FBI raids Trump's home

158,282 Views | 2081 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Harrison Bergeron
J.B.Katz
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:49p, 8/23/22
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/23/trump-records-mar-a-lago-fbi/?itid=hp-top-table-main-t-3

Some of Trump's allies have blamed the rushed and haphazard packing process during Trump's final days in office for the presence of documents the FBI found in Trump's bedroom, office and a first-floor storage room at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. But the key events that led to the FBI search took place only this year, after months of slow-rolling conflict between the former president and law enforcement agencies.

Some material recovered in the search is considered extraordinarily sensitive, two people familiar with the search said, because it could reveal carefully guarded secrets about U.S. intelligence-gathering methods. One of them said the information is "among the most sensitive secrets we hold."
Reply Quote
Dnicknames
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harrison Bergeron • 8:55p, 8/23/22
Harrison Bergeron said:
Have the returned library books saved democracy yet?


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-e2-80-99s-mar-a-lago-search-followed-months-of-resistance-delay-by-trump/ar-AA111iG2

Impressive level library books ~
Reply Quote
Canada2017
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.B.Katz • 9:11p, 8/23/22
J.B.Katz said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/23/trump-records-mar-a-lago-fbi/?itid=hp-top-table-main-t-3

Some of Trump's allies have blamed the rushed and haphazard packing process during Trump's final days in office for the presence of documents the FBI found in Trump's bedroom, office and a first-floor storage room at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. But the key events that led to the FBI search took place only this year, after months of slow-rolling conflict between the former president and law enforcement agencies.

Some material recovered in the search is considered extraordinarily sensitive, two people familiar with the search said, because it could reveal carefully guarded secrets about U.S. intelligence-gathering methods. One of them said the information is "among the most sensitive secrets we hold."
Yeah...yeah.

And if the FBI summarily lined Trump and his wife up against the wall and shot them.......you would cheer your lungs out .
Reply Quote
riflebear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:41p, 8/23/22
Reply Quote
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dnicknames • 9:43p, 8/23/22
Dnicknames said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Have the returned library books saved democracy yet?


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-e2-80-99s-mar-a-lago-search-followed-months-of-resistance-delay-by-trump/ar-AA111iG2

Impressive level library books ~
anybody in the GSA fired or charged yet? According to warrant, they committed crimes..
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”

Jon Stewart
Reply Quote
riflebear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.B.Katz • 9:45p, 8/23/22
J.B.Katz said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/23/trump-records-mar-a-lago-fbi/?itid=hp-top-table-main-t-3

Some of Trump's allies have blamed the rushed and haphazard packing process during Trump's final days in office for the presence of documents the FBI found in Trump's bedroom, office and a first-floor storage room at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. But the key events that led to the FBI search took place only this year, after months of slow-rolling conflict between the former president and law enforcement agencies.

Some material recovered in the search is considered extraordinarily sensitive, two people familiar with the search said, because it could reveal carefully guarded secrets about U.S. intelligence-gathering methods. One of them said the information is "among the most sensitive secrets we hold."


It's funny you try to defend the DOJ/FBI by saying they wouldn't be partisan and are just doing their jobs but turn around and love to post leaks from the very same agencies you say wouldn't make it partisan.

Not to mention most of the leaks they've been doing the past 6 years have almost all been proven wrong or lies when related to Trump.

Dems have to love this because it keeps this in the news instead of Dem's/Biden's disaster heading into the midterms. Smart of them but very dirty.
Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:08p, 8/23/22
Just like clockwork, Phase II Publicity Stunt launched with leaks to Pravda red meat for the left-wing noise machine fever dreams.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.B.Katz • 5:49a, 8/24/22
J.B.Katz said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/23/trump-records-mar-a-lago-fbi/?itid=hp-top-table-main-t-3

Some of Trump's allies have blamed the rushed and haphazard packing process during Trump's final days in office for the presence of documents the FBI found in Trump's bedroom, office and a first-floor storage room at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. But the key events that led to the FBI search took place only this year, after months of slow-rolling conflict between the former president and law enforcement agencies.

Some material recovered in the search is considered extraordinarily sensitive, two people familiar with the search said, because it could reveal carefully guarded secrets about U.S. intelligence-gathering methods. One of them said the information is "among the most sensitive secrets we hold."



So, how did they get boxed and delivered to Florida?
Reply Quote
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 5:55a, 8/24/22
RMF5630 said:
J.B.Katz said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/23/trump-records-mar-a-lago-fbi/?itid=hp-top-table-main-t-3

Some of Trump's allies have blamed the rushed and haphazard packing process during Trump's final days in office for the presence of documents the FBI found in Trump's bedroom, office and a first-floor storage room at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. But the key events that led to the FBI search took place only this year, after months of slow-rolling conflict between the former president and law enforcement agencies.

Some material recovered in the search is considered extraordinarily sensitive, two people familiar with the search said, because it could reveal carefully guarded secrets about U.S. intelligence-gathering methods. One of them said the information is "among the most sensitive secrets we hold."



So, how did they get boxed and delivered to Florida?
Trump family did it all in the middle of the night.. cctv caught them Loading that pick up and uhaul trailer!

They got no answer for the fact that Trump had nothing to do with how all those records got there in the first place..
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”

Jon Stewart
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 6:14a, 8/24/22
4th and Inches said:
RMF5630 said:
J.B.Katz said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/23/trump-records-mar-a-lago-fbi/?itid=hp-top-table-main-t-3

Some of Trump's allies have blamed the rushed and haphazard packing process during Trump's final days in office for the presence of documents the FBI found in Trump's bedroom, office and a first-floor storage room at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. But the key events that led to the FBI search took place only this year, after months of slow-rolling conflict between the former president and law enforcement agencies.

Some material recovered in the search is considered extraordinarily sensitive, two people familiar with the search said, because it could reveal carefully guarded secrets about U.S. intelligence-gathering methods. One of them said the information is "among the most sensitive secrets we hold."



So, how did they get boxed and delivered to Florida?
Trump family did it all in the middle of the night.. cctv caught them Loading that pick up and uhaul trailer!

They got no answer for the fact that Trump had nothing to do with how all those records got there in the first place..


Well, someone approved the final inventory and it would have been signed by both NARA/GAS and Trump Admin. You know, what is released, who released and who is receiving. Basic stuff.

I would also think there us a list, a box or something on the list that stated what was classified and what needed to be resolved. Classified has to have document control, a CPT or NSA staffer, someone keeping track of what it was and where it was. I mean we are talking Docs that got to POTUS desk here, not some MI Platoon leader at Ft Polk.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 7:54a, 8/24/22
4th and Inches said:
RMF5630 said:
4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Thoughts?

Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.

The PRA doesn't address the process by which a former president's records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.

So many good points to review and form an opinion on in this article, highly recommend.


Not allowed to question or you are a Trump supporter. It is not RESIST, but ACCEPT. Your only choice or you are stupid and Trumpite...
well.. i am definitely stupid!

Sam and Oso can vouch.. probably Porter too
4th isn't stupid
Reply Quote
HuMcK
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 7:54a, 8/24/22
How they got there is less important than figuring out why Trump defied multiple subpoenaes and requests to have them returned. If he had given back what was asked for, none of this would be happening. They gave back some things, why not the rest, and who made the call to withhold it?
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 8:01a, 8/24/22
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Thoughts?

Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."
they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.

That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.
no they didn't

did you read the article?
Yes, once when it was published yesterday and again when you posted it today. The title is "The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis." I do think that reflects the content of the article.
they said the warrants legal basis of using 18 U.S.C. 793: 18 U.S.C. 2071: and 18 U.S.C. 1519 was in error.

You sure you read it?
they said the PRA was the only conflict and it should have been handled differently.

Have you read the letters back and forth and the letter from white house that kicked this whole thing with archivist offf? They want Jan 6th stuff, plain and sinple. Biden lied.. again.

The basis was bunk and the scope was too wide. They got warrant issues and the got 4th amendment issues.

Even if they had some thing that they found, the basis for fruit of the poisonous tree is there..
There was no conflict. I said it was about J6 (among other things) about 35 pages ago. So what? It's a classic Al Capone scenario.
Reply Quote
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:25a, 8/24/22
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Thoughts?

Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."
they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.

That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.
no they didn't

did you read the article?
Yes, once when it was published yesterday and again when you posted it today. The title is "The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis." I do think that reflects the content of the article.
they said the warrants legal basis of using 18 U.S.C. 793: 18 U.S.C. 2071: and 18 U.S.C. 1519 was in error.

You sure you read it?
they said the PRA was the only conflict and it should have been handled differently.

Have you read the letters back and forth and the letter from white house that kicked this whole thing with archivist offf? They want Jan 6th stuff, plain and sinple. Biden lied.. again.

The basis was bunk and the scope was too wide. They got warrant issues and the got 4th amendment issues.

Even if they had some thing that they found, the basis for fruit of the poisonous tree is there..
There was no conflict. I said it was about J6 (among other things) about 35 pages ago. So what? It's a classic Al Capone scenario.
no conflict? Great! No need for a warrant to search and seize..

“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”

Jon Stewart
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 9:00a, 8/24/22
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Thoughts?

Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."
they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.

That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.
no they didn't

did you read the article?
Yes, once when it was published yesterday and again when you posted it today. The title is "The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis." I do think that reflects the content of the article.
they said the warrants legal basis of using 18 U.S.C. 793: 18 U.S.C. 2071: and 18 U.S.C. 1519 was in error.

You sure you read it?
they said the PRA was the only conflict and it should have been handled differently.

Have you read the letters back and forth and the letter from white house that kicked this whole thing with archivist offf? They want Jan 6th stuff, plain and sinple. Biden lied.. again.

The basis was bunk and the scope was too wide. They got warrant issues and the got 4th amendment issues.

Even if they had some thing that they found, the basis for fruit of the poisonous tree is there..
There was no conflict. I said it was about J6 (among other things) about 35 pages ago. So what? It's a classic Al Capone scenario.
no conflict? Great! No need for a warrant to search and seize..

That would be the judicial process mentioned in Section 2205.

Hypothetical question: If the FBI found smoking gun evidence that Trump planned to 1) misuse highly sensitive information or 2) incite violence on Jan. 6, but he could not be convicted because the evidence was inadmissible in court, would you vote for him in the general election in 2024?
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HuMcK • 9:04a, 8/24/22
HuMcK said:
How they got there is less important than figuring out why Trump defied multiple subpoenaes and requests to have them returned. If he had given back what was asked for, none of this would be happening. They gave back some things, why not the rest, and who made the call to withhold it?
Probably on basis of legal advice citing the grounds on which he was justified in keeping them. See link above to the Wall Street Journal op/ed.

DOJ could have presented its case in court, allowing Trump's attorneys to respond, asking a judge to rule on the matter and issue a court order.

Instead, they chose to send in the SWAT team (the same one Durham is investigating.)

For that matter, DOJ could have appointed a special counsel, to avoid the appearance of impropriety in handling the matter.

"Nah, just send in our SWAT team. We need to remind everybody who really owns this town."
Reply Quote
Dnicknames
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:09a, 8/24/22
Saying there was a SWAT team -or raid at all- is peak hyperbole.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dnicknames • 9:12a, 8/24/22
Dnicknames said:
Saying there was a SWAT team -or raid at all- is peak hyperbole.
Uh...using the Espionage Act against a former POTUS is hyperbole
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HuMcK • 9:13a, 8/24/22
HuMcK said:
How they got there is less important than figuring out why Trump defied multiple subpoenaes and requests to have them returned. If he had given back what was asked for, none of this would be happening. They gave back some things, why not the rest, and who made the call to withhold it?


Huh? How National Security level documents were included in boxes of papers the US Government not only approved but shipped is not as important as Trump? Wow, you really need to get off the Trump pipe...
Reply Quote
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:13a, 8/24/22
If it walks like a raid and quacks like a raid...
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Reply Quote
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:13a, 8/24/22
is there a DT45 cologne or scrotum groin wash yet??

PA.

- UL

.... and, as always, TIA.

BID.

... or maybe an Oranging Skin Balm????
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
Reply Quote
Wangchung
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to william • 9:18a, 8/24/22
william said:
is there a DT45 cologne or scrotum groin wash yet??

PA.

- UL

.... and, as always, TIA.

BID.

... or maybe an Oranging Skin Balm????
No but there is a Trump ****** line of product called "Come and Grab it". "You'll be so fresh he won't stop reaching for it!"
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dnicknames • 9:46a, 8/24/22
Dnicknames said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Have the returned library books saved democracy yet?


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-e2-80-99s-mar-a-lago-search-followed-months-of-resistance-delay-by-trump/ar-AA111iG2

Impressive level library books ~
More impressive than the books other presidents kept?

Did we raid the Clinton's to get back the furniture they stole?
Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Wangchung • 9:47a, 8/24/22
Wangchung said:
If it walks like a raid and quacks like a raid...
Someone posited the theory that the raid was done to capture the Crossfire Hurricane documents Trump declassified. The FBI basically carried out a CYA raid to keep those documents from becoming public.

Makes more sense than overdue library books and Obama's note to Trump.
Reply Quote
Canada2017
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:47a, 8/24/22
Anyone believe that under the EXACT same circumstances.........that the Biden administration would have launched such a raid on the home of an ex president who was a member of the Democratic Party ?


Reply Quote
Canada2017
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harrison Bergeron • 9:49a, 8/24/22
Harrison Bergeron said:
Dnicknames said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Have the returned library books saved democracy yet?


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-e2-80-99s-mar-a-lago-search-followed-months-of-resistance-delay-by-trump/ar-AA111iG2

Impressive level library books ~
More impressive than the books other presidents kept?

Did we raid the Clinton's to get back the furniture they stole?
Was over $200,000 worth of items as I recall.

Barely mentioned at the time in the NYT or Washington Post.
Reply Quote
4th and Inches
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 9:54a, 8/24/22
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Thoughts?

Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."
they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.

That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.
no they didn't

did you read the article?
Yes, once when it was published yesterday and again when you posted it today. The title is "The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis." I do think that reflects the content of the article.
they said the warrants legal basis of using 18 U.S.C. 793: 18 U.S.C. 2071: and 18 U.S.C. 1519 was in error.

You sure you read it?
they said the PRA was the only conflict and it should have been handled differently.

Have you read the letters back and forth and the letter from white house that kicked this whole thing with archivist offf? They want Jan 6th stuff, plain and sinple. Biden lied.. again.

The basis was bunk and the scope was too wide. They got warrant issues and the got 4th amendment issues.

Even if they had some thing that they found, the basis for fruit of the poisonous tree is there..
There was no conflict. I said it was about J6 (among other things) about 35 pages ago. So what? It's a classic Al Capone scenario.
no conflict? Great! No need for a warrant to search and seize..

That would be the judicial process mentioned in Section 2205.

Hypothetical question: If the FBI found smoking gun evidence that Trump planned to 1) misuse highly sensitive information or 2) incite violence on Jan. 6, but he could not be convicted because the evidence was inadmissible in court, would you vote for him in the general election in 2024?
1) depends what info he has and how he was planning to misuse and was this highly sensitive info on the GSA list of contents?

2) sure, show a direct relationship of inciting violence on Jan 6(something new)- no vote from me!

Hoping for a 2024 Desantis and Tulsi Gabbard ticket..
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”

Jon Stewart
Reply Quote
Married A Horn
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harrison Bergeron • 9:59a, 8/24/22
Harrison Bergeron said:
Wangchung said:
If it walks like a raid and quacks like a raid...
Someone posited the theory that the raid was done to capture the Crossfire Hurricane documents Trump declassified. The FBI basically carried out a CYA raid to keep those documents from becoming public.

Makes more sense than overdue library books and Obama's note to Trump.


Pretty sure that was me. I'm interested to see if there is any substance to it. Couldnt get anyone worth listening to to discuss it.

My initial thought is just standard offense / mudslinging on the corrupt left's part. But I wouldnt doubt it for a sec if it turned out the reason for the raid was the Crossfire Hurricane stuff.
Married A Horn

Hutto Hippo
Trinity Trojan
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 4th and Inches • 10:13a, 8/24/22
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
Sam Lowry said:
4th and Inches said:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684?st=u1qa5b6p7zfeuw1&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Thoughts?

Mr. Trump's documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that "where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment." The former president's rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.
They're ignoring Section 2205: "Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208...Presidential records shall be made available pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding."
they didnt say dont go get them, they said do it differently and that they must allow Trump access to them once moved.

That and we are back to deaing with PRA..
They said there was no basis for the search. The basis is in the PRA and the other statutes; there's no conflict between them. Trump will have access eventually, but any documents that are presidential records will stay in the government's possession.
no they didn't

did you read the article?
Yes, once when it was published yesterday and again when you posted it today. The title is "The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis." I do think that reflects the content of the article.
they said the warrants legal basis of using 18 U.S.C. 793: 18 U.S.C. 2071: and 18 U.S.C. 1519 was in error.

You sure you read it?
they said the PRA was the only conflict and it should have been handled differently.

Have you read the letters back and forth and the letter from white house that kicked this whole thing with archivist offf? They want Jan 6th stuff, plain and sinple. Biden lied.. again.

The basis was bunk and the scope was too wide. They got warrant issues and the got 4th amendment issues.

Even if they had some thing that they found, the basis for fruit of the poisonous tree is there..
There was no conflict. I said it was about J6 (among other things) about 35 pages ago. So what? It's a classic Al Capone scenario.
no conflict? Great! No need for a warrant to search and seize..

That would be the judicial process mentioned in Section 2205.

Hypothetical question: If the FBI found smoking gun evidence that Trump planned to 1) misuse highly sensitive information or 2) incite violence on Jan. 6, but he could not be convicted because the evidence was inadmissible in court, would you vote for him in the general election in 2024?
1) depends what info he has and how he was planning to misuse and was this highly sensitive info on the GSA list of contents?

2) sure, show a direct relationship of inciting violence on Jan 6(something new)- no vote from me!

Hoping for a 2024 Desantis and Tulsi Gabbard ticket..


Interesting. Tulsi as VP to DeSantis. Thst would be effective, but would they do it? Would be great for tourism states! They both know importance.
Reply Quote
Married A Horn
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:16a, 8/24/22
Why anyone would want their tiebreaking senate vote to go to the other team is beyond me... smh
Married A Horn

Hutto Hippo
Trinity Trojan
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Married A Horn • 10:20a, 8/24/22
Married A Horn said:
Why anyone would want their tiebreaking senate vote to go to the other team is beyond me... smh


It would be a cross aisle move to unite. Simple as that. We need something to stop this polarization.
Reply Quote
Married A Horn
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 10:24a, 8/24/22
RMF5630 said:
Married A Horn said:
Why anyone would want their tiebreaking senate vote to go to the other team is beyond me... smh


It would be a cross aisle move to unite. Simple as that. We need something to stop this polarization.


There are other less suicidal ways to do that than this. The reason Trump & Desantis are so popular is because they stand up to the left, not compromise with them. Sure fire way to get almost all conservatives to not vote and give the election to the democrats up and down the ballott.
Married A Horn

Hutto Hippo
Trinity Trojan
Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:30a, 8/24/22
Group A: This was likely a political stunt like the Russia Hoax ... nothing substantive will come of it but we'll get a few weeks of DOJ leaks to the Democrat press

Group B: HOW DARE YOU CALL THIS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY AND NATIONAL SECURITY A PUBLICITY STUNT! THE FBI IS BEYOND REPROACH!

FBI Leaks to Democrat press

Group B: MSNBC and CNN REPORTING THEY FOUND PICTURES OF RUSSIAN HOOKERS PEEING ON TRUMP! TOLD YOU!
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Married A Horn • 10:32a, 8/24/22
Married A Horn said:
RMF5630 said:
Married A Horn said:
Why anyone would want their tiebreaking senate vote to go to the other team is beyond me... smh


It would be a cross aisle move to unite. Simple as that. We need something to stop this polarization.


There are other less suicidal ways to do that than this. The reason Trump & Desantis are so popular is because they stand up to the left, not compromise with them. Sure fire way to get almost all conservatives to not vote and give the election to the democrats up and down the ballott.
what you are describing in bold is capitulation.

polarization ends with victory or defeat. Chose one.
Reply Quote
Married A Horn
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:37a, 8/24/22
Yeah, its not going to happen. So let's just move on.
Married A Horn

Hutto Hippo
Trinity Trojan
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.