RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

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.

---

This whole deal is beyond belief.

And totally 100% dangerous.

Dems get away with this....no one, anywhere is safe.


Proof ?

November mid terms .....'victory' for the Dems .

4th and Inches said:

---

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

---

For the women, of course.

4th and Inches said:

---

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

---

Melania and Ivanka pictures?

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

i got ya..

I was thinking there was tons of "classified" stuff related to Mueller but Trump definitely unclassified all of that..

Thats a big problem for me is we dont now what "classified" stuff he has so we dont know if he unclassified it or not..

J.B.Katz said:

---

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.

---

That's stupid. One would have to be dumb enough to believe Russian collusion happened to believe that level of horse ****.

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.

---

They have to give Trump a list of what they seized. He can publish it if wants. Also zero guarantee they got 100% of what they were missing.

Booray said:

---

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.

---

They have to give Trump a list of what they seized. He can publish it if wants. Also zero guarantee they got 100% of what they were missing.

---

thats not 100% accurate..

Site wont let me post them but I have actual pages of the search warrant reciept

It has things like line 12 is listed as "box labeled A-17" and line 13A listed as "misc top secret documents"

Who knows whats in the box or what was so important about the multiple binders of photos they took..

ScruffyD said:

---

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

---

No, proof wouldn't have needed to be provided, only probable cause that a crime has been committed.

But I saw what you did there.

Oh, and the faked Steele Dossier says hi

ScruffyD said:

---

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

---

Or another Bernie Bro decides to shoot and kill a bunch or Republican Senators practicing for next year's baseball game.

Also, no police officers were killed at the Capitol Building an January 6th

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.

---

Could be....

Still waiting for the FBI to raid hunter biden's house or hillary clinton's place

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

So, if the FBI told you to turn over your computer (without a warrant), even though you didn't have anything to hide, you would just go ahead and turn it over?

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

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.

---

So, are you finally admitting it was a riot and not an insurrection?

Rawhide 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.

---

Could be....

Still waiting for the FBI to raid hunter biden's house or hillary clinton's place

---

you know, the ones that werent president and clearly couldnt declassify documents..

Trump was extremely careless as I recall Comey said about Hillary..

It's a bit much to hear Garland lecture that it's beyond the pale to criticize FBI/DOJ, given the Steele dossier, the Page warrants, and the Mueller whitewash of all of it... The country has every right to be skeptical. https://t.co/X0xR6tTlPI via @WSJ

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) August 11, 2022

Jacques Strap said:

---

It's a bit much to hear Garland lecture that it's beyond the pale to criticize FBI/DOJ, given the Steele dossier, the Page warrants, and the Mueller whitewash of all of it... The country has every right to be skeptical. https://t.co/X0xR6tTlPI via @WSJ

— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) August 11, 2022

---

narrow scope according to press conference by Garland- warrant says everything from jan 20 2017 to jan 20 2021 that potus might have seen or touched..

"Donald Trump why don't you release the warrant!"

/Donald Trump releases the warrant

"NO NOT LIKE THAT" https://t.co/q8B9V9tgTr

— Tiger Durden (@RummaTumTums) August 12, 2022

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

So, if the FBI told you to turn over your computer (without a warrant), even though you didn't have anything to hide, you would just go ahead and turn it over?

---

If they had a valid subpoena, or if I knew the documents didn't belong to me in the first place, sure. Wouldn't you?

Booray said:

---

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.

---

They have to give Trump a list of what they seized. He can publish it if wants. Also zero guarantee they got 100% of what they were missing.

---

Probably guaranteed they got crap that had nothing to do with the warrant stated

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

So, if the FBI told you to turn over your computer (without a warrant), even though you didn't have anything to hide, you would just go ahead and turn it over?

---

If they had a valid subpoena, or if I knew the documents didn't belong to me in the first place, sure. Wouldn't you?

---

You're an honorable man and a patriot regardless of your political views.

Trump is not an honorable man, and his supporters not only accept that, they celebrate it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

So, if the FBI told you to turn over your computer (without a warrant), even though you didn't have anything to hide, you would just go ahead and turn it over?

---

If they had a valid subpoena, or if I knew the documents didn't belong to me in the first place, sure. Wouldn't you?

---

I would turn them over..... with a subpoena. Without one, no, I wouldn't give the law enforcement anything.

I remember when I was 17, cops pulled me over for doing 53 in a 45. He asked if he could look in my trunk. I said no. He gave me warning and that was that. If he opened my trunk, all he would've found was a spare tire, a jack, and duffel bag with jumper cables and a few tools

J.B.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

So, if the FBI told you to turn over your computer (without a warrant), even though you didn't have anything to hide, you would just go ahead and turn it over?

---

If they had a valid subpoena, or if I knew the documents didn't belong to me in the first place, sure. Wouldn't you?

---

You're an honorable man and a patriot regardless of your political views.

Trump is not an honorable man, and his supporters not only accept that, they celebrate it.

---

Please tell us that you think biden is an honorable man, that would be the joke of the decade.

4th and Inches said:

---

Rawhide 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.

---

Could be....

Still waiting for the FBI to raid hunter biden's house or hillary clinton's place

---

you know, the ones that werent president and clearly couldnt declassify documents..

Trump was extremely careless as I recall Comey said about Hillary..

---

In hindsight, y'all have bent the rules of what's permissible so much that Obama should have just declassified whatever ot took and declared fhe investigation over, or asked his FBI to lay off of Hillary like Trump did for Flynn. Hell, Biden should do the same and declare investigating his family off limits, like Trump did for Ivanka. Obama and Biden had/have to suffer an FBI under Republican leadership during their administration, after all, any investigating they do is biased against Dems and politically motivated, right?

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

So, if the FBI told you to turn over your computer (without a warrant), even though you didn't have anything to hide, you would just go ahead and turn it over?

---

If they had a valid subpoena, or if I knew the documents didn't belong to me in the first place, sure. Wouldn't you?

---

I would turn them over..... with a subpoena. Without one, no, I wouldn't give the law enforcement anything.

I remember when I was 17, cops pulled me over for doing 53 in a 45. He asked if he could look in my trunk. I said no. He gave me warning and that was that. If he opened my trunk, all he would've found was a spare tire, a jack, and duffel bag with jumper cables and a few tools

---

What were Oldbear and Married A Horn doing in your trunk?

J.B.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

So, if the FBI told you to turn over your computer (without a warrant), even though you didn't have anything to hide, you would just go ahead and turn it over?

---

If they had a valid subpoena, or if I knew the documents didn't belong to me in the first place, sure. Wouldn't you?

---

You're an honorable man and a patriot regardless of your political views.

Trump is not an honorable man, and his supporters not only accept that, they celebrate it.

---

Thank you.

HuMcK said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Rawhide 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.

---

Could be....

Still waiting for the FBI to raid hunter biden's house or hillary clinton's place

---

you know, the ones that werent president and clearly couldnt declassify documents..

Trump was extremely careless as I recall Comey said about Hillary..

---

In hindsight, y'all have bent the rules of what's permissible so much that Obama should have just declassified whatever ot took and declared fhe investigation over, or asked his FBI to lay off of Hillary like Trump did for Flynn. Hell, Biden should do the same and declare investigating his family off limits, like Trump did for Ivanka. Obama and Biden had/have to suffer an FBI under Republican leadership during their administration, after all, any investigating they do is biased against Dems and politically motivated, right?

---

pretty much, all investigation of your political opponents is in fact politically motivated

Owning you in every post.

Well, that post seems "very desperate" to me, Sam.

We have seen this opera before, we know how it ends.

Instead of the Fat Lady singing, the Fat Man will laugh.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

So, if the FBI told you to turn over your computer (without a warrant), even though you didn't have anything to hide, you would just go ahead and turn it over?

---

If they had a valid subpoena, or if I knew the documents didn't belong to me in the first place, sure. Wouldn't you?

---

I would turn them over..... with a subpoena. Without one, no, I wouldn't give the law enforcement anything.

I remember when I was 17, cops pulled me over for doing 53 in a 45. He asked if he could look in my trunk. I said no. He gave me warning and that was that. If he opened my trunk, all he would've found was a spare tire, a jack, and duffel bag with jumper cables and a few tools

---

What were Oldbear and Married A Horn doing in your trunk?

---

I'm not sure what you were going for, Sam, but that is just a weird post from you.

Did you pull a Hunter and put cocaine in your coffee instead of creamer?

FBI Special Agent Jeremy Linton, involved in the MarA Lago raid, was also involved in January 6th proceedings..

Maybe nothing but he is working in both cases..

How do you think Egan applies to this case?

Meadows memo confirms declassification of documents on January 19th by Donald Trump, when he was president..

Who said that happened earlier in the thead? Oh yeah, me..

This is what concerns me the most:

https://wentworthreport.com/2022/08/12/the-payback-for-mar-a-lago-will-be-brutal/

To read the left's media scribes, Monday's search was a ho-hum day in crime-fighting. The Beltway press circled the wagons around Attorney General Merrick Garland and primly parroted Speaker Nancy Pelosi's piety that "no one is above the law."

"The Mar-a-Lago Raid Proves the U.S. Isn't a Banana Republic," pronounced the Atlantic, clearly worried readers might conclude the opposite. It is "bedrock principle" that those who "commit crimes" "must answer for them," it lectured. …

If you have doubts about all this, you're unhinged and lawless. The Washington Post quoted "extremism trackers," who explained that any GOP statements "delegitimizing the government" were "nudges toward violence." …
The consequences are so obvious, but go unmentioned on the left:

A Democratic Congress enacted, and Jimmy Carter signed, the first independent counsel law in 1978. Two decades later it led to Bill Clinton's impeachment.

If anything, a perceived political persecution of Mr. Trump could help him to a second term. And he would be even more unrestrained as the 47th president than he was as the 45th. A second Trump administration wouldn't have the caliber of grown-ups who signed up for the first tour. [Because the left have been persecuting and bankrupting anyone who helped Trump.]

Mr. Garland's raid has made even the highest political figures fair prosecutorial game, and the media's new standard is that the department can't be questioned as it goes about ensuring "no one is above the law." Let's see how that holds when a future Republican Justice Department starts raiding the homes of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, James Comey and John Brennan.

Payback could come even sooner. Democrats set a new low with their Ukrainian impeachment circus, and a GOP House next year might be up for a reprise. Get ready for a few more select committees perhaps excluding the minority party, as the Democrats effectively did with the Jan. 6 committee to investigate Mr. Garland's politicized department or Hunter Biden's finances. …

All this tit for tat will further undermine our institutions and polarize the nation but such is the nature of retributive politics. Which is why the wholesale Democratic and media defense of this week's events is so reckless.

Both parties long understood that political restraint was less about civility than self-preservation. What goes around always comes around. What went around this week will come around hard.
Either the left has gone tactically stupid, or they don't think they will lose any more elections. Rigging could account for this, but we cannot rule out short-sightedness.

4th and Inches said:

---

Meadows memo confirms declassification of documents on January 19th by Donald Trump, when he was president..

---

Now to most unbiased individuals ...this would be game over .

But as my son in law told me over dinner earlier tonight ......the FBI is investigating a person looking for a crime .

And there is zero chance the DOJ and FBI are ever going to admit they were wrong in their actions here.




To save face...they are going to 'find' something.......charge Trump with 'something '...rather than make fools out of themselves in the eyes of the whole nation .

So we've gone from saying there was nothing to find, then saying the FBI planted stuff, then saying it was just a little bit of classified stuff, then saying Obama did it too (getting a public rebuke from the records authority), then saying there was a "standing order" to declassify stuff, now were at "Meadows' memo says it's all good"...and on and on to the next lie as each one gets knocked down.

Declassification is a formal process, where declassified documents get marked and dated. The Trump admin was well aware of this, and not keen to declassify things based on oral or informally written statements, as evidenced by the Meadows memo excerpt below.