No Crime Alleged in the Mar-a-Lago Indictment Occurred in DC; Other Crimes Did

Today, SCOTUS ruled that the government can retry someone in the proper venue if the original case is thrown out on venue grounds without violating double jeopardy.

The decision matters for Vladislav Klyushin, “Putin’s pen-tester,” whose sole post-trial challenge to his Boston insider trading conviction was on venue grounds. The decision makes it more likely he’ll just move to sentencing and maybe decide to make his life easier by cooperating with the US government.

Contrary to what a bunch of TV lawyers are saying — who adopted this challenge as their favorite explanation for why Jack Smith would charge Trump under 18 USC 793(e) in Southern District of Florida rather than DC — the decision would never have mattered for Donald Trump.

I can’t tell you whether Smith charged Trump in Florida because he knew Trump would have successfully challenged venue elsewhere, because he has a larger strategy in mind, or because he just believes you don’t look for easy wins if you’re going to charge the former President of the United States. I suspect it is all of those things, plus a decision to do as much as possible to convince Republicans that this prosecution is legitimate, not merely an attempt to get Donald Trump.

I know that when Smith spoke publicly for all of three minutes, he mentioned the Florida venue twice.

Frankly, all the hand-wringing about venue in SDFL plays into the Republican doubters’ hands, because it sure makes it sound like you are trying to get Trump rather than prosecute a crime.

I can tell you those who think DC would have worked misunderstand the charge and misunderstand the only way an 18 USC 793(e) charge was going to be viable against the former President.

As a reminder, these are the elements of offense of 18 USC 793(e), taken from the very same jury instructions that a jury in SDFL one day may receive. As I showed in August, there was already abundant evidence that Trump met the elements of offense.

There are five elements:

  • Unauthorized possession (proof he had the documents after such time as he was no longer permitted to have them)
  • National Defense Information (NDI) (reasons a jury would agree that these documents were closely held and important to keeping the US safe)
  • Damage to the US (some kind of proof that Trump knew both that these documents could damage the US and that classified information could generally)
  • Willful (proof that he knew he had the documents, as distinct from — like Pence and probably Biden — he just accidentally removed them from his office along with other papers)
  • Refusal (some proof that he didn’t just not return the documents, but refused to do so)

To charge a former President — as distinct from someone who had clearance and brought stuff home from work — you have to prove two things: One, he knew he had  documents that remained classified after he left the Presidency, and two, that after such time as he realized he still had classified documents, he refused to give them back.

Biden and Pence discovered they had unauthorized possession of classified documents and they rushed to give them back.

By July 2021 — when Trump bragged about having documents that remained classified to a ghost writer — Trump knew he had unauthorized possession of classified documents. The Archives, Trump’s lawyers, and DOJ told him over and over that he had to give them back.

And then, in two different incidents, he took classified documents and removed them from a set of other documents that he did give back. That’s the refusal.

You do not have a crime with which you can charge a former President — as distinct from someone whose possession of classified documents would be unauthorized once he brought them outside the SCIF he had agreed to hold them in — until such time as he realizes he has them, someone asks for them back, and he refuses.

It is the refusing to give the documents back that is the provable crime, not the possession per se.

And Trump’s two big refusals — the two times he went to great efforts to sort through boxes personally to cull out documents he wanted to keep rather than return — were both in Florida, both long after he left the White House.

According to the indictment, Trump committed the act of refusing to give documents back under 18 USC 793(e) twice: once, from November 2021 until January 2022, when having been convinced he had to return documents, he went through box after box and carefully curated the boxes he returned on January 18, 2022 to keep some. The proof that he refused to give everything back in January 2022 is that there were still 38 classified documents when Evan Corcoran conducted a search in June, ten of which are charged as separate counts.

Trump refused again in May and June 2022, when he duped Evan Corcoran into claiming he had done a diligent search when in fact Trump had made sure that Corcoran would only search 30 of the 64 boxes Trump knew he still possessed. The proof that he withheld classified documents in June are the 100-some classified documents that the FBI found him to still have in his possession on August 8 of last year, 21 of which are charged as separate counts.

Jack Smith’s decision to charge this case in Florida — knowing full well he might face Aileen Cannon — was a decision about whether he could prove the elements of the offense of a crime that happened in Florida.

He is provably still considering charging crimes that happened in DC. He might even be contemplating charges for crimes that happened in New Jersey. Or maybe he is contemplating charging crimes that started in DC and ended in New Jersey.

I suspect we’re going to be surprised with the crimes he does charge, as virtually all the people saying this could have been charged in DC were surprised that he did choose to charge 18 USC 793(e), rather than just obstruction.

I wasn’t surprised. I laid out exactly how it would look last August; the big surprise to me are the pretty pictures proving Trump’s possession of these documents in Florida.

I also think virtually everyone is imagining that Smith is searching for the one trial to take Trump down, rather than making decisions about a package of conduct about which he might be able to reach a just resolution for the public interest.

I personally doubt an 18 USC 793(e) trial will happen in Florida (or elsewhere), because 793 prosecutions rarely go to trial.

They plead out.

And I promise you that Jack Smith would prefer to get a plea agreement with Donald Trump — however improbable that may seem to us now — than air 31 of the country’s most classified documents at trial.

The only prosecutorial decision Jack Smith has made public thus far is to charge a crime in Florida that happened in Florida. And none of us know how that decision fits in with the other prosecutorial decisions Smith might make or may already have made.

image_print
82 replies
  1. Datnotdat says:

    Dr. Wheeler,
    Bravo! Another succinct, pithy, recitation of facts “hidden in plain sight” that you, if not only, then first, explicate.
    datnotdat
    P.S. Crimes in NJ? I’m busy popping popcorn.

  2. ExRacerX says:

    “I promise you that Jack Smith would prefer to get a plea agreement with Donald Trump — however improbable that may seem to us now — than air 31 of the country’s most classified documents at trial.”

    Thanks, Marcy; it’s amazing how many detailed posts you’ve made since the FL indictment was announced—what a work ethic! How likely do you think it is for Trump to enter into a plea agreement? To my (NAL) mind, his prior behavior says not very, but the stakes are extremely high here, and could get higher.

    • smf88011 says:

      They have 3 methods to deal with getting those documents into the hands of jurors – declassification, CIPA Section 6 using redactions or substitutions, or Silent Witness Rule. From my experience with classified documents of this level, I would prefer CIPA or Silent Witness over Declassification.

      • ExRacerX says:

        Um, thanks? I had asked how likely it was for Trump to enter into a plea agreement, not how documents will be provided to jurors if the case goes to trial.

        • Shadowalker says:

          Not very likely, at least not till after the election, if the trial lasts that long and Trump loses the election. But with Trump you never know.

        • punaise says:

          Yeah, I don’t see this happening:

          Miami Nice: The Trump Documents Plea Deal We Need

          The criminal ex-president will never do hard time like he should, but the right kind of deal could mete out justice and spare us all a classified documents trial that will satisfy no one.

          …Even if the prosecution has a good chance of burning Trump to a crisp, should they if the cost is another spasm of hate convulsing the country? As a practical matter, Smith’s case is no longer the slam dunk it was now that they’re trying it in South Florida…
          ___

          I’ve been away from the law for years, but if Trump were my client, right after telling him to keep his mouth shut, I’d urge him to consider pleading not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. What better proof of decreased capacity than that he still believes he’s president?
          ___

          Anything is better for the commonweal than another trial of the century rivaling O.J.’s. The author of The Art of the Deal should take a deal. It would be painful to watch Trump get off with a dainty ankle bracelet, a Mar-a-Lago confinement with golf and sirloin instead of Lewisburg with metalwork and bologna sandwiches. But if Smith, fresh from The Hague, gets this world-class criminal to forego running for office and accept house arrest, that might be justice enough.

        • Shadowalker says:

          I don’t think they are that worried about MAGA exploding, besides that can be dealt with appropriately with laws they have in place. I do think they need to find out where the missing docs went to, they also need to find out how much damage has been done. It would be much easier and quicker if he cooperated which would be a component of any plea deal.

        • ButteredToast says:

          Definitely unlikely. IMO the first few sentences of the column (not your comment, the Washington Monthly piece) suggest the writer is endorsing the claims of Trump and his defenders that the indictment is political: “Blue America wants Trump prosecuted for his crimes against the republic. Red America believes Joe Biden wants to off his rival. Would the two sides pause at the courthouse steps, retreat to a back room, and negotiate a settlement?

          “Each side is sure that they have a better hand, although Special Counsel Jack Smith really does.”

          “Each side”? Jack Smith represents “Blue America”? What a terrible and inaccurate way to frame the situation. Maybe the columnist is just joking. It does seem by her suggestion that Trump could plead temporary insanity that she’s writing somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

  3. rich ellison says:

    Appreciate all you do.

    Any thoughts on Malcolm Nance’s recent rant (on a show with Mystal), adamantly stating DJT sold some of his trove of treasured documents?

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You’ve commented as “rich ellison,” “rich,” “Rich,” “rich e,” and “Rich E,” all of which are different usernames. You’ve also entered content in the URL field which also creates a new username if you’ve not filled in that field before or filled it with different information. PLEASE comment here forward as “rich ellison” without any content in the URL. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Tech Support says:

      It seems unlikely he has any actual admissible evidence to support this assertion that could be turned over to DOJ.

      Maybe he (through his connections to the IC) is aware of something that has happened internationally that could most easily be explained by disclosure of NDI originating from Trump. IF that is true, whatever he has gleaned through the grapevine is probably inadmissible.

      If that IS true, then you’d imagine that Jack Smith learned about it before Malcom Nance did, and his team is already using the inadmissible information to guide his investigation into a parallel construction that will be admissible.

      But it’s just as likely that he’s making the exact same spitball inferences that many of us are… that the LIV golf shenanigans and the failure of the US to anticipate the Saudi/Iranian hugfest brokered by the PRC represent something DJT has done to undermine US interests for his own personal gain.

  4. Bears7485 says:

    I know it’s hard to speculate, but what would a plea deal look like in this case?

    Trump is going to claim victory either way, so I wouldn’t begrudge Smith for making a deal.

    • emptywheel says:

      One way to get to a plea agreement is to charge 2071 in DC, which only has a 3 year sentence but DQs someone from holding public office. You get him to plead to that to avoid the 330 year exposure in FL.

      • Bears7485 says:

        Many thanks for the response. Seeing as I don’t believe Trump ever wanted to win the presidency in the first place, this seemingly wouldn’t be too hard for him to swallow and it would allow him to continue raising $ from the rubes by selling that the “deep state” is after him.

        And all of the thanks for all you guys do here. Such an amazing group of people assembled here who effectively cut through the bullshit to deliver the truth. This last week’s worth of in-depth analysis alone is worth another trip to the tip jar.

        • TREPping says:

          I think you are assuming rational action. DJT is not a rational actor. A plea would be an admission of guilt, of doing something wrong. I have a hard time seeing him take that step. It is certainly possible, but I cannot think of an instance of when he has done something like that. In his mind, everything he does is “perfect.” I hope I am mistaken. I think the country would be better off if he admitted guilt and went off quietly into that good night.

        • LeeNLP941 says:

          I tend to think Bears was (“Bears were”?) correct. T is clearly evil, but I don’t think he would have succeeded to the degree he did without being fully rational in his evil. As CS Lewis’s character Screwtape reminds, devils are nothing if not practical.

        • madhaus1 says:

          I disagree. Trump has settled so many of his civil suits where he had to pay huge fines. I’m sure he’d take a plea deal with home detention offered, to avoid the possibility of lockup for the rest of his life.

          Then he’ll spin it to his rubes as a win.

        • Michael_15JUN2023_1642h says:

          The guy has a well documented history of settling lawsuits, and also quitting when things get tough. He can claim the game wasn’t fair and quit, then become a martyr for the conned rubes.

          I’ve always thought he would plead guilty in exchange for less jail time, and all he’d have to do is stab the Republican Party in the back on his end to get a deal.

          [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimumof 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too common it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

        • emptywheel says:

          I’m not assuming anything.

          Anna Bower’s report on the arraignment was most interesting bc she described Smith just staring at Trump through the whole hearing.

          I like to imagine Smith was just pondering what would make that vulnerable narcissist cared about such that he would plead to save it. It’s not his wife, his kids. May not even be his empire. But if he can figure out what Trump would trade, he might be able to offer it in a plea.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          Trump may not care about his family, but he still doesn’t like Melania and Ivanka to be mad at him. Lately, I think he just wants to spend time being a DJ at his clubs and brag about how special he and his life are. Maybe somebody can figure out a way to set him up with his own Trump version of The Truman Show, except keep it closed circuit.

        • -mamake- says:

          Brilliant! I think many would settle happily for this – keep he and his toxic stew in his own bubble – and to never his whining voice again.

          Perhaps there could be a “Sir-charge” (going to appropriate organizations supporting the many populations he has damaged over the years), everytime his name is uttered…

          You may say I’m a dreamer, but am sure I’m not the only one.

        • bmaz says:

          And this is why you always go to live court and/or meetings. You simply have to see everything. See what all the other people are doing, reacting to and seemingly worried about. In CAND and the 9th, as you know, that might could have been viewed, but generally still not elsewhere. It should be.

        • emptywheel says:

          Well, she worked her ass off to do it.

          She accidentally started the press line early and so waited 27 hours.

          I forgot to link it.

        • bmaz says:

          Oh, I knew and much appreciated that. It is very different in the 9th, but primarily CAND. Emptywheel was part of how that occurred. Interesting thing is there have been few, if any, complaints as to it being so.

        • Alan_OrbitalMechanic says:

          Jack Smith looks to me more like an executioner than a prosecutor. Damn but that guy is as creepy as fuck.

          You know the expression “get off my case”? That was written with Jack Smith in mind.

        • Rayne says:

          Really? You’re going to attack a serious man with a serious job about looking serious as he works?

          Did you go off on Bill Barr’s Jaba the Hutt-like appearance? or Jeff Sessions’ Keebler Elf appearance? Or on Robert Mueller’s baleful appearance? Did their appearance have anything to do at all with what they did in their respective law enforcement roles?

          Come on now.

        • rst_07FEB2017_2159h says:

          I hope Jack Smith has asked Trump’s sister Mary.

          [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • David Brooks says:

        From how I read Jack Smith, I doubt he would per se favor a plea that brings DQ, because it smacks of being a politically preferable end, not a judicially acceptable one. Anyway, any political consideration might be in the other direction: to avoid appearing to favor Biden. He could use 2071, but only if the offense coincidentally meets his goals as SC.

        That said, I have no more insight into his thinking than anyone else (pace bmaz).

        • Chris Hickman says:

          Wouldn’t the preference be to prevent recidivism? Putting him in jail just to put him in jail if there is another way to prevent him from committing the crime is not in the spirit of our criminal justice system (even though it does happen). He should absolutely go to prison for the damages he has caused through these crimes, but removing his ability to run for public offense prevents reoffense, and ironically, prison *doesn’t* actually do that.

  5. smf88011 says:

    I wonder if anyone here has done a breakdown on what classified markings mean. You know If a document is marked “TOP SECRET/REDACTED/REDACTED/ORCON/NOFORN”, what does ORCON, NOFORN, etc. mean. I can do a quick primer on it if you would like me to write one out.

    I went through the FBI inventory again and saw some markings that cannot be declassified unilaterally by a President either. SRD, RD, and FRD are all things a President cannot declassify because they are classified by the Atomic Energy Act. SRD – Secret Restricted Data, RD – Restricted Data, FRD – Formerly Restricted Data. The only way to get those things declassified is if the DOD or DOE decides to declassify it, they have to ask the other agency if it is okay to do so. If they disagree, the President gets to decide if it is declassified or not. No matter what, even FRD is considered National Defense Information and would be able to be used in an Espionage Act charge.

    In case you were wondering, I have been an Authorized Derivative Classifier for over 3 decades at various Department of Energy National Laboratories such as Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and at PANTEX.

  6. Snarfyguy says:

    “Jack Smith would prefer to get a plea agreement with Donald Trump . . . than air 31 of the country’s most classified documents at trial.”

    How would the latter option work, given that no one can see these documents without having proper authorization and being in a SCIF? The documents will, presumably, be evidence, but even if they’re under seal, how can the jury/judge/counsel use them?

    Apologies if you’ve addressed this elsewhere!

  7. loveyourstuff says:

    Marcy, you make me laugh with your description, “pretty pictures.” Good play off the beautiful mind paper boxes.

  8. Grant G says:

    Possession is 9/10ths …….
    Interesting article in Washington Post…An article saying that DJT was led down his current path by Tom Fitton(non lawyer) ..apparently, the attorneys Trump was paying for advised him to return documents…Fitton advised DJT that he had ultimate authority to keep it all….Trump chose Fitton’s advice, sort of, he also took paid lawyers advice, sort of….Trump on Fitton advice is claiming all encompassing power over documents…Yet Trump returned some…And therein lies the rub, if Trump really believed Fitton, he should have secured all the boxes of stuff..returned no documents, returned nothing and defied NARA/GUV demands to return and let it play out in court….Trump erred, he got caught playing hide n seek with boxes, on many occasions, Naura got caught…and so did some lawyer(s)..(I think)…IMO…Trump could have dragged out returning stuff for years through the use of the court…..Trump erred in hide n seek game he was playing…..Now Trump is falling back on all encompassing authority claim ..His Hail Mary…..Too late…It’s the hide n seek game that will bring DJT down.

    Cheers

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  9. Mike Stone says:

    While March has done perhaps the best job of anyone reading the tea leaves about what Smith may or may not charge, I completely agree that we only know what is public and that could be a very small part of what Smith and his team know. There will likely be far more that we learn about Trump’s behavior in the coming months.

    With respect to a plea, wouldn’t Trump and his lawyers only consider this after discovery motions have played out?

    • emptywheel says:

      It depends. They definitely will want to look at the documents, which will in turn require them to get clearance (the next post notes that Cannon ordered them to get clearance in timely fashion). But it also depends on what else gets place on their plate.

  10. cmarlowe says:

    Would Trump enter into a plea agreement for the MAL docs without also getting a plea agreement on J6? I don’t expect an answer here, it just crossed my mind. What good is copping to 2071 only to soon get hit with seditious conspiracy?

    • Troutwaxer says:

      Very cynically, imagine that Trump pleads guilty to one disqualifying charge and gets probation if he cooperates with DOJ on taking down all the other bandits. Because if it keeps his ass out of jail… Probably not going to happen, but not hard to imagine either. One way or another I think it’s scary to consider just how low DJT will go.

    • emptywheel says:

      bmaz is right: no. It would need to be a package.

      2071 would almost certainly have to be part bc it’d DQ him. But I suspect that’s what Smith is working on–even while he needs to charge a whole bunch of other fuckers.

      Tricky business, but as I keep saying, bc he’s in charge of BOTH the Jan6 and the stolen docs case, he has more leverage than prosecutors normally would. plus those cases ended up intersecting in ways that I suspect started to chip away at the omerta.

      • Shadowalker says:

        “ Tricky business, but as I keep saying, bc he’s in charge of BOTH the Jan6 and the stolen docs case, he has more leverage than prosecutors normally would.”

        It helps that he was put in charge of PIN in 2010, after the overturned conviction of Alaska Sen. Stevens because prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense. One of his first acts was to close any investigations that were in the speculation stage for too long. A notable case was the McDonnell bribery conviction that was overturned by SCOTUS (8-0) in 2015. Not sure how any of this effects his decision process, but the McDonnell one might cause him to look for rock solid evidence before moving forward, since they overturned that conviction because no direct links were presented linking the pay to play.

        • bmaz says:

          I don’t think you were with us back in the Ted Stevens days and earlier in that saga, but yes. And the Stevens matter and how it was handled, is a key piece of why I am dubious of how DOJ is self policed. It is still the Roach Motel.

  11. Taxesmycredulity says:

    Will DJT and Nauta be tried separately? If so, I imagine Nauta could be tried first, and the length of his trial would be more in line with Smith’s projection of 60 days. If this trial is indeed a “tactical nuke,” is it likely Smith plans to establish/elicit/make public info in that case that he wants conveyed to the DCGJ without even trying DJT right away? Also, if indictments are forthcoming in DC or NJ, could those be tried before the case in the SDFL?

    • emptywheel says:

      No. Because the drama of the disclosures will make it far easier to convict Nauta.

      Nauta is not (yet) charged for Trump’s NatSec crimes (though he could be), but he will have to stand in court and answer for them.

      It’s one piece of leverage over him to flip.

      • -mamake- says:

        Don’t know if this has been addressed elsewhere on this site, but I wonder/worry what Trump + mob may have in the way of compromat on Nauta…given the mobster nature of this entity, I can imagine they might have a hold over people or things he loves.

        We are not likely to know what kind of sword is hanging over Nauta’s head.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          From the articles I’ve read, Nauta’s mother & aunt (who both live in Guam,) are very proud and supportive. They are impressed with his accomplishments. They may not realize the magnitude of the challenges he faces.

          This may be totally unrelated but I found it interesting. Trump nominated a woman from Guam as Ambassador to Albania. She (Yuri Kim) was confirmed by the Senate on 12/19/19. If you recall, Rayne did a fascinating post on 2/8/23 called, “The Other Albanian Stuff, “ which covered a lot of territory. Some of the names she mentioned were Rudy Giuliani, Charles McGonigal, Oleg Deripaska, John Bolton, Lindsey Graham, and Trump.

          Since that time, we’ve also learned that a woman who George Santos called a friend, Evi Kokalari, also had connections to Albania.

        • Rayne says:

          Ooh my. Thanks for that, I’d moved on to Moldova, hadn’t dug any deeper into Albania. I’ll squirrel this away!

          #Albania

        • Savage Librarian says:

          ;-) Yeah, it’s hard to say whether it’s because of the generally screwed up nature of Albania, or something else. Fiona Hill commented in her book about how the easy access to Trump’s WH created serious issues. Albania was a country she mentioned.

  12. West Coast Castaway(GG) says:

    Cheers

    [Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum — at least that’s what I assume you’re doing with this otherwise context-free comment not attached to your previous comment. /~Rayne]

  13. Savage Librarian says:

    I’ve been thinking that the texts between the female family member (Melania?) and Nauta may have been intended to encourage Trump and Nauta to think about the impact of all this on their families. So, if 793 prosecutions rarely go to trial, and usually plead out instead, it just reinforces for me that this is what I have called a head fake (though, I admit, that’s not the best descriptor; I’m sure something better exists.)

    I agree, wholeheartedly, that the aim should be a “just resolution for the public interest.” As other indictments drop, the pressure is going to be intense, on Trump, his family, and the nation. A plea agreement to charge 2071 in DC sounds like a worthy goal to me, for the complete “package of conduct.”

  14. 90’s Country says:

    Emptywheel has become a central part of my life in these ridiculous times, and for that I say thank you to EW, BMAZ, Rayne, Peterr, Ed Walker and anyone else. Especially, of course, EW.
    Not to forget the regular commenters and anyone who offers a nuanced look into the revolving monkey cage that politics has become.
    I don’t typically miss Republicans, but sorely miss rational Republicans.
    Thanks again.

  15. Alan_OrbitalMechanic says:

    Trump will not take a plea deal unless it makes all of his other legal problems go away at the same time. I was perusing a Forbes article that listed the “45 other legal actions” that Trump is involved with at the moment.

    Of course Smith could not deliver that if he wanted to, but he could probably make the 1/6 business and the Georgia election tampering prosecution go away. Trump might go for that because those are the things he can’t just buy his way out of.

    I don’t want to see that deal happen but if it did the best part of it would be how many Trump cronies will be thrown under the bus — in other words no immunity or pardon — in order to save Trump.

  16. Andrew Krikelas says:

    If you look at the picture of Trump’s bathroom/shower, it looks like there is a window near the shower. Two boxes are piled up so high that they are within inches of that window. Has anyone noticed and/or commented on this?

    • Rayne says:

      I don’t know where this bathroom is located; its location may explain the lack of comment.

      If it’s near Trump’s office, it’s on an upper level floor. Its window may be difficult to access from outside without a ladder.

      • Konny_2022 says:

        WaPo has illustrated the various Mar-a-Lago locations, see https://web.archive.org/web/20230612045720/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/interactive/2023/see-trump-classified-documents-mar-a-lago-path-storage-bathroom/. The “bathroom and shower” is “in The Mar-a-Lago Club’s Lake Room” according to the indictment (para. 28), and the Lake Room is between the patio and Trump’s family suite, according to WaPo.

        I don’t think the windows (top-hung windows for that matter) play a role though. This room was poorly guarded anyway, it seems.

        • Rayne says:

          Thanks for that link, I had not read that piece in WaPo. Based on the graphic and the text, if the bathroom is near the Lake Room it’s on the second floor.

          I really did need this piece for other reasons, thanks again. That first photo at the top of the story, over which graphics are overlaid? Take a look at the upper left in the parking lot, nearly on the edge of the photo. There’s a blue rental storage container, which seems like a really odd thing to have tying up multiple parking spaces as the “little season” begins.

          That container has been bugging the heck out of me for weeks now.

        • Arabesque Cookie says:

          One article WaPo(?) or perhaps MSNBC mentioned that the towels and other amenities in the bathroom are/were regularly replaced —note the emptied trash can. That indicates that housekeeping staff had frequent access to that bathroom.

        • Konny_2022 says:

          You’re welcome. I remember your writings about the storage container, or wasn’t it even containers (plural), one on the outside, but close to the wall of MaL?

          Re the WaPo photo: Have you discovered a container also in the upper left? I could see one clearly only in the upper right of the pic.

          Most likely you have the NYT interactive explanation of the Mar-a-Lago compound, published last December. Just in case a link to one of the first captures (out of several hundred) archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20230106171120/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/15/us/mar-a-lago-trump-documents.html.

        • Rayne says:

          My bad, upper right, container’s next to the stucco wall limning the parking lot closest to the highway and the highway itself. It’s in the same position as it appears in the Google Streetview photos.

          I wrote about the NYT interactive piece a month ago (see final 1 of 3 things), noting the container then. The interactive article made no note of the container or work done along the roadway at the perimeter of Mar-a-Lago’s property. NYT did note the two doorways in its accompanying text but didn’t actually point to them in the graphic, which I’ll do here:

          Ugh. Just so fucking irritating watching him do a malignant narcissist’s equivalent of public masturbation knowing just feet away are some of the classified documents he stole.

          ADDER: I should note Trump is standing under an awning which shades the windows and doors of the White-and-Gold Ballroom — the smaller and older of two ballrooms at Mar-a-Lago, and the one in which documents Trump took from the White House were stored on the stage, likely just feet away behind Trump in this photo.

          Just makes me soooo fucking angry.

        • Konny_2022 says:

          Thanks for the link to your previous piece on the NYT sketch. That was exactly what I had in mind.

          On page -1- you wrote: “This one is a Google Maps snapshot taken by Google as it scanned the road in February 2021 (gee, I wonder why the flag was at half mast).”

          Rush Limbaugh died on February 17, 2021 …

        • Rayne says:

          LOL I was being snarky about the flag at half mast. Fuck Limbaugh, another narcissistic drug abuser with a habit of abusing women (or children), too.

        • Konny_2022 says:

          And I was being snarky with my hint at Limbaugh. Your “THREE THINGS: TURF’S UP” post has a more innocious explanation by a reader (which I read only after sending my reply): https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/05/11/three-things-turfs-up/#comment-992265. That could be true if the picture was taken between Feb. 23 and 28, 2021.

          I don’t expect another reply here (the colums get too small). I’m certain you’re going to post about new insights into what the container means anyway, and looking forward to it.

    • swmarks53 says:

      When I saw that window, this is what immediately came to my mind:
      “She came in through the bathroom window, protected by a silver spoon…”

  17. Stephen_16JUN2023_1232h says:

    My understanding is that venue is proper if any element of the crime is committed within the jurisdiction. So, DC and Florida would both be proper venues.

      • Stephen_16JUN2023_1232h says:

        Unauthorized possession (depending on the timing of the removal). Paragraph 4 of the indictment implies that Trump caused the boxes to be moved after Biden took office.

        [Moderator’s note: your username here has been changed to match that of your other comments today as it’s not clear you intended to use your real name. /~Rayne]

      • Stephen_16JUN2023_1232h says:

        Unauthorized possession (depending on the timing). Paragraph 4 of the indictment implies that Trump caused boxes to be moved after Biden became president (although he boarded the helicopter at about 8:15 a.m.)

        [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too common (there are multiple community members named Stephen/Steven) it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  18. Stephen says:

    Unauthorized possession (depending on the timing). Paragraph 4 of the indictment implies that Trump caused boxes to be moved after Biden became president (although he boarded the helicopter at about 8:15 a.m.)

  19. David F. Snyder says:

    Slightly OT: what are the chances that a wedding or other festivity was actually held in the MAL ballroom while boxes were still on the stage? Or was that photo in the indictment just Nauta showing where he’d stowed boxes before Corcoran came back for his early-June 2022 search? Surely the latter. Right?

    • Arabesque Cookie says:

      Even more astonishing than Rump Roast bragging to unauthorized aides/staffers? Here’s wannabe hillbilly rap/rock performer “Kid Rock” (Robert Ritchie) regaling Tucker Carson with tales of golf, discussing North Korea, and viewing “documents” with the 45th President. Even Kid Rock was like : “Whoa, I just write dirty songs for a living — maybe we shouldn’t talk about this stuff”.

      https://youtu.be/5_dQ5lfyXLw

        • Arabesque Cookie says:

          Okay, so I’ll change my reference to the 45th President. But did you watch the video? According to my former colleagues in the entertainment industry (agents/managers/attorneys, etc.) 45 was boasting/revealing information anytime, anywhere—to anyone who would listen. So much so, that some of the “talent” was completely freaked out.

  20. Maureen A Donnelly says:

    TY Dr. Wheeler. I think Jack is going to drop DC charges (taking the NDI docs to begin with) and NJ charges (showing the stuff to his bros). I don’t know the law, but it seems like Jack is playing 3D chess while Don looks for lawyers with clearance . . . What about the 34 boxes gone missing? Will we ever learn just how much stuff he took from the government? I fear I’ll be long dead before it all comes out. TY for being the smart news/analysis site in the firehose delivery of crazy. The MSM is failing us all.

Comments are closed.