USA 2020 Elections: Thread

[grarpamp]

>> https://donaldjtrump.com/
>> https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump
>> https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-donald-trump
>> While the secret documents content would bigly expose something,
>> the real story are the political frauds waged against Trump for years...
>
> Analysts say President Trump has a right to keep documents
> that he worked with as a public figure in public office for his
> own personal record reference and use as seen fit, including
> whether they be mentally or more formally declassified or not,
> or for exculpatory or providing defense or exposing others
> or any other use or reason, subject only to maintenance
> of any classification level he gave or demoted them to.
> See Presidential Authority, Presidential Library, etc.


Ex-FBI Intelligence Chief Says DOJ Has ‘No Case’ Against Trump

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3618515-unsealed-mar-a-lago-search-warrant-affidavit-reveals-the-government-has-no-case-against-trump/
https://www.theepochtimes.com/ex-fbi-intelligence-chief-says-doj-has-no-case-against-trump_4694500.html

A former assistant director in the FBI said he believes the affidavit
used to obtain a search warrant of former President Donald Trump’s
Mar-a-Lago reveals the government has “no case” against him.

“We now know why the DOJ wanted the affidavit—which is supposed to
articulate the probable cause needed for a legitimate search—to be
kept under seal,” wrote Kevin R. Brock, the former assistant director
of intelligence for the FBI and principal deputy director of the
National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), in an opinion piece published
Sunday.

The affidavit was ordered released by a U.S. magistrate judge last
week in response to court filings submitted by media outlets and third
parties. The legal document, however, was heavily redacted and
revealed very little about what the FBI agents were searching for on
Aug. 8 and why.

“First,” Brock wrote, “the affidavit confirmed that the FBI’s
investigation was triggered in January 2022 at the request of the
National Archives, which wanted certain documents, especially
classified documents, that it considered to be presidential records to
be turned over to it by Trump.” But there appears to be nothing “in
the affidavit asserting a refusal by Trump to cooperate,” he wrote.

“Second, from what I have seen, I don’t believe the affidavit
articulates how a federal law was or is being broken. For those who
hold out hope that the affidavit’s redacted sections fill that gap,
there is almost no chance that they do,” he continued.

The legal document’s probable cause arguments only deal with “half of
what is needed to show a possible violation of the federal statutes
that are cited in the warrant,” Brock wrote, adding that based on his
experience, it’s unlikely the government will release more of the
redacted portions of the affidavit.
‘Cannot Be Proven’

In order to obtain a warrant, it’s not sufficient for the affidavit to
only argue that there is cause to believe Trump had allegedly
classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the former official said.

At the same time, the unredacted portions do not make the case that
Trump wasn’t authorized to have the documents at his Florida
residence.

“A criminal violation of those statutes only exists if it can be
established that the person being investigated was not authorized to
possess, store, transfer or copy those documents,” Brock said. “This
is an easy element to establish against anyone in America. Except one
person.”

Trump and former aides have said that while president, he had a
standing order to declassify materials that left the White House’s
Oval Office and were sent to Mar-a-Lago.

Meanwhile, Trump wrote in October on his now-banned Twitter account
that he had declassified some FBI-related materials. He also issued an
order on Jan. 19, 2021, to declassify some FBI Crossfire Hurricane
documents.

“As president, he had broad, legally intimidating authority,
established by law and court determinations, to declassify any and all
documents and to determine what is and is not a presidential record,”
Brock wrote. “Trump and his legal team have asserted that this
authority was exercised while he was still president. Therefore, a
violation of these fairly low-level and seldom-prosecuted
document-oriented statutes cannot be proven.”