Mar a Lago raided by FBI

Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Well, a nuclear document in the batch of secrets is confirmed. So sensitive special access is very limited to a handful of people.
It would be bad enough if that document was about our own nuclear plans & capabilities.

It was about a foreign country's nuclear plans & capabilities. An unidentified foreign country. You can be reasonably certain that the foreign country was not friendly to us, and that the plans & capability info was obtained through clandestine methods – hence the TOP SECRET/SCI rating. SCI stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information, something usually used for info learned from foreign human sources or communications that have been intercepted and decrypted.

TOP SECRET/SCI is more secret than DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION (as revealed by the movie Animal House).
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
It would be bad enough if that document was about our own nuclear plans & capabilities.

It was about a foreign country's nuclear plans & capabilities. An unidentified foreign country. You can be reasonably certain that the foreign country was not friendly to us, and that the plans & capability info was obtained through clandestine methods – hence the TOP SECRET/SCI rating. SCI stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information, something usually used for info learned from foreign human sources or communications that have been intercepted and decrypted.

TOP SECRET/SCI is more secret than DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION (as revealed by the movie Animal House).
You are referring to the Washington Post article? If that turns out to be true it’s for sure very, very bad and once again raises the question as to why he had that material, and adamantly kept it, including lying in a sworn statement.

The Trump judge (can we call her anything otherwise by now?) even ruled that any investigation based on the documents should be stopped immediately so no checking for fingerprints, DNA or contact tracing (who had access etc), as far as I’ve understood it.

Edit: This is the article I read: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/06/trump-nuclear-documents/

And here is a YouTube interview of one of the authors of that article:

 
Last edited:
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
It would be bad enough if that document was about our own nuclear plans & capabilities.

It was about a foreign country's nuclear plans & capabilities. An unidentified foreign country. You can be reasonably certain that the foreign country was not friendly to us, and that the plans & capability info was obtained through clandestine methods – hence the TOP SECRET/SCI rating. SCI stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information, something usually used for info learned from foreign human sources or communications that have been intercepted and decrypted.

TOP SECRET/SCI is more secret than DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION (as revealed by the movie Animal House).
I believe this and another of similar criticality also had access restrictions within that SCI designation. Limited to very few and the operation is even limited to defense officials from what was reported.
Just incredible.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Boy, that is a devastating video. Cabinet level access only by some of them and the pres? Paper trail of signed possession? Who else known about this that it was missing? Hang that cabinet person too. :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
I'm starting to wonder if Trump took the documents because he was desperate to cling to some vestige of power to salve his ego. Perhaps it provided him a way to tell himself "No on else has these highly classified documents. It shows how important and powerful I am."

He's so flipping nutty it's hard to say. None of it makes any sense.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
I'm starting to wonder if Trump took the documents because he was desperate to cling to some vestige of power to salve his ego. Perhaps it provided him a way to tell himself "No on else has these highly classified documents. It shows how important and powerful I am."

He's so flipping nutty it's hard to say. None of it makes any sense.
I’ve heard and read that and similar arguments to excuse him taking those classified documents, but perhaps he wanted to use them for something nefarious. He’s a crook that attempted a coup but failed, after all.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I'm starting to wonder if Trump took the documents because he was desperate to cling to some vestige of power to salve his ego. Perhaps it provided him a way to tell himself "No on else has these highly classified documents. It shows how important and powerful I am."

He's so flipping nutty it's hard to say. None of it makes any sense.
I'm with Trell on this question. Trump went far beyond his usual reckless & irresponsible behavior. His 'souvenir collection' from his White House days may be a result of his hoarding tendencies, but it also creates a serious threat to US national security. His intentions don't matter – neither does his being president. The Espionage Act makes it clear that Trump's acts constitute a serious violation of the law.

It's always been simple to guess Trump's mindset. His decisions seem to always be based on answers to this question:
  • Can I make money or gain power with these documents?
Trump's actions emphasize the need for reforming how classified documents are handled. As an elected president, Trump immediately acquired full access to any & all classified information. All he had to do was ask for it. No vetting process is required of a president.

To get clearance at the highest levels, anyone else would have to go through an elaborate background investigation of his/her past. Police, past employers, coworkers, school officials, neighbors, and five non-family character references will all be interviewed. Questions requiring assessments would include these:
  • Does this person have a criminal record, especially any felony convictions?
  • Does this person have a clean employment record?
  • Is this person considered honest or a frequent liar?
  • Does this person spend a lot more money than he typically earns, have any unusual debts, especially gambling debts?
  • Does this person have a alcohol or drug problem?
  • Does this person prefer sex with the opposite or same sex?
  • Does this person have any past affiliation with extreme or unusual political groups, foreign or domestic?
  • Does this person have anything else that could create a risk for foreign agents to blackmail him/her?
Can we afford to grant full access to critical national defense information to elected politicians without any vetting process? Trump clearly would have failed a background investigation for a security clearance. Can we afford to allow someone, such as Trump, to gain unrestricted access to critical secrets?

Many years ago, in 1971, I had to go through a background investigation like this. My work in the navy required it. I find myself truly angered that Trump acts like he is above all laws, the Espionage Act in particular.
 
Last edited:
BMXTRIX

BMXTRIX

Audioholic Warlord
Not sure how many really get the concept of how crazy the classification systems are in the government. I think the news media kinda throws out terms like 'super top secret' or they say 'special access program', without making clear how unobtainable this information is.

The special access program (SAP) is such a high classification, that those with a top secret/SCI clearance, cannot be in the room when SAP information is in the room unless they have a specific need to know. Someone with a top secret (TS) clearance, can't be in a space designated for secure compartmentalized information (SCI) facilities (SCIF) without an escort. So, when they talk about 'beyond' or 'above' the highest classification, they actually mean it is requires additional screening and permissions that are beyond top secret. SAP and SCI programs typically bear the moniker TS/SCI or TS/SAP. They are top secret, but specifically classified for certain programs.

The additional background checks and polygraph tests for those who get those clearances can be vigorous.

I am fortunate to NOT need to see those pieces of information. :D

Polygraphs... Polygraphs with lifestyle... Nope!

This page has some good information for those looking for some details of what agencies utilize SCI documentation and need it on a regular basis and some requirements and job needs...
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Not sure how many really get the concept of how crazy the classification systems are in the government.
It was intended to appear "crazy". Obscure or deliberately confusing may be better descriptions. A person with such a clearance could only know secrets that directly involved his job – the 'need to know'. Clearly the US president needs to know quite a lot more than I needed to know back in 70s.

Back in the 70s, I had clearance for Top Secret Umbra. Umbra was a code word for signals intelligence, that is intelligence from intercepting and reading communications or other electronic signals, as opposed to human intelligence. (There were several other code words that more narrowly defined certain missions I worked on. Those words themselves were Top Secret.) As a guess, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) seems to cover similar things as Umbra covered in my days. During WW2, we & the British used the word Ultra instead of Umbra. The whole story behind Ultra was only revealed in the late 1960s or early 70s.

When I was 'debriefed' shortly before leaving the Navy, I had to sign papers acknowledging I was aware of the laws against revealing any secret I had learned. I was also prevented from traveling for the next 5 years to any foreign countries designated as trouble spots or security risks.

Why am I delving into my past? I want to emphasize this: The methods by which we learned the most sensitive intelligence was a more closely guarded secret than the intelligence info itself. This is still true today.

You can imagine my shock & anger when I learned what Trump has done. He has compromised and revealed the so-called "Crown Jewels" of US intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
I've read and heard much in US press that one should not indict a former President, in this case Trump. In democracies abroad criminal investigation/indictment/prosecution of former and current political leaders, and guess what, they are still viable democracies.

If someone is proclaiming that everyone is equal under the law, how can one defend not indicting when there are crimes committed?

An indictment will make people lose their faith in the justice system? Really?

"There will be riots in the streets"! Succumb to threat of violence?

The opposition when start indicting former political leaders when they get power again as a retaliation for perceived slights. If you believe that you also believe that USA really is a banana republic that is lawless.

That said, there are abuses.

 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I've read and heard much in US press that one should not indict a former President, in this case Trump. In democracies abroad criminal investigation/indictment/prosecution of former and current political leaders, and guess what, they are still viable democracies.

If someone is proclaiming that everyone is equal under the law, how can one defend not indicting when there are crimes committed?

An indictment will make people lose their faith in the justice system? Really?

"There will be riots in the streets"! Succumb to threat of violence?

The opposition when start indicting former political leaders when they get power again as a retaliation for perceived slights. If you believe that you also believe that USA really is a banana republic that is lawless.

That said, there are abuses.

Berlusconi's sentence was upheld and Italy isn't in flames, although that country isn't seen as a World Power, nor are its people on the same level of wackjobness.

Riots? We already have riots and excessive violence.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
It was intended to appear "crazy". Obscure or deliberately confusing may be better descriptions. A person with such a clearance could only know secrets that directly involved his job – the 'need to know'. Clearly the US president needs to know quite a lot more than I needed to know back in 70s.

Back in the 70s, I had clearance for Top Secret Umbra. (There were several other code words that more narrowly defined certain missions I worked on. Those words themselves were Top Secret.) Umbra was a code word for signals intelligence, that is intelligence from intercepting and reading communications or other electronic signals, as opposed to human intelligence. As a guess, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) seems to cover similar things as Umbra covered in my days. During WW2, we & the British used the word Ultra instead of Umbra. The whole story behind Ultra was only revealed in the late 1960s or early 70s.

When I was 'debriefed' shortly before leaving the Navy, I had to sign papers acknowledging I was aware of the laws against revealing any secret I had learned. I was also prevented from traveling for the next 5 years to any foreign countries designated as trouble spots or security risks.

My point to delving into my past is to emphasize how the methods by which we learned the most sensitive intelligence was a more closely guarded secret than the intelligence info itself. You can imagine my shock & anger when I learned what Trump has done. He revealed the so-called "Crown Jewels" of US intelligence.
Is that codeword declassified?
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
His 'souvenir collection' from his White House days may be a result of his hoarding tendencies, but it also creates a serious threat to US national security. His intentions don't matter – neither does his being president. The Espionage Act makes it clear that Trump's acts constitute a serious violation of the law.
I agree it's a threat to national security.

For the most part I agree that his having been president doesn't matter, but it does make a difference for purposes of certain laws such as the Presidential Records Act that are in play:


I'm not so sure that "his intentions don't matter" with regards to the Espionage Act. On the face of it, Section 793(f) only requires "gross negligence." As I see it, there's almost no doubt Trump's handling of the documents constitutes gross negligence. If that was the end of it, intent doesn't matter But, here's what Comey said about the Clinton investigation:

>>>In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.<<<


Here's a blog post arguing that Comey was correct, and that the Espionage Act would be unconstitutional if the courts did not construe it as requiring intent:

>>>The issue of mens rea, or intent, is not as simple as it seems on the surface, and intent is the correct standard. Comey was right not to recommend filing charges and to base his decision on the absence of evidence that Clinton had the necessary intent. . . This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction. . . . The [Supreme] court [in Gorin v. United States] made clear that if the law criminalized the simple mishandling of classified information, it would not survive constitutional scrutiny, writing:
The sections are not simple prohibitions against obtaining or delivering to foreign powers information… relating to national defense. If this were the language, it would need to be tested by the inquiry as to whether it had double meaning or forced anyone, at his peril, to speculate as to whether certain actions violated the statute.
In other words, the defendant had to intend for his conduct to benefit a foreign power for his actions to violate 793(f). Without the requirement of intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense” would be unconstitutionally vague.<<< (emphasis added)


It will be interesting to see what evidence is developed in the Trump investigation. One distinction in the Clinton case is Comey's statement that the cases that had been prosecuted involved "efforts to obstruct justice." I suspect this might be part of the reason the DOJ included Sections 2071 and 1519 in the affidavit.

Of course, if there's sufficient evidence, he could be charged for violating additional federal laws that were not listed in the search warrant. Here's a (non-exhaustive) smorgasbord of laws that might come into play if sufficient evidence is developed:

50 U.S.C. 3121 - Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources


18 U.S.C. 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government


18 U.S.C. 952 - Diplomatic codes and correspondence


18 U.S.C. 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material


It appears to me that section 1924 could very well come into play at some point, even though the DOJ didn't include it in the search warrant. This was clearly done to avoid giving Trump an argument that the warrant was fatally flawed because he declassified the documents. However, if Trump is indicted I'd expect a section 1924 charge, and I'd also expect Trump to lose an argument that he declassified the documents.

18 U.S.C. 35 - Imparting or conveying false information


Again, this not an exhaustive list.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
I'm with Trell on this question. Trump went far beyond his usual reckless & irresponsible behavior. His 'souvenir collection' from his White House days may be a result of his hoarding tendencies, but it also creates a serious threat to US national security. His intentions don't matter – neither does his being president. The Espionage Act makes it clear that Trump's acts constitute a serious violation of the law.

It's always been simple to guess Trump's mindset. His decisions seem to always be based answers to this question:
  • Can I make money or gain power with these documents?
Trump's actions emphasize the need for reforming how classified documents are handled. As an elected president, Trump immediately acquired full access to any & all classified information. All he had to do was ask for it. No vetting process is required of a president.

To get clearance at the highest levels, anyone else would have to go through an elaborate background investigation of his/her past. Police, past employers, coworkers, school officials, neighbors, and five non-family character references will all be interviewed. Questions requiring assessments would include these:
  • Does this person have a criminal record, especially any felony convictions?
  • Does this person have a clean employment record?
  • Is this person considered honest or a frequent liar?
  • Does this person spend a lot more money than he typically earns, have any unusual debts, especially gambling debts?
  • Does this person have a alcohol or drug problem?
  • Does this person prefer sex with the opposite or same sex?
  • Does this person have any past affiliation with extreme or unusual political groups, foreign or domestic?
  • Does this person have anything else that could create a risk for foreign agents to blackmail him/her?
Can we afford to grant full access to critical national defense information to elected politicians without any vetting process? Trump clearly would have failed a background investigation for a security clearance. Can we afford to allow someone, such as Trump, to gain unrestricted access to critical secrets?

Many years ago, in 1971, I had to go through a background investigation like this. My work in the navy required it. I find myself truly angered that Trump acts like he is above all laws, the Espionage Act in particular.
Since it wasn't reasonably foreseeable when security clearance requirements were initially compiled that a POTUS could pose such a significant security risk, this situation couldn't be predicted. But, now may be the time to revise them. Anyone running for president should have to go through the process that you describe. If they don't pass all the criteria, they should be deemed ineligible to run.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Since it wasn't reasonably foreseeable when security clearance requirements were initially compiled that a POTUS could pose such a significant security risk, this situation couldn't be predicted. But, now may be the time to revise them. Anyone running for president should have to go through the process that you describe. If they don't pass all the criteria, they should be deemed ineligible to run.
A law attempting to impose additional requirements beyond the constitutional requirements is unlikely to survive a legal challenge (in my opinion, the law would be DOA). It would require an amendment to the constitution.

This issue came up recently in the context of 18 U.S.C. 2071:

>>>Section 2071 says anyone who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies or destroys” government documents is guilty of a crime carrying a penalty of up to three years in prison. In addition, anyone who violates the law “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

But the law can’t override the U.S. Constitution, which provides the qualifications for president, according to experts cited by the New York Times and a post at the Election Law Blog by Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.

Jason Willick, a columnist for the Washington Post, summed up the argument in a tweet.

“Nope, can’t impose qualifications on holding the presidency by statute—the qualifications are set out in the Constitution. The search for ‘one weird trick’ to banish Trump from politics will have to continue.”<<<


It might be a good idea, but it would require an amendment to the Constitution.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
DOJ worried that there are still classified documents that are unaccounted for.

>>>Former U.S. President Donald Trump's team may not have returned all the classified records removed from the White House at the end of his presidency even after an FBI search of his home, U.S. prosecutors warned on Thursday, calling it a potential national security risk that needs investigation.

That revelation came in a Justice Department court filing asking U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to let it continue reviewing about 100 classified records seized by the FBI at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate while it investigates whether classified documents were illegally removed from the White House and improperly stored there.<<<

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
… Anyone running for president should have to go through the process that you describe. If they don't pass all the criteria, they should be deemed ineligible to run.
In the past, both US political parties took it as their responsibility to check the backgrounds of all candidates well before primary elections. This was a voluntary effort, mostly driven by the fear that a candidate's unsuitable background might be revealed by the opposing party.

Sometime in the last 25 years the GOP has abandoned such efforts. They have even gone so far as to lie about opposing candidates, while ignoring any such defects in their own candidates. If Trump will be accused of these crimes – and I believe he will – it will eventually require new laws about what backgrounds are not suitable for candidates of political office. There will be yet another absurd argument over the Constitution: What security clearances did the Founding Fathers intend in 1792?
 
Last edited:
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
It was intended to appear "crazy". Obscure or deliberately confusing may be better descriptions. A person with such a clearance could only know secrets that directly involved his job – the 'need to know'. Clearly the US president needs to know quite a lot more than I needed to know back in 70s.

Back in the 70s, I had clearance for Top Secret Umbra. (There were several other code words that more narrowly defined certain missions I worked on. Those words themselves were Top Secret.) Umbra was a code word for signals intelligence, that is intelligence from intercepting and reading communications or other electronic signals, as opposed to human intelligence. As a guess, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) seems to cover similar things as Umbra covered in my days. During WW2, we & the British used the word Ultra instead of Umbra. The whole story behind Ultra was only revealed in the late 1960s or early 70s.

When I was 'debriefed' shortly before leaving the Navy, I had to sign papers acknowledging I was aware of the laws against revealing any secret I had learned. I was also prevented from traveling for the next 5 years to any foreign countries designated as trouble spots or security risks.

My point to delving into my past is to emphasize how the methods by which we learned the most sensitive intelligence was a more closely guarded secret than the intelligence info itself. You can imagine my shock & anger when I learned what Trump has done. He revealed the so-called "Crown Jewels" of US intelligence.
I have a clearance, but not top secret. Maybe secret, but it's been a few years so I haven't thought about it.

To your point, and as @BMXTRIX pointed out, these clearances are no joke. My puny clearance was a pain to get. Had to fill out all sorts of forms, verify this and that, plus get interviewed and have people near me interviewed.

I can't even imagine what those crazy high level clearances entail.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top