Mar-a-Lago raided
-
Fishing expedition.
They already knew the boxes were there. They had already asked for a padlock to be installed on the storeroom door.
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 19:27 last edited by@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Fishing expedition.
They already knew the boxes were there. They had already asked for a padlock to be installed on the storeroom door.
Trumps people are claiming that the FBI seized privileged attorney-client documents. If there were such a claim, DOJ should appoint a "special master" to determine what's privileged and what is not.
FBI - "Nope, not gonna happen."
The FBI seized boxes containing records covered by attorney-client privilege and potentially executive privilege during its raid of former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News, adding that the Justice Department opposed Trump lawyers' request for the appointment of an independent, special master to review the records.
Sources familiar with the investigation told Fox News Saturday that the former president’s team was informed that boxes labeled A-14, A-26, A-43, A-13, A-33, and a set of documents—all seen on the final page of the FBI’s property receipt —contained information covered by attorney-client privilege.
-
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 21:47 last edited by
Watcha hiding there, Donny boy?
-
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 21:58 last edited by
@jon-nyc you have a problem with attorney-client privilege?
As I said, an impartial special master is commonly appointed to these situations to see what qualifies for A-C priv and what does not.
Why are you fishing, AG Garland?
-
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:00 last edited by
Let’s wait. Six, two, and even the crime-fraud exception applies here.
-
@jon-nyc you have a problem with attorney-client privilege?
As I said, an impartial special master is commonly appointed to these situations to see what qualifies for A-C priv and what does not.
Why are you fishing, AG Garland?
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:03 last edited byIs he fishing? There are documents out of federal custody that shouldn't be. The feds want them back.
If these are documents that do not belong to Trump once he has left office, then how would attorney-client privilege even apply?
-
Is he fishing? There are documents out of federal custody that shouldn't be. The feds want them back.
If these are documents that do not belong to Trump once he has left office, then how would attorney-client privilege even apply?
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:06 last edited by@Catseye3 said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Is he fishing? There are documents out of federal custody that shouldn't be. The feds want them back.
Yeah, IF they belong in federal custody. That's the allegation by the DOJ.
At least he didn't smash them with a hammer. Only flushed them down a toilet (low-tech guy, you know).
If these are documents that do not belong to Trump once he has left office, then how would attorney-client privilege even apply?
Trump is claiming that OTHER documents, which belong under attorney-client privilege were seized. I don't know if that's true, of course, because Trump, but his demand for a special master is reasonable.
-
@Catseye3 said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Is he fishing? There are documents out of federal custody that shouldn't be. The feds want them back.
Yeah, IF they belong in federal custody. That's the allegation by the DOJ.
At least he didn't smash them with a hammer. Only flushed them down a toilet (low-tech guy, you know).
If these are documents that do not belong to Trump once he has left office, then how would attorney-client privilege even apply?
Trump is claiming that OTHER documents, which belong under attorney-client privilege were seized. I don't know if that's true, of course, because Trump, but his demand for a special master is reasonable.
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:09 last edited by@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Yeah, IF they belong in federal custody. That's the allegation by the DOJ.
Oh geez. Didn't this whole megillah start because of NORA's claim that they do? Are we really going there?
-
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:09 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Let’s wait.
You know I'm no Trump fan. Simply looking at what the rights of the accused are, and wondering if he has a case here.
Do I put it beyond him to have (c )lassified materials in his possession? Absolutely not.
Was it "poor judgment" or actually an attempt to commit a crime?
No idea.Six, two, and even the crime-fraud exception applies here.
I'm into my first (cheap) Scotch of the day...please explain?
-
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:27 last edited by
I don't think there has been a single President in the last century that probably didn't have some Secret and TS documents wander home with him.
It's not that uncommon for Congress Critters to have such a document in their possession.
Apply the law fairly and evenly.
-
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Let’s wait.
You know I'm no Trump fan. Simply looking at what the rights of the accused are, and wondering if he has a case here.
Do I put it beyond him to have (c )lassified materials in his possession? Absolutely not.
Was it "poor judgment" or actually an attempt to commit a crime?
No idea.Six, two, and even the crime-fraud exception applies here.
I'm into my first (cheap) Scotch of the day...please explain?
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:35 last edited by@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Simply looking at what the rights of the accused are
As much as it sickens me to say so, I agree his rights must be safeguarded. But his rights as important as they are, are not as vital as the main thing: namely, those documents. They cannot be left out of federal custody, especially when their contents are not known.
Knowing Trump, they could be anything. It would not be surprising if they turned out to be of no importance. Boy, what fodder that would be for Trump, eh?
Why in hell did he even take them with him, anyway? Could it be for the purpose of embarrassing the feds and feeding his base's frenzy? At no cost to him?
-
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:37 last edited by
It all has to be jealously guarded. if he gets prosecuted there will be a whole lot of 'splainin to do as to why Hillary was not.
-
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Let’s wait.
You know I'm no Trump fan. Simply looking at what the rights of the accused are, and wondering if he has a case here.
Do I put it beyond him to have (c )lassified materials in his possession? Absolutely not.
Was it "poor judgment" or actually an attempt to commit a crime?
No idea.Six, two, and even the crime-fraud exception applies here.
I'm into my first (cheap) Scotch of the day...please explain?
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:50 last edited by Copper@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Six, two, and even the crime-fraud exception applies here.
I'm into my first (cheap) Scotch of the day...please explain?
-
It all has to be jealously guarded. if he gets prosecuted there will be a whole lot of 'splainin to do as to why Hillary was not.
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:51 last edited by@Mik said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
It all has to be jealously guarded. if he gets prosecuted there will be a whole lot of 'splainin to do as to why Hillary was not.
She cooperated and turned over the servers and didn’t lie about retaining anything.
-
@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Six, two, and even the crime-fraud exception applies here.
I'm into my first (cheap) Scotch of the day...please explain?
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 22:57 last edited by@Copper said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Six, two, and even the crime-fraud exception applies here.
I'm into my first (cheap) Scotch of the day...please explain?
Go to 1:30.
Link to video -
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 23:08 last edited by
@jon-nyc , I am ashamed to admit it, I've never seen that movie.
Another not Trump fan, David French says, be consistent.
Trump lacks any real excuse for his behavior for retaining classified information, but Clinton had no excuse either. Remember, she used a private server to discuss matters that were classified at the highest levels, and she was seasoned enough to know exactly what she was doing.
Trump’s defense is as weak as Hillary’s. His team is reportedly claiming that he had a “standing order” to declassify all documents that he took to Mar-a-Lago, but as Philip Klein notes in National Review, this argument is “patently absurd”:
The bottom line is deeply disheartening. Two of the most powerful and prominent politicians in the United States engaged in conduct that virtually any other American would be prosecuted for. They have placed the system under great strain, and the system is buckling.
It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump’s conduct was so much worse than Hillary Clinton’s that prosecution is both legal and just. Indeed the entire issue may be so fraught with peril that the DOJ may decide to merely seize the documents without any further legal proceedings.
But if Trump did break the law and is not prosecuted, we can look back at a pivotal moment in history and know why. On July 5, 2016, the FBI set an extraordinary standard for prosecuting powerful people for mishandling our nation’s most precious secrets, and we shouldn’t change that standard for Donald Trump.
-
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 23:12 last edited by
lock 'em up!
-
lock 'em up!
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 23:13 last edited by -
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 23:19 last edited by
Both of them have lived pretty much their entire lives looking down on the little people, and that playing by the rules is something for lesser mortals.
Anybody naive enough to think otherwise deserves what they get.
-
Both of them have lived pretty much their entire lives looking down on the little people, and that playing by the rules is something for lesser mortals.
Anybody naive enough to think otherwise deserves what they get.
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 23:23 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Both of them have lived pretty much their entire lives looking down on the little people, and that playing by the rules is something for lesser mortals.
Anybody naive enough to think otherwise deserves what they get.
Absolutely. The problem is, as French points out, is why should one not deserve what they get and the other does?
As @jon-nyc points out, we don't know enough, yet, about what was alleged, what allegedly secret documents were in his possession, and whether anything not under the warrant may have been seized.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Both of them have lived pretty much their entire lives looking down on the little people, and that playing by the rules is something for lesser mortals.
Anybody naive enough to think otherwise deserves what they get.
Absolutely. The problem is, as French points out, is why should one not deserve what they get and the other does?
As @jon-nyc points out, we don't know enough, yet, about what was alleged, what allegedly secret documents were in his possession, and whether anything not under the warrant may have been seized.
wrote on 14 Aug 2022, 23:26 last edited by Doctor Phibes@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Both of them have lived pretty much their entire lives looking down on the little people, and that playing by the rules is something for lesser mortals.
Anybody naive enough to think otherwise deserves what they get.
Absolutely. The problem is, as French points out, is why should one not deserve what they get and the other does?
As @jon-nyc points out, we don't know enough, yet, about what was alleged, what allegedly secret documents were in his possession, and whether anything not under the warrant may have been seized.
We don't know what Trump did or didn't do, and we don't know how much he's being hiding.
Pointing out that there's a discrepancy in how people are treated is interesting, but it's not a very good legal defence. If Trump was a poor black guy living in the projects, they'd have broken down his door at 2am and shot him when he tried to defend himself.
(I'm not making a racial point - he wouldn't do too well if he was white trash without money, either)
