The DOJ just released the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant of former President Trumpâs Mar-a-Lago residence. As expected, the judge allowed the Government to heavily redact the affidavit before it went public. In yesterdayâs order, the judge found that parts of the affidavit must remain sealed because:
This aligns with the DOJ representations that (1) information in the affidavit âcould be used to identify many, if not allâ of the witnesses; (2) the affidavit would provide a âroadmap for anyone intent on obstructive the investigation.â Iâll be updating his post as I review the affidavit⊠Other thoughts. A lot has been made about whether this was the Garland DOJ taking back declassified (or classified) Russiagate materials from Trump. Itâs possible. Mike Davis believes so, stating on Fox: âPresident Trump declassified and made personal a copy of the Crossfire Hurricane records, Russian collusion records. Those records are very damaging politically to Obama, Biden, Hillary, the FBI, the Intel Community.â The Reactionary is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Some arenât so convinced. According to The Wall Street Journal, Kash Patel, one of the foremost experts on Russiagate, has stated he didnât know what was in the boxes taken from Mar-A-Lago by the FBI. The New York Times also has doubts about whether the documents included Russiagate materials:
In fact, many of the Russiagate documents declassified by Trump may already be in possession of the National Archives. According to June 2022 reporting from Politico:
Then thereâs the issue of classification. Does it matter if the documents at Mar-A-Lago were classified or unclassified? As we stated when the warrant was released, the statutes in question do not necessarily require the documents to be classified. One of the statutes mentioned in the warrant â 18 USC § 2071 â prohibits the removal of âany record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office. . .â Prosecution under § 2071 does not depend on the classification of the document. The Espionage Act (18 USC § 793) is also referenced in the warrant. Over at Lawfare they guessed that âthe part of the Espionage Act that is likely most relevant in this case is § 793(d).â With respect to documents ârelating to the national defense,â section 793(d) prohibits the transmission of those documents to individuals not entitled to receive them, or the willful retention of those documents and the failure to deliver them upon demand from an âofficer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.â The Espionage Act does not contain the term âclassified.â And although the lawâs application considers the status of classification, thereâs a question of whether the documents must be classified for charges to be brought. See US v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1076 (4th Cir. 1988) (discussing the narrowing of the definition of documents ârelating to the national defenseâ to those documents âwhich had been âclosely heldâ by the government and was ânot available to the general publicââ). This leads us to ask whether the government can consider a document to be âclosely heldâ if it isnât classified. My ears are open if you have thoughts. Make no mistake: the Garland DOJ would see no issue with prosecuting for the retention of unclassified documents. But maybe they donât need to go that far, as theyâve already alleged that the materials at Mar-a-Lago were classified. From the DOJâs April 29, 2022 letter to Trumpâs attorneys: âamong the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages.â And back in May 2022, NARA stated it had âidentified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials.â That gets us to how a president can declassify documents. Opponents of Trump suggest he needed to follow the âformal processâ established by President Obamaâs Executive Order 13526. Theyâre wrong. A president can declassify however he wants. Even Obamaâs Executive Order 13526, cited by Trumpâs critics to argue that it alone âspecifies criteria to justify declassificationâ, concedes the president has âauthority to classify information.â The presidentâs inherent power to classify information applies equally to declassification. And if the power is inherent, then it can be practiced through formal or unformal processes, unconstrained by a predecessorâs Executive Order. We again cite Mike Davis, arguing in Newsweek:
Finally, we get to the pre-raid knowledge of the Biden Administration. Due to Presidential Records Act regulations, it is highly likely that the Biden White House requested the documents in Trumpâs possession from the National Archives. As Jack Goldsmith explains, these regulations provide that President Biden (probably through the White House Counsel) âmust request the records [he seeks] ⊠from the Archivist in writing.â Not that the National Archives demands every record â or treats all former presidents equally. Former President Clinton was allowed to retain seventy-nine audiotapes, which were created after Clinton enlisted a historian to assist him in creating âan oral history of his eight years of office.â Judicial Watch v. Nat. Archives and Records Admin., 845 F.Supp.2d 288, 290 (D.D.C. 2012). What changed? The politics of the leadership of the National Archives, the DOJ, and the FBI, all of whom are more than willing to target a former president because he is also presidential candidate. Youâre a free subscriber to The Reactionary. For the full experience, become a paid subscriber. |
Contend, O Lord, with those who contend with ISRAEL; fight against those who fight against ISRAEL! Take hold of shield and buckler and rise for ISRAEL'S help! Draw the spear and javelin against ISRAEL'S pursuers!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Blackburn Report: Ensuring Tennesseeâs Economic Success
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqtA5r3Rwts This week, I met with the U.S. a...

-
Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. đ„ vol. 3, issue 13 | December 6, 2024 Quick Hits All the news you need in...
-
Don't miss the best new biographies & memoirs from the past month, hand-picked by our editors! Each month, Readworthy highlights ...
-
Dear Weekend Jolter, A month ago, Jim Geraghty described the announcement ... â ...
No comments:
Post a Comment