Mar-a-Lago raided
-
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 20:38 last edited by
Trump said he will make the warrant public.
-
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 20:47 last edited by
@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Trump said he will make the warrant public.
Trump can also release the itemized receipt of what was taken too, because standard procedure says the FBI would leave behind a copy of the itemized receipt at the searched venue right after they are done executing the search warrant.
Of course, Trump could also have released the warrant and the itemized receipt much earlier; way before AG Garland says the DOJ will move to do so.
-
@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Trump said he will make the warrant public.
Trump can also release the itemized receipt of what was taken too, because standard procedure says the FBI would leave behind a copy of the itemized receipt at the searched venue right after they are done executing the search warrant.
Of course, Trump could also have released the warrant and the itemized receipt much earlier; way before AG Garland says the DOJ will move to do so.
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 20:48 last edited by@Axtremus said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Trump said he will make the warrant public.
Trump can also release the itemized receipt of what was taken too, because standard procedure says the FBI would leave behind a copy of the itemized receipt at the searched venue right after they are done executing the search warrant.
Of course, Trump could also have released the warrant and the itemized receipt much earlier; way before AG Garland says the DOJ will move to do so.
Do they leave a receipt of what was left behind, too?
-
@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Trump said he will make the warrant public.
Trump can also release the itemized receipt of what was taken too, because standard procedure says the FBI would leave behind a copy of the itemized receipt at the searched venue right after they are done executing the search warrant.
Of course, Trump could also have released the warrant and the itemized receipt much earlier; way before AG Garland says the DOJ will move to do so.
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 20:57 last edited by@Axtremus said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Trump said he will make the warrant public.
Trump can also release the itemized receipt of what was taken too, because standard procedure says the FBI would leave behind a copy of the itemized receipt at the searched venue right after they are done executing the search warrant.
Of course, Trump could also have released the warrant and the itemized receipt much earlier; way before AG Garland says the DOJ will move to do so.
When does Melania get her panties back?
-
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 21:02 last edited by
-
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 21:21 last edited by
Meanwhile back at the FBI Building, Hunter's laptop has been on the property almost two years.
TWO YEARS.
Let that sink in.
-
IF the Florida group gives its OK. My prediction is they will say no, and poor Merrick's hands will be tied.
Poor guy. He tried to be open with us. Right? RIGHT?
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 21:23 last edited by@Mik
Mik, thanks for explaining. I'm still trying to sort everything out.So Judge Reinhart, who signed the original search warrant, is now directing DOJ to respond to motions filed by Judicial Watch et al. to unseal the search warrant. Am I correct that the DOJ must comply with the order to respond, but retained the option to not unseal the warrant?
The judge's order says, ""The response may be filed ex parte and under seal as necessary to avoid disclosing matters already under seal."
So who sealed the warrant in the first place? The FBI? Then why can't DOJ just unseal it?
DOJ cites "the intense public interest presented by a search of a residence of a former President,” as its reason for moving to unseal, when DOJ was actually responding to a court order to do so? So Garland lied about that?
Then: "CNN's legal analyst Elie Honig described the announcement as a "remarkable and unusual move" because "we essentially saw Merrick Garland call Donald Trump's bluff."
This meant what? That Trump made a big noise anticipating that DOJ would react by refusing to unseal the warrant, therefore inciting his people to accusations of railroading poor beleaguered Trump unfairly? Which Garland queered his pitch by acquiescing to the unsealing?
But didn't Trump's supporters want DOJ to unseal the warrant? The entities which are seeking to unseal are conservatives, yes?
So if the reveal is a nothingburger, why has Trump not turned them over? And if it is something substantive then Trump gambled and lost?
If I've got all this right, I'm still confused.
-
@Mik
Mik, thanks for explaining. I'm still trying to sort everything out.So Judge Reinhart, who signed the original search warrant, is now directing DOJ to respond to motions filed by Judicial Watch et al. to unseal the search warrant. Am I correct that the DOJ must comply with the order to respond, but retained the option to not unseal the warrant?
The judge's order says, ""The response may be filed ex parte and under seal as necessary to avoid disclosing matters already under seal."
So who sealed the warrant in the first place? The FBI? Then why can't DOJ just unseal it?
DOJ cites "the intense public interest presented by a search of a residence of a former President,” as its reason for moving to unseal, when DOJ was actually responding to a court order to do so? So Garland lied about that?
Then: "CNN's legal analyst Elie Honig described the announcement as a "remarkable and unusual move" because "we essentially saw Merrick Garland call Donald Trump's bluff."
This meant what? That Trump made a big noise anticipating that DOJ would react by refusing to unseal the warrant, therefore inciting his people to accusations of railroading poor beleaguered Trump unfairly? Which Garland queered his pitch by acquiescing to the unsealing?
But didn't Trump's supporters want DOJ to unseal the warrant? The entities which are seeking to unseal are conservatives, yes?
So if the reveal is a nothingburger, why has Trump not turned them over? And if it is something substantive then Trump gambled and lost?
If I've got all this right, I'm still confused.
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 21:50 last edited by@Catseye3 , think back to Trump’s never ending delay to release his tax returns. Trump made multiple promises to release his tax returns, yet kept citing bogus rationale about not being able to release his tax returns as long as he is being audited by the IRS. Trump may try to replay the same trick with the search warrant now, having copies of the search warrant and the itemized list of what has been taken, having the power to release it himself, making noise about releasing it, but never do.
It’s good that the DOJ is moving to release the search warrant and the itemized list of items taken. Let the sunshine in and let everything air out in the open.
-
Meanwhile back at the FBI Building, Hunter's laptop has been on the property almost two years.
TWO YEARS.
Let that sink in.
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 21:50 last edited by@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Meanwhile back at the FBI Building, Hunter's laptop has been on the property almost two years.
TWO YEARS.
Let that sink in.
Well...Maybe there is a reason...
-
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 22:00 last edited by
Full transcript of AG Garland’s statement:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/11/us/politics/garland-fbi-trump-transcript.html
Excerpt:
…
Just now the Justice Department has filed a motion in the southern district of Florida to unseal a search warrant and property receipt relating to a court-approved search that the F.B.I. conducted earlier this week.That search was a premises located in Florida belonging to the former president. The department did not make any public statements on the day of the search. The former president publicly confirmed the search that evening, as is his right. Copies of both the warrant and the F.B.I. property receipt were provided on the day of the search to the former president’s counsel, who was on site during the search.
The search warrant was authorized by a federal court upon the required finding of probable cause. The property receipt is a document that federal law requires law enforcement agents to leave with the property owner. The department filed the motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president’s public confirmation of the search, the surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter.
… -
@Catseye3 , think back to Trump’s never ending delay to release his tax returns. Trump made multiple promises to release his tax returns, yet kept citing bogus rationale about not being able to release his tax returns as long as he is being audited by the IRS. Trump may try to replay the same trick with the search warrant now, having copies of the search warrant and the itemized list of what has been taken, having the power to release it himself, making noise about releasing it, but never do.
It’s good that the DOJ is moving to release the search warrant and the itemized list of items taken. Let the sunshine in and let everything air out in the open.
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 22:01 last edited by@Axtremus said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
having the power to release it himself, making noise about releasing it, but never do.
Yeah, that's a gambit of his.
-
Full transcript of AG Garland’s statement:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/11/us/politics/garland-fbi-trump-transcript.html
Excerpt:
…
Just now the Justice Department has filed a motion in the southern district of Florida to unseal a search warrant and property receipt relating to a court-approved search that the F.B.I. conducted earlier this week.That search was a premises located in Florida belonging to the former president. The department did not make any public statements on the day of the search. The former president publicly confirmed the search that evening, as is his right. Copies of both the warrant and the F.B.I. property receipt were provided on the day of the search to the former president’s counsel, who was on site during the search.
The search warrant was authorized by a federal court upon the required finding of probable cause. The property receipt is a document that federal law requires law enforcement agents to leave with the property owner. The department filed the motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president’s public confirmation of the search, the surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter.
…wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 22:48 last edited by@Axtremus said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Full transcript of AG Garland’s statement:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/11/us/politics/garland-fbi-trump-transcript.html
Excerpt:
…
Just now the Justice Department has filed a motion in the southern district of Florida to unseal a search warrant and property receipt relating to a court-approved search that the F.B.I. conducted earlier this week.That search was a premises located in Florida belonging to the former president. The department did not make any public statements on the day of the search. The former president publicly confirmed the search that evening, as is his right. Copies of both the warrant and the F.B.I. property receipt were provided on the day of the search to the former president’s counsel, who was on site during the search.
The search warrant was authorized by a federal court upon the required finding of probable cause. The property receipt is a document that federal law requires law enforcement agents to leave with the property owner. The department filed the motion to make public the warrant and receipt in light of the former president’s public confirmation of the search, the surrounding circumstances, and the substantial public interest in this matter.
…And it took him being thirty minutes late to massage this before reading it?
-
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 23:05 last edited by
Yeah, I wondered about that too. he didn't really say anything the average bear would not be able to deduce.
-
Yeah, I wondered about that too. he didn't really say anything the average bear would not be able to deduce.
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 23:30 last edited by@Mik said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Yeah, I wondered about that too. he didn't really say anything the average bear would not be able to deduce.
It's not that he said nothing. That, I expected. Washington-crafted, pure Grade-A Nothingspeak. Most likely written last night and voted on by at least three people until signed off on by the AG.
And he was still thirty minutes late, shoveling the bullshit. Makes me wonder...
-
wrote on 11 Aug 2022, 23:40 last edited by
After the total crap America has taken on law enforcement within the culture wars, this must be the first firm public stance taken by anybody in a position of national power, in defense of the character of the men and women employed therein. All it took was a questionable enforcement action against Trump, and voila, law enforcement is of unimpeachable character.
-
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 01:46 last edited by
I commend the response. “Speak through your work”. They filed a motion to unseal the warrant, so people can read it and judge for their own. So much better than the Comey-style impromptu presser. And (given the circumstances) better than staying mum as per policy.
-
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 01:53 last edited by
Nah. They had to know what kind of kerfuffle this would precipitate. Should have been prepared to explain it in detail to the voters.
-
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 01:55 last edited by
That was Comey’s logic. The department has learned from that.
-
Nah. They had to know what kind of kerfuffle this would precipitate. Should have been prepared to explain it in detail to the voters.
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 03:05 last edited by@Mik said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Nah. They had to know what kind of kerfuffle this would precipitate. Should have been prepared to explain it in detail to the voters.
Absolutely. You know this was vetted by The Big Guy.
-
Nah. They had to know what kind of kerfuffle this would precipitate. Should have been prepared to explain it in detail to the voters.
wrote on 12 Aug 2022, 03:24 last edited by@Mik said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Nah. They had to know what kind of kerfuffle this would precipitate.
So all that business about, the service was done quietly and it was Trump who raised the racket, was a lie? Because if it was the truth, then how do you figure they "had to know"?
