What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[jimmy olsen]

Is there anything actually wrong at all with this FBI search?

All seems very reasonable to me. But of course enforcing the law is only to be done against the other side, corrupt old millionaires are the true victims, etc...

[jimmy olsen]

Is there anything actually wrong at all with this FBI search?

All seems very reasonable to me. But of course enforcing the law is only to be done against the other side, corrupt old millionaires are the true victims, etc...

There's no way we can know. They've not explained it or given any statement about it. Which I think is an issue.

A former President is absolutely subject to the law - but it is different from most searches like this and very high profile. I think they need to communicate, even if very vaguely, why it happened. I'm not sure an information vacuum is helpful or sustainable (and it will be filled with nonsense).

Trump can at any moment release the warrant and list of things that have been taken. It's not something he's required to keep secret. The press should be hounding him to do so.

[alfred russel]

If they have enough to get a search warrant on Hillary go right ahead. However I just want to point out he went into office promising to arrest her and never did, which suggests to me they got nothing.

He went into office promising a lot of stuff, some of it contradictory and often nonsensical, and accomplished almost nothing.

[Jacob]

So how do you all see this playing out?

[Razgovory]

Whatever happens Trump will escape consequences.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm highly skeptical Trump faces serious penalty. Frankly, this situation probably based on the limited amount we know, isn't terribly different from the HRC email situation--mishandling of executive documents, some of which are classified. The reason this involves an FBI raid and search warrant and the HRC email investigation did not is because HRC actually complied with subpoenas and turned over evidence voluntarily. DOJ likely concluded Trump would do the exact opposite--in fact Trump asserted a legal theory that he was immune forever and all times, on all topics, from any government subpoena or oversight of any kind by virtue of being elected President. With that sort of footing it seems like a more adversarial data collection tool like a search warrant becomes important.

The issue with making Trump feel any legal pain for this is the same as it was for HRC (whom many wanted to see punished), the statutes involved generally have not been prosecuted for pro forma / procedural fuck ups, they have generally only be used for prosecution when there is clear criminal intent. While I think Comey's October surprise violated the norms of democracy and good sense, I agreed with his earlier conclusion on the case--that while HRC acted carelessly and recklessly with government documents, she did not have criminal intent, which has typically been a standard for prosecution in such cases.

[The Minsky Moment]

David Petraeus kept a kind of diary that included his daily schedules and notes he took at meetings; some of the information was classified, some was not. When he resigned his government post, he returned classified docs in his possession but held on to notebooks.  For that act he pled guilty to mishandling classified information and received 2 years probation.

The potential allegations against Trump are far more serious than that.  And they are much more serious than those against HRC.  Clinton was heavily investigated and charges were not brought because (among many other things) there was no evidence that she intended to mishandle classified docs (intent being a required element of the crime).  Clinton's fault was using personal email services, a fault which reports indicate was widely engaged in by much of the Trump White House, including Trump himself.  That's unfortunate, but it is categorically different from deliberately packing boxes of official state documents in trucks and stealing them.  That is straight up gangsterism.

Even if none of the docs were classified - or if Trump could make up a claim that he instantaneously declassified them in the hours before Biden's inauguration, the deliberate removal, conveyance, concealment or destruction of official public records is a felony.  Unless I am missing something, there is a clear and un-rebuttable violation here, with the only possible defense being a constitutional one seeking reversal of Nixon v. GSA.

[Josquius]

Just me getting Al Caponey vibes here?

Trump has done some real dire shit.... could this be the one to bring him down?

[OttoVonBismarck]

David Petraeus kept a kind of diary that included his daily schedules and notes he took at meetings; some of the information was classified, some was not. When he resigned his government post, he returned classified docs in his possession but held on to notebooks.  For that act he pled guilty to mishandling classified information and received 2 years probation.

The potential allegations against Trump are far more serious than that.  And they are much more serious than those against HRC.  Clinton was heavily investigated and charges were not brought because (among many other things) there was no evidence that she intended to mishandle classified docs (intent being a required element of the crime).  Clinton's fault was using personal email services, a fault which reports indicate was widely engaged in by much of the Trump White House, including Trump himself.  That's unfortunate, but it is categorically different from deliberately packing boxes of official state documents in trucks and stealing them.  That is straight up gangsterism.

Even if none of the docs were classified - or if Trump could make up a claim that he instantaneously declassified them in the hours before Biden's inauguration, the deliberate removal, conveyance, concealment or destruction of official public records is a felony.  Unless I am missing something, there is a clear and un-rebuttable violation here, with the only possible defense being a constitutional one seeking reversal of Nixon v. GSA.

1. Petraeus shared some of his information specifically to impress a paramour, which showed clear criminal intent and knowing he was doing something was wrong. He also transmitted some of his information by writing a "draft" in a Gmail account that his lover had access to, she would log in to the account and read it. That shows a deliberate effort to conceal what he was doing, which likewise shows bad motive.

2. Trump very likely carried zero boxes out of the White House or anywhere else. Aides would have done this, and he can always argue that he never intended an aide to take anything they weren't supposed to--additionally he can point to his lengthy quasi-cooperation as evidence he was just trying to act in good faith.

3. "As far as I know we took documents we were allowed to take, for my Presidential library." I don't think it's a slam dunk to prove that an infamously ignorant of details and stupid person was ignorant of the law, which would undermine the intent aspect.

[The Minsky Moment]

Aides don't carry boxes out without orders to do so.  Someone had to give those orders.  Trump has been very skillful using buffers Godfather II style, but its hard to see how this call doesn't work its way back to him.  Documents don't end up in one's personal safe by accident.

And it is going to be very hard to pull off an intent defense given what is likely to be a record of correspondence with Archives and DOJ and given that there will likely be evidence that Trump was repeatedly informed of records rules while in office. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Never a good sign when the first line of defense is: the cops planted it. 

Although maybe that's a function of hiring a legal team based on their performance on cable news shows instead of a courtroom.

[Jacob]

Never a good sign when the first line of defense is: the cops planted it. 

Although maybe that's a function of hiring a legal team based on their performance on cable news shows instead of a courtroom.

Makes sense if Trump's best shot of beating potential charges are through winning elections.

[Admiral Yi]

The interviewee on NPR mentioned, in additon to Hillary, a precedent which I had forgotten about, Sandy Berger.  National Security advisor under Bubba.  He went to the National Archives and stuffed docs into his socks or underwear.  $50K fine, two years of probation, security clearance lost for two years.

[The Brain]

security clearance lost for two years.

[alfred russel]

Never a good sign when the first line of defense is: the cops planted it. 

Although maybe that's a function of hiring a legal team based on their performance on cable news shows instead of a courtroom.

Makes sense if Trump's best shot of beating potential charges are through winning elections.

Seems like he could make a good case that this is just a selective prosecution. It really highlights the genius of trump and his legal team: if you break all the laws, the prosecution of any one of them seems selective.