[Updated x 2] The Latest On The Trump Document Investigation

Running down the latest "known knowns" with just a bit of analysis

Last Friday, after Former President Trump’s lawyers formally filed a document with the Southern District of Florida endorsing the release of the information, the warrant for the search of his Mar A Largo property was released. Additionally, the inventory of documents that were seized in the investigation was released as well. Before the release, copies of both documents were leaked to the Wall Street Journal and Breitbart news.

James has been covering some of the analysis of the decision to search the premises in order to recover classified documents. So I’ll focus on the facts that have emerged over the last few days.

From documents the court released on Friday, we learned a few new pieces of information. First, we learned a bit more about the documents the FBI took. While we still have no verification about what the documents were about, we did get details on the security clearance. At least 28 collections of documents were removed from Mar A Largo. This included:

  • 5 collections were identified as “Top-Secret,” the most sensitive form of classified document.
    • This count includes one box containing some number of “Top-Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.” This is a subcategory of Top Secret Documents. [Update] Commenter Andy, who has experience with classified materials from his days in the Service, provided some additional information about “SCI” below. The “tl;dr” version is that the “SCI” designation is separate from the secrecy level of the document. I highly recommend reading his thoughtful take for more details.
  • 3 collections were identified as “Secret,” a step down from “Top-Secret” in classification.
  • 3 collections were “Confidential,” the lowest level of classification.

There were a few other developments over the last few days as well.

The New York Times reported that one of former President Trump’s lawyers signed a written statement in June that stated that all materials marked as Classified that were held at Mar A Lago had been returned to the Government. This assertation suggests why one of the crimes the warrant listed as being investigated is Section 1519 – the intent to impede, obstruct or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter. The existence of the affidavit puts both Trump and the lawyer who signed the document in potential legal jeopardy. Lawyer Greg Doucette explains why that is the case in this succinct tweet:

Additionally, Trump’s attempt to muddy the waters by claiming that former President Obama did the exact same thing led to a fact check from the National Archives on Friday as well. The Washington Post reported:

Trump has asserted in social media posts that Obama “kept 33 million pages of documents, much of them classified” and that they were “taken to Chicago by President Obama.”

In its statement, NARA said that it obtained “exclusive legal and physical custody” of Obama’s records when he left office in 2017. It said that about 30 million pages of unclassified records were transferred to a NARA facility in the Chicago area and that they continue to be maintained “exclusively by NARA.”

Classified records from Obama are kept in a NARA facility in Washington, the statement said.

“As required by the [Presidential Records Act], former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration,” the statement said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/12/trump-obama-national-archives/

Also, sharp eye-ed analysts have noticed that the Southern District of Florida, in responding to a request from the Albany Times-Union to unseal the Mar A Largo Warrant, noted that there was a second warrant issued that day.

The second warrant doesn’t appear to have anything to do with the classified documents warrant (“completely unrelated” in the language of the court) and was therefore not unsealed. Legal twitter accounts have noted that it’s standard practice for a Magistrate judge to review and rule on warrants from multiple and unrelated cases at the same time.

Finally, I will leave you with a link to a thread by Berkeley Law Professor Orin Kerr on why he believes that a recent theory that the search of Mar A Lago somehow deprived Trump of his Fourth Amendment Rights doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It’s dense and technical, but still worth a read.


[Update 8/15 PM EST] – I realized that I failed to know two other claims that surfaced from former President Trump. While we currently have no evidence from the Justice Department to prove the claims, it’s worth recording that they were made.

First, over the weekend, Trump used his Truth Social account to state that his legal team believes some of the documents seized involved attorney/client privilege. There are procedures the government has in place for reviewing such documents. If this was the case, expect to hear something about “Taint teams” (one of Popehat’s least favorite topics to discuss due to the unfortunate double-entendre).

Perhaps more importantly, early Monday afternoon, Trump announced that the search team had taken possession of his passports:

Note that a former president having both a personal and a diplomatic passport is standard practice. Alternatively, he might also have two copies of a personal passport if he regularly travels to places that require visas.

If this is true, it will be something to keep an eye on. It’s entirely possible that the documents might have gotten caught up with the other files and taken unexpectedly. If that is the case, which I suspect it is, I would expect them to be quickly returned. If it turns out that the government is intentionally holding both passports, then I suspect that signals a significant development towards prosecution. In order for the government to hold his passport, Trump would need to be charged with a crime and then have a judge rule that he is a flight risk. The FBI cannot knowingly “seize and hold” a passport without due process.


[Update 8/15 PM EST] – There were two additional developments that are worth highlighting in the case.

Earlier this evening, a Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich released an image of a redacted email from Jay Bratt, Chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) of the National Security Division, confirming that the taint team (aka the filter team) had discovered 2 expired passports and one diplomatic passport belonging to former President Trump. The passports were being returned and could be picked up at the Washington Field Office (WFO) earlier this afternoon. So the government is not holding the passports and this appears to have been a mistake. Also, note that the timestamp (10:49 am MDT) suggests that this was sent prior to Trump’s early afternoon post to Truth Social about the missing passports.

Secondly, the Justice Department has officially petitioned the Southern District of Florida to not to release the warrant affidavit. I expect a lot of people will make a lot out of the petition’s rationale that such a release would “cause significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation.” Ken White, aka Popehat, reminds us that this type of filing, and that language, is pretty standard for the Justice Department. It’s rare to ever release a warrant affidavit at this point in the process. So I would strongly recommend not reading too deeply into this filing or the language it uses.

FILED UNDER: Crime, Law and the Courts, Open Forum, The Presidency, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Matt Bernius
About Matt Bernius
Matt Bernius is a design researcher working to create more equitable government systems and experiences. He's currently a Principal User Researcher on Code for America's "GetCalFresh" program, helping people apply for SNAP food benefits in California. Prior to joining CfA, he worked at Measures for Justice and at Effective, a UX agency. Matt has an MA from the University of Chicago.

Comments

  1. Flat Earth Luddite says:

    Thanks for the post, Matt. Too sensible for the Trump defenders (or too unpalatable, YMMV), but concise and clear. Prof. Kerr’s analysis was, for me, similarly helpful.

    6
  2. Michael Reynolds says:

    Too many people are following the MAGAts down the ‘classification’ rabbit hole.

    The question is not, ‘were the docs declassified,’ the question is: why did Trump take them? For what conceivable legitimate purpose?

    23
  3. CSK says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    According to the MAGAs, the documents Trump stole prove that the CIA, The FBI, and the DoD were conspiring starting in 2015 to steal the election of 2016 for Hillary Clinton.

    That’s why the Deep State is terrified of Trump.

    7
  4. wr says:

    @CSK: “According to the MAGAs, the documents Trump stole prove that the CIA, The FBI, and the DoD were conspiring starting in 2015 to steal the election of 2016 for Hillary Clinton.”

    And while a normal person in this situation might do the obvious thing and, you know, release the documents that prove the conspiracy he’s been alleging for half a decade, Trump is such a fourth-dimensional genius he hides them in a closet until they can be re-taken by the Deep State.

    I don’t expect Trumpie conspiracy theories to hold up to logic, but is there one that can withstand even a single question before crumbling completely?

    7
  5. CSK says:

    @wr:
    None that I’ve ever encountered. Hasn’t Trump come up with at least 4 conflicting explanations for the presence of the documents at MaL?

    The MAGAs are like the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland; they believe six impossible things before breakfast.

    7
  6. Kathy says:

    A smarter criminal would not have just taken the documents, but would have made copies and hidden them elsewhere.

    A smart criminal would not have taken any documents to begin with, but only made copies.

    Benito, though. Well.

    2
  7. Modulo Myself says:

    @Kathy:

    Trump has no idea how to use a copier, so that one is out.

    My guess is that the only other people who saw these documents were a bunch of dentists staying at Mar A Lago he tried to impress one day while wondering around having nothing else to do.

  8. CSK says:

    Trump warns that “terrible things are going to happen” in the wake of the FBI’s “sneak attack.”

    And you know he’s salivating at the prospect of “terrible things” happening. If he can light the match, he will.

    3
  9. Jay L Gischer says:

    As long as we’re quoting Lewis Carroll: A second warrant? “Curiouser and curiouser”.

    2
  10. Jon says:

    It seems equally as likely that the documents in question actually involve crimes or other bad actions by Trump and his administration and/or campaign. That’d explain why copies weren’t made, they haven’t been released, etc. etc. He’d then be keeping them because A) he’s a dipshit; and B) they contain information about crimes committed on his behalf by others, and he wants to make sure he has blackmail/extortion materials to keep those folks quiet.

  11. Jen says:

    @Jay L Gischer: I had that same reaction, but as the document above shows, it was for an ongoing investigation that is completely unrelated. Efficient use of courthouse filing time.

    1
  12. JohnSF says:

    @Kathy:
    A really sneaky criminal would have scanned the real documents, kept the scans on carefully hidden non-networked, encrypted storage, replaced the critical information with falsified versions, destroyed the originals where falsified.

    3
  13. Kathy says:

    @JohnSF:

    Well, by “copies” I meant digital copies. We are in the third decade of the 21st century, after all.

  14. Gromitt Gunn says:

    Re: the Chicago thing. I wouldn’t be surprised if the National Archives maintain unclassified storage facilities within a reasonable driving distance of each presidential library for the records of that administration.

    1
  15. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    I made a similar point in the previous thread.
    https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/politics-law-and-the-mar-a-lago-search/#comment-2719143
    Everything else aside, a guy widely known to be a Security Risk – intelligence briefers were careful as to what they told him – had documents of the highest security levels.

    Douglas London, who was a top CIA counterterrorism official during the Trump administration, told the [NY] Times that intelligence aides were cautious about the kind of information they’d share with the former president.

    The Mueller Report documented over 200 “links” between Trump, his campaign, and individuals with ties to the Russian government. Just last week Manafort finally admitted to passing internal campaign polling data to Kilimnik, a Russian Intelligence asset.
    We will probably never know what the actual the contents of the Document Collections were/are. But any sentient human being knows that the former guy should not have had them in his possession.

    7
  16. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    I’m kind of struck by the irony; a white supremacist who can barely read is likely to be finally taken down by a woman of color, in Georgia, and a bunch of librarians.

    10
  17. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @CSK: At least that’s creative, anyway. Or maybe not. It has the same weakness that the GQP “we had a better plan all ready to go” argument does: if the stuff is so good, just leak it to whatever press outlet you use for your propaganda; don’t store it in a closet. Hillary at Club Fed for a botched attempt at stealing an election is a pretty good consolation prize for some Never FGers. Who can tell? It might turn some into MAGAts.

  18. CSK says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:
    As far as leaking it to a press outlet, I think The Gateway Pundit is the best they can swing.

  19. Andy says:

    Hi Matt, nice post.

    Just a small point of fact. SCI is not a subcategory of Top Secret – it’s an access control scheme that is different from the classification level. There is, for example, lots of SCI material that is at the Secret and Confidential level.

    This is one of the weird and confusing aspects of our classification and security bureaucracy.

    But as a practical matter, anything that is SCI is considered especially sensitive, and access is much more tightly controlled. Getting access to SCI requires a more stringent background investigation for one’s security clearance and is much more difficult to get. Access to SCI is also controlled by “billets” (at least in the DoD, other agencies may be different), meaning you can’t get access unless you are in a specific job that is coded for SCI. And finally, SCI is a system that utilizes compartmentalization. So even if you have an SCI clearance, you only have access to certain compartments, which, again, depends on your job (although there are a handful that virtually everyone in an SCI billet gets access to). None of that applies to the bulk of non-SCI classified material.

    And SCI has much more stringent physical security requirements. For example, you can have non-SCI Top Secret material in the right kind of safe in a government office. But Confidential/SCI material has to be kept in a certified SCIF and is only supposed to leave a SCIF under very strict and limited conditions.

    Note that this is how it works for the vast majority of personnel – like with many things, the White House and the people who work there have a different set of rules, at least in practice.

    Also, the worker bees in the intelligence community hardly ever work with paper anymore for security reasons. The WH is different – a lot of info comes into the situation room, which is a SCIF (most of the WH isn’t), and then is printed out and taken to the principles. So there is a lot of paper floating around, which is crazy unusual in most other settings for reasons that should be obvious – paper is easy to hide and misplace, and it can more easily “walk” or be stolen. Information security at the WH depends on trust more than probably anywhere else in government. And you can see how well that works with Trump’s current situation, not to mention a large number of leaks to the press from anonymous “senior administration officials.” I was a security manager for a ~1000-person organization for a few years, and that was a sucky thankless job. I feel nothing but sympathy for whoever is assigned to be in charge of information security at the WH.

    One other thing to note that I haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere. Presidents typically have SCIFs at their personal residences while in office if they spend a lot of time there. Trump reportedly had a SCIF at his homes in both New York and Mar a Lago. GW Bush had one at his Crawford ranch. I don’t recall the locations for Obama and Clinton, but that is pretty normal practice. What I’m not sure about, however, is what happens when they leave office. I strongly suspect the SCIFs are at least decertified since they wouldn’t have government personnel to manage them anymore.

    Sorry, the brief point I intended to make turned into a mini-essay.

    13
  20. Andy says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Too many people are following the MAGAts down the ‘classification’ rabbit hole.

    The question is not, ‘were the docs declassified,’ the question is: why did Trump take them? For what conceivable legitimate purpose?

    The so-called “rabbit hole” isn’t something invented by MAGA supporters. It’s a rabbit hole because the topic is complex with a lot of gray areas, and it’s one that most people do not understand. MAGA supporters are obviously incentivized to learn the system to see if they can find ex post facto “loopholes” to justify what Trump did. The reality is that those loopholes could very well work. So dealing with that rabbit hole is necessary if you desire to charge and convict Trump of a crime related to mishandling classified material.

    As for your questions, the range of potential possibilities is very wide, and I think we’ll have to wait to see what the investigation uncovers.

    3
  21. Jen says:

    The reality is that those loopholes could very well work.

    No. Because the real issue isn’t that he has/had classified information. It’s that he took government property, then after repeatedly being asked to return ALL of it, he returned SOME of it, and then lied, and possibly destroyed or otherwise mishandled the records.

    The classification matters only in that it shows how grossly negligent he is/was/always will be.

    And, if we are to believe the reporting on this matter, he had documents there that were classified by statute, not executive order, for which he did not have the authority to declassify.

    His supporters are going to try any loopholes, of course they are. Making excuses for Trump is what they do.

    15
  22. Matt Bernius says:

    @Andy:
    Thanks for taking the time to write all of that out. It’s super helpful and I’ve updated the post with my understanding of your topline (take a look when you have a moment and make sure I got it right).

    Presidents typically have SCIFs at their personal residences while in office if they spend a lot of time there. Trump reportedly had a SCIF at his homes in both New York and Mar a Lago. GW Bush had one at his Crawford ranch. I don’t recall the locations for Obama and Clinton, but that is pretty normal practice. What I’m not sure about, however, is what happens when they leave office. I strongly suspect the SCIFs are at least decertified since they wouldn’t have government personnel to manage them anymore.

    That was both my understanding of things–Mar A Largo was designated a SCIF. And I suspect you are right about the decertification as well. I don’t think it would make sense to maintain that in general.

    And we shouldn’t forget that Biden made the decision to stop Trump’s security briefings. That makes it especially unlikely that any effort would be expended to maintain that status on the part of the government. That’s before we got to the point that in theory all those documents should have been turned over to the archive.

    5
  23. charon says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    The question is not, ‘were the docs declassified,’ the question is: why did Trump take them? For what conceivable legitimate purpose?

    It really does not matter much why he took them or what his plans were.

    The big problem is they were taken and held in an insecure location – and, in context, a location targeted by various bad actors such as foreign intelligence agencies.

    Here are some examples of what can happen if people just take stuff and hold it. (An example, ransomeware attacks such as WannaCry). Just, for example, taking work home and onto a personal computer.

    https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/08/14/18-usc-793e-in-the-time-of-shadow-brokers-and-donald-trump/

    The two men in question, Nghia Pho and Hal Martin, were prosecuted under 18 USC 793e, likely the same part of the Espionage Act under which the former President is being investigated. Pho (who was prosecuted by Thomas Windom, one of the prosecutors currently leading the fake elector investigation) pled guilty in 2017 and was sentenced to 66 months in prison; he is processing through re-entry for release next month. Martin pled guilty in 2019 and was sentenced to 108 months in prison.

    The government never formally claimed that either man caused hostile powers to obtain these files, much less voluntarily gave them to foreign actors. Yet it used 793e to hold them accountable for the damage their negligence caused.

    There has never been any explanation of how the files from Martin would have gotten to the still unidentified entity that released them.

    But there is part of an explanation how files from Pho got stolen. WSJ reported in 2017 that the Kaspersky Anti-Virus software Pho was running on his home computer led the Russian security firm to discover that Pho had the NSA’s hacking tools on the machine. Somehow (the implication is that Kaspersky alerted the Russian government) that discovery led Russian hackers to subsequently target Pho’s computer and steal the files. In response to the WSJ report, Kaspersky issued their own report (here’s a summary from Kim Zetter). It acknowledged that Kaspersky AV had pulled in NSA tools after triggering on a known indicator of NSA compromise (the report claimed, and you can choose to believe that or not, that Kaspersky had deleted the most interesting parts of the files obtained). But it also revealed that in that same period, Pho had briefly disabled his Kaspersky AV and downloaded a pirated copy of Microsoft Office, which led to at least one backdoor being loaded onto his computer via which hostile actors would have been able to steal the NSA’s crown jewels.

    Several other similar examples at the link.

    3
  24. Kathy says:

    If Benito declassified any of the documents seized by the FBI, then the DOJ should publish them to let the world know what was in them. After all, they’re no longer secret or even confidential.

    1
  25. Christopher Osborne says:
  26. JohnSF says:

    @Kathy: I suspect that, for really really sensitive material, paper copies may still be preferable.
    There’s likely bureaucratic inertia, as well: “we’ve always kept on file in paper format”.
    But having some things inherently non-networkable may be sensible.

    1
  27. MarkedMan says:

    FWIW, it’s not that unusual for US Citizens who frequently travel internationally to have more than one passport. I wish I had known that was an option when I lived overseas. Once, the Indian embassy in China kept my passport for more than three weeks just to give me a traveller’s visa. I was in a panic since I was traveling to several other countries in between. I got it back just a few days before I was due to get on the airplane. It is exactly for reasons like this that you can get at least two passports, and for all I know, more.

  28. Andy says:

    @Jen:

    No. Because the real issue isn’t that he has/had classified information. It’s that he took government property, then after repeatedly being asked to return ALL of it, he returned SOME of it, and then lied, and possibly destroyed or otherwise mishandled the records.

    Look, there are at least three overlapping things here:
    – There is the issue of probably classified documents that were improperly handled and secured.
    – There is the issue of Trump not turning over records (not just the classified stuff) and items to proper government authorities as he is legally required to do.
    – There is the issue of what, at least at the moment, appears to be Trump obstructing the government’s efforts to collect various documents and items, which led to the raid on his residence to collect them.

    The classification issue only affects the first item. Contrary to what you suggest, it is a “real issue” it’s just not the only issue.

    @Matt Bernius:

    Thanks! I think your edit looks good. I also appreciate the mention that Biden stopped Trump’s briefs – that makes total sense and is completely justified, but I hadn’t heard that happened.

    And just to be pedantic:

    That was both my understanding of things–Mar A Largo was designated a SCIF

    One area (probably a room or two) at Mar A Lago would be designated a SCIF, with alterations made to meet the certification, but not the whole residence. Similarly, the WH Situation Room is a SCIF, but most of the WH is not.

    3
  29. JohnSF says:

    @Kathy:
    …DOJ should publish them…
    Nope; that could be an utter disaster, depending on the information.
    If that particular information has not been transmitted to third parties.
    (Assuming its existence; which is reasonable, I think)

    I say again: what DoJ was most interested in retrieving may not be what Trump was most interested in having .
    He may well not even been aware of the details of what he had.

    (That would mean reading it, after all.)

    1
  30. CSK says:

    Trump is now bitc hing that the FBI stole his three passports during the search. Granted, one was expired, but why would he need two? I’ve only ever had one active one at any given time. What am I missing?

    1
  31. Matt Bernius says:

    @CSK:
    I had updated the original post with that news. And I also added some clarifications to help answer your question (as I suspect that many others might have it):

    Note that a former president having both a personal and a diplomatic passport is standard practice. Alternatively, he might also have two copies of a personal passport if he regularly travels to places that require visas.

    1
  32. Kurtz says:

    @Andy: @Andy:

    Wait, is this an intelligence operation? Are you different Andys?

    Are you going to have to kill me now?

    2
  33. Jen says:

    @CSK: I vaguely remember hearing that you can have two passports if you travel frequently enough that one passport could be tied up getting a visa, you still need another to travel. Also, there are some countries where having a prior stamp in your passport can preclude/prevent entry to another country.

    3
  34. Mister Bluster says:

    @Kurtz:..kill me now???
    I try to use one eMail address for OTB and another one for everything else.
    Sometimes I screw up and use the wrong one for OTB that presents a different avatar.

    2
  35. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    If it turns out that the government is intentionally holding both passports, then I suspect that signals a significant development towards prosecution.

    IANAL and don’t portray one on TV or radio, but if they were searching for his passports wouldn’t that have to have been specified (as well as the grounds for seizure) on the warrants?

    Understand, I think “they stole my passports” is just bloviation. If the government did seize his passports before he’s even arraigned, that looks like a breach of due process that I would read as victimization if it happened to me. How about you? Want the gov coming to you house and seizing your passport “just in case?”

    1
  36. Mister Bluster says:

    @Kurtz:..kill me now???
    I try to use one eMail address for OTB and another one for everything else.
    Sometimes I screw up and use the wrong one for OTB that presents a different avatar.

    4
  37. CSK says:

    @Jen:
    Yes, but Trump has never traveled out of the country since he left the presidency. He’s famous for not liking to sleep anywhere but Trump Tower, Bedminster, and Mar-a-Lago.

    2
  38. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    I can think of two reasons for confiscating his passports.
    1 – They consider him a flight risk, but that would require due process, it would seem. IANAL.
    2 – Passports are an official record of where you have travelled to.
    Did he lie at some point in depositions about contacts with Russia?
    Also, I continue to believe that the pee tape is real.

    2
  39. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @CSK:
    But one was expired so more than ten years old.

  40. Mu Yixiao says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    Understand, I think “they stole my passports” is just bloviation.

    It’s also incorrect. Your passport isn’t “yours”–it’s the property of the US government, and can be reclaimed by them at any time (it’s on page 5 of the passport).

    4
  41. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Andy:
    It’s a rabbit hole because it misses the key point. Trump had multiple boxes of secret documents. How and why? Those are questions Trump could answer but refuses to. Who ordered those boxes delivered to the WH? How were they accounted for? I’m guessing secret docs have a paper trail – someone asked for them, someone signed for them. Who? And again, why?

    The security level is a question for the prosecution if that’s the charge they level. I don’t think anyone is going to charge him with accidentally grabbing the wrong boxes, so I don’t think a month from now anyone will be discussing declassification. Trump did not identify, requisition and then steal these documents for no reason.

    Motivation is what’s missing from the conversation, and it is far more important than rehashing of declassification debates. What was Trump’s motive? And if it was an innocent motive, why doesn’t he tell us what it was?

    The two motives that come to mind are 1) Using the docs for blackmail and 2) Selling the docs. Both entirely in character for a narcissist driven by greed.

    8
  42. CSK says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl:
    I know. He had two additional ones.
    He doesn’t like leaving this country. Hell, he doesn’t like leaving his own property. So…

    1
  43. Michael Reynolds says:

    @MarkedMan:

    It is exactly for reasons like this that you can get at least two passports, and for all I know, more.

    Well, for that and for your frequent trips to North Korea.

  44. JohnSF says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    The document request trail would be interesting.
    Also, what procedures did Trump WH use for recording presidential conversations?
    Were these document actually requested from repositories outside WH?

    And I still have a feeling that maybe (I am not at all sure) Trump didn’t know exactly what he had.
    And that what interested Trump most was not necessarily what worried the FBI most.

    Also I can’t help wondering that if the documents were requested, it might be very interesting to look at the paper trails etc and find out who originated the request(s) if it was not Trump in person.
    (Stares at J. Kushner, M. Flynn, etc…)

  45. Jen says:

    @CSK: He’d likely keep two passports active for business purposes–there are reasons that he’d need to travel for business to his properties, even if he returns home to sleep.

    Also, I think it’s entirely possible that they are indeed there somewhere at Mar-a-Lago, as they are NOT specified on the receipt list–I’d be shocked if the FBI wasn’t required to have a warrant for those documents specifically and if so, declare their removal. This sounds really…odd to me.

    1
  46. Flat Earth Luddite says:

    Thanks again, Matt. And special thanks to Andy (in both guises, very stylish, btw), and everyone else. Stuff like satisfies my curiosity bump.

    3
  47. Mu Yixiao says:

    In order for the government to hold his passport, Trump would need to be charged with a crime and then have a judge rule that he is a flight risk. The FBI cannot knowingly “seize and hold” a passport without due process.

    Are you sure about that?

    Page 5 of my passport says:

    US GOVERNMENT PROPERTY This passport is the property of the United States (Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 51.9*). It must be surrendered upon demand made by an authorized representative of the United States Government.

    ==========
    *Which I’m confused about, since the entirety of that section says:

    Except for the convenience of the U.S. Government, no passport may be amended.

    1
  48. Jen says:

    @Andy:

    Contrary to what you suggest, it is a “real issue” it’s just not the only issue.

    None of the three criminal acts listed in the warrant are dependent on whether or not the documents removed were classified. That’s what I was referencing.

    3
  49. CSK says:

    @Jen:
    Do you think this is more bullshit from Trump? That the passports were taken?

  50. Andy says:

    @Kurtz:

    Are you going to have to kill me now?

    Don’t worry, the black helicopters have nothing to do with you. 😉

    Both are me. Sometimes my browser auto-populates a different email (and gravitar) than I normally use here.

    @Michael Reynolds:

    It’s a rabbit hole because it misses the key point. Trump had multiple boxes of secret documents. How and why? Those are questions Trump could answer but refuses to. Who ordered those boxes delivered to the WH? How were they accounted for? I’m guessing secret docs have a paper trail – someone asked for them, someone signed for them. Who? And again, why?

    I agree with your questions and think they demand answers, and I think the answers will come out in due course.

    But for many people, the classification issue is a key point. It certainly was all the rage among the media and Twitter over the weekend, but it does seem that the zeitgeist is moving on to other things.

    @Michael Reynolds:

    I don’t think anyone is going to charge him with accidentally grabbing the wrong boxes, so I don’t think a month from now anyone will be discussing declassification. Trump did not identify, requisition and then steal these documents for no reason.

    Personally, I have a hard time believing that Trump would stoop so low to pack his own boxes.

    The two motives that come to mind are 1) Using the docs for blackmail and 2) Selling the docs. Both are entirely in character for a narcissist driven by greed.

    Those explanations, especially blackmail, don’t make a lot of sense to me based on what we currently know. I mean, if you were going to take classified documents with the intent to sell them or for blackmail, you’d think they would be more organized. Also, you’d think Trump, or one of his cronies, would have at least separated them from the other stuff and hidden them. And when you turned over boxes to the archives in February, you’d think Trump or his cronies would remove any classified documents first. Because if you give the national archives the classified material you planned to sell or use for blackmail, then that really hits the bottom line.

    And you’d think the situation with the archives asking for stuff would prompt someone to separate any remaining classified from the other stuff.

    I mean, what’s really weird is that there wasn’t even any CYA. It’s just dumb to send the national archives classified material and then hand over more of it when the feds come knocking later.

    If this really was a criminal conspiracy to sell classified documents or for blackmail, it was the stupidest conspiracy in history.

    4
  51. Jen says:

    @CSK: I’m genuinely not sure. Saying three were taken is oddly specific, and it’s possible that they were being kept in a safe, or desk, or other secure area that was searched, and perhaps moved from the exact spot…so, they might appear to be missing but are actually still there.

    Seizing someone’s passport is usually done after they’ve been charged with something, when they are alleged to be a flight risk. I can’t think of any other reason to take someone’s passport. Maybe the question we should be asking is…why was he looking for his passport(s)? Considering fleeing? 😀 (I am joking here.)

    I honestly don’t know, but this does seem ‘off’ to me. If they did take his passports, that’s strange and not something I’d be blabbering about if I were Trump. (Although if he does still have his diplomatic passport, that might be something they’d take, as he’s no longer in need of that. I am fairly sure that we had to relinquish our government official passports when my dad left government service, even though they were still technically within the valid time frame, they don’t wait for those to expire, you have to give them up.)

    1
  52. Kurtz says:

    @Andy:

    Don’t worry, the black helicopters have nothing to do with you.

    Both are me. Sometimes my browser auto-populates a different email (and gravitar) than I normally use here.

    Okay, just keep that thing I did last night to yourself.

    It wasn’t what it looked like.

    4
  53. steve says:

    Give him back his passports if he promises to use them and leave.

    Steve

    4
  54. Mikey says:

    @Andy:

    the stupidest conspiracy in history

    Well, consider who we’re talking about here.

    5
  55. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Mu Yixiao: And yet, when my visa to stay in Korea was questioned, the government didn’t tell me “surrender your government’s passport” they said “surrender your passport.”

  56. steve says:

    The left “Defund the police”

    The right “Kill the police”

    Steve

    3
  57. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Mu Yixiao: “Except for the convenience of the U.S. Government…”

    That one I understand…

    …sort of. When your passport expires while you are in a foreign country, as a convenience to the government, you go to the passport office at the Embassy and they make a notification somewhere on the passport that the expiration date has been extended–an amendment to your passport. (I was going to need to do this, but I didn’t get a new job, so I left instead.)

    My guess would be that such an extension goes on the Endorsements page.

    And now that I’ve got my passport out, I note that page 5 does indeed say that “an authorized representative of the United States government” may demand “surrender” of your passport. So, my revised question is were the FBI agents authorized in the scope of the warrant to seize his passport and is seizure while he isn’t at home legally the same as asking requesting surrender? Any lawyers (or people who portray them on TV) willing to weigh in? (And I will understand if the answer is “no, I won’t weigh in;” I’m only a cracker, after all and merely curious. My experience with my passport being seized was pretty uneventful as I wasn’t going to Seoul before the matter was settled anyway.)

  58. CSK says:

    The DOJ says that releasing the Mar-a-Lago affadavit would “endanger the witnesses.”

  59. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Andy: “If this really was a criminal conspiracy to sell classified documents or for blackmail, it was the stupidest conspiracy in history.”

    Well, that fits my impression of FG’s whole administration, so it wouldn’t surprise me, but yeah, grabbing a bunch of documents to sell (except as souvenirs) never resonated for me. I have no answer for “the motive” at all. He’s just a goof and this circus is one of many he’s been involved with. “Didn’t want the government misusing the ‘TRUMP Brand'” or “not letting them take my stuff” aren’t any less plausible than any other rationales.

    3
  60. dazedandconfused says:

    Our intell picks up a lot of dirt about individuals, sometimes powerful ones, like ones that in their countries can either sign off on or nix a new golf course, hotels, stuff like that. Such information would seem likely to be classified TS and compartmentalized.

    We should recall how Trump Inc used the investigative “journalism” of the staff of the National Enquirer. Photogs stalking people and gathering compromising intel. What would such a man do with access to the US system of intel collection?

  61. Gustopher says:

    @Andy: All the avatars are the same to me… am I part of the conspiracy now?

    1
  62. MarkedMan says:

    @CSK: I’m sure he has been advised that other countries may be unsafe for him to visit for legal reasons.

    This whole passport thing strikes me as odd. Can our Legal Eagles weigh in? I’ve heard of people’s passports seized so they couldn’t travel, but there was noting about that in the publicly revealed search warrant. Can our Legal Eagles weigh in? Would the warrant be required to mention that explicitly?

    If the Feds didn’t seize the passports in this raid, then why is Trump saying this? Were they seized before? Is he playing N-dimensional chess (or Trump’s version of that, wherein only he thinks he is being tricky) and attempting to make people think he doesn’t have a passport? So he can wear a blue baseball cap, no makeup, no lifts in his shoes and no corset and therefore sneak out of the country? [I kid, I kid…]

  63. MarkedMan says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl:

    Also, I continue to believe that the pee tape is real.

    Right? It is so in line with Trump’s modus operandi: petty; childish; indifferent to the mess he would leave behind for others, mean, and did I say, childish?

    1
  64. MarkedMan says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Well, for that and for your frequent trips to North Korea

    Well, have you ever seen a picture of Baby Kim and me together? Just sayin’ …

  65. MarkedMan says:

    @Andy:

    I mean, what’s really weird is that there wasn’t even any CYA.

    While I agree that’s weird, even weirder is the fact that he refused to give them back and lied about it. I just don’t know what to make of that. He was acting like he thought he was impervious to the law, and for all of Trump’s previous shenanigans, that’s not his modus operandi.

    1
  66. MarkedMan says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: Something I’ve been saying since at least 2015: The most important thing to know about Trump is that he is a moron. I didn’t mean it as sarcasm.

    1
  67. Matt Bernius says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl:

    I can think of two reasons for confiscating his passports.
    1 – They consider him a flight risk, but that would require due process, it would seem. IANAL.
    2 – Passports are an official record of where you have travelled to.

    @MarkedMan:

    This whole passport thing strikes me as odd. Can our Legal Eagles weigh in? I’ve heard of people’s passports seized so they couldn’t travel, but there was noting about that in the publicly revealed search warrant. Can our Legal Eagles weigh in? Would the warrant be required to mention that explicitly?

    I’ve updated the post with some new developments and I’d suggest scanning the later update.

    The tl;dr:
    The passports (two expired and Trump’s diplomatic passport) were discovered in one of the boxes as part of the taint/filter team review. The government notified Trump’s lawyers of this around Noon ET and made arrangements for their immediate return.

    Again, the government could not seize passports without first charging someone. And the passports would only be held after a judge made a decision to hold them as part of a pretrial hearing.

    I believe theoretically a warrant could include a passport, but only if it contained potential evidence of a crime.

    Simpliest explanations are probably the best in this case: what most likely happened was that it was among other papers. Over the next few days, as the taint team does its job, a lot of documents will be turned back over to Trump lawyers if they have nothing to do with the current investigation.

    I will note, and this is pure speculation, that Trump’s Truth Social posting appears to have been made *after* the government notified the Trump lawyers about the discovery of the passports. It’s entirely possible that prior to that email, they did not realize they were missing.

    3
  68. Jax says:

    @Matt Bernius: It basically ties into the stupidest (cough cough) heist in history. He’s so dumb he doesn’t even know where his ID is, thank GAWD the FBI found it for him! 😐

    1
  69. Gustopher says:

    @MarkedMan: I believe that Matt Yglesias posted something on twitter a few days ago to the effect of: After 6 years, you cannot dismiss the possibility that Trump took some documents and refused to return them just because. No reason, no plan, no nothing.

    He (or whoever it was) worded it better. But if it was him, he is a professional worder so I would hope he would word it better.

    2
  70. JohnSF says:

    @Gustopher:
    In the eternal nature of Vishnu, all avatars are one.
    Om…

    1