MSNBC’s Glenn Kirschner: Trump Tape Put Him ‘Smack In The Middle Of A Potential Espionage Charge!’
By Tommy ChristopherJun 3rd, 2023, 3:26 pm

Former federal prosecutor and current MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner told SiriusXM radio host Dean Obeidallah that former President Donald Trump is headed for an espionage charge after the revelation of a bombshell tape this week that shows Trumpdiscussing a classified document that he had taken with him when he left the White House.

On Friday’s edition of The Dean Obeidallah Show, the host discussed the new developments, and Kirschner called the tape “evidentiary manna from heaven” that will surely result in a guilty verdict against Trump:

DEAN OBEIDALLAH: This seems to be actually significant that there’s an audio recording of him talking at the Bedminster golf course in New Jersey in July 2021 about some plans to attack Iran. And he acknowledges that. I’d love to show you more. That’s we’re getting hints, but I know I can’t because it’s classified, but he’s still talking about it. What can you share? What do you take from this?

GLENN KIRSCHNER: Yeah. So this is evidentiary manna from heaven for federal prosecutors, because what he has done is he he’s put himself right smack in the middle of a potential espionage charge, a crime under Chapter 37 of Title 18. That is the Espionage Act. It becomes pretty clear that he mishandled national defense information, which is a criminal charge under the Espionage Act. And looks like the feds have an audio recording of him doing so.

You know, it’s so important for so many reasons because, first of all, Dean, we’ve all seen Donald Trump endlessly prattle on about how he declassified documents with his mind or how when he took them from the White House, they automatically became declassified.

Well, first of all, automatic declassification and telepathic declassification are not things. But the important thing from a prosecutor’s perspective is he has made those statements. Now we have him caught on an audio recording making a contradictory statement six months after he left the White House saying, I’ve got this document here, secret, classified secret.

So we know it exists because the feds know precisely what document he was referring to. And it has to do with a potential military strike against Iran, national defense information. And he says to his audience, none of whom have security clearances and are allowed to hear one word of what’s in that classified document. You know, I’d like to show it to you, but it’s classified then. You know, I know that it makes him feel good in the moment to say things to these faux news networks. And on his third rate social media platform about declassifying things with his mind, etc., and he can get away with it in the court of public opinion.

But man, what career prosecutors will do with this is they will play for the jury statement, number one, saying, I declassified everything with my mind.

Statement number two, six months after he left office. I’d like to show you this national defense information, but it’s classified and the jury will start looking at their watch and saying, when can we retire to deliberate so we can vote guilty?

So he has bought himself potentially an espionage charge. And then if the Department of Justice expects others to keep our nation’s secrets secret, we have to prosecute him and we have to do it now. This is big ticket criminal misconduct. This compromises our national security. And let me and let me go on record as saying June will be the month we have all waited for.


https://www.mediaite.com/news/msnbc...n-the-middle-of-a-potential-espionage-charge/

 

Former U.S. attorney cites 2008 court ruling that sticks a knife in key Trump documents defense

Tom Boggioni
June 4, 2023, 11:38 AM ET



Donald Trump (Photo by Jim Watson for AFP)


In a series of tweets on Sunday morning, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance poured cold water over a possible Donald Trump defense strategy to avoid prosecution for taking sensitive government documents with him after he lost re-election.

With a grand jury reportedly convening this week and special counsel Jack Smith appearing to be on the verge of filing indictments for obstruction and possible violations of the Espionage Act, against the former president, Vance said a defense strategy deployed by lawyers for a former NSA staffer was shot down 15 years ago and won't be of help to Trump's lawyers now.

In her first tweet, Vance wrote, "In 2008, the 4th Circuit affirmed Kenneth Wayne Ford’s convictions for retaining national defense information in violation of the espionage act & making false statements to the government. Ford was an NSA computer specialist for two years, with a top security clearance," before adding, "The FBI searched his home & found sensitive & classified info in places including his kitchen & his bedroom. He acknowledged taking the documents home on his last day of employment, claiming he thought the materials would help him in his new job with a defense contractor."

RELATED: Legal experts create 186-page roadmap for Jack Smith 'to obtain and sustain a conviction' in Trump docs case

As she notes, a former Trump administration official, Rod Rosenstein, made the case against Kenneth Wayne Ford -- which would also apply to Trump.

"Then-Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein (who would later become Trump’s deputy attorney general) said, 'Government employees who betray the public trust and endanger national security must be held accountable,' at the time of Ford’s sentencing to 72 months in custody," she explained before adding, "Rosenstein’s comment applies full force to Trump. Ford is one of many prior DOJ cases that helps distinguish when gov't employees who retain classified documents should be prosecuted. Trump should. More on this legal analysis in my newsletter: https://open.substack.com/pub/joycevance"

She then elaborated, "The comparable cases are about 'fed'l employees'--a former POTUS has never been prosecuted for this (or any other crime). Trump can't claim he wasn't a fed'l employee as POTUS because in the E. Jean Carroll case he argued he was one in order to obtain DOJ representation."

"If you are looking for a comprehensive review of the prior precedent DOJ has reviewed in considering a classified documents case, as well as a thorough analysis of possible charges against Trump, take a look here. No better resource," she concluded.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-mar-a-lago-2660905503/

 

Trump’s attorneys just walked into DOJ – special counsel expected to reach charging decision soon: report

David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement
June 5, 2023, 11:13 AM ET



Donald Trump Scott Olson/Getty Images


Attorneys for Donald Trump Monday morning entered the U.S. Dept. of Justice, as expectations grow the ex-president could soon be charged in his unlawful removal, retention, and refusal to return hundreds of classified and top secret documents.

CBS News chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa reports sources say Special Counsel Jack Smith its expected to reach a decision on charging Trump in the case soon.

"Trump’s lawyers just spotted by @CBSNews entering the Justice Department, per @RobLegare who is on site," Costa tweeted at 10:09 AM ET. He says that "comes as sources tell me the special counsel is moving toward a charging decision in the classified documents case."

Citing sources, Costa adds, "Trump’s lawyers are expected to raise concerns about how prosecutors have handled atty-client questions during the grand jury but there is no sign the special counsel is going to waver from how he and his team have handled the crime-fraud exception…"

Trump's attorneys being at DOJ is a possible sign the Special Counsel could be close to asking a grand jury to bring charges against the one-term, twice impeached ex-president who is currently facing 34 felonies in an unrelated New York case.

"Often defense attorneys are given the opportunity to 'pitch' the DOJ before a charging decision is made," former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti notes. "Trump’s team visiting DOJ likely means that we won’t see charges in the next few days—as their pitch is considered—but could potentially see charges in the next 5 to 15 days."

The Special Counsel's grand jury is reportedly reconvening this week.

Legal experts and Trump watchers have been expecting the ex-president to be charged as soon as this week, after CNN reported Special Counsel Jack Smith had an audio recording of Trump admitting to holding on to a classified document, described by some as "war plans" against Iran. In that audio Trump reportedly also said he knew the document was classified, and said he wished he could share it, which destroys multiple claims he has made in his defense of retaining the documents.

That document is still missing, and the Pentagon appears greatly concerned about the document.

On Sunday night Trump lashed out at Smith, calling him, the DOJ, and the FBI all "Marxist," and described the investigation into his possibly illegal handling of classified documents as the "boxes hoax."

This is a breaking news and developing story. Details may change.



https://www.rawstory.com/trumps-att...ected-to-reach-charging-decision-soon-report/

 

WAIT!! WHAT??!?!?

OH MY GOD!!
THEY WERE ACTUALLY WALKING INTO THE DOJ??!?!?!
WHAT WERE THEY WEARING?
DID THEY SEEM UPSET??
CONCERNED??
WHAT WERE THEY CARRYING??
DID ANYONE MEET THEM AT THE FRONT DOOR??
DID THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A METAL DETECTOR??
WHAT ORDER DID THEY GO IN??
WAS TRUMP WITH THEM??
WERE THEY TALKING ON THEIR CELL PHONES??

OH MY GOD, THE SUSPENSE IS KILLING US!!

 

What they were NOT wearing......was a SMILE!!!

 

I've been watching the coverage most the day. Ex Federal prospectors say its fairly common to give the defendant's lawyers a chance to try and talk the DOJ out of indicting their client. And they add its extremely rare for that to work because by the time it gets to this stage the DOJ has already made up their minds to move ahead with indictments.

And right now I am watching Andrew Weissmann who was on the Mueller investigation. And he is saying Trump will be indicted and the only questions are when and where. And Weissmann is one of the best I've seen as far as accurate predictions.

 

Now I am watching ex FBI agent Peter Strzok. He is saying it not only looks like more than one indictement for Trump but others will probably be indicted as well. And Strozk is another one who has proven to be very accurate with his assessments.

 

And @toniter I don't know if you have seen this but I think its the best evidence yet that Trump has already been told he is going to be indicted.


https://forum.xnxx.com/threads/the-gestapo-strikes.656351/page-25#post-14580975

 

Another interesting and significant detail. Special Counsel Jack Smith was also in the meeting with Trump's lawyers. Ex prosecutors say that is significant because it indicates Smith told them he is moving forward with indictments.

 

Bout time eh stumbler?
8 years!
Think you'll get your perp walk this time?
Maybe Strozck can slap the cuffs on trump and even taze him.
Bet you're having a seizure fantasizing.

 

Trump's own voice on the documents tape will be 'devastating' in a courtroom: legal analyst

Sarah K. Burris
June 4, 2023, 5:45 PM ET



Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Michigan. (Shutterstock.com)


Legal analyst Danny Cevallos walked through the possible charges that Donald Trump could face after a recording of him surfaced last week.

The discussion began with Julia Ainsley of the NBC News Investigative Unit saying, "An indictment, at this point, would set them up well to be able to end a trial before the 2024 election, at least give that 60 to 90-day buffer. You also hear about that the Justice Department takes into account, what they don't want to be interfering in an election. They could see this timeline as being very conducive to trying to wrap up this business before the election."

The questions before the grand jury are whether Trump wrongfully retained classified documents and did he later obstruct the government in trying to get them back.

"Question number one, and to some degree, question or two, really depends on what federal criminal statute you're looking at," explained Cevallos. And there are some that don't even really require classification or non-classification. It isn't a fundamental issue as to whether there is a crime. One of these is the Espionage Act."

He explained that Ainsley's article discussed the specifics of whether or not a document is classified and the level of potential harm it could cause. Those things determine whether it would fall under the Espionage Act.

"So, those two questions that you ask are the key ones," said Cevallos. "Were they wrongfully detained, and afterward, when there is notice that, hey, these are not yours. You must return them, was there obstruction? So, really, you have a couple of different statutes involved. But [there are] two really different fundamental questions: the first one could be explained away by mistake. It could be excusable. The problem with the second one —"

Host Yasmin Vossoughian cut him off to say that Donald Trump has said over and over that he took them because "they are mine."

"How much of that is gonna come back to bite him? Secondly, when you look at the Washington Post reporting, 'dress rehearsals,' documents removed, the day before the FBI agent showed up at Mar-a-Lago," she said, later noting it says, "obstruction" to her.

"Right, you have a number of good arguments there," Cevallos said. "The defense is, if you look at Trump's defenses, they have holes in them as well. First, he signaled at least this whole, I can classify anything defense. It isn't very powerful. When he says, he can do it by thinking about it."

Vossoughian said it doesn't pass the smell test.

Cevallos cited James Comey, who called the tapes a horrible development for Trump, "I once said, Lordy I hope there are tapes."

"I can tell you, he is right, they're devastating," Cevallos continued. "The problem is exactly that. You may have tapes that are made by someone who is a lying liar. It doesn't matter. If they recorded it, it doesn't matter if they're criminal, doesn't matter if they have credibility issues. If they authenticated it, they get on the stand and say, 'I recorded this,' that is so-and-so's voice, and the jury can hear the voice. In this case, we really need to authenticate Donald Trump's voice. Who doesn't know that voice? He's not an unknown quantity. You press play, and it doesn't matter who your witness is, and how unreliable they are. It is the tape, it is the person's own voice that will bury them. It happens all the time. Increasingly so now that prosecutors and FBI have sworn smaller recording devices. White color cases are routinely made with tapes, and I can't tell you how powerful they are and how devastating they are as a defense attorney."

He also said he doesn't like to predict a timeline for indictments but said: "It could be right around the corner."

See the discussion below or at the link here.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-tapes-devastating/

 

This was news to me. I had no idea there is a second federal grand jury meeting in Florida.

Federal grand jury in Florida to hear testimony in Trump documents case
It’s unclear how the development will affect a separate grand jury that has been investigating in Washington, D.C.

Documents the FBI seized from former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.Department of Justice via AP

• 
  
• 
  

• Create your free profile or log in to save this article

June 5, 2023, 10:04 PM MDT
By Ken Dilanian and Julia Ainsley
A federal grand jury will meet this week in Florida to hear evidence in special counsel Jack Smith's investigation of former President Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

It is not clear how the court proceedings in Florida relate to the work of a separate grand jury in Washington, where prosecutors had been presenting evidence and witness testimony for months. The development was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.


Why prosecutors have impaneled multiple grand juries, and whether they are ready to seek an indictment in either jurisdiction is unknown. The Justice Department declined to comment on the investigation.



Three members of Trump's legal team met Monday with Smith and other officials at the Justice Department, a person familiar with the matter said. Neither Attorney General Merrick Garland nor Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco were present, NBC News confirmed.


Writing on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump blasted the Justice Department on Monday, saying in all caps: “How can DOJ possibly charge me, who did nothing wrong, when no other president’s were charged.”

R

Trump's handling of classified documents came under FBI investigation last year when the National Archives alerted the agency that government documents Trump had returned after having been out of office for about a year included 184 that were marked as classified.

Trump was indicted this spring on state charges in New York in a case relating to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels and a second woman in the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign. It was the first time a former president has faced criminal charges.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...hear-testimony-trump-documents-case-rcna87850

 

‘That’s A Really Weird One!’ CNN’s McCabe Says Mar-a-Lago Pool Flood Suspicious — But Tough To Prove ‘Chargeable Offense’
By Tommy ChristopherJun 6th, 2023, 10:51 am


CNN law enforcement analyst Andrew McCabe said the draining of a pool at Mar-a-Lago raised “suspicion” because it caused the flooding of a room containing servers with surveillance footage, but would be unlikely to result in a “chargeable offense.”

The reporting team of Katelyn Polantz, Jeremy Herb, and Kaitlan Collins dropped another scoop Monday, reporting that prosecutors in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents probe have been asking witnesses about the incident in which the draining of the pool flooded a server room, but reportedly did not damage the equipment.

On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, host Anderson Cooper asked McCabe what he made of the report, and McCabe told Cooper it’s an indication of how little prosecutors trust what Trump’s side has been doing and saying — but without proof of “intentionality” the pool incident won’t likely result in charges:


COOPER: What do you make of Kaitlan Collins’ reporting about the Mar-a-Lago pool flood raising suspicions among prosecutors?

MCCABE: Yes. That’s a really weird one. I mean, it certainly indicates — it gives you an indication of the high degree of suspicion that each side has of the other. Certainly, DOJ is investigating obstruction here, we know that from the search warrant application.

So they are going to look at every possible act as a possible you know — every act is a possible element of obstruction. In this case, with the witnesses already saying that the flood didn’t really damage the computers, it is hard to say. Until we hear that the Trump team is actually claiming that they cannot produce the videos requested under the subpoenas because the material was damaged by water, it is hard to say that they’re actually using that as some sort of a obstructive method.

COOPER: What does obstruction look like? I mean, from a legal standpoint.

MCCABE: So obstruction — you know, in order to charge someone with obstruction, you have to be able to prove that they intended to obstruct an official proceeding, right?

So an accident, the accidental flooding of a room with computers in it, without more evidence of actual intent to stop or obstruct the proceeding, in this case the investigation wouldn’t probably rise to the level of a chargeable offense.

However, conversations with your lawyer in which you’re lying to your lawyer about where the docs are and what’s available to be searched as is also allegedly taking place in this case, that could very well end up as a chargeable offense.


https://www.mediaite.com/news/thats...icious-but-tough-to-prove-chargeable-offense/

 

'Certainly not going to make Donald Trump happy tonight': MSNBC host on bombshell Mark Meadows report

Sarah K. Burris
June 6, 2023, 7:08 PM ET



Mark Meadows. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)


The New York Times published a bombshell report that former Donald Trump chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has appeared before the grand jury for both the 2020 election probe as well as the classified documents probe. This could reportedly make Trump very upset.

MSNBC host Ari Melber explained that Meadows was among those on the Trump staff to serve as a representative to the National Archives in the final days of the presidency.

"Then there's this," Melber read from the Times. "And this is new as well. Mark Meadows' lawyer, telling The New York Times that Meadows maintained a commitment to tell the truth where he has a legal obligation to do so. The answer is no, not in MAGA land, not with a president who demands that everyone basically attack everything as a witch-hunt. The obligation to tell the truth, the signal he's sending to people in the probe as well as certainly any prosecutor who might ever judge him is 'I'm on board cooperating.'"

The Times also mentions that, when it comes to the coup plot, Meadows remains a key witness to the special counsel.

"His lawyer seems to think it's a good time to remind everyone he's cooperating, which isn't going to make Donald Trump happy tonight," Melber also said. "And this is all coming out on one of the busiest weeks we've ever seen in the special counsel probe."

Renato Mariotti, former U.S. attorney, told Melber that a key piece of the Jan. 6 Committee's investigation came from Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified last year that she observed many conversations between Meadows and others in the White House ahead of and on Jan. 6. She also testified she witnessed Meadows burning documents once or twice a week.

Watch the full discussion below or at the link.



https://www.rawstory.com/mark-meadows-2661035208/

 

Waiting ............... still waiting ................... and still waiting .................

 

Barr pushes back on Trump: This is not a ‘witch hunt’

Barr pushes back on Trump: This is not a ‘witch hunt’
2.4k

• 
  

Sarah Fortinsky
Tue, June 6, 2023 at 12:47 PM MDT·2 min read

Former Attorney General Bill Barr pushed back on former President Trump’s claims that a special counsel’s ongoing documents probe is politically motivated and said he thinks the public eventually will come to realize the former president’s culpability.

“Over time, people will see that this is not a case of the Department of Justice conducting a witch hunt,” Barr said in an interview on CBS on Tuesday. “In fact, they approached this very delicately and with deference to the president, and this would have gone nowhere had the president just returned the documents. But he jerked them around for a year and a half.”

Special counsel Jack Smith is leading an investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents, some of which were discovered in an FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago home after Trump repeatedly refused to turn the documents over to federal officials once he left the White House.

Trump has repeatedly called investigations into his behavior “witch hunts,” and released a torrent of angry social media posts against federal investigators Tuesday — one day after Trump’s lawyers reportedly met with Smith and other Justice Department (DOJ) officials. Smith is also probing Trump’s efforts to remain in power following the 2020 election.


“The Marxists and Fascists in the DOJ & FBI are going after me at a level and speed never seen before in our Country, and I did nothing wrong,” Trump wrote in one of several posts Tuesday.



In the CBS interview, Barr said he suspects the Monday meeting was “probably held to complain about some aspects of the special counsel’s work,” and that he thinks an indictment is probably on the horizon.

“I would bet that it’s near,” he said of a federal indictment.



Barr served under Trump for nearly two years as attorney general, leaving after the president lost the 2020 election.

He became the target of Trump’s wrath when he publicly affirmed the legitimacy of President Biden’s victory.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/barr-pushes-back-trump-not-184702634.html

 

Special Counsel Jack Smith is making more moves faster than anyone knew. Everyone knew about his DC grand jury investigation. But no one I saw knew about his second grand jury in Florida. And the legal pundits believe there is a very good reason for the two grand juries. Trump will be charged in DC and his accomplices will be indicted in Florida.


Ex-Trump aide testifying before Miami grand jury: report

Travis Gettys
June 7, 2023, 9:24 AM ET



Jack Smith, Donald Trump (Smith photo by Robin Van Lonkhuijsen for AFP/ Trump by Saul Loeb for AFP)


A former spokesman and advocate for former President Donald Trump will testify Wednesday before a federal grand jury in Florida as part of the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case.

Taylor Budowich, who now runs the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA, Inc., arrived with his attorney Stanley Woodward at the federal courthouse in Miami to testify to a grand jury convened by special counsel Jack Smith in his investigation of the former president's handling of sensitive government records, reported CNN.

The grand jury in southern Florida has heard testimony from multiple witnesses in recent weeks, following months of testimony in the investigation before grand juries based in Washington, D.C., leading to speculation that Trump could be charged in both jurisdictions or that some of his associates may be charged.

Trump's attorneys met Monday with officials at the Department of Justice to argue that he should not be indicted, which is widely considered to be a sign that Smith's investigation may be nearing its conclusion.

RELATED: 'How do you explain defying a subpoena?' CNN hosts put former Trump lawyer on the spot for classified docs



https://www.rawstory.com/taylor-budowich-2661085466/

 

Trump’s lawyers told he is target in Mar-a-Lago documents investigation
Hugo Lowell in Miami
Wed, June 7, 2023 at 3:41 PM MDT



Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

Federal prosecutors formally informed Donald Trump’s lawyers last week that the former president is a target of the criminal investigation examining his retention of national security materials at his Mar-a-Lago resort and obstruction of justice, according to two people briefed on the matter.

The move – the clearest sign yet that Trump is on course to be indicted – dramatically raises the stakes for Trump, as the investigation nears its conclusion after taking evidence before a grand jury in Washington and a previously unknown grand jury in Florida.

Trump’s lawyers were sent a “target letter” days before they met on Monday with the special counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the Mar-a-Lago documents case, and the senior career official in the deputy attorney general’s office, where they asked prosecutors not to charge the former president.


Trump has reportedly said he had not been personally informed by the justice department that he was a target when asked directly by a New York Times reporter, but demurred when asked whether his legal team had been told about the designation.

The development comes as prosecutors have obtained evidence of criminal conduct occurring at Mar-a-Lago and decided that any indictments should be charged in the southern district of Florida, where the resort is located, rather than in Washington, according to people familiar with the matter.

To that end, prosecutors last month started issuing subpoenas to multiple Trump aides that compelled them to testify before a new grand jury in Florida, impaneled around the time that the grand jury in Washington stopped taking new evidence, the Guardian previously reported.

On Wednesday, former Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich testified before the Florida grand jury and was asked in part about a statement that Trump drafted in early 2022 that said he had given “everything” back after he returned 15 boxes of materials to the National Archives.

The statement was never issued, Budowich is understood to have confirmed. Several aides to Trump were against releasing the statement because they were not confident that the assertion was accurate, a person close to the former president said.

What charges might emanate from the Florida grand jury remains unclear.

But prosecutors would most probably prefer to bring charges in Washington, where the judges at the US district court are more familiar with handling national security cases – though Florida also has a robust national security section – and the jury pool skews more Democratic.

The impaneling of grand juries has to do with where prosecutors believe a crime was committed. And the most straightforward reason for the Florida grand jury is that prosecutors have developed evidence of criminal activity at Mar-a-Lago, which is in the southern district of Florida.

In this investigation, prosecutors considering charges against Trump for retaining national security material may have concluded from the evidence that he was still president when classified documents were moved to Mar-a-Lago, meaning his “unlawful possession” only started in Florida.

Similarly, if prosecutors have also developed evidence that Trump knew he had retained national security documents after he left office at Mar-a-Lago, for instance by waving them around or showing people, that could present hurdles to charging Espionage Act violations in Washington.

The venue for an obstruction of justice charge is more difficult to deduce, meanwhile, because the courts have provided little guidance about how it should be applied under section 1519 of the US criminal code, which prosecutors listed on the affidavit for Mar-a-Lago search warrant

Generally, other obstruction statutes hold that the venue depends on where the impeded proceeding was taking place. In the Trump documents investigation, the subpoena last year demanding the return of classified documents was issued in Washington.

The US court of appeals for the DC circuit, however, has ruled in previous cases that the correct venue is where acts of obstruction took place. If prosecutors are considering obstruction charges for Trump’s steps to conceal classified documents after the subpoena, Florida could be the venue.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lawyers-told-target-mar-214139247.html

 

Hey @shootersa you need to correct your records.

 

Lucky you shooting stradust ,
you don't have to wait any longer