Don’t all the shenanigans with moving boxes to new hiding places, etc., establish he knew it was wrong? Surely saying, “yes, even my own attorneys said we must comply with the subpoena, which says I am not legally entitled to hold these documents, but I just don’t buy it” isn’t a valid defense…?
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
For those with interest, I’m going to suggest looking at this case. I think it’s on point in terms of “willfully:”
"Willfully" is Consistently Interpreted
As the Supreme Court has explained, “as a general matter, when used in the criminal context, a willful' act is one undertaken with a bad purpose.'” Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 191 (1998). “In other words, in order to establish a willful' violation of a statute, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.'” Id. at 192 (quoting Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137 (1994)). This definition of willfulness is confirmed by Fourth Circuit precedent. In Morison, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this Court’s jury instruction defining “willfully” to mean an act “done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something that the law forbids. That is to say, with a bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law.” 622 F. Supp. 2d at 1071. In United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 919 (4th Cir. 1980), the Fourth Circuit similarly affirmed the district court’s jury instruction defining “willfully” as acting “voluntarily and intentionally and with a specific intent to do something the law forbids.'” Id. at 919. As discussed above, Defendant’s argument that Rosen indicates a lack of clarity as to whether a finding of willfulness requires a heightened mens rea is unavailing since Rosen, unlike the case at bar, involved intangible and oral information. Thus, the meaning of “willfulness” in Section 793(e) is not unconstitutionally vague.
I understand the argument that @CoolHandCox implied would be put forward by Trump’s legal team: that TFG had a good faith belief that he was entitled to remove and retain any and all of the documents in question upon leaving office.
But to @Stratocaster point, and the point we’ve all been making, at some point “You’ve been told, so maybe it’s time that you learned” [h/t to Eric Clapton].
At some point in this protracted process, the basis for that hypothetical good faith belief … has to have been shattered by NARA, the AG, the FBI, and his attorneys, no?
We’ve discussed elsewhere that Trump probably didn’t have a legal right to ignore WH counsel and, instead, believe Eastman, Chesebro, Giuliani, and Sid “Vicious” Powell, right?
And maybe that doesn’t magically make the willful retention case, but does formidably strengthen the Obstruction case, but … ISTM … that Trump’s reckless disregard for the truth – a valid substitute for clear intent in other federal crimes – should go a long way toward informing a Trier of Fact as to his mens rea.
Absolutely agree.
Trump, the Sovereign Citizen?
he’s not smart enough - although he does like his gold fringes.
Edit: just read @DavidNRockies post above, which changes my understanding. That a person has to know the law in order to break it seems bananas to me, but that’s what it sounds like.
I don’t think that’s what “willfully” means. If you demand my wallet from me, and I say, “No, it’s mine!” then I am willfully retaining my wallet. I’m also legally retaining my wallet, since it isn’t a crime for me to willfully retain and not turn it over when you ask me.
If, however, I’m arrested, and a police officer demands my wallet, and it’s a crime for me to willfully retain and not turn it over, my belief that I’m allowed to do so isn’t a defense.
It’s also proven when he makes repeated efforts to retain the documents, even after being told by both government agents and his own lawyers that he’s not allowed to keep them. A part of retaining your own lawyers is so they can tell you when you’re about to do something illegal, but you don’t realize that it is illegal.
I’m pretty sure that “But I disagreed with my own lawyers!” will not stand up as a defense. Everyone else involved in this made it clear to Trump that he was violating the law, and he even tacitly agreed with that when he lied to his own damn lawyer about having given them all the documents. He can claim ignorance all he likes, but there’s no reason anyone else has to accept that argument.
To be clear, They only have to know generally that their actions are unlawful. They don’t need to know exactly why it’s unlawful.
Here, Trump knew in 2016. He preaches that having classified docs is illegal. Nothing to indicate he forgot. So he knows the day he left office it was unlawful to have classified docs. He is made more and more aware of it as everyone has suggested.
Generally speaking, I can see why it seems bananas. But consider maybe taxes. A CPA can take the same persons finances and do legal things and that person does not pay taxes. You can take same finances and do legal things and they do pay taxes. A CPA might unknowingly cross a fine line and do something that’s illegal but think they were doing the legal stuff. In that situation: They did it, they know they did it, they just thought what they did was legal to do. If they truly thought it was legal, even though it was not, should that conduct be criminalized? Maybe, but I understand why it’s not.
Classified docs are similar. Lots of situations where having them is legal, people can deal in the many thousands, maybe in the millions, of docs over long careers. It’s a big deal, but it’s also routine. Having them, knowing you have them, could lead to good people being criminals. I think it’s more helpful to understand when the docs are not marked classified, and yet contain classified info - like someone’s notes - it’s a question of fact and someone might not think what they had was actually info that related to national security (ie, they did not think it was illegal).
None of the nuance applies in Trump’s case. It’s all marked classified/Top Secret, etc. and he admits he knows it’s classified and he shouldn’t have it.
Hate to double post but bored at an airport.
Cannon issued her ruling on how DOJ will be able to present their classified info at trial (this is the CIPA part of this case). Here’s the Order.
Per a former CIA lawyer, who had a career dealing with CIPA, briefly reviewed it, said seems pretty typical (“not much to see here”). DOJ is allowed to make their requested redactions and substitutions to the classified docs. Some stuff will be ruled on later.
I’ll still wait for others to review and see what they gleam (these ruling are by design generic so you have to read the tea leaves a bit).
I think that’s supposed to be blonde on his head.
I don’t think the thread has picked up this bit of news yet.
A couple of Cannon’s clerks have up and quit, and she’s getting a horrible reputation to work for.
I’ll take “Things That Are Unsurprising” for $100, Moriarty
That sounds to me like someone who is in over their head and doesn’t know how to get out.
She should look into MLM.
So not only is she a terrible and biased judge, she’s also a micromanager? I feel like I could have guessed that.
And the thought occurs to me, if she’s making these poor people work all of these extra hours, weekends and overtime, and we’re still getting all of these weird terrible decisions? Talk about mismanagement. What kind of financial value is that?
Every bench seems to have at least one of these prima donna sorts who can’t get enough of the smell of their own farts and thinks everyone else should love them, too. Cannon sounds worse than most. I’m not surprised. She’s a real piece of work. I’d have quit, too.
Here’s the original substack post from
David Lat, a former US Attorney who reports on legal issues. The post provides interesting details. Lat says his footnotes would only appeal to law nerds, but as a science nerd I found them interesting. Lat portrays Cannon as lacking relevant experience and a trial judges’ temperament, based on her career path. And being in over her head. Clerking For Judge Aileen Cannon: A Behind-The-Scenes Look
Here is the original substack article the above was based on. See article here.
It’s everything you wanted to know about not just the clerks, but also Judge Cannon.
It’s unusual for clerks to quit. They generally work for one year. One of the clerks that quit, decided to stay on past her year to help on this case (bc she had a security clearance, others did not). She also just had a baby. The work became too much so she quit, partly to spend time with her baby. I’m not disagreeing with the premise, but these are the details you can find in the article above. There is definitely a pre-Trump Cannon and post-Trump Cannon working environment.
So I have a question for the legal folk about careers, and quitting your job:
Among my social circle in college, I saw that law students, more than any other profession, are obsessed about their careers, building their resume, professional reputation, and always looking for career advancement.
Clerking for a judge was a good first step, and a job that nobody would quit voluntarily.
Does the name of the judge matter, in most cases?
How will having Judge Cannon on your resume benefit/damage a normal career path?
Could a young clerk provide evidence of Cannon’s incompetence? Would it look good to mention this in future job interviews?
Or do you think that having served under Cannon would damage your future prospects?
I would think that, in this particular case, the judge is infamous enough that no explanation would be necessary. “I see here on your work history that you quit a clerking job. Why was that?” “That was for Eileen Cannon, on the Trump case.” “Oh, yes, of course, moving on.”