Mar-a-Lago raided

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:

So, if it is about classified documents, well, that's Sandy Berger interesting.

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]

@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.

[89th]

My best friend is FBI, let me text him real quick.

[89th]

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]

@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]

@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]

@George-K but you said he disagreed with me. What did I say that he disagreed with?

[George K]

@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.

[kluurs]

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

[Catseye3]

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.

[Jolly]

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?

[taiwan_girl]

@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]

@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.

[LuFins Dad]

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?!”

[Aqua Letifer]

@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.

[Horace]

Sounds like a glorified library book return penalty. Just kidding, it’s not glorified.

[Doctor Phibes]

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.

[Jolly]

@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.

[Jolly]

@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?

[George K]

Andy McCarthy: It’s all about Jan 6.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/08/the-fbis-mar-a-lago-raid-its-about-the-capitol-riot-not-the-mishandling-of-classified-information/