yes this has all been well reported. he was well known to request classified info be sent to his residence while in the WH. there was little chain of command. staffers are likely afraid of him. god knows what he was flushing down the toilets.

ANYWAY, they were aware he took some things he shouldn't have. they asked for it back. he sent some back. some was missing so they had to reconcile that. they asked. he ignored. they sent a subpoena. then they went in to get it.

yall are mad they went into his home, yet now ask why they didn't do it sooner?!

keep at it.

it really is entertaining to the adults in the room.

Any thoughts on the 1987 SCOTUS case ?


In 1987, the Supreme Court said that the President has constitutional power, as commander-in-chief, to classify and declassify.

Regardless of any statute passed by Congress.

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

That ain't good.

NYT: Search warrant for Mar-a-Lago identifies three federal crimes that DOJ is looking at as part of its investigation: violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice and criminal handling of government records.

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) August 12, 2022

---

Because it was so bad they 'found out about it' in June and waited 2 months to act on it. Super secret top secret they just asked to put an extra lock on the door it was so sensitive.

Seriously, how many times must u all be fooled?

If it turns out something crazy criminal happened then I'll be the first to condemn

---

The DOJ has been talking to Trump about these documents since June.

He didn't return all the documents they requested he return.

They insisted.

He either ignored them or got belligerant.

So they came and got our property. Which was illegally taken and improperly stored at Trump's property.

All of you Hunter's-laptop-mavens must also be agog and eagerly awaiting updates from your ever-reliable salacious news sources about the surely-not-coincidental $2 billion investment Jared Kushner's fledgeling firm got from the Saudis. Or not, since corruption & misdeeds by Republicans and particularly Trump Republicans get a pass. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushner-saudi-investment-fund.html

ScruffyD said:

---

yes this has all been well reported. he was well known to request classified info be sent to his residence while in the WH. there was little chain of command. staffers are likely afraid of him. god knows what he was flushing down the toilets.

ANYWAY, they were aware he took some things he shouldn't have. they asked for it back. he sent some back. some was missing so they had to reconcile that. they asked. he ignored. they sent a subpoena. then they went in to get it.

yall are mad they went into his home, yet now ask why they didn't do it sooner?!

keep at it.

it really is entertaining to the adults in the room.

---

Nice story. I will find it in the fiction aisle when this is all over. You conveniently leave out a lot and u know it, much of it has already been discussed on this thread u ignore. Gotta remove myself

I forgot what it's like over here being gone for almost 2 yrs since the election trying not to post very much in R&P then Trump goes and murders the entire DOJ and sells all our secrets to the Chinese and launch codes to N Korea and he draws me back in.

Yes I ignore the blatant falsehoods and talking points many of you get fed nightly. But let me know what I got wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/12/trump-obama-national-archives/

The National Archives and Records Administration issued a statement Friday in an attempt to counter misstatements about former president Barack Obama's presidential records after several days of misinformation that had been spread by former president Donald Trump and conservative commentators.

Since the FBI search of his Florida home and club this week for classified documents, Trump has asserted in social media posts that Obama "kept 33 million pages of documents, much of them classified" and that they were "taken to Chicago by President Obama."

In its statement, NARA said that it obtained "exclusive legal and physical custody" of Obama's records when he left office in 2017. It said that about 30 million pages of unclassified records were transferred to a NARA facility in the Chicago area and that they continue to be maintained "exclusively by NARA."

ScruffyD said:

---

Yes I ignore the blatant falsehoods and talking points many of you get fed nightly. But let me know what I got wrong.

---

i would skip all those news shows too! I get my news from 365 R&P boards!

Ari made a good point. Now that they have the documents back the DOJ likely won't indict which means they don't have to say what was in the documents but you know they will 'leak' whether true or not things to the press (as they already are doing) to damage him politically.

It's actually very smart and dirty as usual.

Imagine if Trump did what Hillary did and tried to destroy these and somehow she is mocking everyone to the day.

How is Trump in trouble if he didn't pack them up or open them and didn't even know what was in them.

Remember libs say he didn't take CIA briefings but now all of a sudden he's reading thousands of sealed docs in his locked basement?

Thanks for the laugh. And I hate having to defend Trump.

ScruffyD said:

---

Yes I ignore the blatant falsehoods and talking points many of you get fed nightly. But let me know what I got wrong.

---

So if u ignore them where do u get your info you 100% believe is factual? Honest question

riflebear said:

---

This is why DC libs can do anything they want because they know there will be no consequences. It's a dangerous game but libs love it.

For reference, this is the penalty for lying to a judge to obtain a politically motivated search warrant pic.twitter.com/indxI6EhMK

— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) August 9, 2022

---

Not much difference from getting a pardoning for a three+ or 7 year sentence Both are wrong and something needs to be done.

Check out the misdirection here from Garland. He made it look as if the Trump raid was a narrowly scoped search but if you parse his words carefully he only made a general statement about narrow search scopes *where possible*. https://t.co/SisOh0efQ5 pic.twitter.com/HoWRPyoTQR

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) August 12, 2022

riflebear said:

---

Ari made a good point. Now that they have the documents back the DOJ likely won't indict which means they don't have to say what was in the documents but you know they will 'leak' whether true or not things to the press (as they already are doing) to damage him politically.

It's actually very smart and dirty as usual.

Imagine if Trump did what Hillary did and tried to destroy these and somehow she is mocking everyone to the day.

How is Trump in trouble if he didn't pack them up or open them and didn't even know what was in them.

Remember libs say he didn't take CIA briefings but now all of a sudden he's reading thousands of sealed docs in his locked basement?

Thanks for the laugh. And I hate having to defend Trump.

---

I heard the same point by former US Atty. If the whole point was to retrieve the classified documents, Garland may choose not to prosecute if they have everything they were looking for. FBI and DOJ did not make anything public in advance, as Trump was the one to make all this public, That might suggest that were not committed to going further than that. One caveat though, is the possible obstruction of justice mentioned in the warrant.

Trump warrant shows why deep state lied about nuclear secrets. This thing was a disgrace. A raid for Trump’s handwritten notes? WTF.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) August 12, 2022

I made a similar prediction in an earlier comment. Y'all this is not going to end well and it will permanently damage the country in ways you can't imagine.

Prediction: An illiterate DC grand jury of hardcore Dem partisans will indict Trump, a separate jury of hardcore partisans will convict, a corrupt DC Circuit will affirm, and SCOTUS will be left to overturn. At which point the Left will violently attack SCOTUS. God help us all.

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) August 12, 2022

the warrant covers the espionage act. therefore, proof would have to have been provided to a judge.

well hopefully it doesnt lead to someone shooting at the FBI. or storming our capitol and killing police officers.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Check out the misdirection here from Garland. He made it look as if the Trump raid was a narrowly scoped search but if you parse his words carefully he only made a general statement about narrow search scopes *where possible*. https://t.co/SisOh0efQ5 pic.twitter.com/HoWRPyoTQR

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) August 12, 2022

---

Yep, Trump has opened himself up to a search that could turn out to be relevant to any number of issues, including the Jan. 6 violence. He was either very stupid or very desperate to hold onto something.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Check out the misdirection here from Garland. He made it look as if the Trump raid was a narrowly scoped search but if you parse his words carefully he only made a general statement about narrow search scopes *where possible*. https://t.co/SisOh0efQ5 pic.twitter.com/HoWRPyoTQR

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) August 12, 2022

---

Yep, Trump has opened himself up to a search that could turn out to be relevant to any number of issues, including the Jan. 6 violence. He was either very stupid or very desperate to hold onto something.

---

Im betting he had damning docs related to Russiagte and planned on using them for his lawsuit against HRC and the Feds that we're behind it.

Not my favorite source, but here's a good breakdown: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/08/12/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-unsealed-the-most-urgent-critical-national-security-issue-in-the-history-of-all-time-had-seven-days-to-execute/

ScruffyD said:

---

well hopefully it doesnt lead to someone shooting at the FBI. or storming our capitol and killing police officers.

---

or shooting up a congressional softball practice or attempting to assassinate a Supreme Court justice...

riflebear said:

---

Ari made a good point. Now that they have the documents back the DOJ likely won't indict which means they don't have to say what was in the documents but you know they will 'leak' whether true or not things to the press (as they already are doing) to damage him politically.

It's actually very smart and dirty as usual.

Imagine if Trump did what Hillary did and tried to destroy these and somehow she is mocking everyone to the day.

How is Trump in trouble if he didn't pack them up or open them and didn't even know what was in them.

Remember libs say he didn't take CIA briefings but now all of a sudden he's reading thousands of sealed docs in his locked basement?

Thanks for the laugh. And I hate having to defend Trump.

---

Tried

She did destroy evidence, and is arrogant about it to this day. She knows she is untouchable and above the law.

It is very obvious at the top of the power structure there are 2 sets of rules.

One set of rules for the select, the Clintons, Obamas, the Bushs and those connected to the Washington machine, then another set of rules for everybody else.

Obama had 39,000,000 pages of documents, you know darn well somewhere in there was the word Nuclear Weapon, somewhere in there was classified info, some of it top secret. They gave him 6 years to get the stuff to them.

If that scenario plays out we should be ok. I was told the Far Right is the party of law and order..

Wangchung said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

well hopefully it doesnt lead to someone shooting at the FBI. or storming our capitol and killing police officers.

---

or shooting up a congressional softball practice or attempting to assassinate a Supreme Court justice...

---

More like storming the capitol to disrupt a peaceful transfer of power so Trump could stay in office and continue to have access to state secrets to sell or trade for favors.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Check out the misdirection here from Garland. He made it look as if the Trump raid was a narrowly scoped search but if you parse his words carefully he only made a general statement about narrow search scopes *where possible*. https://t.co/SisOh0efQ5 pic.twitter.com/HoWRPyoTQR

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) August 12, 2022

---

Yep, Trump has opened himself up to a search that could turn out to be relevant to any number of issues, including the Jan. 6 violence. He was either very stupid or very desperate to hold onto something.

---

I'm going to go with stupid. He figured the rules for other presidents would apply to him.

He should have known better.

Stefano DiMera said:

---

If that scenario plays out we should be ok. I was told the Far Right is the party of law and order..

---

This far right?

I am walking right now from Freedom Plaza to the White House, and came across the “Q Shaman,” a pro-Trump activist from Phoenix.

He found out from my question that SCOTUS rejected the Texas case against blue swing states, and said it shows “corruption” among higher courts. pic.twitter.com/1xZfwCQbeT

— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) December 12, 2020

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Check out the misdirection here from Garland. He made it look as if the Trump raid was a narrowly scoped search but if you parse his words carefully he only made a general statement about narrow search scopes *where possible*. https://t.co/SisOh0efQ5 pic.twitter.com/HoWRPyoTQR

— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) August 12, 2022

---

Yep, Trump has opened himself up to a search that could turn out to be relevant to any number of issues, including the Jan. 6 violence. He was either very stupid or very desperate to hold onto something.

---

Im betting he had damning docs related to Russiagte and planned on using them for his lawsuit against HRC and the Feds that we're behind it.

Not my favorite source, but here's a good breakdown: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/08/12/mar-a-lago-search-warrant-unsealed-the-most-urgent-critical-national-security-issue-in-the-history-of-all-time-had-seven-days-to-execute/

---

If he declassified those documents and returned the originals to the DOJ then they must have been after something else. Why not just give it to them?

ScruffyD said:

---

well hopefully it doesnt lead to someone shooting at the FBI. or storming our capitol and killing police officers.

---

4 officers who were there committed suicide well after the Riot at the Capital.

Quote:

---

NPR

U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who engaged with pro-Trump rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection, died of natural causes the day after the attack, Washington, D.C.'s chief medical examiner announced Monday.

Sicknick died after suffering strokes, the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Francisco Diaz, said in a report. In an interview, Diaz told The Washington Post, which first reported on the determination, that Sicknick suffered two strokes.

Sicknick, 42, was sprayed with a chemical substance outside the Capitol at around 2:20 p.m. ET on Jan. 6, the report said.

He did not suffer an allergic reaction to the chemical irritants dispensed by rioters, Diaz told the Post, nor was there evidence of internal or external injuries.

At approximately 10 p.m., Sicknick collapsed at the Capitol and was transported to a local hospital. He died nearly 24 hours later.

---

Did the stress from the event probably have a very bad affect on officer Sicknick, more than likely it did, but it is disingenuous to say "people killed police officers" during the riot, they didn't.

No police officers were killed during the riots at the Capital. Four people/rioters died during the riots, one person was actually "killed" meaning someone intentionally killed her. She was shot dead by a Capital police officer.

ScruffyD said:

---

the warrant covers the espionage act. therefore, proof would have to have been provided to a judge.

---

18 USC 793 - also called the Espionage Act. This statute "prohibits communicating, transmitting, or delivering to any person not entitled to receive it 'any document, writing, ... or note relating to the national defense,' or attempting to do so."

So they hve proof he tried to give it to somebody? He is entitled to have it based on 1987 SCOTUS ruling..

RMF5630 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

That ain't good.

NYT: Search warrant for Mar-a-Lago identifies three federal crimes that DOJ is looking at as part of its investigation: violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice and criminal handling of government records.

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) August 12, 2022

---

Because it was so bad they 'found out about it' in June and waited 2 months to act on it. Super secret top secret they just asked to put an extra lock on the door it was so sensitive.

Seriously, how many times must u all be fooled?

If it turns out something crazy criminal happened then I'll be the first to condemn

---

I will take it one step further, he left office in January 2020. They just noticed top secret documents missing 18 months later? They knew they went to the President's office, wasn't there a chain of custody?

---

Poor old Trump was one lousy spy.

Personally stole several BOXES of documents and left them in his house. Said boxes in plain view. Left then there for 18 MONTHS .

The dummy must have thought everyone loved him and would leave him alone with his golf clubs.

Silly old spy .

4th and Inches said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

the warrant covers the espionage act. therefore, proof would have to have been provided to a judge.

---

18 USC 793 - also called the Espionage Act. This statute "prohibits communicating, transmitting, or delivering to any person not entitled to receive it 'any document, writing, ... or note relating to the national defense,' or attempting to do so."

So they hve proof he tried to give it to somebody? He is entitled to have it based on 1987 SCOTUS ruling..

---

793 is much broader than you portray.

For example:

"(d) 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[...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.]"

Or:

"(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

4th and Inches said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

the warrant covers the espionage act. therefore, proof would have to have been provided to a judge.

---

18 USC 793 - also called the Espionage Act. This statute "prohibits communicating, transmitting, or delivering to any person not entitled to receive it 'any document, writing, ... or note relating to the national defense,' or attempting to do so."

So they hve proof he tried to give it to somebody? He is entitled to have it based on 1987 SCOTUS ruling..

---

The president is entitled to have it. Trump isn't president.

I would be shocked if Trump actually tried to sell classified information. The espionage provisions are in the warrant, but one of them is also a provision for gross negligence.

If (a big if) they're saying he tried to injure the United States by holding information about Crossfire Hurricane, that would put the search in a whole different light.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

the warrant covers the espionage act. therefore, proof would have to have been provided to a judge.

---

18 USC 793 - also called the Espionage Act. This statute "prohibits communicating, transmitting, or delivering to any person not entitled to receive it 'any document, writing, ... or note relating to the national defense,' or attempting to do so."

So they hve proof he tried to give it to somebody? He is entitled to have it based on 1987 SCOTUS ruling..

---

The president is entitled to have it. Trump isn't president.

I would be shocked if Trump actually tried to sell classified information. The espionage provisions are in the warrant, but one of them is also a provision for gross negligence.

If (a big if) they're saying he tried to injure the United States by holding information about Crossfire Hurricane, that would put the search in a whole different light.

---

And this is where political opponents of Trump and the MSM can have a field day with this, wild unsubstantiated debate about what Trump "might" have done.

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

the warrant covers the espionage act. therefore, proof would have to have been provided to a judge.

---

18 USC 793 - also called the Espionage Act. This statute "prohibits communicating, transmitting, or delivering to any person not entitled to receive it 'any document, writing, ... or note relating to the national defense,' or attempting to do so."

So they hve proof he tried to give it to somebody? He is entitled to have it based on 1987 SCOTUS ruling..

---

The president is entitled to have it. Trump isn't president.

I would be shocked if Trump actually tried to sell classified information. The espionage provisions are in the warrant, but one of them is also a provision for gross negligence.

If (a big if) they're saying he tried to injure the United States by holding information about Crossfire Hurricane, that would put the search in a whole different light.

---

did he go take them when he wasnt president?

Interesting thoughts- i can see why they would want back the proof of their dirty deeds..

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

HuMcK said:

---

That ain't good.

NYT: Search warrant for Mar-a-Lago identifies three federal crimes that DOJ is looking at as part of its investigation: violations of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice and criminal handling of government records.

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) August 12, 2022

---

Because it was so bad they 'found out about it' in June and waited 2 months to act on it. Super secret top secret they just asked to put an extra lock on the door it was so sensitive.

Seriously, how many times must u all be fooled?

If it turns out something crazy criminal happened then I'll be the first to condemn

---

I will take it one step further, he left office in January 2020. They just noticed top secret documents missing 18 months later? They knew they went to the President's office, wasn't there a chain of custody?

---

Poor old Trump was one lousy spy.

Personally stole several BOXES of documents and left them in his house. Said boxes in plain view. Left then there for 18 MONTHS .

The dummy must have thought everyone loved him and would leave him alone with his golf clubs.

Silly old spy .

---

LOL!! Yeah, I reckon ole Trump was preparing to launch a nuclear attack against China almost any day from his Firepad at Mar A Lago. Thank God we have the brave men and women from the FBI and Department of Justice to keep us safe!! They are truly angels from Heaven.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

ScruffyD said:

---

the warrant covers the espionage act. therefore, proof would have to have been provided to a judge.

---

18 USC 793 - also called the Espionage Act. This statute "prohibits communicating, transmitting, or delivering to any person not entitled to receive it 'any document, writing, ... or note relating to the national defense,' or attempting to do so."

So they hve proof he tried to give it to somebody? He is entitled to have it based on 1987 SCOTUS ruling..

---

The president is entitled to have it. Trump isn't president.

I would be shocked if Trump actually tried to sell classified information. The espionage provisions are in the warrant, but one of them is also a provision for gross negligence.

If (a big if) they're saying he tried to injure the United States by holding information about Crossfire Hurricane, that would put the search in a whole different light.

---

And this is where political opponents of Trump and the MSM can have a field day with this, wild unsubstantiated debate about what Trump "might" have done.

---

I just mentioned Crossfire Hurricane in relation to Doc's post. If true it would mean a couple of things. First, the search really would have been political and probably unjustified. Second, Trump must have had something like a smoking gun showing that Obama personally ordered someone to break the law. Otherwise a move like this wouldn't be worth the political fallout. All complete speculation, though.

Anybody else curious Why the Biden DOJ seize "binders of photos" from Trump?