Here I googled "what statute makes it illegal to possess top secret information"
Welcome to America
- Thread starter Leader of the Banned
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
- Status
DOJ Case:
Trump had government documents (regardless of classified status) that he was not authorized to possess – Trump has admitted he had the documents multiple times - Documented
Trump was formally, legally, requested to return the documents – he refused, repeatedly – Documented
DOJ recovered these documents from Trump’s night club – Documented
He has been ordered, by the court, to show cause why he had reason to possess them- he has not complied.
______
Trump’s defense:
(1) I declassified them – doesn’t provide any proof – but, it doesn’t matter, possession of the documents is a crime
(2) I didn’t know they were there – he has admitted ordering them taken: some of them were found in his desk
(3) FBI planted them – he has been asked by the special master to provide proof – he has not complied
Let's say that Trump performed the "voodoo declassification" successfully, just to sooth your soul. He did it before Jan. 20, while he was still president*. He did it mentally, since there seems to be no documentation of it. That still doesn't mean he owns those documents. In very simple terms, he Stole those documents. Since he has admitted to having the documents, and his lawyer signed the inventory letter at the Search, admitting to having the documents, at the very least, he is guilty of Theft. This is documented.
At the very least, the DOJ has documented proof of simple Theft, regardless of the "classified documents statute". The severity of the punishment for this Theft will be determined by the severity of the damage done, to national security, by the Theft. That is being assessed right now.
By requesting the Special Master, he is claiming all or part of these documents to be owned by him. He has been ordered by the court to present just cause why he should have possession of all, or some, of the documents. He has not yet complied with that order. If he does not provide his "defense", I suppose the Special Master will have no choice but to throw his case (that he owns the documents) out. Again, then he will be guilty of Theft, and all the documents retrieved by the Search, can be used as evidence of the Theft, and the severity of the Theft.
This is just my analysis of the case. I hope it has been helpful to you. When you go back and read the vast array of posts, on this thread, isn't it rather obvious who has been defending Trump, and presuming his innocence in this investigation? The people that are saying he has a right to own those documents, and a right to store those documents in his night club, are the people who are condoning espionage.
To your first paragraph, how did you make the jump from he had the documents to he stole the documents? If thats was even remotely the case he would be charged with theft. You are making leaps that don't seem to be there
To say the DOJ has proven theft is a leap unless you know something that isn't public knowledge yet.
I understand your moral point but they are pursuing him legally which involves a different standard. I have already clearly stated that I think he should not have had any documents that he should have had.
To your last paragraph, we are all presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty in America, I, personally, do not know if he had the right to have this stuff or not but to say someone like me is 'condoning espionage' because we don't know if he broke the law is silly. I have clearly stated that if he broke the law he should be punished accordingly.
I didn't know that was the standard, if that was the case Trump was phenomenal because he's had the left on tilt your years, the TDS is rampant
To your first point, the Special Master was requested, by Trump, to prove that he had the right to own the docs. That is precisely what the SM ordered Trump to do: put up your argument as to why you have just cause to own the documents. Otherwise, it is Theft. I'm not sure I can make it more clear to you than that. Just because he "declassifed" the docs (your premise) does not make the leap that he owns them. (Doesn't it seem logical that the DHS would still need them to be safe and secure?)
As to your last point, this is my analysis on an online message board. Of course, the matter will be decided in the courts. But on this message board, considering the preponderance of documented evidence, people who still persist to label this a "political stunt" and claim the Search was a "pre-dawn raid" and claim it is his right to store sensitive documents in a night club are condoning espionage. Again, only in the morality of an online discussion, not in a legal sense.
Last edited:
I want to thank Lou for pushing me to refrain from emotional response, and to employ determined logic to understanding this case. I really love logic. I think I have a really good grasp of this case now.
- Status