The Trump Papers

[yossarian22c]

...
If they have gotten to Karl Rove, no one is immune, even you.  Might as well accept that they've won and go on from there.  It's over, St. Donald is going down, and soon even you will be singing the song (once the payments start coming in, I suppose).

We call know the response.

"Rove, just another Never-Trumper hack who hasn't been relevant since the Bush administration."

Maybe at some point the Never-Trumpers will finally be all that's left of the Republican establishment and voter base. Slow going to convert them one at a time though.

[msquared]

Well I wonder how Team Trump will spin the fact that the took 2 weeks to request a special master and in that time the DOJ has reviewed all of the documents.

 I mean who knew it took 2 weeks to draw up a motion like that?

[Tom]

To be fair, the entire point of the special master request is, like almost everything Trump does at this stage, to delay as much as possible in hope that Republicans can get control of the House.

[msquared]

I wonder which Republican called Trump and asked him why he hadn't asked for a Special Master yet?  I mean obviously his own lawyers never thought about it

[wmLambert]

Well I wonder how Team Trump will spin the fact that the took 2 weeks to request a special master and in that time the DOJ has reviewed all of the documents.

 I mean who knew it took 2 weeks to draw up a motion like that?

Trump posted on August 15, “in the interest of TRANSPARENCY I call for the immediate release of the completely Unredacted Affidavit pertaining to this horrible and shocking BREAK-IN.”

Had the affidavit been released as requested, perhaps the need for a Special Master may not have been needed, but the DOJ stonewalled and made it necessary.

Trump was never afforded any reason for the unprecedented, general search of his home.

Since the FBI took “privileged and/or potentially privileged materials,” and other articles “that were outside the lawful reach of an already overbroad warrant,” transparency must be sought. A Special Master is certainly one way to get that done.

What legal excuse does the DOJ put forward to overcome the history of the NARA relationship with Trump? Some know-nothings suggest a fear of destruction or removal of important documents was the impetus for the raid, yet the NARA said they had an on-going civil relationship that never suggested such a fear. Hillary's Classified documents were removed from her server and the hard-drives were physically destroyed even though they were subpoenaed, and no raid was even suggested. Please explain.

[wmLambert]

According to Jack Posobiec, (https://www.audible.com/pd/Aug-24-2022-The-FBI-Mar-A-Lago-Raid-Had-No-Legal-Basis-Podcast/B0BBJGLPVZ) According to two constitutional lawyers who served under former presidents, the FBI Mar-a-Lago raid warrant actually had no legal basis due to the Presidential Records Act. Goto 3:50 in the recording.

[Tom]

Trump was never afforded any reason for the unprecedented, general search of his home.

This is a straight-up lie.

the NARA said they had an on-going civil relationship

This is also a straight-up lie. You are not listening to people who are telling you the truth.

According to two constitutional lawyers who served under former presidents, the FBI Mar-a-Lago raid warrant actually had no legal basis due to the Presidential Records Act.

Who are these lawyers, specifically? This is important, because their opinion is in the minority; it is necessary to understand why their take on the law should be considered more valid than the extreme majority of constitutional lawyers. (The only lawyer I can think of immediately who fits your description is actually one of Nixon's former lawyers, which is reasonably telling in its own right.)

Hillary's Classified documents were removed from her server and the hard-drives were physically destroyed even though they were subpoenaed, and no raid was even suggested.

The rules for electronic records are -- and especially were -- different, especially as relates to physical security of those records and the media on which they were stored. Unauthorized destruction of the records and the media holding them is obviously less than ideal, but such destruction is actually the recommended approach for electronic documents that are already securely archived in other locations. Clinton got into trouble for allowing electronic documents to be moved off of governmental servers and for not ensuring that all documents she received in her official capacity were archived, but the deletion of those documents from her personal possession was actually appropriate. Trump's trouble with the law here is due to his retention of physical copies of classified documents, which are secured under a different set of rules.

It's also worth noting that the subject of an investigation does not usually get to demand an unredacted affidavit, since the purpose of the redactions is often (at least in part) to protect informants. Calling for an unredacted affidavit in that scenario is like Bugsy Malone saying, "In the interest of TRANSPARENCY I call for all the snitches to be named. Also, I would like the government to tell me all the things it's found that it would like to use as evidence against me later, and also what things it hasn't found yet."

[wmLambert]

You missed the point that in law, the defendant has the presumption of innocence - but the government must prove its allegations. It must prove the innuendo - not just make unproven statements and then protect its sources.

[Tom]

Trump is not a defendant. No one has to presume that he's innocent in this scenario. If he is indicted and charged, the names of any informants will be given to the defense during discovery (assuming his lawyers are competent.)

[msquared]

He posted on Truth Social. That is not a legal document.

If you notice he did not join the suit to release the affidavit. He could have but he did not. He let the media do that.

And that has nothing to do with the Special Master.  He could have filed that motion the next day. But he did not. He waited until the affidavit got released. Two weeks later.

And again please list who these scholars are?

[yossarian22c]

According to Jack Posobiec, (https://www.audible.com/pd/Aug-24-2022-The-FBI-Mar-A-Lago-Raid-Had-No-Legal-Basis-Podcast/B0BBJGLPVZ) According to two constitutional lawyers who served under former presidents, the FBI Mar-a-Lago raid warrant actually had no legal basis due to the Presidential Records Act. Goto 3:50 in the recording.

You have to stop listening to conspiracy theorists and liars. Did he tell you the names of those lawyers? Because Trump's white house council agreed with NARA that the documents had to be returned. I could list dozens of other lawyers who say the same thing. Karl Rove said the same thing. This isn't some crazy expansive interpretation of the law. Trump does not own the records created when he was President. The American people via the government do.

[TheDrake]

Any sentence starting "according to Jack Posobiec" is the ultimate self-own.

Posobiec has promoted many falsehoods,[31] leading to Philadelphia calling him the "King of Fake News" in 2017.[21] He was one of the most prominent promoters on social media of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which falsely claimed that high-ranking officials were involved in a child-sex ring centered at a Washington, D.C. pizzeria.[21][17] He live-streamed an investigation of the pizzeria and was asked to leave after attempting to broadcast a child's birthday party being held in a back room.[59] Posobiec later said he had always thought the Pizzagate theory was "stupid" and had filmed his visit to debunk it.[21]

Posobiec attempted to discredit anti-Trump protesters in November 2016 by planting a sign at a protest reading "Rape Melania".[60][61][62] Posobiec denied his involvement to BuzzFeed News, but the same phone number was used in his contact with the website and the text messages he reputedly sent.[63] He said he had been questioned about it by the Secret Service.[21] Posobiec organized the DeploraBall, an event held on January 19, 2017, to celebrate Trump's inauguration.[64]

[Wayward Son]

Trump is in big trouble.

The released affidavit lists the security clearance of some of the documents Trump had in his possession and given back in early 2022.

The affidavit, written on Aug. 5 and released by a judge on Friday, reported that 15 boxes of documents, which had already been retrieved from the Florida estate early in 2022, contained 184 documents, including 25 marked Top Secret—and that some of those were marked HCS, SI, FISA, ORCON, NOFORN.

In these acronyms lies a scandalous, perhaps literally incriminating story.

How sensitive were these documents?  Let's look at what the acronyms mean.

HCS means HUMINT Control System, and HUMINT means Human Intelligence—in other words, intelligence gathered from spies. Documents marked HUMINT may contain the identities of spies, as well as information obtained from them.

So these documents could get our people or allies killed.

SI means Special intelligence and concerns intercepts of foreign communications, including information about the technology and operations used by foreign governments to transmit or collect information.

These documents could tell our adversaries how we get their secret information, so they can stop using those methods and/or send us misinformation.

FISA means information, also concerning communications intercepts, processed through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.

I don't know what this means. 

ORCON stands for Originator-Controlled, meaning that dissemination—even within the government, even to officials who hold Top Secret clearances—must first be approved by the originator (for instance, the CIA, if the document originated with the CIA).

These documents are apparently so secret, even Trump when he was President could not see them unless he got permission from the CIA or such beforehand. 

NOFORN means that the document cannot be released to foreign governments or citizens.

These were merely documents that could not be released even to our foreign allies.

In other words, at least some of the documents in Mar-a-Lago were among the most sensitive in any president’s files. The FBI special agent who filed the affidavit wrote that he had “probable cause” to believe there were more boxes, containing more highly classified documents, still hidden away at Mar-a-Lago, many of them in unsecured locations.

People have gone to prison for merely mishandling documents this sensitive.  You and I would be sitting in a jail right now if we had taken ORCON controlled documents home, even if he had given them back the next day.  What Donald Trump, private citizen, has done is a crime.  No ifs, ands or buts.  No excuses.  He should be punished, the sooner the better.

[Fenring]

Clinton got into trouble for allowing electronic documents to be moved off of governmental servers and for not ensuring that all documents she received in her official capacity were archived, but the deletion of those documents from her personal possession was actually appropriate.

Sorry for the sidetrack, but the issue wasn't that Clinton deleted electronic files. The issue on this point is that she did so as a reaction to a legal order to hand over her electronic documents. Now if she'd been told to dispose of them correctly and chose that method, that would be one thing. Although even then I assume she'd have required the use of someone with clearance to do so, not just anyone of her choice. But having been told to submit these documents for search, destroying them mostly seems like shredding the books to me.

[msquared]

I just realized that Trump wants to claim Executive Privilege from the Executive Branch. Not sure you can do that.  And he is not the Executive.

I think he is going to lose this one as well.

[TheDrake]

Clinton got into trouble for allowing electronic documents to be moved off of governmental servers and for not ensuring that all documents she received in her official capacity were archived, but the deletion of those documents from her personal possession was actually appropriate.

Sorry for the sidetrack, but the issue wasn't that Clinton deleted electronic files. The issue on this point is that she did so as a reaction to a legal order to hand over her electronic documents. Now if she'd been told to dispose of them correctly and chose that method, that would be one thing. Although even then I assume she'd have required the use of someone with clearance to do so, not just anyone of her choice. But having been told to submit these documents for search, destroying them mostly seems like shredding the books to me.

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure that it was never proven that A) Clinton ordered anything B) That the files were deleted as a reaction to a subpoena. I can go dredge all of it up, but I'm not sure an incident from two administrations ago that was examined with a microscope is worth any effort. Now, if you're just talking about the allegation that these things happened, that's another kind of discussion.

As opposed to Trump being observed destroying documents with his bare hands.

[Wayward Son]

Trump's troubles just keep getting worse.

The DOJ files papers last night arguing that a Master is not necessary to review the documents taken from Mar-A-Lago.  But the real kicker appears on page 10.

Through further investigation, the FBI uncovered multiple sources of evidence indicating that the response to the May 11 grand jury subpoena was incomplete and that classified documents remained at the Premises, notwithstanding the sworn certification made to the government on June 3. In particular, the government developed evidence that a search limited to the Storage Room would not have uncovered all the classified documents at the Premises. The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government's investigation.

As Electoral-Vote puts it:

Clearly, AG Merrick Garland & Co. are not only thinking obstruction, they think they have the goods to prove it. Heck, they had enough evidence before the search to persuade a judge that the claim probably had merit. Now, they have 15 boxes of additional evidence, and nothing the DoJ found has caused it to back off this line of inquiry. The penalty for obstruction, incidentally, is up to 5 years for each count. And that, of course, would be on top of any penalties for having documents that one should not have.

[Tom]

If you're familiar with SCI classifications and control markings, the cover sheets visible on the photo supplied are just further nails in this particular coffin.

[msquared]

It does not matter what is on the cover page. Trump declassified it.  It is just paper work. 

But what about Hunters lap top and Hillary's e-mails.  Look over there.  Nothing to see here.

[wmLambert]

If you're familiar with SCI classifications and control markings, the cover sheets visible on the photo supplied are just further nails in this particular coffin.

You mean the leaked photo of dozens of unclassified documents spread on the floor during the raid? Evidently a posed setting to be used politically.

It does not matter what is on the cover page. Trump declassified it.  It is just paper work. 

But what about Hunters lap top and Hillary's e-mails.  Look over there.  Nothing to see here.

On the contrary. This is about consistency. What the FBI did to help Biden and Hillary is diametrically opposed to what they did to Trump. There is plenty to see here, and is the reason that Timothy Thibault got tossed out, after being put in charge of all the Trump-denigrating actions of the last six years.

[TheDrake]

1. You don't have any evidence.
2. If you have evidence, it is made up.
3. If you have evidence and can prove it, it still isn't a crime.
4. If you have evidence of a crime and can prove it, your evidence was obtained illegally.
5. If you have evidence of a crime obtained legally, somebody else did worse and wasn't charged.

The excuses just get longer and more elaborate as they keep getting knocked down just as fast as Trump's election lawsuits.

[msquared]

The photo was not leaked was it?  it was part of the response by the DOJ to Trumps filing asking for a special master.

Remember who publicized the raid. It was not the FBI or the DOJ.  It was Trump. Remember who asked for the Warrant to be released?  It was Trump. Remember who asked for the affidavit to be released (technically it was not Trump but he did socially)?

You have no proof that the picture was staged other than to show all of the government documents that Trump says he did not have. I am no talking about classification.  HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE GOV. DOCUMENTS LIKE THIS. Not with out going through the process of requesting them, like all previous Presidents have done. The PRA requires this.

[wmLambert]

1. You don't have any evidence.
2. If you have evidence, it is made up.
3. If you have evidence and can prove it, it still isn't a crime.
4. If you have evidence of a crime and can prove it, your evidence was obtained illegally.
5. If you have evidence of a crime obtained legally, somebody else did worse and wasn't charged.

The excuses just get longer and more elaborate as they keep getting knocked down just as fast as Trump's election lawsuits.

On the contrary: Timothy Thibault resigned after being dismissed from the supervisory role by FBI Director, Christopher Wray, and nothing was said at the time about his ‘retirement’. The media tried to lessen the dismissal as a retirement, where every retiree gets walked out. As Grassley cited: "...Timothy Thibault, likely violated several federal regulations and Department guidelines designed to prevent political bias from infecting FBI matters, including the Attorney General Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations and FBI social media policies. … ASAC Thibault has demonstrated a pattern of active public partisanship, such as using his official title for public partisan posts relating to his superiors and matters under the FBI’s purview, that is likely a violation of his ethical obligations as an FBI employee.”

BTW; your listing should pertain to what you regularly do when attacking Trump. You didn't care about Russiagate. You didn't care about Hillary's entire staff getting immunity. You didn't care about Comey telling the world that Hillary was dirty - but no prosecutor would indict her because there was no intention, even though intention is not allowed to affect the felony code she violated. You didn't make an issue of Hillary paying for the Steele Dossier and pushing Russiagate when she knew it was phony. You didn't care about Joe and Hunter's pederasty. You didn't care about quid pro quos internationally that put money in the Biden Crime Family's bank accounts. You didn't care about all the stupid Executive Orders that launched our current financial nightmares. And you didn't care about all the dead bodies that the current administration is responsible for. I wish you apologists would stop trying to give them shelter.

[wmLambert]

The photo was not leaked was it?  it was part of the response by the DOJ to Trumps filing asking for a special master.

Remember who publicized the raid. It was not the FBI or the DOJ.  It was Trump. Remember who asked for the Warrant to be released?  It was Trump. Remember who asked for the affidavit to be released (technically it was not Trump but he did socially)?

You have no proof that the picture was staged other than to show all of the government documents that Trump says he did not have. I am no talking about classification.  HE IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE GOV. DOCUMENTS LIKE THIS. Not with out going through the process of requesting them, like all previous Presidents have done. The PRA requires this.

You mean this picture? (https://republicbrief.com/doj-releases-pics-from-mar-a-lago-raid-and-attempts-to-smear-trump/) I know the source will disturb you, but it is the first image of it I could mark for you.

[Tom]

God, William, please stop relying on stupidly disingenuous sources.

[Wayward Son]

You mean the leaked photo of dozens of unclassified documents spread on the floor during the raid? Evidently a posed setting to be used politically.

It is obvious to me that the photo was made to be used as evidence in a court of law to toss Trump's keister into jail for breaking Federal statutes. That's why the sign with "2A" is prominently displayed in the photo.

The only reason this is political is because you keep supporting that criminal and believing his (and his minions) lies. 

[TheDrake]

I think its generally standard procedure for law enforcement to proudly display their trophies after a successful search execution.

Photos of police seizures

Did you think all those drugs and guns were stacked like that by the criminals?

The practice goes back over at least 100 years to prohibition.

look what we found

It is particularly useful here to document for the public that they did indeed find what they were looking for. Although it probably won't work because Trump sycophants will claim the FBI brought those cover pages with them to scatter around, that the picture wasn't really from Mar-a-lago, or that the watermark on the paper is from China.

[Wayward Son]

A commentator on CNN also pointed out that those cover sheets make it very easy to notice those documents when you're looking for them.

As she put it, "A seven-year-old would find them, even if they were mixed with other papers."

[msquared]

also any important info had been whited out or blocked out. Just the highly visible borders are visible.

[wmLambert]

God, William, please stop relying on stupidly disingenuous sources.

Are you unable to read? I asked you to ignore the source - but nope - you zeroed in on it like a moth to a flame. The image was what was important, and it wasn't available from CNN or MSNBC. Take a cleansing breath and answer why the FBI threw the material on the floor, took the picture, then leaked it. The submariner who took pictures of his workplace got jail time, even though they were never in danger of being revealed. The FBI actually leaked it.

[Tom]

Are you unable to read? I asked you to ignore the source....

The "source" to which I was objecting in this case was an idiot on Twitter either too stupid to know how and why the FBI takes pictures of material seizures and failing to recognize the ways in which those photos did not jeopardize security, or just pretending to be that stupid. (The filing itself, which included the photo in question, was publicly available, and I suppose if you aren't embarrassed to have us know you read The Republic Brief, that's on you. But the hot take that the picture somehow represented a form of hypocrisy is eye-rollingly dumb, and you should know that.)

Do you really need me to explain to you why the FBI took that picture? If so, you know far less about routine procedure than I initially assumed. I mean, you're someone who's willing to spend two thousand words patronizingly describing the ways you believe you're familiar with chain of custody; I just naturally assumed this meant that you've been involved in a criminal seizure at least once before.

[Wayward Son]

Wait a minute, William.  What makes you think that photo was "leaked?"    Where did you get this ridiculous idea?

It was part of the filing by the Justice Department submitted late Tuesday, Aug. 30, before the judge's midnight deadline.  It was released to the public along with the filing.  And, as msquared pointed out, all secret and top secret info has been whited-out.

So where did you get this notion that it was "leaked?"

[msquared]

Well it makes Trump look bad so it must have been leaked.

[jc44]

A slight wrinkle on the classified paper argument is that I've just heard an (ex?) FBI agent on the BBCs Americast podcast (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0cxm9wx) assert that the classification status of documents is whatever the _current_ president says it is - so it doesn't matter what Trump may or may not have done, its whatever Biden says it is and if he chooses to say it is whatever is written on the front of the document then that is what it is.

[NobleHunter]

The idea that the President can classify whatever he wants strongly suggests processes need to be in place for marking and such. Otherwise he could pass documents on to an opponent, classify it, and then arrest the opponent for mishandling classified documents.

[LetterRip]

Currently their is an Executive Order for classification and declassification, it could be overridden by a subsequent President, but until done so the EO is in effect.

[jc44]

Currently their is an Executive Order for classification and declassification, it could be overridden by a subsequent President, but until done so the EO is in effect.

Do you have a pointer to the text of that EO? It would add some actual facts to the current discussion about who can do what and when.

[NobleHunter]

It doesn't allow for an unrecorded post-facto declarations of declassifications by an ex-President after he fails in his attempt to withhold the documents from the government.

[TheDeamon]

Currently their is an Executive Order for classification and declassification, it could be overridden by a subsequent President, but until done so the EO is in effect.

Do you have a pointer to the text of that EO? It would add some actual facts to the current discussion about who can do what and when.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information

Most relevant:

Sec. 1.3.  Classification Authority.  (a)  The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

(1)  the President and the Vice President;

(2)  agency heads and officials designated by the President; and

Where most of those agency heads are also appointed by the president.

[rightleft22]

I assume that when the president decides to declassify something that a process is required and that the intention is documented.  That something more is required then waving of one hands and saying this is so.

Has Trump or any of his apologies answered the question as to why Trump chose the documents he did to take home with him? What was his intention/purpose in holding on to these documents? What did he plan to do with them?

The argument of whether he had the power to wave his hand and declassify documents at will even after he left the office is for the lawyers to argue. (My bet is that Trumps lawyers won't because they know the answer to that) The decalcification justification is just a smoke screen meant to hide what the magician has done.

The questions Trump must answer is why he took the documents he did, what was his intention, why he didn't give them all of the back when they were asked for? 

[TheDeamon]

Well, the same executive order also handles declassification:

Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by:

(1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority;
(2) the originator’s current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority;
(3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or
(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.

I am pretty sure that PotUS qualifies as a "supervisory official" for anything classified under the aegis of the executive branch. And PotUS certainly does have "original classification authority" as per the order.

Of course, it also delineates a process they're supposed to follow(mostly as it relates to communicating with the National Archives).

However, as an aside, I find the idea of prosecuting a former president for violating an executive order, during their term of office no less, seems to be a bit... Awkward politically speaking.

[NobleHunter]

Don't worry, Trump's also violated statutory law. The warrant sidestepped the issue of if the documents were classified or not.

[rightleft22]

However, as an aside, I find the idea of prosecuting a former president for violating an executive order, during their term of office no less, seems to be a bit... Awkward politically speaking.

Definitely awkward but Potus can't be above the law. Still I would drop all investigations if Trump agreed to quietly go away.

[jc44]

However, as an aside, I find the idea of prosecuting a former president for violating an executive order, during their term of office no less, seems to be a bit... Awkward politically speaking.

Definitely awkward but Potus can't be above the law. Still I would drop all investigations if Trump agreed to quietly go away.

What are the chances of Trump doing anything quietly?

[rightleft22]

I'd be interested to hear from a Trump supporter, follower or apologist the reasons they think Trump took those documents home.
Would their arguments be the same is it was Obama that did the same thing?
Would the be concerned if they found empty folders that once contained classified material.

I really want to know what reason could Trump have had in taking those documents and then not giving them back when initially asked for which would have ended the matter.

[TheDrake]

Obviously, the FBI took the classified material out of that folder themselves. Or maybe they planted the folder. Or he took the classified material with him in order to investigate America's enemies who he will challenge to single combat. Or they include JFK Jr's whereabouts, and he needs to find him in order to take down the pizza munching pedophile elites.

I actually suspect that if you get any response at all,  it will just be that he doesn't have to justify taking the documents. He's allowed to do anything he wants at all times. It's good that he flaunts the rules of the deep state and sprinkles important documents around like confetti. He's teach those crooks a lesson by defying them. There's nothing LEGALLY requiring him to justify it, therefore it is not legitimate to ask why he wanted them. It is enough to say that he did want them.

[rightleft22]

For the life of me I can think of no valid reason for taking them.

Even if he could declassify them with a wave of the hand, to what purpose doe he need them. Declassified he could request whatever he wanted if he need them for his memoirs or whatever. Of course that would require following procedures. 

If you follow the money he is raking it in with 'donations' and looks to be on top for 2024 nomination.... But that would require a level of contempt for the nation let alone his followers that boarders on evil. Na not Trump 

[Wayward Son]

I keep thinking about how he endangered our national security; how he endangered the spies who provided us with that information; and how he endangered the techniques we use to get that information.

What possible reason could he have to justify such reckless, illegal behavior?

Even if he could make them non-confidential by just saying so, what reason did he have to endanger those things by doing that?  Did he consider the national security implications?  Did he know what advantages our enemies could have gained (or maybe even did gain)?  Did he know who might be killed?
 Did he know the channels of information he might be cutting off? 

Or did he not care?  Was the safety and security of the entire United States less important to him than his own selfish desires?

If anyone else had done this, he most likely would be in jail right now.  As Donald Trump should be. 

[msquared]

He is a gossip.  According to reports he loved the files that had dirt on leaders of other nations.  I would not put it past him to let slip that he knew the President of country X had had a secret affair and wouldn't it be terrible if that got out?  The Trump Crime family is run by a mob boss and extortion and blackmail is a mainstay of organized crime.

[Ouija Nightmare]

I keep thinking about how he endangered our national security; how he endangered the spies who provided us with that information; and how he endangered the techniques we use to get that information.

What possible reason could he have to justify such reckless, illegal behavior?

Even if he could make them non-confidential by just saying so, what reason did he have to endanger those things by doing that?  Did he consider the national security implications?  Did he know what advantages our enemies could have gained (or maybe even did gain)?  Did he know who might be killed?
 Did he know the channels of information he might be cutting off? 

Or did he not care?  Was the safety and security of the entire United States less important to him than his own selfish desires?

If anyone else had done this, he most likely would be in jail right now.  As Donald Trump should be. 

People keep mumbling about whole the mole was that told them the papers were still there. It’s very possible they knew because our intelligence operatives started turning up dead.

It’s that kind of intelligence.

It’ll probably be decades before we find out just how badly he hurt our country.