Resolves YES if Donald Trump is charged with violating the Espionage Act by the end of 2023? Resolves NO if not.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ10,559 | |
| 2 | Ṁ290 | |
| 3 | Ṁ254 | |
| 4 | Ṁ237 | |
| 5 | Ṁ124 |
People are also trading
UNSEALED
USA V Donald J Trump and Waltine Nauta
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.3.0.pdf
18 U.S.C 793e (CHAPTER 37—ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP)
§793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over 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 to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it
While I agree I'm likely going to lose this bet, I'd still really like to see the actual indictment before the market is resolved. Media reporting about this sort of thing tends to be sloppy - it seems completely feasible he could be charged for obstruction and other "related" things without actually being charged under the Espionage Act.
@MattP Agreed, its not official until DOJ says so essentially.
DOJ has not confirmed the indictment and any charges have not yet been publicly filed.
**18 min ago
"It does have some language in it that suggests what the seven charges would be. Not 100% clear that all of those are separate charges, but they basically break out from an Espionage Act charge," he told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/mar-a-lago-documents-probe-latest/index.html
Here it is in the NYTimes. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/08/us/trump-indictment-documents
@BTE the charges are still under seal, I think? I agree this probably will resolve yes once unsealed though
@MartinRandall Yes I am waiting for the official indictment. I did resolve the non-specific Mar-a-Lago market already but that is not dependent on any details.
Here’s what seems likely to me: Trump may be indicted for obstruction of justice fairly soon. The charges under the Espionage Act seem more difficulty to establish. He could still be charged with illegal detention of classified documents (not under espionage), but I don’t think it’s as clear as people who tend to speak on MSNBC suggest. One major roadblock is the appearance of double standards.
@NicoDelon If he showed them to anyone without clearance required to see them Espionage Act is very simple and unavoidable. If there were accusations of someone else purposely taking and concealing documents with national security information (doesn’t even need to be classified at any level) then double standards maybe could work but there aren’t any such accusations at all. The opposite in fact, all the other documents found in others homes were voluntarily searched for and turned over.
@BTE I agree it doesn’t look great for him, but his defense may be able to poke holes here and there. I also don’t think the Biden classified docs is a nothingburger. But I may lose mana here, not ruling that out!
@NicoDelon I may get crushed!! And if Biden took documents to hide info on Hunter then okay maybe something there. But that would be something other than espionage act, but you may be right about it not being nothing.
@NicoDelon yeah... He may get charged for something here, but espionage act specifically seems unlikely.
@MattP Still nobody has explained why it’s unlikely other than I guess it sounds funny to charge an ex-president for that? Or because if you charge him you have to charge all presidents with it??? Seriously, what is the strong exculpatory evidence?
@BTE yeah, it's a prudential thing. Even if you could make a case, you have to then explain why you haven't charged other government officials who've done very similar shit, or risk hugely damaging public trust.
@BTE Actually the latter doesn’t sound crazy. It’s just implausible to claim that docs he possessed while in office, failed to return, and probably never intended to use for other reasons than being silly and arrogant, are sufficient. It’s careless. But I don’t think the law is that broad or meant to apply to careless presidents. But I also don’t really know!
@NicoDelon And yeah, what Matt said. He’s running for president. Biden has his own skeletons. Charging Trump now basically reeks of banana republic methods.
@MattP Other government officials who have done similar shit HAVE BEEN CHARGED. That is my point. None of the other examples you have given are comparable. Plus I think it’s wise because the Espionage act would bar him from holding elected office so it’s worth it to PROTECT the public from a clear sociopath. If it’s trivial and easy to prove use it. He will avoid prison and we will all avoid the nightmare of his involvement in politics or government. The only person making us look like a banana republic is Trump, any response to him cannot be claimed to be the cause of his chaos. Say what you want about courts overturning the ban from holding federal office, there is zero evidence the courts like to weaken themselves relative to the other branches of government. That is why the Supreme Court will never help Trump, he thinks they work for him as president instead of realizing they are actually his equal constitutionally speaking.
Anyway, we will all find out soon it seems!!! Good luck y’all!!! 😂
@BTE If Twitter and The Independent are to be trusted (a huge IF), you might be getting mana rich again soon.
Not sure if y’all have noticed all of Trump’s former attorneys are on TV saying he is going to jail for this case. Open and shut. Plus obstruction slam dunk. His defenses are burnt by his own attorney’s notes. It would be irresponsible not to charge him. This charge would also disqualify him from holding federal office.
@BTE Do you have a link? Recently, I could only find one poorly written MSN article mostly referring to a CNN piece.
@NicoDelon The new link to embed feature makes this so much easier to do in the dark with dogs!! Well done @ManifoldMarkets!
@NicoDelon it's all bullshit; god-emperor Trump will emerge unscathed from the deepstate assault