US v. Trump - Espionage Act - (9:23-cr-80101) District Court, S.D. Florida

[RTH10260]

To confirm/clarify, the order requires the lawyers to contact DOJ and begin the process, but does not tie the government's hands and say 'You *must* grant these guys a security clearance no matter what,' right? i.e., if the investigating bodies find something hinkey, they *can* say 'Um, no', yes?

I guess the lawyers need to climb down into their basement, check the closet and start counting the skeletons

[p0rtia]

Per request by Orlylicious, I changed the author of his original (first) post in this thread, which now shows that it was written by p0rtia. I always wanted to change the poster on a post, can you even imagine the utter havoc I could cause by mixing up posts and the people who wrote them?

Ah, but I have sworn to use my awesome secret superpowers only for good. Which may have been a mistake, but whatever ...

So I just noticed this. Sounds like you had fun making the change, and I'm all for fun! But, may I ask, out of curiosity, why? I be clueless how I got involved.

[Reality Check]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1669 ... 40096.html

Concise and very sharable.

[Foggy]

Off Topic

I be clueless how I got involved.

Gotta ask Orlylicious, probably you had the idea for a thread on the criminal charges.

[p0rtia]

Off Topic

I be clueless how I got involved.

Gotta ask Orlylicious, probably you had the idea for a thread on the criminal charges.

I don't think so.

[Foggy]

Off Topic

Yeah, I'm stumped too also. That's okay, good thread.

[p0rtia]

Off Topic

Yeah, I'm stumped too also. That's okay, good thread.

[Luke]

That's what it was, p0rtia... You made the original Jack Smith topic. Since Jack still has the J6 charging decision to make, I thought a dedicated Espionage Act topic would be helpful. But I didn't want you to think I was ninjaing your original topic, so asked Foggy to give you credit. Because you're awesome. It's fine with me if you want it changed back, we're a team and I didn't want you to think I was being rude starting it.

[Foggy]

Ah, I understand now. Usually these things happen because someone says "we oughta start a new thread" and then someone else does, or something like that. Anyway, I was super careful about changing the name of the person who started the thread, and I deleted where Orlylicious asked me to do it. So no harm done, and p0rtia did start the Jack Smith thread (or whoever he is).

[raison de arizona]

DOJ seeks protective order to prevent Trump from releasing classified materials amid ongoing investigation

The Justice Department on Friday filed a motion seeking to block former President Trump from releasing any classified materials that will be shared with his legal team during his prosecution for the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago, noting that some are still being used in the course of their investigation.

The documents “include information pertaining to ongoing investigations” which could be used to further cases against uncharged individuals, the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote.

The suggested protective order, which will be reviewed by Judge Bruce Reinhart, would allow Trump to review the 31 documents the DOJ is using in the case only while in the presence of his attorneys.

“Defendants shall only have access to Discovery Materials under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel’s staff. Defendants shall not retain copies of Discovery Material. Defendants may take notes regarding Discovery Materials, but such notes shall be stored securely by Defense Counsel,” the DOJ wrote.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... materials/

[RVInit]

I keep hearing pundits discussing various scenarios for a resolution that involves Trump essentially promising not to run for office. Is there any way at all that such a deal could even be enforced?

[Foggy]

Okay, that's weird (and highly unlikely, that really would make the case political).

I feel like, who gives a crap whether he campaigns? Let him do his worst.

[Slim Cognito]

I can't believe anyone is seriously discussing that option. First of all, Trump would never accept it. But if it was offered it would be his proof of a witch hunt, and that's exactly what it would look like.

[RTH10260]

I keep hearing pundits discussing various scenarios for a resolution that involves Trump essentially promising not to run for office. Is there any way at all that such a deal could even be enforced?

I guess it's a tricky question cause it would give rise to the claim of a "political witch hunt". I wonder if DJTs lawyers could convince him of making a plea bargain, cause it is in itself already a admission of guilt. The DOJ would have to convince the judge to order a condition of not running for any public office (not specifically potus), now or in the future (collides of course with the 2024 election run).

The defendant would have to admit to accept the wording of the 14th Amendment, part of which states, altough this does not technically hold for the office of potus:

The Fourteenth Amendment is better known for protecting civil rights. It grants citizenship to all people born in the United States, guarantees equal protection of privileges and immunities of citizens, and requires due process of law. But the events of January 6th brought the disqualification clause into the spotlight.

What Is the Disqualification Clause?

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3:​

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

from https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion15.html

[Dave from down under]

After espionage
Charge him with insurrection for j6 etc

Then along with Jail there will be the 14A

[Maybenaut]

Okay, that's weird (and highly unlikely, that really would make the case political).

I feel like, who gives a crap whether he campaigns? Let him do his worst.

I agree. It really would prove all along that this is just a witch hunt.

I do worry about him “doing his worst,” though. Every time I think we’ve scraped the bottom of that barrel, it turns out there’s more barrel there.

[pipistrelle]

Okay, that's weird (and highly unlikely, that really would make the case political).

I feel like, who gives a crap whether he campaigns? Let him do his worst.

I agree. It really would prove all along that this is just a witch hunt.

I do worry about him “doing his worst,” though. Every time I think we’ve scraped the bottom of that barrel, it turns out there’s more barrel there.

One shudders to think what's lower than Jeff Clark as acting AG.

[June bug]

Jeff Clark as Senate-confirmed AG in a second Trump administration.

[raison de arizona]

I don’t want his punishment to be not running for office anymore. I want his punishment to be jail.

[bob]

I keep hearing pundits discussing various scenarios for a resolution that involves Trump essentially promising not to run for office. Is there any way at all that such a deal could even be enforced?

In theory, that could be a condition in the plea agreement, and the government could rescind the plea agreement if he ran. (Ob. "run" would have contractually defined, e.g., file candidacy papers.)

But the problem there would be he likely would argue such a condition is unconstitutional, unconscionable, unenforceable, etc. And its validity would be litigated.

And, more basically, I don't believe the DOJ would seek such an agreement; it is punditry removed from the real world.

[chancery]

Bob is, of course, completely correct about the constitutional issues arising from such a plea agreement. And putting aside Trump's rights, and the "witch hunt" issue, I imagine that there would be numerous serious issues with respect to the right of a party to nominate whoever they want, and the right of voters to vote for whoever they want.

When (and if) Trump is indicted for the events of January 6, the situation might be different, because of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and VicePresident, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

However, Section 3 is full of unresolved interpretive problems, including whether it applies to the presidency. See this fascinating short discussion from the excellent Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product ... B/LSB10569

There do appear to be reasonable grounds for barring Trump from the presidency if he pled guilty to insurrection under 18 U.S.C. § 2383 or treason under 18 U.S.C. § 2381, which arguably implement Section 3, but the current Supreme Court is fully capable of finding some penumbra or other that would defeat the purpose of Section 3.

Also, too, Trump wouldn't plead guilty to those offenses. And any federal conviction would be subject to the pardon power whenever there's a Republican in office. So not a particularly useful subject for discussion, IMO.

[RVInit]

I would hope the DOJ would never consider such a thing. I don’t believe he would abide by any agreement no matter what. I want a trial and conviction.

[RTH10260]

May be a bit of a stretch, but re Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

Next to the VP, all other potential successors to the US presidency are members of Congress. These persons are required to be pure of legal evil as per section 3. One could argue that POTUS and VP ought to follow the same standards.

[Sam the Centipede]

And any federal conviction would be subject to the pardon power whenever there's a Republican in office.

Accepting your caveat that this is not a useful discussion … but also not creating about utility:

A pardon does not remove the fact of the earlier conviction, it might reset the record for many purposes as if the conviction had not occurred … but it did.

So the argument about the power of the pardon could be amusing

But that would be many links down a long chain of impossibilities, improbabilities and implausibilities.

[p0rtia]

Harry Litman goes over sentencing guidelines for the crimes TFG is charged with. I thought this was good stuff for us IANALs.