Archives 101: The best place to store stolen highly classified federal records is under a rusty pipe that could flood the area.
Archivists at NARA probably thinking, "Why do we have to do this again?" Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Presidential Records and the Presidential Records Act https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2023/nr23-016
If you've actually read the indictment and seen the evidence, his indictment isn't based on a weaponized DOJ. It is based only on following the rule of law.
Trump indictment unsealed – a criminal law scholar explains what the charges mean, and what prosecutors will now need to prove https://theconversation.com/trump-i...hat-prosecutors-will-now-need-to-prove-207469 excerpt: What’s the significance of the many felony counts facing Trump? Under the sentencing guidelines, which are usually followed, conviction on all counts could likely lead to a relatively short sentence or to no incarceration at all. However, it is important to note that in theory, Trump could be sentenced to the maximum on each count. The sentence on all counts could be made to run consecutively, which would lead to a sentence in the neighborhood of 400 years. . . . more at the link
...with what's been going on with some "child labor" laws recently... ...I don't think they want their base to make it out of grammar school...
Factual, non-partisan, non-bias. United States of America v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta - Lawfare (lawfareblog.com) The indictment of former President Donald J. Trump that was unsealed today by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida represents a beginning in several distinct senses. It is, at one level, the beginning of a single criminal proceeding: an indictment which alleges discrete crimes against two individuals, one of whom happens to have served as President of the United States. It is also, however, the beginning of the broader effort to use federal criminal law as a vehicle of accountability for Trump’s behavior—both in office and following his departure from office. It is, after all, the first federal criminal case against Trump—against whom prior criminal investigations have come up short and other federal and state criminal investigations remain ongoing. And it is, at the same time, the beginning of new era in American political life, one in which federal prosecutions of former presidents are—fortunately or unfortunately, as Trump might say—no longer either unthinkable or an eventuality to be avoided, either by prudential exercises of prosecutorial discretion (as in the case of Bill Clinton) or by preemptive exercises of the presidential power of clemency (as in the case of Richard Nixon). If this case goes to trial, it will force Americans to think about these questions and others too. It will require the delicate handling of large volumes of classified material before a jury. It will raise questions about the limits of one of the most sacrosanct principles in our legal system, attorney-client privilege. It will push the ability of the criminal justice system to try a man while he seeks the very presidency whose prerogative of control over classified information he is accused of violating. And it will test Americans’ faith that a Justice Department under the control of one party can impartially and fairly try a former president of the other party even as he seeks to regain the presidency. All of that is, and no doubt more, is coming in this case—which may, to complicate matters still further, not be the last indictment of Trump. The Jan. 6 investigation, after all, remains ongoing with an active grand jury apparently looking—among other things—at the conduct of the former president. The district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia has all but announced that she plans to seek charges this summer. And the criminal case brought by the New York district attorney is churning along toward a trial date currently scheduled for March of next year. But for now, all of these questions remain in the future. Before us in the present is a 49-page document docketed as 23-cr-80101 in the Southern District of Florida, conspicuously captioned: United States of America v. Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta. Pause a minute over that caption. The United States of America is seeking justice against Donald Trump. The executive branch of the government of the country is accusing its most recent former leader of crimes that put our national security at risk. That is a very big deal. ... What Happens Next? One issue to watch for in the litigation is how the government tries to prove the 31 counts of retaining national defense information. There are two main ways the government could try to do that, though both are fraught. The way this is often done in Espionage Act prosecutions is by using something known as the “silent witness rule.” An alternative to that approach would be for the government to seek permission from all the relevant intelligence community stake-holders to declassify these 31 documents on the theory that the public interest now outweighs the risk that their exposure would expose to national security. Both approaches, which we will explore in the coming days, are potentially fraught, and it’s likely that a great deal of thought on the part of the special counsel’s office went into the selection of the 31 documents in question for exactly this reason. The first step will be the arraignment on Tuesday. A key next question is whether other indictments will follow, either in Washington or, less likely, in New Jersey—where the conduct at Bedminster took place. Next will come, presumably, motions to dismiss and a lot of discovery disputes and litigation under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). The CIPA litigation will tend to drag out. Other cases heavy with classified material have often required interlocutory appeals on CIPA matters, so don’t expect this case to go to trial quickly. That said, having these allegations on the record, having the special counsel put down on paper and in public that which the government contends it can prove about Trump’s behavior beyond a reasonable doubt using admissible evidence is a breakthrough. No longer is Trump the subject of endless federal investigation that never results in any charge. He is now indicted, and for unquestionably serious crimes for which others have served significant time in prison. It is a moment of genuine accountability.
I respect Lawfare and read it regularly--but I think it is naive to assume that Lawfare (and its authors) is "non-partisan" and "non-biased." here is a counter-assessment from an admittedly conservative lawyer: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/six-theses-on-the-trump-indictment.php 2 hours ago Six theses on the Trump indictment by Scott Johnson (Scott Johnson) NRO has posted the federal indictment of President Trump and his aide Walt Nauta here (via Ryan Mills and Caroline Downey’s report here. I thought I would postulate six theses on the indictment in lieu of legal analysis of the various counts and possible defenses. Mills and Downey summarize the charges: “According to the 49-page document, Trump is being charged with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information, and one count each of conspiracy to obstruct justice, withholding a document or record, corruptly concealing a document or record, concealing a document in a federal investigation, scheme to conceal, and making false statements and representations.” I have a preliminary set of six theses on the indictment. Much as I would like to avoid the brain-deadening platitudes that preclude or replace analysis, I find it difficult at this point. I can only say I will not double down on clichés. I will avoid the use of the terms “weaponize” and “banana republic.” However, difficulties remain. Without further ado (see what I mean?), here are my six theses in bullet points (forgive me if I have mangled Roman history). • Krazy-Eyes Killa Jack Smith announced the unsealing of the charges against Trump. “We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone,” he said. “Applying those laws, collecting facts, that’s what determines the outcome of an investigation, nothing more, and nothing less.” You have got to be kidding me. We weren’t born yesterday. • The appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel all by itself demonstrates the…ah, the special treatment Trump has been accorded by the Biden administration and its friends in the Deep State. There is no warrant for a Special Counsel or applicable Department of Justice policy. Smith’s appointment is intended to create the illusion of independence for political purposes. Smith is nevertheless Biden’s subordinate, subject to Biden’s authority, just as Garland is. Hunter Biden — he is the guy who requires a Special Counsel under Department of Justice policy. • Many commentators have referred to the indictment of Trump as “crossing the Rubicon” — the moment in 49 B.C. when Julius Caesar passed the point of no return with his army and essentially initiated the civil war. His triumph led to his being named dictator for life. Smith might as well have announced “the die is cast” (“alea iacta est” or “iacta alea est”) rather than the farcically inapt cliché regarding equal treatment under the law. This crossing of the Rubicon is an act of willful political destruction as well. At least if Biden is declared dictator for life in his second term, the prospect is foreshortened — but please do keep the Twenty-Firth Amendment in place. • Augustus subsequently ended the Roman republic with the initiation of his autocratic principate in 27 B.C. In the list of his accomplishments he bragged: “I restored peace to the provinces.” Biden has something like that in mind for us in his second term. • The indictment places Trump in substantial legal jeopardy — just as something like it would have done to Hillary Clinton, or Biden himself. See, for example, Andrew McCarthy’s NRO column “Why Trump’s ‘Witch Hunt’ Cries Ring Hollow in Face of DOJ Indictment” and the NRO editorial “The Trump indictment is damning.” • Smith’s indictment reflects both Biden’s desire to run for reelection against Trump and the insuperable difficulties Trump’s candidacy poses for the Republican Party. When it comes to Trump’s accusation of “election-interference,” Trump is right in more ways than one.
no one is 100% "non-partisan" or "non-biased", but if there is someone deserving of that label, it's them Lawfare Blog – Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com) Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH Country: USA Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY Although Lawfare is known for its straight factual reporting, they also produce editorial content that frequently discusses former President Trump’s legal issues and policy that may not be constitutional. This reporting is always evidence-based. In general, Lawfare is factual and utilizes minimal personal bias as they do not take sides. They report on the law and how it impacts national security.
here is another thing to read, again, from a very conservative writer. But he is a lawyer, teaches legal ethics, and is fairly intelligent on many issues. Partisan, but almost always thoughtful. I agree with him probably less than 40 percent of the time, but he is still well worth reading. https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/06/09/friday-finale-the-trump-indictment-trolls-and-turley/ Friday Finale: The Trump Indictment, Trolls, And Turley JUNE 9, 2023 / JACK MARSHALL 1. I banned a troll today. The relatively new commenter kept pretending not to understand my point introducing the Open Forum, which was that for the Biden Administration’s now indisputably partisan and politicized Justice Department to indict its Democratic President’s chief rival for essentially the same conduct that Biden engaged in was “throwing jet fuel” on what is already a highly combustible political division in the country, and thus reckless and irresponsible. The now-banned commenter kept pointing to technical distinctions and differences in details between Biden’s misappropriation of classified documents and Trump’s, which misses the ethics point, either deliberately (trolling) or stupidly. What much of the public sees is a party and a White House using the justice system to try to knock out a feared political opponent (which it has been trying to do for years) and applying a double standard to do it. (The rest of the public doesn’t care if that is all true; its ethics alarms-free position is that Trump deserves whatever happens to him, and is an exception to usual rules of due process, fairness, and the presumption of innocence.) Whether or not the charges against Trump are legitimate—and based on the indictment released today, they look strong—doesn’t matter. Democrats have destroyed any opportunity they may have had once to be seen as capable of dispensing non-partisan justice. The non-Trump Deranged public has already seen two manufactured impeachments and one political prosecution of the ex-President in New York; it has also seen an outrageous persecution of the January 6 Capitol rioters. “Throwing jet fuel” on a dangerously volatile situation is what this is, and pursuing a prosecution of Donald Trump was not worth the risk. The indictment will lead to almost certain escalation of substantial distrust in the government, Democrats and the Justice Department regarding their pursuit of Donald Trump, particularly after the revelations of the Durham Report. 2. Mike Pence’s fatuous reaction that “no one is above the law”shows (again) what an empty suit he is. Everyone can see that Democrats are routinely above the law. Bill Clinton lied and obstructed the investigation into his tryst with Monica Lewinsky. He committed perjury before a grand jury (Clinton’s spin: “I wasn’t helpful.”) Hillary Clinton deliberately used a secret server to illicitly handle classified communications and lied about it repeatedly. Bill Clinton had a mysterious meeting with Obama’s Attorney General while the handling of Hillary’s machinations was still pending. Who believes that Biden’s Justice Department looked into Joe’s wrongful retention of sensitive documents to the same degree they did they looked for violations by Trump? My guess is that misappropriation of classified documents by exiting POTUSes is common, even routine, which is probably why Trump assumed it was no big deal. (He really does have a flat learning curve. He needs to be beyond reproach, because he is being hunted.) 3. Before the indictment was available, Jonathan Turley wrote a post about several aspects of the case. He wrote, “There are legitimate questions about the independence and integrity shown by the Department in past investigations from the Russian collusion allegations to the Hunter Biden scandal. The Justice Department cannot ignore those widespread concerns in these cases.” But they did ignore it. That was my point that the troll refused to acknowledge. “While Biden’s account seems implausible on some points, the Justice Department could distinguish the cases as a matter of intentional versus negligent conduct.” Which they obviously did, perhaps legitimately. However, it has long since lost any credibility. “The inclusion of mishandling charges is likely a concern for the Biden legal team. After all, Biden is accused of repeatedly moving classified material to different locations, including his garage. Some documents have reportedly been traced to removal from a secure location while Biden was still a senator over a decade ago.” Turley then writes, “f the charges are crafted to avoid those crimes, there will be a concern over prosecutors seeking to nail President Trump but miss President Biden.” [*]Of course! I shouldn’t have to write this again, but I will: I will be thrilled at almost anything that removes Donald Trump from contention for the Republican nomination. He is human jet fuel on our increasingly explosive national divisions. However, the Democratic Party’s criminalization of politics and its corruption of law enforcement and the Justice Department to achieve that end is just as certain to result in disaster for the nation as Trump’s continued influence.
