Mar-a-Lago raided
-
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?
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:52 last edited by
Andy McCarthy: It’s all about Jan 6.
-
Andy McCarthy: It’s all about Jan 6.
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:55 last edited by@George-K said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Andy McCarthy: It’s all about Jan 6.
That would make sense. But if it’s true, there is no evidentiary smoking gun that instigated the warrant and we’re back to overreach and a roll of the dice that nobody will care, because Trump masterminded a coup.
-
@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?
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:55 last edited by@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@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?
I was born ready!
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:55 last edited by
Sure would be nice if we could just trust our Law Enforcement to not be highly politicized and to not be punishing their political enemies, but we've seen so much from the FBI and Justice Department over the past 6 years that you just can't trust their motives or message.
If the FBI hadn't had senior operatives that actively tried to undermine and entrap Candidate, President-Elect, and President Trump then we might be able to trust them.
If the FBI hadn't run an absurd entrapment scheme revolved around kidnapping Governor Whitmer, maybe we could trust them.
If the FBI hadn't tried to stage ridiculous fake rallies with fictitious right-wingers following January 6th, maybe we could trust them.
If the Justice Department had treated various Republican Officials with the same respect in their arrests as they have Democrat Officials, maybe we could trust them. But they haven't.
On the other hand, we have Donald Effin Trump. FFS...
Is it too early in the day to start drinking?
-
@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.
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:55 last edited by@Jolly said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
He sent them the 15 boxes they requested.
If he did, he did. What's your source?
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 14:58 last edited by
-
Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States."
The FBI director is a Trump appointee.
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 15:00 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States."
The FBI director is a Trump appointee.
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 15:01 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
I’m totally withholding judgment and I’m totally a conservative. It’s too bad the news cycle will swallow this story whole, should there be no there there, and the I Told You Sos will fall on deaf ears. Will there be not a single liberal who cares about the politicized weaponization of the FBI and Justice? Lol just kidding, the question does not bear asking, as the answer is too obvious.
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 15:10 last edited by
-
wrote on 9 Aug 2022, 15:16 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
@jon-nyc said in Mar-a-Lago raided:
Yes Matt, there is one.
Two, counting me.