DOJ rebuffs Democrats' request for inventory of Trump's boxes

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

The Justice Department this week rebuffed a request from the House Oversight Committee for more details about the 15 boxes of White House records that former president Donald Trump improperly removed to Mar-a-Lago, hinting in a letter that an ongoing investigation prevents the department from doing so.

In the letter addressed to Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), and reviewed by The Washington Post, acting assistant attorney general Peter Hyun writes that after the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) referred “concerns about whether such materials had been properly handled” to the Justice Department earlier this year, officials asked the archives not to share information related to the records taken to Trump’s estate in Palm Beach, Fla.

The Post reported last week that the Justice Department has begun taking steps to investigate the former president’s removal of the records, some of which were classified and labeled “top secret.” Maloney had accused the department of obstructing her committee’s investigation by preventing NARA’s from handing over a detailed inventory of the boxes’ contents.
Advertisement

In the letter sent this week, Hyun writes that while the Justice Department has “great respect” for the committee’s oversight authority, “the Department previously asked NARA not to share or otherwise disclose to others information relating to this matter in order to protect the integrity of our ongoing work.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/trump-boxes-records-top-secret-doj

[Scrivener7]

1. They're busy looking at the unopened boxes and thinking important thoughts about them. They

will get to inventorying them in a decade or so.

[Achilleaze]

2. The Hammer of Justice will soon clobber Repube Traitor-in-Chief

You can depend upon it. All his murderous money-laundering pals in Russia cannot save his cheating Republican ass.

[Joinfortmill]

44. Totally agree

[Grasswire2]

3. &#W&##(&@#%%+__((((%$

How fricking long is this going to take?

He left the WH about sixteen months ago.

We really need to know more about this process.

Was no one supervising the packing of the boxes? Did NARA not have an inventory as the packing happened? No one from the agency there to see? Done in the middle of the night? Where, for example, were the Kim Jung Un love letters kept? In the Oval Office? Or archived somewhere? Nobody knew they were missing until many months had passed?

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. I think all your questions are the same questions the DOJ is investigating

We can assume Trump neither did the packing of the boxes or likely gave any specific direction, except perhaps regarding the love letters.

So, that means he had accomplices, who need their own grand jury subpoenas.

[Grasswire2]

14. I don't think "we" assume the same things.

I assume he was directly involved by tagging (verbally or via sorting) what went into the boxes. And yes, there were accomplices who followed his directions.

And pardon me for not trusting that DoJ will follow up either in a timely manner or at all. Evidence often seems to go there to die (or be shut away). We can't see the unredacted Mueller report. We can't even be told the information on JFK held all these years now. And then there's the secret server where memos and so on are held away from the American people.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. And yet, the DOJ still puts people in prison.

There’s that annoying fact to consider.

[MyOwnPeace]

21. But, as the "tRump" supporter in Florida once said of their 'leader':

"He's not hurting the people he needs to be hurting....."

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-voter-hes-not-hurting-the-people-he-needs-be-hurting-msna1181316

Come on, DOJ, let's get the ball rolling and get to the bottom of all of this mess - NOW!!!

[Grasswire2]

33. "some" people.nt

[Joinfortmill]

45. Yup

[Rebl2]

30. A few years

[Historic NY]

4. If only it was a couple of e-mails DOJ would be right on it.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. I'm OK with that

All this evidence will come in handy for the DOJ in the not-too-distant future, and don’t want to risk unnecessarily tipping off anyone to the contents.

[Effete Snob]

6. "unnecessarily tipping off anyone to the contents"

Yeah, it would be awful if Trump knew what was inside the boxes he took and possessed for months, so it is important to make sure that he doesn't have any way of knowing what was in them.

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. Do you think he packed the boxes himself?

Other than the love letters, do you really think he could rattle off the contents of the 15 boxes?

Remember, Trump is the guy who tore/ate/flushed many documents that he touched; someone may have been “looking out for him” (and perhaps themselves, in spiriting away these documents.

But somebody who was complicit in taking the documents surely knows, and they shouldn’t be tipped off on what DOJ knows, at least not until they get their grand jury subpoena.

[Effete Snob]

9. So, to recap

"Somebody" knows what was in the boxes, so it is important not to let them know that, once the boxes were recovered by the DoJ that the DoJ now knows what was in the boxes.

One of the interesting things about being a criminal is that you know you are a criminal.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. One of the interesting things about investigations is they don't often ask witnesses questions

That they don’t already know the answer to, but haven’t shared with the witness.

Lots of folks have gone to jail for providing false answers (aka lying) to questions the interrogators already knew the answers to.

[orleans]

23. i'd rather someone be put in jail for smuggling top secret files out of the white house

rather than lying about an answer

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. Why not both?

I see no need for the specific contents of the boxes to be made public until indictments are handed down.

[orleans]

27. b/c of the possibility they only get charged with lying nt

[Grasswire2]

47. where was it said that the contents were to be made public??

The Oversight Committee was not asking for an inventory in order to make it public.

???

[intrepidity]

10. Can somebody with the appropriate knowledge answer this?

Are there many--or any--prior examples where these two entities (DOJ, Congress) have clashed in this manner *while being on the same side* (at least superficially, that is). Clearly there will be scores of examples when they've been on opposite sides (not withstanding the official "apolitical" ahem stance of DOJ).

I'm asking not because I think such examples don't exist, but rather because I have no idea.

[Ocelot II]

12. What's the likelihood that those boxes contain evidence relating to 1/6?

I'm guessing not much. It's much more probable that there's other evidence relating to crimes TFG committed while in office and before the election, over which DoJ would have jurisdiction and the 1/6 committee would not.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. Even if the documents contain no evidence of crimes, removing them is a crime

And the classification level of the documents could increase the penalty.

[Ocelot II]

16. And that's also not within the 1/6 committee's purview.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Precisely. Nt

[MyOwnPeace]

28. BUT IT WAS NOT.......

the 1/6 committee that asked for the material - it was the 'Oversight' committee - the people responsible for the "Checks & Balances" thingy in the Constitution that TFG and the Pukes are fighting so hard to ignore!

Think of it this way:

You're 'Mom" - and you get a phone call from school saying that your child has 'plagiarized' his book report.
You're hurt - you're crushed - you're upset.

After a deep breath, you say, "OK - give me what you found and I will deal with it from here since I am the parent. You do what you have to but I am surely entitled to the right to do what any responsible parent would do."

The school says, "Ah, well, no, we'll take it from here."

BOOM! SAID AND DONE!

OK, Mom, how do you feel now? Do you still feel like you have any 'input' regarding the raising of your child? Do you now feel like you are being a 'responsible' parent - helping to raise a child to be an honorable and law-abiding citizen in town?

Sorry, but DOJ is brushing us off and saying, "Trust us - leave us alone - we'll take it from here." And not only 'us' (concerned citizens) - but those granted by the Constitution to ENFORCE that thing called "THE LAW!"

If they're NOT saying that - then come out and tell us what they REALLY ARE DOING! To me, it looks like they are saying (with a polite little tap on the shoulder), "There, there - be a good little committee and go over to the corner, sit down, and be quiet while we 'look' at this issue."

WE DESERVE BETTER!

[Novara]

36. Right, the Oversight Committee. BUT

The materials could be so highly classified that people on the oversight committee don't have the requisite clearance to know what's in the files.

And if that's the case, this motherfucker needs to be prosecuted to the highest extent of the law.

[Fiendish Thingy]

43. Your metaphor is a bit mangled and doesn't really apply

I’m fine with DOJ keeping the evidence under wraps for a time, and giving it to the oversight committee after indictments are handed down.

While the oversight committee, if run by Dems, could hold hearings, with the filibuster intact, there’s no way any legislation would emerge from those hearings and be passed into law.

[former9thward]

55. The House Oversight Committee is run by Dems.

And there is no filibuster in the House. If Congress were to only hold hearings when legislation was going to be passed and made into law it would have very little to do.

[Fiendish Thingy]

57. It may not be run by Dems next year.

Having hearings now the could jeopardize a DOJ investigation when no legislation is forthcoming would be a waste of time.

[FoxNewsSucks]

35. It's not the 1/6 committee's request

It was the Oversight Committee. It's a separate crime from 1/6.

I want to see MF45 jailed for this, of course, but I'd be more interested in what else he took down there and who ended up with it. For all we know, these were just the classified things that Bonesaw Arabia, Putin and Xi didn't need.

[Grasswire2]

48. It's not the J6 committee asking.

It's the Oversight Committee.

[Ocelot II]

49. I should've read the op more carefully.

Still, it makes sense for the DoJ rather than Congress to keep possession of those records because just taking them to Mierda Loco rather than turning them over to the National Archives could be a crime, and some of them might be classified. I don't see a problem here.

[Grasswire2]

51. I'm not sure if Oversight isn't just asking for an inventory.

Not the actual records.

[Ocelot II]

11. Good. They'll be more useful to DoJ than to the 1/6 committee.

Could be evidence of some serious crimes in there that aren't relevant to 1/6 and that the committee has no jurisdiction over.

[Zorro]

18. If it's Top Secret material

it could be SAP/SAR classified, which limits how and to who it is handled/listed/reported.

[Novara]

22. If it's highly classified, then who on Maloney's committee actually has the clearance to be privy to

the information? This may be a matter of national security and people on the committee may not have clearance to see such information. They said it was so sensitive that the contents could not be described.

And that tells me the motherfucker knew exactly what he was taking. I'll bet he thought he could sell it.

[Zorro]

25. Probably no one on the committee has the clearances

and that's why the DoJ can't release information about the material to them.

Yep, the MFer was probably going to sell our most secret and sensitive information to the highest bidder.

[MyOwnPeace]

29. Hmmm.........

Maybe they could "Call Jared" - HE knows how to get clearances........

[summer_in_TX]

58. Well, it depends on what you mean by "clearances."

Jared never qualified for a security clearance himself. His FIL just insisted they treat him as if he had a clearance, didn't he?

[Grasswire2]

34. for all we know, he has copied it and sold the copies. nt

[jaxexpat]

20. I don't like this. Not a damned bit. The DOJ is owned by the 6 of the 6/3 USSC.

The DOJ refuses to comply but throws out the bone, "we're on this and you know we know it's so important that we will definitely, get right on this and, er, prosecute in good time". Who the hell do these SOB's think they are? Their "suggestion" is NOT equivalent in stature to their impudent and disingenuous denial of the opportunity to peruse and publicize as necessary for the edification of the people by the legislative. This stupid pretense of legal propriety went out the door with the Starr and Barr shows. Remember that crap? It REEKS of the sort of equivocation enshrined in McConnell's patented lie salad. You know, the one he tosses up every time he's pinned down by pointed inquiry into the obvious.

Congressmen and women of good will KNOW what's going down. This is like "High Noon" folks and every tick of the clock brings us closer to a showdown. The question is, will blind faith in the immortality of cherry-picked memories and legends of American democracy's "god given" durability suffice to prevent them from lifting a single goddamned finger to save the republic? There are a bunch of Nazis making book that the congress is checkmated, catatonic and won't do a thing.

[multigraincracker]

24. I would think they could work a little

better with the House, as they sign their pay checks. I worry about TFG hold overs and Right-wingers in the Dept.

[jaxexpat]

62. They would if the House refused to pay them.

It's a tactic the "nouveau confederates" will employ if it suits their scheme and they're given the opportunity.

[Grasswire2]

37. very well said

The truth too often goes to die in the holdings of the DoJ.

And I am tired of the fact that so much is kept from the American people.

How do we consent to be governed when information that could affect our votes is kept from us by fiat?

We do not give our informed consent to be governed --- the basis of the Constitution -- if we are not informed.

A secret server where critical documents are withheld from the light of day. The FBI taking thousands of tips on a tip line and then culling and sending the most important (as determined by the FBI) to the WH Counsel (effectively making a hit list for the pervert-in-chief).

The still-redacted Mueller Report.

It's a secretive government, at the top.

[ancianita]

31. "Rebuffs"?? BS. DOJ's had a full plate since it was able to constitute itself a year and a month ago

Last edited Tue Apr 12, 2022, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

BS media headline -- Biden administration in disarray!
Thing is, Congress has no judiciary power. So there's no conflict between government branches.

If anyone wants to be upset with the DOJ, they should be upset that the DOJ isn't twice as big.

First, the DOJ has jurisdiction over this crime of illegal removal. Not the House Oversight Committee.

Second, the DOJ has jurisdiction over the crime of removing classified material.

Third, beyond this crime, the DOJ has jurisdiction over any evidence on Jan 6 participants, and will use any evidence it finds in the boxes when the criminal referral(s) come in from the Jan 6 committee. So House Oversight can move on to other kinds of oversight. The DOJ's got this.

This DOJ is air tight. This AG is apolitical. No leaks. No complaints from the legal community. Doing its job.

As for frustrations with the DOJ's alleged slowness...

As of March 12 2022:

762 arrested and charged for federal crimes

374 indicted by grand juries

231 convicted and

97 sentenced

328 across 50 states

————————————

As of April 12 2022:

778 arrested and charged for federal crimes

377 indicted by grand juries

257 convicted

109 sentenced

The convicted and sentenced 366 come from across 50 states but the DC circuit court system has had to handle all of them. That's 28 persons either convicted or sentenced per month by the federal DC district.

Of the 377 indicted there has only been one acquittal.


Because of the refusal of Republicans to help Garland get his division heads in place; because of the vastness of the federal case load because of the vastness of the criminality, this is a slow process. There is more than enough evidence of due process, and there is no evidence of impropriety, negligence, equivocation or failure to act. If a Republican Congress were to get voted in this year, the DOJ would still do its job to the end.


EDIT: fact check thanks to Grasswire 2

[Grasswire2]

50. Once again, for those in the back...

It is not the J6 committee asking.

It is the Oversight Committee asking merely for an inventory.

[ancianita]

52. Thanks for the correction. The same holds true for Oversight in terms of jurisdiction.

No congressional entity may request the evidence from a crime. That simple.

The BS of the article is really about Congress and Biden's administration being somehow at odds.

From the media echo Repubs' harping on how Dems don't clean up their messes fast enough. And it works, because too many here get triggered to be frustrated with the pace of an overloaded DOJ, as if it's not doing its job.

[Grasswire2]

54. they did not ask for the evidence

they merely asked for an inventory. Which, we assume, the NARA has compiled (surely TFG didn't make an inventory).

[ancianita]

64. I hear you.

But it's the DOJ's call since the boxes were illegally removed. They get jurisdictional dibs no matter what at this point.

[Raven123]

32. What would Congress do with this information?

I don’t get the outrage. All the Oversight Committee will do is have hearings. About what? We know Trump violated the law. Keeping control of the records is essential for the integrity of the case. All we need is for this case to land in front of a Trump friendly judge who would gladly toss the case for any itty bitty excuse.

[Grasswire2]

38. Maybe if we had some assurance that action was happening to hold TFG accountable for ANYTHING...

...people would not be riled by the turning of any more investigations over.

[Novara]

41. So they're supposed to compromise classified information

to placate the masses because we're impatient?

Seriously, this needs to be handled very carefully until they know whether or not it's been compromised.

[Grasswire2]

42. your words

totally unrelated to mine.

[Raven123]

46. I still don't get the point. The Oversight Committee can't hold Trump accountable either

So all you have is another set of hearings, Congress members ranting, and possibly throwing a wrench into a criminal case. I just don’t see the upside.

[Captain Zero]

60. He won't show up at their hearings, nor will his underlings

They haven't showed up at J6 hearings.
It does appear they are above the law and so far Merrick Garland has not disproved that.

[Novara]

39. Damn right

Plus, the DOJ and probably the Pentagon needs time to find out if the information contained was compromised.

[Grasswire2]

40. Maybe there isn't an inventory.

Is there an inventory of all the items missing from the WH after the Mar-a-Lago marauders left?

I don't think we've seen that either.

[Ocelot II]

53. TFG probably had his minions just toss all the stuff into boxes

and nobody made any kind of inventory - TFG wouldn't have wanted there to be a record of what he took.

[Martin68]

56. That's a clear sign that the boxes contain material that are well above the average Congressperson's

security clearance. Actually, this is good news.

[Novara]

61. The more sensitive the material, the more serious a crime

I'm sure it doesn't actually work out that way in legalese, but it makes it all the more egregious in the public's eye. This moron can't be trusted with government secrets - never could, and never will be - and this shows how dangerous it is to allow him anywhere near Washington.

I don't know if it's possible, but it sure would be nice if he would be barred from ever holding a political position again because he egregiously violated the nation's security and laws regarding classified information.

I bet he was going to sell the information to the highest bidder to get out of debt.

And I'm sure he'll throw all the underlings under the bus before admitting to anything.

[Martin68]

63. I don't know the law, but it would be logical for the mishandling of the most sensitive would incur

a more severe punishment than with less sensitive information.

[EndlessWire]

59. I want them to discover

who helped him transfer the boxes. Let the DOJ do that in a timely manner. Someone helped him do it. He didn't pick up those boxes and move them. You know he didn't. Let's get them all.