Maybe This Was Covered Here At DU - About Those Boxes That Made Their Way To Mar-a-Lago.....

[global1]

Do we know who actually/physically carried them out of the WH and brought those boxes
to Mar-a-Lago?

I can't believe that Tr**p actually moved them himself. However, I'm sure that he ordered one of his WH aides to do the transport. Were they flown there from D.C.?

Do we know who that was? Did Tr**p tell that person that there was something else in those boxes and not documents?

Tr**p knew full well what he was doing by taking those from the WH.

Will he get away with this too?

[RockRaven]

1. How much of the contents of those boxes was destroyed in the past year prior to recovery?

Is anybody going to actually do anything to figure that out or hold anyone accountable?

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. That way lies a dirt nap.

[Demsrule86]

10. How would be possible to know what documents were destroyed since probably only Trump people

knew what the documents were and not all of them either. This is an example of why we need to end the imperial presidency...the president has been given way too much power in my opinion. Congress as an institution has ceded power to the presidency and it is now and always was a bad idea.

[left-of-center2012]

2. I doubt we know the actual name of the person who carried the boxes

Most likely they were removed by staff who removed Trump possessions when he vacated the White House.

I don't know that it matters who the actual person (s) was/were or what they were told.

It was Trump's responsibility to turn them over to the National Archives and he didn't do it.

[global1]

4. You Know That Tr**p Never Does Anything Wrong.....

I just want to know what his cover story is going to be and who he's going to blame this on.

And yes - I said moved - but - I also mean who packed these items.

[PatSeg]

20. They have professional movers

who come in and pack everything up very quickly and efficiently. I don't know if they are given any instructions as to papers though. You'd think that they would be told not to pack anything like that.

[Hortensis]

22. Oh, right! I'm sure they wouldn't normally touch this kind of papers;

they're scrupulous professionals, who normally work decades in the WH and are famous for their loyalty to the institution. Those who are responsible for WH papers should have been able to take possession of everything not already in their hands by routine procedure.

They were illicitly removed, but Global1 of course must be right that it wasn't by by about-to-be TFG. Funny as that image would be. I wouldn't have put it past him to try to get Melania to schlep some if needed. Or her to refuse, though.

[PatSeg]

24. Yes, that is what I was thinking

From what I've heard about these White House "packers", they are amazing. They can transform the White House from one administration to the next in a matter of hours, but there surely are strict guidelines about things like papers and anything that belongs to the White House. So I wonder if someone packed those papers ahead of time. Ha, ha, maybe someone marked the boxes "linens"!

[arthritisR_US]

3. I think it's more important, who packed

those boxes and who decided what goes where?

[rpannier]

6. It's possible it was the movers

Apparently, he clung to the belief he'd stay in office until about 3 days before.
And then he moved out like he was hours ahead of the law.

[tecelote]

7. Imagine if we had a Justice Department!

If there were repercussions when Trump broke the law, he'd probably do it less. It would also dissuade others planning to follow in his footsteps.

Without consequences, what can we expect?

[Demsrule86]

9. We do have a justice department.

[PJMcK]

11. Ha! Two words

Mark Meadows.

His contempt of Congress referral was made two months ago. His crime was public. What is DOJ waiting for?

This is just one individual while we are informed of many. many more crimes that seem to be unenforced.

[wnylib]

12. What do you think DOJ's motive is

for not prosecuting Meadows right now?

[PJMcK]

15. I haven't a clue

What we know about AG Garland is that he is a consummate professional who has a career-long history of effective investigations and prosecutions. Perhaps he has kept everything about Trump & Co. deeply secret at the DOJ. Perhaps he has a road map towards choosing which crimes with which to charge which individuals.

But we don't know because all we've heard are crickets.

Here's one problem. Many of Trump's crimes occurred early in his presidency and those Federal crimes have a 5-year statute of limitations. The first date when Trump avoids an obstruction of justice allegation is next week. From this late date, it seems that he'll avoid that indictment. Without action, Trump might be able to run out the clock on many of his crimes.

Here's another problem. Steve Bannon's indictment on contempt of Congress won't begin until May, I believe. Any other indictments will probably get the same slow walk through the court system. Simply, we're running out of time.

The longer these prosecutions-- if any!-- take, several things happen. The Republicans are normalizing the insurrection. The events fade from the public's consciousness and since it was defeated, many people think things are mostly okay. (Keep in mind that most Americans don't follow politics as closely as those of us on DU). The lessons learned by the GOP have emboldened them to push through election restrictions and gerrymandering to diminish Democrats effectiveness at the ballot box. They're making state-level laws to limit and complicate the franchise because they know they can't win without tipping the scales in their favor.

Democracy has turned out to be awfully fragile. If the rule of law isn't upheld, our system of self-governance is at grave risk.

So, I haven't any idea what AG Garland is up to. But we haven't seen or heard a thing and the clock is ticking.

[wnylib]

16. I know how precarious the situation is

right now. And if you know, and I know, along with most DU posters, then it's probably true that Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, and Garland know. I want to believe that they have a plan, that they intend to and are dealing with the gravity of the situation. That they know that timing is essential and have a timeline.

As you and everyone here knows, the elections this year can take away Dem power to control the investigations and prosecutions. It will take more than GOTV for us to maintain Congressional control because of the suppression laws in several states. Again, Dem leaders and strategists must be aware of this, too.

Although I don't hear or know any more about what our leaders and strategists are doing than anyone else, I really want to believe that they are not just fiddling while democracy burns.

That's why I ask what Garland's (and any one else's) motives might be. It would not benefit them personally or the nation for them to do nothing.

I am not concerned about the statute of limitations running out on old crimes committed when Barr or Sessions were AG, except in the last months under Barr. There are much bigger, more serious, and more recent crimes to deal with.

Is it possible that, since a Republican president in the future could pardon the R criminals, that the state investigations and prosecutions on GA and NY are better left in their hands? Other crimes brought to light by the Jan 6 committee can go to DOJ. Get them on state AND federal levels.

One concern that I think about and so Garland probably does, too, is that Trump planted many of his own people in DOJ. And some that he didn't plant might be more loyal to Trump or to Republicans than to unbiased law. So maybe investigations and evidence from the House committee are more reliable than from the FBI, whose director is a Federalist. Then Garland can choose the right prosecutor to handle it.

But I don't know Garland's mind or motives any more than anyone else does.

[Demsrule86]

18. We have gerrymandered some Democratic states and we need do do more of that...I believe we

win the midterms if we show up despite suppression. First of all. if the GOP continues to lose in the burbs, it will hurt them and the burbs are not easy to gerrymander.

[wnylib]

23. Yes, I am in one of those

gerrymandered blue states (NY)

[Demsrule86]

19. We lost the courts after 16...there are going to be delays...and personally I think people already

want to move on...I don't think January 6th is going to help us that much in the midterms at this point. I think what you described has already happened...but the courts delays are responsible for much of this 'slow walking'...blame the but her email crowd who said courts didn't matter.

[Hortensis]

27. Yes. But as you say, we have a justice department.

It was taken over by criminals at the top for a while, but they're out and honorable people in charge.

As for complaints about slowness, they remind me of myself complaining about how long Monday Night Football games took. They bounced my favorite shows in the days when we only had three broadcast channels, and I didn't take the frustration quietly. But really, they were doable in half an hour at most including the national anthem, just run the damned ball to the goal.

[Demsrule86]

17. I worked for a lawyer...he was handling a corruption case...it is not as easy as you think.

I just think you have to trust those you elected. What is the alternative, put Republicans in during the midterms? Of course not. I personally do not believe Trump will be charged federally because, I think like a mob boss he is slippery and never tells folks to do stuff...more like an understanding kind of thing. We probably will get Meadows and some of his minions. Punishing them hopefully will dissuade others from doing it again I hope.

Now in Georgia Trump made the phone calls so that might work. And, New York is still possible. Financial wrongdoing can take a long time. The question is in my mind is will the Feds have enough to charge him
and if so can we get a conviction? if Trump is charged and acquitted...well that would awful...IMHO worse than not charging him. I have often wondered is there a jury that would convict Trump? I don't know the answer.

[tecelote]

13. Do you have proof?

How many laws has Trump broken without consequence?

Too many to count and it's just going to continue.

[obamanut2012]

25. WE do have one, and it is doing a great job with all of this

wtaf are all these doomposts on DU the past couple weeks about how the DOJ sucks?

[Demsrule86]

8. Much of the rules and laws concerning the presidency are based upon the notion that only decent

men (only men back in the day) will ever become president. So, I don't know that Trump will ever be brought to justice as in prosecuted and jailed. While an underling who did what he did would face legal consequences. I am not sure if Trump will face prosecution and prison. He certainly deserves it though. And I hope he is hammered. The next best thing is to put as many of his underlings in jail so the next group tempted to break the law for a Republican president will perhaps not be willing to do it.

[Samrob]

21. Is law "law?" We could say what you just said about any law so we should say it about any law.

Either laws mean something or they don't. Trump has deemed the almost useless. Until laws are enforced on ALL citizens equally... we stay here.

[Generic Brad]

14. Was a search warrant issued for them?

No way Trump would have voluntarily turned them over. They had to have been taken by surprise and force.

[ForgedCrank]

26. I'm still waiting

to see for myself what these documents actually are and if they are indeed classified security materials.
I'm simply not allowing myself to get up hopes anymore after so many years of BS that either never amounts to anything, or is never even pursued.