A Deeply Fractured US

[brihard]

A heavily redacted version of the affidavit has been released. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000182-daec-dfd1-adef-dafe79d30000

As expected and as appropriate, ongoing investigative efforts and Grand Jury matters are completely redacted.

The ugliest bit is the recounting of earlier efforts to get documents back. The tranche of documents that was handed over back in May included TS, and SCI material from the Special Intelligence (SI) and HUMINT Control System (HCS) categories, among others. Following this handover, it was determined that more material remained.

The mishandling, loss, or compromise of material within those control systems is pretty grievous. (Like, I blurted out “Jesus Christ” out loud when I read it). The affidavit also confirms that Mar-A-Lago had no space approved for storage of classified documents at least since the end of the former presidency.

It’s likely that quite a bit of investigation is ongoing, although an affidavit wouldn’t need to expound much at all on “what we’re doing next”.

This is, suffice to say, very bad for those who were involved in or responsible for the handling of any of this documentation. In the event that there is an indictment and prosecution, much more of this affidavit will end up released. That now seems increasingly likely.

 

[Blackadder1916]

The redacted warrant affidavit

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22267178/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-affidavit.pdf

and the Notice of Filing of Redacted Memorandum

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22267147/notice-of-filing-of-redacted-memorandum.pdf

 

[Brad Sallows]

This is, suffice to say, very bad for those who were involved in or responsible for the handling of any of this documentation.

Or investigators might not find clear evidence that anyone intended to violate laws, and conclude they were extremely careless.

 

[brihard]

Or investigators might not find clear evidence that anyone intended to violate laws, and conclude they were extremely careless.

Sure.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So much speculating without the presence of fact. Much like many MSM outlets. The difference between the two is that this thread is harmless. The MSM leaks, so far provided, are the same but damaging to both sides. Blatant speculation muddying the waters, on purpose mostly.

What do we know for sure.

• Mar A Lago was raided.
• a number of documents were boxed and taken into custody
• a warrant and affidavit existed, only government knows what's in them.
• garland says it was all him, biden says he was never informed.

There is probably more factual information out there. The point being, why argue hypotheticals? That's what politicians do.

 

[Kirkhill]

Or investigators might not find clear evidence that anyone intended to violate laws, and conclude they were extremely careless.

FBI director: Hillary Clinton ‘extremely careless’ but no charges recommended​

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-director-doesnt-recommend-charges-against-hillary-clinton

 

[Fishbone Jones]

A heavily redacted version of the affidavit has been released. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000182-daec-dfd1-adef-dafe79d30000

As expected and as appropriate, ongoing investigative efforts and Grand Jury matters are completely redacted.

The ugliest bit is the recounting of earlier efforts to get documents back. The tranche of documents that was handed over back in May included TS, and SCI material from the Special Intelligence (SI) and HUMINT Control System (HCS) categories, among others. Following this handover, it was determined that more material remained.

The mishandling, loss, or compromise of material within those control systems is pretty grievous. (Like, I blurted out “Jesus Christ” out loud when I read it). The affidavit also confirms that Mar-A-Lago had no space approved for storage of classified documents at least since the end of the former presidency.

It’s likely that quite a bit of investigation is ongoing, although an affidavit wouldn’t need to expound much at all on “what we’re doing next”.

This is, suffice to say, very bad for those who were involved in or responsible for the handling of any of this documentation. In the event that there is an indictment and prosecution, much more of this affidavit will end up released. That now seems increasingly likely.

Much like the FISA warrants and affidavits were factually true.

You're making like this is a done deal and the FBI & DOJ are above reproach.
I live under no delusions, when it comes to them. Until proven, whatever they wrote is suspect and cannot be assumed otherwise.

 

[brihard]

So much speculating without the presence of fact. Much like many MSM outlets. The difference between the two is that this thread is harmless. The MSM leaks, so far provided, are the same but damaging to both sides. Blatant speculation muddying the waters, on purpose mostly.

What do we know for sure.

• Mar A Lago was raided.
• a number of documents were boxed and taken into custody
• a warrant and affidavit existed, only government knows what's in them.
• garland says it was all him, biden says he was never informed.

There is probably more factual information out there. The point being, why argue hypotheticals? That's what politicians do.

I literally linked to the partially released affidavit which contains considerably more than just that in supporting the grounds for the search warrant. I’m not quoting media on the HUMINT and SIGINT SCI. I read the thing and it’s directly stated in a sworn affidavit. They also released their rationale for the original sealing, which was mostly (but not completey) unredacted, and which speaks to the ongoing investigation and the existence of many civilian witnesses plus grand jury proceedings. I read that too. That’s not speculation or MSM stories, it’s public court records as of noon today. Yes, much more remains to be seen. If an indictment results, much of what’s left redacted would then be unsealed. But don’t think for a second there isn’t much more hard info now public than you’re pretending is the case.

Much like the FISA warrants and affidavits were factually true.

You're making like this is a done deal and the FBI & DOJ are above reproach.
I live under no delusions, when it comes to them. Until proven, whatever they wrote is suspect and cannot be assumed otherwise.

Fine, normally I’d ignore the “FBI and DOJ are lying” hypothetical, but I’ll take the ‘until proven’ olive branch you’re offering and ask you this: in the event that indictments result from this and someone (doesn’t matter who) is eventually convicted, will you accept a court verdict of guilt as establishing the matter as “proven”?

I’m still not going to lay this at the feet of any one individual potential suspect. There are several ways this could have all gone down and multiple avenues that could either establish or vitiate criminal culpability. I will let investigators and prosecutors establish “who”, if that is in fact to end up happening.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Liking how the GOP's House Judiciary Committee info-machine played this one ...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1563195972204650497

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I literally linked to the partially released affidavit which contains considerably more than just that in supporting the grounds for the search warrant. I’m not quoting media on the HUMINT and SIGINT SCI. I read the thing and it’s directly stated in a sworn affidavit. They also released their rationale for the original sealing, which was mostly (but not completey) unredacted, and which speaks to the ongoing investigation and the existence of many civilian witnesses plus grand jury proceedings. I read that too. That’s not speculation or MSM stories, it’s public court records as of noon today. Yes, much more remains to be seen. If an indictment results, much of what’s left redacted would then be unsealed. But don’t think for a second there isn’t much more hard info now public than you’re pretending is the case.


Fine, normally I’d ignore the “FBI and DOJ are lying” hypothetical, but I’ll take the ‘until proven’ olive branch you’re offering and ask you this: in the event that indictments result from this and someone (doesn’t matter who) is eventually convicted, will you accept a court verdict of guilt as establishing the matter as “proven”?

I’m still not going to lay this at the feet of any one individual potential suspect. There are several ways this could have all gone down and multiple avenues that could either establish or vitiate criminal culpability. I will let investigators and prosecutors establish “who”, if that is in fact to end up happening.

Here's what I said about your first point. "There is probably more factual information out there."

I agree with your second point. It's what I've been saying all along. Nobody knows shit, except the prime mover, who isn't saying anything. So why muddy the waters with hearsay, rumor and flat out guessing based on nothing concrete?

There's polls all over the place, but generally, they are saying the US is split. Half say he's already guilty and want him hung the other half of the US doesn't trust the FBI, DOJ and the WH, believing this is just a continuation of Russia, Russia, Russia and the Get Trump movement. Will I accept the verdict? Not if it comes down like the democrat lawyer, Sussman, that was brought up on charges of lying to the FBI, last May. That should have been a slam dunk with the prosecution making their case. Overseen by an obama appointed judge whose pretrial instructions hamstrung the prosecution. The biased, partisan, Washington DC hard democrat jury found him not guilty in ten minutes. 90% of DC are hard democrat. You can't believe in a system with such a blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Michael Sussmann acquittal by ‘nightmare jury’ slammed by Republicans

“I’m shocked the DC Clinton donor jury let Clinton’s lawyer off…HAHAHA just kitting, absolutely no one is shocked,” tweeted former first son Donald Trump Jr.

nypost.com

Like I've said a couple of times. We'll just have to see how it shakes out when actual fact is presented.

 

[brihard]

Here's what I said about your first point. "There is probably more factual information out there."

I agree with your second point. It's what I've been saying all along. Nobody knows shit, except the prime mover, who isn't saying anything. So why muddy the waters with hearsay, rumor and flat out guessing based on nothing concrete?

There's polls all over the place, but generally, they are saying the US is split. Half say he's already guilty and want him hung the other half of the US doesn't trust the FBI, DOJ and the WH, believing this is just a continuation of Russia, Russia, Russia and the Get Trump movement. Will I accept the verdict? Not if it comes down like the democrat lawyer, Sussman, that was brought up on charges of lying to the FBI, last May. That should have been a slam dunk with the prosecution making their case. Overseen by an obama appointed judge whose pretrial instructions hamstrung the prosecution. The biased, partisan, Washington DC hard democrat jury found him not guilty in ten minutes. 90% of DC are hard democrat. You can't believe in a system with such a blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Michael Sussmann acquittal by ‘nightmare jury’ slammed by Republicans

“I’m shocked the DC Clinton donor jury let Clinton’s lawyer off…HAHAHA just kitting, absolutely no one is shocked,” tweeted former first son Donald Trump Jr.

nypost.com

Like I've said a couple of times. We'll just have to see how it shakes out when actual fact is presented.

You keep saying “nobody knows shit” when that’s demonstrably false. The products of investigation are laid out in black and white, albeit with some bonus black spilled over it for now. But grounds in a sworn/affirmed affidavit for a search warrant are not mere “hearsay, rumor and flat out guessing”. They’re “here are our reasonably founded beliefs based on all the following information.”

Your claim that this is mere rumours or speculation only stands if you dismiss the veracity of all the affidavit material. Now, you of course are perfectly entitled to hold the position that it’s fictitious, that investigators and prosecutors are blatantly lying, but you don’t get to impose that standard of belief on others.

In any case, thanks for at least being up front about the possibility (or, frankly, IMO, likelihood) that you won’t accept a guilty verdict if it happens anyway. I’m curious: do you concede the possibility that criminal offenses were committed in the taking and keeping of documents that were later recovered from Mar-A-Lago? Do you concede the possibility that a criminal offense of obstruction took place in the course of the investigation into same?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

When I say nobody knows shit, I'm speaking of people outside the investigation. The MSM, the majority of democrats or republicans, not the world and not you. But I'm sure you knew that.

I appreciate your legal input, but it's simply based on what you are reading and your unwavering belief in some severely damaged and some say rogue organizations, that they are telling the truth. You keep applying what you know about Canadian law and want it to fit the US model.

Nobody, outside the investigation knows what they took. Because a box says 10 classified docs, doesn't mean that is so. You are simply assuming it does because the FBI said so. You have already convicted Trump in your narratives.

There has been some legal back and forth about procedures and such, but really nothing about an actual investigation, what it entails or even the actual charges . Other than speculation, which is open to any number of interpretations, that's really all that's out there.

So yeah, generally and mostly, other than the investigators, nobody knows shit.

 

[brihard]

When I say nobody knows shit, I'm speaking of people outside the investigation. The MSM, the majority of democrats or republicans, not the world and not you. But I'm sure you knew that.

I appreciate your legal input, but it's simply based on what you are reading and your unwavering belief in some severely damaged and some say rogue organizations, that they are telling the truth. You keep applying what you know about Canadian law and want it to fit the US model.

Nobody, outside the investigation knows what they took. Because a box says 10 classified docs, doesn't mean that is so. You are simply assuming it does because the FBI said so. You have already convicted Trump in your narratives.

There has been some legal back and forth about procedures and such, but really nothing about an actual investigation, what it entails or even the actual charges . Other than speculation, which is open to any number of interpretations, that's really all that's out there.

So yeah, generally and mostly, other than the investigators, nobody knows shit.

Actually I read US law too. It’s a similar common law system, helpfully written in English. I also look for informed commentaries by those who practice within it, and I learn from them. It’s not exactly reading Lego instructions, but it’s not rocket science either. Most of the legal concepts are quite similar, some adaptation of terminology is needed and some procedures and processes work differently (Grand Juries jump out as one of the starkest examples). The concept of a sealed affidavit for a search warrant under US federal rules of criminal procedure is pretty analogous to a a sealed Information to Obtain a search warrant up here. Since I write those and also have education in legal research, I’m reasonably comfortable in taking the time to read up on and understand American criminal law and procedure, and to comment on the broad strokes. If of course I’ve posted any such descriptions that you believe are factually incorrect, I’m open to being called on that. So far you haven’t.

I haven’t convicted anybody in my mind. Do I think it’s very likely offences have been committed? Absolutely. Mishandling SCI is quite illegal, and even if declassified, it will almost certainly still constitute National Defense Information. So yes, I have no trouble accepting the strong probability that offences were committed. I won’t pretend to have any insight as to who committed them and have been at pains to make that clear repeatedly. Someone mishandled - badly mishandled - sensitive compartmented information. Who did so is up in the air, as is whether any indictments or, ultimately, criminal convictions will result.

I actually don’t even see the criminal investigation or potential prosecution as the biggest tent in this circus. They matter, certainly, but the larger national interest for America (and frankly beyond them, at least to Five Eyes) is the safeguarding and potential compromise of HUMINT and SIGINT. If preserving national security necessitates abandoning a criminal prosecution (I.e., prosecuting would require compromising the content of the defense information in question), I totally get and would be fine with that. Individual accountability must play second fiddle to preserving intelligence sources and methods and protecting other classified info. I suspect America’s Classified Information Procedures Act will protect their ability to prosecute, but time will tell. Generally the US criminal justice system handles classified information better than ours. With some good legal work, classification ought not be a barrier to prosecution if they get to the point of having an indictable suspect.

You ignored my two last questions so I’ll repeat them, lest they get lost in the static: do you concede the possibility that criminal offenses were committed in the taking and keeping of documents that were later recovered from Mar-A-Lago? Do you concede the possibility that a criminal offense of obstruction took place in the course of the investigation into same?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In any case, thanks for at least being up front about the possibility (or, frankly, IMO, likelihood) that you won’t accept a guilty verdict if it happens anyway. I’m curious: do you concede the possibility that criminal offenses were committed in the taking and keeping of documents that were later recovered from Mar-A-Lago? Do you concede the possibility that a criminal offense of obstruction took place in the course of the investigation into same?

Why wouldn't I be up front about it?

Nothing is impossible, but then again it might be highly improbable. I think, on the face of it, there is a possibility of wrong doing, but is it worse than clinton or obama's on the same subject? Don't forget Clinton wasn't charged because:

"In a statement to the media on Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey made public his recommendation that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton or others related to the former Secretary of State’s mishandling of classified information via email.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” said Comey. “No charges are appropriate in this case.”

Such a prosecution, said Comey, would be unprecedented, who said there was no evidence of “intentional and willful mishandling of classified information” or “disloyalty to the United States” from Clinton or her loyalists."

Comey Covers For Clinton: ‘No Charges Are Appropriate In This Case’

In a statement to the media on Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey made public his recommendation that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton or others related to the former Secretary of State’s mishandling of classified information via email. “Although there is evidence of potential...

www.dailywire.com

So, before they go after Trump for the same, they are going to have to prove its uniqueness to the court.

 

[KevinB]

When SI and HCS information is at someone’s house - you need to ask WTF.

That’s gone past ‘simple’ TS-SCI

 

[brihard]

Why wouldn't I be up front about it?

Nothing is impossible, but then again it might be highly improbable. I think, on the face of it, there is a possibility of wrong doing, but is it worse than clinton or obama's on the same subject? Don't forget Clinton wasn't charged because:

In a statement to the media on Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey made public his recommendation that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton or others related to the former Secretary of State’s mishandling of classified information via email.

Comey Covers For Clinton: ‘No Charges Are Appropriate In This Case’

In a statement to the media on Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey made public his recommendation that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton or others related to the former Secretary of State’s mishandling of classified information via email. “Although there is evidence of potential...

www.dailywire.com

So, before they go after Trump for the same, they are going to have to prove its uniqueness to the court.

I didn’t ask about “wrong doing”, and I certainly didn’t ask about Obama or Hillary, though you’re mistaken about what will have to be proven in court. So I put it to you again: do you concede the possibility of crime having been committed in the course of events that ultimately led to classified information, national defense information, or other government records being retrieved from Mar-A-Lago?

When SI and HCS information is at someone’s house - you need to ask WTF.

That’s gone past ‘simple’ TS-SCI

No kidding. If you or I had that in our house, the material would go in one police vehicle and your or I would go in the back of another, on our way to a lengthy stay in some lodgings with really shitty reviews on TripAdvisor. HCS especially is the holy grail.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

When SI and HCS information is at someone’s house - you need to ask WTF.

That’s gone past ‘simple’ TS-SCI

Was it though?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wrong doing / crime, Potato/ potato.

I answered the question.

"Nothing is impossible, but then again, it might be highly improbable. I think, on the face of it, there is a possibility of wrong doing,"

You're asking me to buy a pig in a poke. You want me to provide an answer based on loyalty, not legality. How do you concede to a situation where the facts aren't known. I know you'll say they are known and that's why I should answer, but unlike you, I have zero faith in the FBI or DOJ Upper levels. They are liars. I don't trust them. So no, I wont make judgements, based on their explanations, without being apprised of the absolute truth and so far I've seen nothing of the sort. Just like FBI & DOJ FISA warrants. We were expected to believe the fine upstanding FBI & DOJ, but they lied. Why should anyone trust them about this warrant?

Could Trump have made a mistake? Sure. He's human. Did he do it on purpose to harm the US? I think that is absurd.

 

[brihard]

Wrong doing / crime, Potato/ potato.

I answered the question.

"Nothing is impossible, but then again, it might be highly improbable. I think, on the face of it, there is a possibility of wrong doing,"

You're asking me to buy a pig in a poke. You want me to provide an answer based on loyalty, not legality. How do you concede to a situation where the facts aren't known. I know you'll say they are known and that's why I should answer, but unlike you, I have zero faith in the FBI or DOJ Upper levels. They are liars. I don't trust them. So no, I wont make judgements, based on their explanations, without being apprised of the absolute truth and so far I've seen nothing of the sort. Just like FBI & DOJ FISA warrants. We were expected to believe the fine upstanding FBI & DOJ, but they lied. Why should anyone trust them about this warrant?

Could Trump have made a mistake? Sure. He's human. Did he do it on purpose to harm the US? I think that is absurd.

No, I’m not asking you to commit to any position save for admitting a possibility, which I suppose you very grudgingly have. Nor am I asking you to ‘buy’ anything. I was simply trying to gauge whether you’re at all open to even the possibility that crimes were committed because that’s important to deciding how much these conversations are even worth it. There are some who cannot conceive that anyone in FPOTUS’ orbit can do any wrong, and those people are generally a complete waste of time to talk to.

I have not named Trump and I’m not speaking of him specifically. You don’t need to leap to his defense. He may or may not be directly implicated in whatever took place. It looks like some people in his circle certainly are.

None of the named offences from the warrant require that anyone acted intentionally to harm the US. One is a straight obstruction offense which only requires obstructing an investigation; one is willful mishandling of defence information that could be harmful to the US or advantageous to an adversary, and one is a more general mishandling or concealment of government records. There is no necessity to prove any intent to cause harm to the country, and I’ve seen no credible accusations of that (lots of wild speculation of course).

 

[RangerRay]

David French is a conservative evangelical lawyer, who has successfully litigated against speech codes at colleges and universities and served as a US Army JAG in Iraq. He has read the redacted affidavit. According to his analysis, the DOJ had no other options but to seek a search warrant, and the former president has only himself to blame for the mess he’s in.

What the Search-Warrant Affidavit Tells Us

The former president was not giving up top-secret national-security documents. DOJ had no choice but to act. Trump has only himself to blame.

www.theatlantic.com