Well, the extent of my legal education was a high school law class, but I think that if he carted off the documents while he was still president he’d be guilty of conversion and not straight up theft. Again, I’m not a lawyer, but theft seems to be a more difficult charge to prove.
He’s being charged with willful retention. That seems like a lock–he keeps confessing to it on TV.
If the Feds get a not guilty verdict thru shenanigans, this also gives them something to charge him with.
Yeah, and that seems to fit more with conversion (in your right to initially possess it, but then you deny the rightful owner use of it and use it for your own ends), than theft (you had no right to posses it, and took it).
In this case the issue is not nearly about theft or conversion or any of those basic activities. The stuff we’re talking about is not the official White House dinnerware or a GSA filing cabinet or a nice throw rug. Or a whole bunch of taxpayer-supplied cardboard filing boxes. That stuff is not the issue.
The stuff we’re talking about is classified material and it’s the laws and regulations about proper care, use, and custody of classified materials that have all the “bite” in this case.
I’m attempting to explain why these charges weren’t brought. In short, I think it’s harder to prove than the charges that have been brought so far, and may not apply at all, depending on when he moved the documents.
scabpicker et al: FWIW: the gifted NYT article in post 405 discusses this very issue. Here it is again: In Trump Prosecution, Special Counsel Seeks to Avoid Distracting Fights - The New York Times
Mr. Smith’s decision not to demand any conditions at the arraignment, people familiar with the situation said, reflected a belief that prosecutors should avoid impairing Mr. Trump’s ability to campaign. He is also seeking to dodge potentially distracting elements to a case focused on concrete evidence about the former president’s handling of classified documents and efforts to obstruct government efforts to reclaim them.
His approach also seems to be a nod to the political sensitivities created by years of Republican protests — and misinformation — about prior investigations into Mr. Trump by the Justice Department and the F.B.I.
Smith wants focus on the clearer elements of the case. He doesn’t want to get tied up with charges whose constitutionality is in doubt. It is ultimately the voters decision about whether they want for example a convicted sex offender as President. Some do, others don’t.
Which is what I said in my post #428. I agree this is the true explanation. It’s in keeping with both his style and best practices in criminal prosecutions.
It also explains why they have not charged for the entire 100+ documents that they’ve recovered. Focus on the 30 most serious ones, and don’t open themselves up to allegations of over-classifications and over-charging.
It’s worth noting that Smith only charged for documents Trump refused to return after the first 38 documents were returned with the affidavit from his attorney saying he had returned them all.
That makes good prosecution sense as well. Once the Trump lawyers had filed that affidavit, it makes it very hard for Trump to say he didn’t know that keeping the documents was a crime. He had full knowledge of what the law required.
It also eliminates Trump’s argument that he was treated worse than Pence or Biden. He’s not being prosecuted for documents he returned.
To which MAGAts will reply: “Lawyers! Always hair-splitting!” 
Bastiches!!
Is there any risk that keeping some charges back in the event of an acquittal in Florida so that they can be used in Washington DC or New Jersey has the potential to being accused of keeping a “hole card”, as it were?
No one can know how Smith and his team will proceed, but personally, I’ll be surprised if we see any “recycled” charges.
It’s worth noting that of the 100-ish (102? 103?) classified documents retrieved by the FBI in their search of Mar-A-Lago, Smith is pursuing his prosecution in Florida using only 31 of those.
We might engage in some informed speculation that some of those remaining 70-ish documents were transported to Bedminster and could form the basis for a new, different indictment. No recycling needed.
I’m not sure if I made my question clear enough.If the 31 docs fail to secure a conviction in Florida, will charges over the remaining 70-ish in a different venue lead to accusations of holding “hole card” charges (Yer just doing a high-tech version of judge-shopping!), accusations that may plausibly engender sympathy for the America-0hating fuckstick?
Who can say? Not me. I’m astonished at how many people in this country don’t seem to regard the compromise if some of our most important intelligence and endangerment of our national security as any big deal.
I’m also not convinced that Smith won’t bring charges in Bedminster irrespective of what’s going on in Florida. More arrests were hinted at in a recent filing in Florida. Nothing guarantees that one of those arrests won’t be Trump – in New Jersey.
We have way too little information to work with at this point, I’m afraid.
I do think people who are inclined to excuse the behavior in Florida will continue to excuse behavior in Georgia, New Jersey, DC and anywhere else indictments are filed. A majority of people do seem to be paying close attention to the actual evidence, though. Newer polls taken over the next few weeks will give a better picture.
I’m not.
Everything can’t be a big deal, so most people prioritize.
I think that illegally silencing a critic with sensational criticism (Stormy Daniels) had considerable likelihood of changing the election result. And thus the New York allegations are a big deal.
.
And I suspect that the secrets Trump waved around were probably outdated, if ever important. Less of a big deal.
That’s me.
Now, William Barr thinks the opposite. To him, paying off a critic is nothing, but the official secrets violations outrage him.
As for Trump being so evil that everything he gets charged with will be a big deal, well, thinking like that isn’t me. Espionage Act violations, without real espionage, seem to me more a reason to fire an employee (or not vote for a candidate) than to jail them. If Trump is guilty, of this, the judge should give the minimum amount under the sentencing guidelines, and I’d lower the penalties for everyone if I could.
For me, the big deal isn’t the contents of the documents, which may well be pointless, as the flagrant disregard for the rule of law. He was given multiple chances, but chose, eyes open, to retain the material (if these credible allegations are in fact true), with no possible justification for doing so. But I’m biased, as I loathe the man, so maybe I’m just looking for reasons.