Mar-a-Lago raided
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 11:58 last edited by Doctor Phibes 8 Sept 2022, 11:58
@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@Horace said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
You are positively giddy.
Like a teenage schoolgirl.
It reminds me a bit of a number of men of a certain age spending themselves over crumpled photoshops of Hillary in prison uniform.
-
Former President Donald Trump said Monday that the FBI "raided" his home at Mar-a-Lago in Florida and even cracked his safe, with a source familiar with the matter telling NBC News that the search was tied to classified information Trump allegedly took with him from the White House to his Palm Beach resort in January 2021.
Trump also claimed in a written statement that the search — unprecedented in American history — was politically motivated, although he did not provide specifics.
“These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents,” Trump said in a lengthy email statement issued by his Save America political committee.
“After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate,” Trump said before bemoaning: “They even broke into my safe!”
Trump lawyer Christina Bobb, who said she was present for Monday’s search, told NBC News that Trump and his team have been “cooperative with FBI and DOJ officials every step of the way,” while adding that the bureau “did conduct an unannounced raid and seized paper.”
Police direct traffic outside an entrance to former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., on Monday.A senior government official told NBC News that the FBI was at Mar-a-Largo “for the majority of the day” and confirmed that the search warrant was connected to the National Archives.
Trump this year had to return 15 boxes of documents that were improperly taken from the White House, the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA, said in February.
“In mid-January 2022, NARA arranged for the transport from the Trump Mar-a-Lago property in Florida to the National Archives of 15 boxes that contained Presidential records, following discussions with President Trump’s representatives in 2021,” the National Archives said in a statement Feb. 7.
Notice how they put "raided" in scare quotes in the first paragraph.
So, if it is about classified documents, well, that's
Sandy Bergerinteresting.I wonder if it's about Jan 6.
The White House said it was not given a heads up.
“We did not have notice of the reported action and would refer you to the Justice Department for any additional information,” a White House official said.
WH claims
ignorancethey didn't know.wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 12:00 last edited by@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
So, if it is about classified documents, well, that's
Sandy Bergerinteresting.Well of course it has to do with classified documents, this was never going to be a drug bust.
To be clear, the distinction I’ve made above about overreach is whether they conducted the raid simply because there are classified documents there, or if they believe specific documents will implicate someone in specific federal crimes.
-
@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
So, if it is about classified documents, well, that's
Sandy Bergerinteresting.Well of course it has to do with classified documents, this was never going to be a drug bust.
To be clear, the distinction I’ve made above about overreach is whether they conducted the raid simply because there are classified documents there, or if they believe specific documents will implicate someone in specific federal crimes.
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 12:17 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Well of course it has to do with classified documents, this was never going to be a drug bust.
Agreed. But "classified" has a wide definition. Are we talking "national security" classified or "evidence of a crime" classified?
To be clear, the distinction I’ve made above about overreach is whether they conducted the raid simply because there are classified documents there, or if they believe specific documents will implicate someone in specific federal crimes.
The Dersh disagrees (if you watch the video). His point is that a warrant for a raid should only be issued if a subpoena will not suffice or if there's fear of the evidence being destroyed. I'm not sure if that's the case, or, for that matter, if a subpoena was ever issued.
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 12:20 last edited by
My best friend is FBI, let me text him real quick.
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 12:21 last edited by
Wow! He said not to tell anyone so you all have to promise not to say anything. But…he said there is compelling evidence that Trump is connected to Dewey’s Facebook post.
-
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Well of course it has to do with classified documents, this was never going to be a drug bust.
Agreed. But "classified" has a wide definition. Are we talking "national security" classified or "evidence of a crime" classified?
To be clear, the distinction I’ve made above about overreach is whether they conducted the raid simply because there are classified documents there, or if they believe specific documents will implicate someone in specific federal crimes.
The Dersh disagrees (if you watch the video). His point is that a warrant for a raid should only be issued if a subpoena will not suffice or if there's fear of the evidence being destroyed. I'm not sure if that's the case, or, for that matter, if a subpoena was ever issued.
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 12:52 last edited by@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
The Dersh disagrees (if you watch the video).
I’m not following. Can you tell me the specific statement I’ve made that Dersch disagrees with?
-
@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
The Dersh disagrees (if you watch the video).
I’m not following. Can you tell me the specific statement I’ve made that Dersch disagrees with?
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 12:56 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I’m not following. Can you tell me the specific statement I’ve made that Dersch disagrees with?
His point is that the process was not followed. There should have been subpoenas issued (and perhaps they were, I don't know) before staging a raid. Perhaps that's what your meaning of overreach is.
-
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I’m not following. Can you tell me the specific statement I’ve made that Dersch disagrees with?
His point is that the process was not followed. There should have been subpoenas issued (and perhaps they were, I don't know) before staging a raid. Perhaps that's what your meaning of overreach is.
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 13:15 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@George-K but you said he disagreed with me. What did I say that he disagreed with?
I mis-read your post.
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 13:21 last edited by
Given the precedent, the predictable response of the target, and the potential for outrage if things go the way of Geraldo's safe, I have to imagine a high degree of confidence that what they sought would actually be there. I'm sure the judge involved will be doxed
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 13:26 last edited by
From USA Today:
Top takeaways from the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago:
The raid marks an escalation in law enforcement scrutiny of the former president.
Legal analysts say this would have been approved at the highest levels of law enforcement.
Under the law, any search would need to be authorized by a federal judge after finding probable cause that a crime had been committed and that evidence of the crime exists in the location to be searched. -
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 13:59 last edited by
Now, what happens if there is no "there", there?
Or if the violation is so trivial when compared to past violations it appears as purely politically driven?
-
From USA Today:
Top takeaways from the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago:
The raid marks an escalation in law enforcement scrutiny of the former president.
Legal analysts say this would have been approved at the highest levels of law enforcement.
Under the law, any search would need to be authorized by a federal judge after finding probable cause that a crime had been committed and that evidence of the crime exists in the location to be searched.wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:17 last edited by taiwan_girl 8 Sept 2022, 14:34@Catseye3 said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
From USA Today:
Top takeaways from the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago:
The raid marks an escalation in law enforcement scrutiny of the former president.
Legal analysts say this would have been approved at the highest levels of law enforcement.
Under the law, any search would need to be authorized by a federal judge after finding probable cause that a crime had been committed and that evidence of the crime exists in the location to be searched.Interesting. I mean, I think it was known, or at least supposed, that President Trump left the White House with material he was not supposed to. It should have been easy enough to say to him, "hey, not sure if you were aware, but some of the material you took has to stay in the Archives. We will send a truck down to pick them up. Appreciate your cooperation."
So, Präsident Trump had to know there were questions about what he took. Why would he not give them back? Is it something that puts him in a bad view? If so, i would have think he would have just destroyed it.
What is it that @George-K says? "Get the popcorn" LOL
-
@Catseye3 said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
From USA Today:
Top takeaways from the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago:
The raid marks an escalation in law enforcement scrutiny of the former president.
Legal analysts say this would have been approved at the highest levels of law enforcement.
Under the law, any search would need to be authorized by a federal judge after finding probable cause that a crime had been committed and that evidence of the crime exists in the location to be searched.Interesting. I mean, I think it was known, or at least supposed, that President Trump left the White House with material he was not supposed to. It should have been easy enough to say to him, "hey, not sure if you were aware, but some of the material you took has to stay in the Archives. We will send a truck down to pick them up. Appreciate your cooperation."
So, Präsident Trump had to know there were questions about what he took. Why would he not give them back? Is it something that puts him in a bad view? If so, i would have think he would have just destroyed it.
What is it that @George-K says? "Get the popcorn" LOL
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:28 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I mean, I think it was known, or at least supposed, that President Trump left the White House to material he was not supposed to. It should have been easy enough to say to him, "hey, not sure if you were aware, but some of the material you took has to stay in the Archives. We will send a truck down to pick them up. Appreciate your cooperation."
I redd in another source that the Archives in fact did request at length for Trump to return the items after he left office, and finally reported his non-response to Justice.
As for why he didn't give them back, the answer to that is, because he's Trump and he didn't want to and if he doesn't want to do something he doesn't do it. Because he's Trump.
If it's proven that he did destroy documents rightfully belonging to the Archive, then he's in the soup. Like he is for so many other things.
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:35 last edited by
Karnak predicts that 45% of the people will defend Trump and attack Justice no matter what was or wasn’t in the documents and 45% of the people will attack Trump and defend Justice no matter what is or isn’t in the documents and everybody will be pointing their fingers at the other side yelling “See?!”
-
Karnak predicts that 45% of the people will defend Trump and attack Justice no matter what was or wasn’t in the documents and 45% of the people will attack Trump and defend Justice no matter what is or isn’t in the documents and everybody will be pointing their fingers at the other side yelling “See?!”
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:36 last edited by@LuFins-Dad said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Karnak predicts that 45% of the people will defend Trump and attack Justice no matter what was or wasn’t in the documents and 45% of the people will attack Trump and defend Justice no matter what is or isn’t in the documents and everybody will be pointing their fingers at the other side yelling “See?!”
That's pretty much where we're at, yeah.
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:38 last edited by
Sounds like a glorified library book return penalty. Just kidding, it’s not glorified.
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:45 last edited by
I don't understand how anybody can determine whether this was warranted or not at this point.
If he does go to court, jury selection will be freaking hilarious - they'll have to ask non-Americans to take it on.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I mean, I think it was known, or at least supposed, that President Trump left the White House to material he was not supposed to. It should have been easy enough to say to him, "hey, not sure if you were aware, but some of the material you took has to stay in the Archives. We will send a truck down to pick them up. Appreciate your cooperation."
I redd in another source that the Archives in fact did request at length for Trump to return the items after he left office, and finally reported his non-response to Justice.
As for why he didn't give them back, the answer to that is, because he's Trump and he didn't want to and if he doesn't want to do something he doesn't do it. Because he's Trump.
If it's proven that he did destroy documents rightfully belonging to the Archive, then he's in the soup. Like he is for so many other things.
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:49 last edited by@Catseye3 said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@taiwan_girl said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I mean, I think it was known, or at least supposed, that President Trump left the White House to material he was not supposed to. It should have been easy enough to say to him, "hey, not sure if you were aware, but some of the material you took has to stay in the Archives. We will send a truck down to pick them up. Appreciate your cooperation."
I redd in another source that the Archives in fact did request at length for Trump to return the items after he left office, and finally reported his non-response to Justice.
As for why he didn't give them back, the answer to that is, because he's Trump and he didn't want to and if he doesn't want to do something he doesn't do it. Because he's Trump.
If it's proven that he did destroy documents rightfully belonging to the Archive, then he's in the soup. Like he is for so many other things.
He sent them the 15 boxes they requested.
-
I don't understand how anybody can determine whether this was warranted or not at this point.
If he does go to court, jury selection will be freaking hilarious - they'll have to ask non-Americans to take it on.
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:50 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I don't understand how anybody can determine whether this was warranted or not at this point.
If he does go to court, jury selection will be freaking hilarious - they'll have to ask non-Americans to take it on.
You ready?