§2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any 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, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
I've bold underlined the interesting bit.
A few caveats here. First, we don't know for sure what the substance of the warrant was. We just have a lot of internet rumors that it relates to official, potentially classified documents. Second, we don't know for sure Donald Trump is the criminal in this case. Warrants have to specify where criminal evidence can be found, not who the suspected criminal is. Third, even assuming the first two points are in the direction we're all apparently thinking, federal trials can take a while and might not be resolved by November 2024.
Various news outlets are confirming the FBI was looking for missing documents that should have been returned to the National Archives. I am hoping Trump will release the receipt the FBI is required to give him detailing what they seized. It would be a great tell.
The one thing I would point out, though, is under American common law, possession is nine tenths of the laws. If missing documents are found on Trump property, he has a lot of explaining to do.
BTW, assuming the FBI Director would have signed off on the raid, the current Director is a Trump appointee. you can say Trump created his own monster.
The warrant is apparently sealed, as reporters would have said by now what's in it if it weren't. But as the property owner of the residence searched, Trump has a copy -- if it pointed toward someone else being the criminal, he'd have released it, or at least said something.
The warrant is apparently sealed, as reporters would have said by now what's in it if it weren't. But as the property owner of the residence searched, Trump has a copy -- if it pointed toward someone else being the criminal, he'd have released it, or at least said something.
Search warrants typically don't specify a person as being a criminal suspect. They just specify the premises to be searched and the things to be searched for. (This is something I can verify from personal experience.) The fact that this is Donald Trump's residence is suggestive but not dispositive. Mar-A-Lago is also a paid membership club with a lot of people coming and going. Of course, Trump did us the favor of verifying that the FBI searched his safe, so that's indicative.
The warrant is apparently sealed, as reporters would have said by now what's in it if it weren't. But as the property owner of the residence searched, Trump has a copy -- if it pointed toward someone else being the criminal, he'd have released it, or at least said something.
My hope is that he will follow his usual form and be unable to refrain from broadcasting to the world all the most outrageous (to him!) bits of the warrant.
The one thing I would point out, though, is under American common law, possession is nine tenths of the laws. If missing documents are found on Trump property, he has a lot of explaining to do.
There is no such thing as “American common law.” There is the common law of the various states and federal common law.
And “possession is nine-tenths of the law” is an axiom of civil law, meaning that if there is a dispute over personal property (as opposed to real property) ownership, there is a presumption that the one who possesses it owns it.
The idea behind “possession is nine-tenths of the law” has absolutely applicability to criminal law.
Ack!! Yes, thank you for catching that critical mistake on my part.
The idea behind “possession is nine-tenths of the law” has absolutely no applicability to criminal law.
Once my father was hunting pheasants. He came across a hen that had been shot and killed. He was carrying it out the field when he was stopped by a game warden. He explained he did not shoot it but found it, to which the game warden told him "possession is nine tenths of the law." He got a ticket which was upheld in court and he paid the fine. This was for a misdemeanor, though
But too your point that it is about possession. If Trump indeed has material that should have been returned to the National Achieves, this could be part of a civil issue, no?
“Possession is nine-tenths of the law”—which is really more of a short-hand expression, not a legal term of art—is about presuming and establishing ownership. That game warden used the phrase in a context where it didn’t necessarily apply, to mean “if you have it I assume you shot it.” In other words, he seems to have used it in a colloquial, one-of-those-things-people-say, sense, perhaps without understanding what it actually means. What a proper use of the phrase in that context would mean is “you have it, so I presume you own it.”
With regard to Trump possibly having materials that should be at the National Archives, there is no question of ownership. The law is quite clear that the United States government owns those documents. Assuming government documents were taken in the search yesterday, the question is likely whether Trump personally had possession of those documents, or whether someone else at Mar-a-Lago did. And that’s a question that would be proven by evidence regarding exactly where at Mar-a-Lago they were found, who had access to that particular place, who controlled that particular place, etc.
Whether the National Archive could sue for return of the documents would turn on the precise language of relevant federal law. But even if they could, “possession is nine-tenths of the law” would be irrelevant, because that’s an axiom about identifying the presumptive rightful owner. Again, there’s no reason to makes presumptions about the rightful owner here, because the law clearly answers that question.
With regard to Trump possibly having materials that should be at the National Archives, there is no question of ownership. The law is quite clear that the United States government owns those documents. Assuming government documents were taken in the search yesterday, the question is likely whether Trump personally had possession of those documents, or whether someone else at Mar-a-Lago did. And that’s a question that would be proven by evidence regarding exactly where at Mar-a-Lago they were found, who had access to that particular place, who controlled that particular place, etc.
There is also the question of whether any of the documents allegedly seized were classified. Removal and retention of classified information was what David Petraeus was convicted of, after all.
In other news, the Federal Appeals Court of Washington DC has upheld a lower district court's ruling that Trump has to turn his tax records over to the House Ways and Means Committee. Trump may try to appeal to the Supreme Court. I would say it would likely refuse to hear it because the two previous courts have made similar rulings
In other news, the Federal Appeals Court of Washington DC has upheld a lower district court's ruling that Trump has to turn his tax records over to the House Ways and Means Committee. Trump may try to appeal to the Supreme Court. I would say it would likely refuse to hear it because the two previous courts have made similar rulings
Maybe. But with this supreme court, who knows? On the other hand the symbiosis of Trump and the extreme Justices is fading as they no longer need him. I suspect they can still be relied on for political decisions that favour the GOP though.
In other news, the Federal Appeals Court of Washington DC has upheld a lower district court's ruling that Trump has to turn his tax records over to the House Ways and Means Committee. Trump may try to appeal to the Supreme Court. I would say it would likely refuse to hear it because the two previous courts have made similar rulings
Maybe. But with this supreme court, who knows? On the other hand the symbiosis of Trump and the extreme Justices is fading as they no longer need him. I suspect they can still be relied on for political decisions that favour the GOP though.
AFZ
Probably the best we can hope for is that they see Trump as more of a hindrance than a help to their long term goals.
IIRC, Al Capone was finally brought to justice through being convicted of tax evasion...
Yes, tax evasion that was intimately connected to Capone's many criminal enterprises and was massive and egregious enough to legitimately earn him a multi-year prison sentence on its own terms.
Donald Trump has pled the fifth in his deposition. In a criminal trial the court is barred from drawing "adverse inferences" (e.g. he's a crook) from a witness invoking their fifth amendment protections against self-incrimination. In a civil proceeding (such as this one) such adverse inferences are allowed.
I read the message with joy until I realised that being deposed is US legal-speak for having ones deposition taken rather than being tipped the black spot, which he richly deserves.
Q: So when did the DOJ start treating removal of classified documents like a felony anyway?
A: When President Trump signed a 2018 law making it a felony.
This seems to be a case of getting high on your own supply. Making removal of classified documents a felony (as opposed to the misdemeanor it was previously) was an outgrowth of Republican (and Trump's) obsession with Hillary Clinton's emails. They apparently go so worked up they forgot is was an outrage they ginned up to run the rubes and started believing this was a serious issue (and that passing this law would let them "lock her up"). At some point the line between con man and mark gets blurry.
Q: So when did the DOJ start treating removal of classified documents like a felony anyway?
A: When President Trump signed a 2018 law making it a felony.
Hoist with his own petard. (Or by his own petard?) I've never been quite sure.
Thanks Stetson. My mother had a habit of quoting bits of Shakespeare, that she picked up from her mother ,so I'm never quite sure whether I have them right.
Garland just announced his Department will release the search warrant, the law the warrant is based on and a copy of the receipt, pending approval by the court.
About four minutes at the podium, which counts as positively verbose for Merrick Garland discussing an ongoing investigation. The main points, as I see them:
The DoJ has requested that the search warrant and property receipt for the recent search of Mar-A-Lago be unsealed.
The DoJ is applying the law fairly, without "fear or favor".
No further details of the basis of the search will be forthcoming at this time.
Garland himself personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant.
Attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and federal prosecutors are unfounded.
As far as point 1 goes, if the rumors are true I'm expecting a lot of documents described with the word "redacted".
For those who are interested, the motion by the Department of Justice to unseal the search warrant and redacted property receipt can be found here [PDF]. It's five pages long and pretty straightforward in its arguments.
The Washington Post is reporting that "Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation." Read the article here, no account required: https://wapo.st/3vZbnxT
There are a lot of things presidents can declassify on their own. Documents concerning nuclear weapons are not among them. Just having this stuff is a violation of the Espionage Act. And one doubts Trump took it to Mar-a-Lago as mementos of his time in office.
And one doubts Trump took it to Mar-a-Lago as mementos of his time in office.
One also wonders precisely who selected and packaged all umpteen boxes of this top-secret crap these classified documents up for transport to Mar-a-Lago. It seems unlikely that Massa performed this task personally; isn't that what his minions exist for?
Indeed, one wonders (given Massa's apparently rudimentary linguistic skills -- see his speeches) if Massa even knew exactly what he'd somehow! inadvertently! -- whoopsy-daisy! transported to his personal residence. Is Steven Miller (or whoever) so enamored of some future vision of an ignorant, ice-white, English-only, barely literate, presumably manipulatable mob populace he/she/they is/are willing to sacrifice personal life and liberty to that vision?
Historically, similar efforts have not ended well for anyone concerned, including the plotters.
Trump is now saying he wants the warrant and the receipt released. He will not oppose it. Okay, great; but, Mr. Trump, you can release the documents yourself. No one is stopping you.
'Tipped the black spot' refers to an incident in the novel 'Trasure Island'. It refers to an alleged custom among pirate crews. A member of the gang who offended against the pirate code was given a warning of a possible death sentence in the form of a disc of blackened paper pressed into his palm. Long John Silver, the anti-hero, is tipped the black spot but outfaces his mutinous gang by pointing out that the paper they have used has been taken from a bible. Not, of course that I think Trump faces a death sentence.
Trump is now saying he wants the warrant and the receipt released. He will not oppose it. Okay, great; but, Mr. Trump, you can release the documents yourself. No one is stopping you.
The usual scam: He states publicly that "they" can release the docs/info, but knows full well that "they" cannot do so without his authorization/signature. Guess who ends up looking like "they" are up to no good when said docs fail to get released for lack of authorization?
Somebody please tell me how he manages to scrape by with this low-rent, nursey-school-level subterfuge time after time after time.
The usual scam: He states publicly that "they" can release the docs/info, but knows full well that "they" cannot do so without his authorization/signature. Guess who ends up looking like "they" are up to no good when said docs fail to get released for lack of authorization?
In this case the Justice Department filed to unseal the document. It doesn't need Trump's approval. He could object, but absent that the warrant and property receipt will be made public, which is apparently what has happened.
The search warrant for Trump’s residence cited three criminal laws, all from Title 18 of the United States Code. Section 793, better known as the Espionage Act, which covers the unlawful retention of defense-related information that could harm the United States or aid a foreign adversary; Section 1519, which covers destroying or concealing documents to obstruct government investigations or administrative proceedings; and Section 2071, which covers the unlawful removal of government records. Notably, none of those laws turn on whether information was deemed to be unclassified.
FBI agents who searched former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home Monday removed 11 sets of classified documents, including some marked as top secret and meant to be only available in special government facilities, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation agents took around 20 boxes of items, binders of photos, a handwritten note and the executive grant of clemency for Mr. Trump’s ally Roger Stone, a list of items removed from the property shows. Also included in the list was information about the “President of France,” according to the three-page list. The list is contained in a seven-page document that also includes the warrant to search the premises which was granted by a federal magistrate judge in Florida.
The list includes references to one set of documents marked as “Various classified/TS/SCI documents,” an abbreviation that refers to top-secret/sensitive compartmented information. It also says agents collected four sets of top secret documents, three sets of secret documents, and three sets of confidential documents. The list didn’t provide any more details about the substance of the documents. Mr. Trump’s lawyers argue that the former president used his authority to declassify the material before he left office. While a president has the power to declassify documents, there are federal regulations that lay out a process for doing so.
Miscellaneous Top Secret Documents sounds like a very vague McGuffin in a bad novel: “We’ve got to get those miscellaneous top secret documents back Jim ! The future of the free world depends on it, you distract security and I’ll climb in through the bathroom window”
Thing is, as I understand it you can't get any more classified, if you know what I mean. He's in deep shit (of course). I wonder how many separate charges this would make? And of course various people have leaked that this included nuclear stuff, and Trump has basically confirmed that in his unhinged self-defensive social media rants. Fun.
Comments
Various news outlets are confirming the FBI was looking for missing documents that should have been returned to the National Archives. I am hoping Trump will release the receipt the FBI is required to give him detailing what they seized. It would be a great tell.
The one thing I would point out, though, is under American common law, possession is nine tenths of the laws. If missing documents are found on Trump property, he has a lot of explaining to do.
BTW, assuming the FBI Director would have signed off on the raid, the current Director is a Trump appointee. you can say Trump created his own monster.
Search warrants typically don't specify a person as being a criminal suspect. They just specify the premises to be searched and the things to be searched for. (This is something I can verify from personal experience.) The fact that this is Donald Trump's residence is suggestive but not dispositive. Mar-A-Lago is also a paid membership club with a lot of people coming and going. Of course, Trump did us the favor of verifying that the FBI searched his safe, so that's indicative.
My hope is that he will follow his usual form and be unable to refrain from broadcasting to the world all the most outrageous (to him!) bits of the warrant.
And “possession is nine-tenths of the law” is an axiom of civil law, meaning that if there is a dispute over personal property (as opposed to real property) ownership, there is a presumption that the one who possesses it owns it.
The idea behind “possession is nine-tenths of the law” has absolutely applicability to criminal law.
I think your last paragraph was meant to read...?
Ack!! Yes, thank you for catching that critical mistake on my part.
The idea behind “possession is nine-tenths of the law” has absolutely no applicability to criminal law.
Once my father was hunting pheasants. He came across a hen that had been shot and killed. He was carrying it out the field when he was stopped by a game warden. He explained he did not shoot it but found it, to which the game warden told him "possession is nine tenths of the law." He got a ticket which was upheld in court and he paid the fine. This was for a misdemeanor, though
But too your point that it is about possession. If Trump indeed has material that should have been returned to the National Achieves, this could be part of a civil issue, no?
With regard to Trump possibly having materials that should be at the National Archives, there is no question of ownership. The law is quite clear that the United States government owns those documents. Assuming government documents were taken in the search yesterday, the question is likely whether Trump personally had possession of those documents, or whether someone else at Mar-a-Lago did. And that’s a question that would be proven by evidence regarding exactly where at Mar-a-Lago they were found, who had access to that particular place, who controlled that particular place, etc.
Whether the National Archive could sue for return of the documents would turn on the precise language of relevant federal law. But even if they could, “possession is nine-tenths of the law” would be irrelevant, because that’s an axiom about identifying the presumptive rightful owner. Again, there’s no reason to makes presumptions about the rightful owner here, because the law clearly answers that question.
There is also the question of whether any of the documents allegedly seized were classified. Removal and retention of classified information was what David Petraeus was convicted of, after all.
The proverbial "holding it for a friend"?
The money was just resting in my account, Bishop Brennan!
I read it as in there.
Maybe. But with this supreme court, who knows? On the other hand the symbiosis of Trump and the extreme Justices is fading as they no longer need him. I suspect they can still be relied on for political decisions that favour the GOP though.
AFZ
Probably the best we can hope for is that they see Trump as more of a hindrance than a help to their long term goals.
IIRC, Al Capone was finally brought to justice through being convicted of tax evasion...
Yes, tax evasion that was intimately connected to Capone's many criminal enterprises and was massive and egregious enough to legitimately earn him a multi-year prison sentence on its own terms.
I do have to say true believers of Donald Trump are getting very angry.
Thanks.
This seems to be a case of getting high on your own supply. Making removal of classified documents a felony (as opposed to the misdemeanor it was previously) was an outgrowth of Republican (and Trump's) obsession with Hillary Clinton's emails. They apparently go so worked up they forgot is was an outrage they ginned up to run the rubes and started believing this was a serious issue (and that passing this law would let them "lock her up"). At some point the line between con man and mark gets blurry.
Now, who would want to leak the name of the Judge? Hint: all roads lead to Mar A Lago.
In Hamlet it's "hoist with his own petard". And it's apparently a pun combining the word for a kind of bomb, and another for flatulence.
As far as point 1 goes, if the rumors are true I'm expecting a lot of documents described with the word "redacted".
There are a lot of things presidents can declassify on their own. Documents concerning nuclear weapons are not among them. Just having this stuff is a violation of the Espionage Act. And one doubts Trump took it to Mar-a-Lago as mementos of his time in office.
One also wonders precisely who selected and packaged all umpteen boxes of this top-secret crap these classified documents up for transport to Mar-a-Lago. It seems unlikely that Massa performed this task personally; isn't that what his minions exist for?
Indeed, one wonders (given Massa's apparently rudimentary linguistic skills -- see his speeches) if Massa even knew exactly what he'd somehow! inadvertently! -- whoopsy-daisy! transported to his personal residence. Is Steven Miller (or whoever) so enamored of some future vision of an ignorant, ice-white, English-only, barely literate, presumably manipulatable mob populace he/she/they is/are willing to sacrifice personal life and liberty to that vision?
Historically, similar efforts have not ended well for anyone concerned, including the plotters.
The usual scam: He states publicly that "they" can release the docs/info, but knows full well that "they" cannot do so without his authorization/signature. Guess who ends up looking like "they" are up to no good when said docs fail to get released for lack of authorization?
Somebody please tell me how he manages to scrape by with this low-rent, nursey-school-level subterfuge time after time after time.
In this case the Justice Department filed to unseal the document. It doesn't need Trump's approval. He could object, but absent that the warrant and property receipt will be made public, which is apparently what has happened.
Some details via the New York Times: