Rudy Giuliani Claims Trump Was Trying to ‘Preserve’ Documents by Keeping Them ‘Safe’ at Mar-a-Lago
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rudy Giuliani Claims Trump Was Trying to ‘Preserve’ Documents by Keeping Them ‘Safe’ at Mar-a-Lago, But His Legal Explanation Seems to Be Lacking
aaron-k 5-6 minutes 8/20/2022
Rudy Giuliani appeared on Newsmax on Aug. 18, 2022.
Rudy Giuliani , a onetime attorney to Donald Trump , claims the ex-president was simply trying to “preserve” whatever documents were recently gathered during an FBI search at Mar-a-Lago.
Giuliani made the comments Thursday on Newsmax program “Rob Schmitt Tonight,” but his explanation as to the underlying law appears not to be entirely accurate.
The former New York City mayor claimed the search was part of a “conspiracy” to “take him [Trump] out by any means.”
“Now, they want to make him responsible for having taken classified document and preserve them,” Giuliani asserted.
Giuliani then went on to pontificate about what he believed is — and is not — illegal under the Espionage Act .
“It’s not really about taking the documents, it’s about destroying them, or hiding them, or giving them to the enemy,” Giuliani claimed. “It’s not about taking them and putting them in a place that’s roughly as safe as they were in in the first place.”
Several sections of the Espionage Act were cited in portions of the search warrant made public in two separate offerings over the last several weeks. The “[p]roperty to be seized” was defined as “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, or 1519.”
While it is unclear precisely what subsection of § 793 might be applied here, it appears subsection (d) applies more broadly than Giuliani suggested. The statute applies to someone who “willfully retains” documents to which had lawful “possession,” “access,” or “control.” The government, however, has to demand the return of the material for the statute to kick in.
Here’s § 793(d) (minus a connective word which links it to a separate subsequent subsection); we’ve added italics to the relevant part:
Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it [.]
Notably, the statute does not only involve the more specific or narrow actions of “destroying,” “hiding,” or “giving” the documents, which is what Giuliani claimed. While it does criminalize certain types of communication, delivery, and transmission, it can also involve the mere act of retention. In other words, possession is enough to trigger one subsection of the law cited on the Mar-a-Largo warrant.
Law&Crime explained the statutes cited in the warrant in a previous report .
Later during the Newsmax interview, Giuliani asserted that Trump offered to give some of his materials back to the government when requested.
“They already got 15 cartons back voluntarily,” he claimed.
Giuliani then suggested that the government was “satisfied” with the way Trump promised to secure the remaining materials in his possession.
But then came the search on Aug. 8 .
Giuliani then suggested that the thus-unsealed FBI affidavit in support of the warrant needed to assert that something changed between when those alleged agreements were made for Trump to retain certain materials in a secure fashion and when the subsequent search warrant was executed.
Giuliani also sounded off against a list of people he perceived as Trump foes and asserted that America might be “too dumb to be a democracy” if it didn’t believe his versions of events — which included that the 2020 election was stolen .
“They will frame him with every single thing they’ve got,” Giuliani then asserted as to Trump.
Newsmax has previously apologized for airing vote-rigging claims connected to the 2020 election .
Giuliani is under investigation by legal ethics authorities in Washington, D.C., over his failed attempt to litigation a 2020 election case in Pennsylvania. His law license faced repercussions in New York as well — a fact he bemoaned on Newsmax.
He’s also been embroiled in multiple lawsuits concerning his conduct surrounding the 2020 election, and he is further involved in a subsequent investigation into the election in Georgia.
(Image via Newsmax screengrab.)
Have a tip we should know? tips@lawandcrime.com
Tags
Who is online
154 visitors
The other day Anderson Cooper said on his show what I said here about a week ago. Sooner or later Trump and his lackeys would present the "perfect phone call" defense, in other words what Trump did with the documents was not only legal, it was a good idea.
There is always a pattern or stages with Trump scandals. First he calls it a hoax, then he says the deep state media is lying about him, then he says it happened but someone else did it, then he admits it happened and he did it but it was a "good thing" and the country should thank him for his foresight.
Anderson just isn't as quick a thinker as you. Maybe he read your comment here.
Some of us have the painful burden of understanding what is going on.
Exactly, elite man's burden and yet you shoulder it so well.
Not elite, just aware.
By the way, you have made your final comment about me on this seed that wont be deleted.
Comment on the article.
If the redacted affidavit is released, the next Trumpist hair on fire will be whatever is redacted 'proves' that the DOJ, FBI and Biden are 'hiding something'.
In short, 'they' will not accept any level of redaction.
You mean like how leftists fully accepted the redacted Mueller report, and screamed that Barr was trying to "hide something"?
No.
Like the left's manufactured theory about an alleged insurrection, the sizzle has gone out of the meat of this story...
You deny that the US capitol was forcibly entered and damaged —with attacks on the security forces— by a mob of Trump supporters seeking to disrupt the official proceedings which officially deemed the winner of the presidential election??
A peaceful protest turned into an un-directed, un-planned mini riot by a small number of rogue demonstrators doesn't constitute an insurrection... and the people know it...and so should you
That is a dishonest description of January 6th!
To most leftists, if it was just one person from the rally going into the Capitol, tapping on the chamber door and waving hello, it would still be considered an insurrection.....because Trrrrrruuuuuuummmmmppp.
Your comment illustrates a galactic level of willful ignorance of the events.
You acknowledge that Trump supporters marched to the capitol, attacked and over-powered security guards, broke windows, entered the building with the intent of disrupting the certification of the PotUS. Yet you play semantic games and claim this is not an insurrection.
Pathetic how far some will go to defend Trump.
Did Trump supporters march to the capitol, attack and over-power security guards, break windows, enter the building with the intent of disrupting the certification of the PotUS?
Are you too going to play games to deny reality and defend Trump?
Understatement. What is the point of denying the obvious? It is akin to the Giuliani acts of making outrageous claims. To what end other than to ruin the credibility of the claimer?
I'm not a leftist, and what happened on Jan 6 was an insurrection by those individuals. You can kid yourselves that it wasn't, but to all of us who watched in horror, and to the police who had to deal with it, we all know what that was.
And here is the kicker. You all seem to forget that people like Tig and I are independents. There are more of us than ever... and we are very motivated to vote.
Agreed. Any candidate who supports Trump's Big Lie is immediately disqualified from consideration. That, to me, is a perfect litmus test for today's political environment. I would not support anyone that dishonest and pandering for public office.
Note also that for many it sure seems that they cannot distinguish anything other than 'my-party; my-ideology' and 'NOT my-party; NOT my-ideology'. To some, anyone to their ideological left is a 'leftist'; anyone who disagrees with any of their views is a 'leftist'. It is pathetic.
I think decades from now what it was will still be debated , to me it was a politically motivated riot, and that does not justify any actions taken , even giving some thought too it possibly being an insurrection , i would say it would have been the worst planned , executed and equipped insurrection in humanities history anywhere at any time in history .
I think that you misread the comment.
Yes
Where in the fuck did I deny any of this. I made a theory, which would have probably been proven true if happened.
You really need to stop putting words into others' posts.
Slimy tactic.
4.1.16 is good for you too.
We all can read what you wrote @4.1.3 :
Sure, bugsy, you try present the insurrection as ridiculous hyperbole by claiming a single person waving hello at the Capitol would be deemed an insurrection. Instead of acknowledging that this was indeed an insurrection by definition (" a violent uprising against an authority or government "), you try to downplay it and dismiss it as 'leftist' nonsense.
And then to make your intentions crystal clear, you pull out the Trump card and implicitly dismiss all claims of an insurrection as merely unjustified attacks on Trump.
Finally, when called out, you deny the meaning of your words.
How stupid do you think NT readers are?
Understanding theoretical scenarios seem to be your downfall because I am not agreeing to what YOU think I meant in my post.
"How stupid do you think NT readers are?"
Don't really know about everyone, but there are one or two that have presented not so high on the intellect level.
You deny the meaning of your words with vague evasion.
If you want people to believe your words have a different meaning, I suggest you offer your intended meaning.
Otherwise, people have every right to take the direct meaning of your words.
Really don't care what you suggest.
"Otherwise, people have every right to take the direct meaning of your words."
My words are clear with no need to explain them to anyone that has difficulty with understanding them.
I agree, your meaning is quite clear.
Just review the asswipes that put it together. Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three percenters, and other assorted right-wing nut cases. The moosh nooshes could fuck up a one-car funeral. That is not saying that they didn't try their best at an insurrection but brain power is something that they are in short supply of.
more like they could fuck up using a whoopie cushion ..... they would likely try and bite it thinking it was a fart bubble .
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and clogs your pool filter with down, it's a duck.
... are no longer given any credence. Giuliani has demonstrated, repeatedly, that he is willing to make up outrageous claims and spend his time attempting to sell them to the courts and to the public. He now has zero credibility and has ruined his once stellar image as "America's Mayor" and nullified his very notable professional accomplishments that preceded his selling out to Trump.
Riiiight. Because Donald Trump and his staff at Mar-a-Lago have a track record of preserving documents and the National Archives does not, I guess?
Sorry, but those documents are not Trump’s to take - for preservation
or otherwise.
The reason why presidents can't keep their White House records dates back to Nixon
Yeah, that's the ticket and Rudy was tucking in his shirt in that hotel room with that young Russian model!
The same KGB whore that peed all over Trump?
Not so much in favor of bedroom privacy?
What privacy? A hidden camera for blackmail purposes doesn't = privacy.
No of course not, how much did you pay for the digits?
This is a scene from the Borat movie a couple years ago. The lady in green is an actress from eastern Europe who received an Oscar nomination for her performance as Borats daughter.
Very funny movie even if extremely vulgar.
I’m sure that JBB and cjcold knew that, they were only joking around.
Republicans think the American people are stupid. In the case of most Trump supporters, that has proven to be true.
Trump voters, many were previous Obama voters, know that folks [deleted] have viewed them with contempt and loathing long before Trump came along. They’re also mad that previously, Republican officials helped to suppress consideration restrictions on immigration and trade. The fact that violates the political norms is a plus in their mind. The freakout over Trump that we see in the media and daily here strengthens his attraction, and make it easier for Trump voters to dismiss the hysterics.
That is the stupidest statement I've read all day.
Thats just your bias running away with you.
[Take it to Metafied.]
The moment you make it personal (by the use of the word "you"), the topic shifts to the individual. Now this is too much meta for a discussion. If you would like to continue, either hit me up in Metafied on in chat. I promise I don't bite.
[deleted]