that he condiders important: zoning issues, tax loopholes, etc. He’s not incapable of learning shit, he just won’t do it without a good reason.
Impressing his alpha status on other rich folks by flaunting his unparalleled access to military secrets is definitely a good reason, so I’m perfectly willing to believe that he’d put in the work.*
*for whatever definition of “work” is involved in memorizing a few basic stats like top speeds and number of missiles.
Does it matter? If someone acquires inaccurate or phony intel and passes it on to a foreign agent; isn’t he still guilty of espionage?
I think he very successfully studied how to defraud the real estate markets in NY to his advantage for years, having never gotten caught until he drew so much attention to himself that it couldn’t be ignored any longer.
Anyway, let’s end this hijack of the stolen documents thread please.
Since the alleged submarine details were shared with Anthony Pratt at Mar-A-Lago (ie, it seems on-topic for this thread) … I was curious about the implications of sharing incorrect but classified info.
What I found is:
See, e.g., United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d 362, 385–86 (D. Conn. 2009) (holding that although completely inaccurate information might not be covered, information related to the scheduled movements of naval vessels was sufficient to bring materials within the ambit of national defense information).
Which, to me, is tantamount to “close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and espionage with regard to US nuclear submarines.”
Moderating:
This gratuitous, non-relevant comment has no place in this thread. This is Pit stuff. Stop doing this.
Judge Cannon is probably very happy about all the fireworks in the New York matter sucking up all the media coverage, because it means she’s free to slow-roll the case in her own courtroom without attracting much attention.
This happened on Friday, but apparently generated no commentary here.
She’s 100% in the bag for Trump. Can there be any remaining doubt?
Why did Trump keep the docs? His possible motivation has generated lots of speculation, here and in the media. (Our discussions have been more interesting and insightful, of course. 
)
In a recent filing, Jack Smith has indicated that he knows what Trump’s motive was and will lead evidence in court. Legally, proof of motive is likely not needed, what counts is wilful retention, but a bad motive would certainly help Smith make his case to a jury.
If it ever gets that far, of course.
The intent could be that Trump was just gloating in front of others to show what a powerful man he is, and that he wears big boy pants. He’s always wanted to be part of the club of the real movers and shakers.
or -
He saw value that he could sell to the highest bidder. And also get Putin to love him.
I think it could be both.
Either way, it’s espionage.
I’ve long suspected that the intent Trump had for taking and keeping the classified documents was that, as has been reported from different sources, he had a habit of using classified documents as note paper, writing notes in the margins. Comment on this practice was made when the need for a Special Master was discussed.
The idea that those notes detail planning for the Jan 6 debacle, planning to overturn the election results, or other incriminating plans would explain why he would not return them and has fought so hard to claim they are his.
He claims he declassified them. Perhaps, in his mind, his using those documents as note paper was de facto declassification (that really doesn’t work for me). He also claims the Presidential Record Act (PRA) gives him the right to keep those documents. Like the declassification claim, this is also absurd.
The PRA was written specifically to prevent a former President from keeping such documents and it seems Orwellian to try to use it justify his keeping them. However, if the notes he made on them were not a part of his Presidential Duties then they would be personal records and the PRA has been used to allow former Presidents to keep their personal records.
So, there doesn’t have to be any espionage intent (although that wouldn’t hurt). This could also explain why he officially did not make the argument that overturning the election was a Presidential Duty to get the Georgia case moved to Federal Court. Making that claim in a court document might undermine his argument that those notes are personal records and not part of his Presidential Duties.
More than absurd, it’s actually the opposite of what the PRA mandates. (as you rightly point out)