Why don’t you explain “the boxes” you posted about? Are they some sort of secret you’re not allowed to discuss? I know the Trump hate cult has strict rules but…
Trumps Florida Home Raided by the FBI
- Thread starter BoilerJS
- Start date
Politicians come up with some zingers...you could add warp speed and crossfire hurricane to the list. More cheeze pleaze.
Woah! I never said Trump was innocent. I just said that there were other people that had classified documents and their homes were not raided. Some kept them for 2 1/2 years, but they worked it out peacefully. Trump otoh is the first person ever to have their home raided for having classified documents. Double standard.
Hilarious someone on the left telling us what a prudent person would do, when we've been saying the exact same things about so many things Trump.
The point, as you seem to not be getting, is that those people broke the law too and weren't raided. All of those people were Democrats. Trump breaks a law and suddenly things can't be done peacefully like allowed with all of those Dems and so he has to be raided. You don't see the difference here?
Don't take my word for it. Just look at the moving graph I linked. Reality is a bitch.
Ari lays out some pretty good scenarios both ways (one where Trump goes down and one where Wray/Garland go down).
Basically boils down to what exactly was in those boxes. (You have to click the link in Twitter … I’m too lazy to unroll both the threads.)
Basically boils down to what exactly was in those boxes. (You have to click the link in Twitter … I’m too lazy to unroll both the threads.)
Accept the party HASN'T moved more extreme. The party is actually not very far off from when Reagan was in office. The party actually moved left from 1994 to about 2004 and then started moving back right (when they saw how F'ing crazy the left was getting). The party as it sits right now is just slightly more right than in 1994.
The left on the other hand, has moved FAR left since 1994. People like yourself don't notice because as the Dems move left, so does your media. It allows the shifts to blend much easier to where your ideals shift but you don't really notice. I've seen this very phenomena in my father in law. He and I can have a conversation about policy and we will pretty much agree (which made me think he's libertarian). However, whenever we talk about things going on, he always spouts the views of the news. I asked him once about how his views changed, and he got mad at me saying they hadn't. Sad really.
Charts: America’s Political Divide, 1994–2017
Since 1994, the political divide in the United States has only become more extreme. How have American feelings across major issues evolved over time?www.visualcapitalist.com
Thanks for the link. It is helpful to the discussion. My person opinion is that both parties have moved more extreme. I find the current climate of political correctness suffocating. Everything one said can be twisted as being insensitive, sexist, racist, or misogynist. Meanwhile, I also find the Republican party increasingly dominating by fringe crazy people like MTG, spouting conspiracy theories that lack substance or evidence. Therefore, my loyalty do not lie to any party or any political person. Anyone who is corrupt deserves to be investigated, and thrown to jail if guilty.
Thanks for sharing your experience with your father-in-law. I am not sure why spouting the views of the news is necessarily a bad thing though. He could have read news from multiple sources, from far left to far right, and come to his conclusion, that just matches the views of the (mainstream) news.
Moreover, societies do change over time. If you look at the news from 250 years ago (Blacks should have 0% of the rights as Whites because they were just slaves) to 125 years ago (Blacks have some rights but there are certain things that Whites have privilege over them) to today (we all should have equal rights regardless of race), you can see the mainstream opinion changes over time.
I’m tired of Trump and all the drama that surrounds him - that he often brings on himself. The thing is now - he’s cried wolf so many times it’s difficult to distinguish when he has a legitimate reason to be upset or when he’s just raging for the sake of doing it. It seems he’s brought much of this on himself by handling classified data in a shoddy manner, playing legal games with the DOJ about turning records over and not turning over records at Mar-a-lago he should have when agents previously collected 15 boxes of records a few months ago.
This seems like something that could have been put to bed months ago had he dealt with it in a forthright manner. He just can’t seem to help himself……
Agree with this. Here’s my theory on this whole thing …
A couple of background points …
1. Trump signed the law that increased the penalties for mishandling documents (‘lock her up’) to feed the masses. Felt good at the time.
2. The transition from Trump to Biden was unlike any other in history. Trump fought all the way to the end. In most cases, both sides start working together within days of the election to plan out all of the steps of one guy leaving and another guy coming in. Much of that was delayed and/or not even done. Just left to the very last minute.
3. After 1/6, a fair # of people quit on Trump. Just adds to the confusion/lack of process stuff around transition.
So here goes …
Until proven otherwise, i will assume Trump didn’t have any bad intentions (i.e., didn’t mean to take anything that could actually hurt the country), but could also see him and his team saying ‘f it’ … were taking this stuff (at least more than normal).
They already came in June and took a bunch of stuff back … however … maybe both sides have figured out there is actually more there and possibly some really sensitive stuff (aliens!! …j/k, but maybe some actual national security stuff that matters).
Because of the law he signed, he will have a hard time just saying ‘sorry, we messed up’ .. he’s technically guilty, but can’t see him ever admitting that. After the June visit maybe team Trump has locked down and not sharing any info and possibly hiding the potentially most damaging stuff.
FBI has a mole (rumors it might be Meadows) who told them where the potentially really bad stuff is.
If Trump won’t negotiate and FBI has a very good reason to believe there is some really bad stuff there … they almost have to act … right?
I'll agree that Biden might have had no knowledge of the pending raid. I'm convinced he knows little that is going on around him. That doesn't say Klain et al weren't knowledgeable beforehand.
Well Trump was in NY, his lawyers weren't notified or allowed in the building so maybe the warrant was given to the cleaning lady!
I believe the interview with Eric Trump that they did not have a copy of the warrant until 1 day later.
I believe the interview with Eric Trump that they did not have a copy of the warrant until 1 day later.
Trump was working with the FBI. Why did they have to raid his house?
Obama spent 30 million to keep his documents and his house was never raided. Bush, Clinton all had documents and in HRC's case the documents were subpoenaed and known to be classified. And HRC wasn't a former POTUS. They FBI never raided her house to get the server.
I have little faith in the FBI. They hassle moms at school board meetings, raid and hassle every Trump appointed cabinet member and falsified information about Russia.
Trump has said he’s cooperating, but the FBI apparently doesn’t agree with that point of view. That’s pretty much the crux of the issue.
Worth noting that Trump’s office, house (and a resort/club) are all the same location. Yes, they did go into his living area of MAL, but it’s all one big building.
Trump put Wray in charge of FBI and Barr as AG … maybe they should have done more. I don’t know.
If they did this over very trivial stuff, then Wray and Garland should be fired. Let’s see what they did it over before judging.
There's just so much that's inaccurate here:
- The agents left a copy of the search warrant at the search site at the end of the search (Trump's lawyer now has finally confirmed this). The search warrant does not detail probable cause - it's more a designation that the search has been approved for particular items at a particular location. That is flat out proper, normal protocol, and is true for every search warrant, everywhere, always.
- Trump's lawyer has also confirmed that she received the inventory of items that were seized. The federal government is legally barred from releasing that inventory. Trump and his lawyers are not.
- What the Trump lawyers did not get is a copy of the search warrant affidavit. That is also normal, proper, legal protocol. They will only get that, during discovery, if someone is criminally charged. That is true for every search warrant, everywhere, always.
- The lawyers representing Trump were not allowed to witness the search because defense lawyers are never allowed to witness a search. The location to be searched, per normal, legal protocol is secured by law enforcement and only the searching law enforcement agents are allowed to be present at the search site. That is true for every search warrant, everywhere, always.
- Per protocol on every federal search of a residence/business the agents photograph the search site before and after the search. The subjects of the investigation and their lawyers are never allowed to videotape a search. So yes, they did something wrong by surreptitiously videotaping when they were specifically told not to. It's established legal precedence in every stinking search by every law enforcement agency. While there was no security/safety issue here, can you imagine letting violent potential criminals or terrorists and their lawyers videotaping or in the room with law enforcement during a search? "Hey Joey the drug kingpin, this is your local cocaine dealer, my house is being searched! We're secretly videotaping it and they are currently in the northeast corner bedroom. Should I off the bastards?!?" That's generally why none of this is allowed.
- Finally, there were no "CIA guards." The CIA is a foreign intelligence agency, not a domestic law enforcement agency. The law enforcement at the front of Mar A Lago were Secret Service Agents, who are tasked with protecting the homes of former Presidents (among many other things - they also work counterfeit currency cases!). The Secret Service was also not allowed to be present for the search, because they are not part of the authorized Federal Grand Jury 6E list for the matter.
PS: If you don't like these legal standards surrounding search warrants, take your complaints up with almost 250 years of legal precedence.
Last edited:
Many people are upset with this due to the fact that there are many more cases the FBI could and should be investigating instead of Donald Trump. Drug lords and people plotting to kill others, gang members, etc are more dangerous than Trump. This is all political just in the hope of finding something to prohibit Trump from running.
Well when all the dust settles, they had better find something to make this case look legitimate. Half the people don’t trust these agencies already, so they need to secure some credibility.
I was not responding to your point, which may prove to be very on-point, or may not.
Three things in response to your post:
- It is not a binary choice -- if the Washington Field Office national security squad FBI Agents on this matter were not working this case, they would not be out chasing drug lords. Each FBI office has multiple squads dedicated to national security and public corruption issues. If they don't have a resource heavy matter in progress, they are tasked with developing intelligence to find viable cases in their squad's subject matter area. Those squads do not chase drug dealers or violent criminals. There are other squads that are dedicated to gangs, drug conspiracies, and violent crime cases, and to develop intelligence in those areas.
- Without seeing the probable cause affidavit for this search you will not, and I will not be able to form an informed opinion as to whether the investigation and search is warranted. And if (and it seems likely) this is a national security investigation, there will be no public Congressional hearings that are allowed to discuss the substance of the probable cause. If no one is criminally charged there will be no discovery and the probable cause affidavit will not be made public unless a court orders it unsealed, and that would encompass declassifying and/or redacting portions of it. That is why Director Wray and the DOJ will not, and will not be legally allowed to comment. Can you imagine a legal system in which the allegations in a probable cause affidavit were immediately made public, even when there was not yet cause to indict? There would be conviction by public acclaim and reputations ruined on a regular basis. That is why the search was over and done for hours and no one knew until Trump let the cat out of the bag. DOJ and the FBI do not comment on these things. There are tons of national security investigations in which the subject never lets anyone know about a search, the feds do not comment, and no one realizes the investigation even took place.
- I feel like it is a major flaw of federal law enforcement that they don't do more to educate the public about their processes, parameters, and restrictions, and to get ahead of the curve and do so prior to major media attention.
Last edited:
So like I said, Trump didn't get a copy of the search warrant until the next day.
Is it ptotocol for the FBI agents to LEAVE a copy on the kitchen table before they leave?
Is it protocol to not allow the lawyer or accused to witness what was siezed?
I would think that's pretty important information and combining a list-not witnessed by the accussed is not a very secure way to do business.
It was reported that CIA agents were on the property to secure the home.
I If not accurate that's fine but it is protocol for agents to protect a former President his children and is residence.
Good questions!
- It is protocol to leave a copy of the warrant on site when/as the search is completed and all law enforcement have left the search site. It's the last thing that is done before law enforcement hands the search location back to the resident. Alternatively, the subject or the subject's appointed counsel may choose to accept a copy of the warrant off-site or on-site away from the search area after the search has been completed; I've seen it done with defense counsel out in the parking lot, but if such an arrangement is not made, it is left behind when law enforcement completely vacates. I have not seen anything to suggest that one of Trump's attorneys did not get a copy of the warrant until the next day or that it wasn't left on-site. It could be that it was left on-site but the attorney did not review it until the next day. In any event, the warrant has very little information, and none of the probable cause.
- It is not protocol to allow the lawyer or property owner to witness what was seized. An inventory of what was seized, with a general description of items, the member of the search team that found them, and their location within the search site is left behind at the end of the search. The ability to witness what was seized only happens if there is discovery after criminal indictment, or if the matter is closed and the items are returned. You may not like this, but it is universally the established legal standard.
- There is no "accused" with a search warrant unless it's a search incident to arrest. In fact, the warrant only specifies the location, the magistrate, the statutes, the date, and the items appropriate for seizure. The reason that no "accused" or "subject" is named is because any evidence of criminality by anyone that is discovered during an appropriately executed warrant is useable for anyone that may be charged. For instance, while at Mar A Lago during an appropriately executed search if they found evidence that the Crown Prince of North Dakota was involved in a bank robbery and nothing related to Donald Trump, that bank robbery evidence could be used. You said "Trump didn't get a copy of the search warrant until the next day." The warrant was not to search Donald Trump, it was to search certain areas of Mar A Lago. That's where a copy of the warrant would have been left.
- I cannot imagine where "it was reported" that CIA Agents were on-site lol. The CIA does not protect a former President and his children - that's the Secret Service and they were at the end of the (very long, gated) driveway.
Last edited:
Ball is in Trump's court.
Garland asks that a judge unseal the warrant and the inventory. Gives trump an opportunity to respond.
Garland asks that a judge unseal the warrant and the inventory. Gives trump an opportunity to respond.
Because normally the resident of the search location doesn't put out a press release announcing a search that DOJ/FBI would not have publicly disclosed. Once that door was opened, and because so many Congressmen were asking for it to be released, they went to the judge and said, "The site resident was willing to tell the world so we are fine with unsealing."
- Note; they will not unseal the probable cause affidavit.
- Note; Garland confirmed that the warrant and inventory of items seized were provided to Trump's attorney on site (out of the search area) the same day as the search when they finished searching.
Thank you.
Didn't Garland say he was giving trump the chance to object? Something along those lines?
So we won't find out why.....or on what basis, they got the warrant?
No, we will not.
That probable cause affidavit will be provided as discovery to defense counsel for any defendants for whom its evidence is used, but only if charges are filed. In an ongoing investigation a subject, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't get a sneak preview of the potential evidence. Can you imagine if they did? John Gotti " Ima gonna see that affidavit so I can know who da rat is!" Even if charges are filed DOJ will not release the affidavit, but the defendant will have it and can choose to. However, even then the classified portions of the probable cause affidavit would be redacted.
It was perfectly appropriate for former President Trump to open the door by publicizing that the search happened, but there are potential ramifications when the property owner from a search location removes the veil of secrecy. As I said above, the primary reason that things are not released is because their mere release could unfairly harm reputation. Now that the primary reason has been eliminated, DOJ is willing to unseal.
PS: I would welcome you all to read my posts from earlier today before DOJ explained the process. I believe I showed before it was public that I have a handle on how this process works.
Last edited:
Not to mention domestic terrorists disguised as parents protesting incompetent and corrupt school boards.
Because it is a motion to unseal, and the legal counsel for the owner of the search location has the opportunity to support or oppose the motion.
By the way, in my opinion, President Trump's representation by a 37 year old lawyer who spent the last two years as a tv cable news host and has no federal courtroom experience is going to be a massive disservice to President Trump. She had some experience in civil litigation as a junior associate, was a JAG Advocate, clerked for the White House Drug Control Office, and was an 'Assistant Executive Secretary" at DHS, which is the division that prepares briefing books. She had been exclusively a cable news/opinion host for the past two years.
It's not a bad bio, but there is nothing in her bio that makes her an appropriate choice for the issues at hand.
Last edited:
No proof as of yet that any law has been broken. Biden/Hitler has his rejected SCOTUS on a payback trip, along with his Gestapo. We are losing our country and our freedoms.
I can't wait until Trump makes his announcement that he's running again.
Also an important point. DOJ will not ask for the probable cause affidavit to be unsealed; it is a standard practice that doing so would be unduly unfair to the search property owner. However, if Trump and his appointed legal counsel make a motion to unseal, the DOJ may join in the motion if they believe that doing so will not cause the destruction of evidence or identity of witnesses that could thereafter be tainted.
My prediction is that Trump and his counsel will not mention unsealing the probable cause affidavit as an option. Instead they will throw "questions" against the wall to see what sticks..."Is it possible that evidence was planted?" "Is it possible that the affiant lied?" "Is it possible that (fill in name of political opponent) is behind this?" and so forth.
Or, they will throw unsolicited insults that have no relevance or basis in fact at the situation: "Everyone knows that xxxx is a bad person/liar/pedophile/puppy killer." Take a look at the Alex Jones trial(s)/hearings; Jones tries to do this stuff away from the courtroom all the time. Judges are into the rule of law and are not a fan of this tactic.
My prediction is that Trump and his counsel will not mention unsealing the probable cause affidavit as an option. Instead they will throw "questions" against the wall to see what sticks..."Is it possible that evidence was planted?" "Is it possible that the affiant lied?" "Is it possible that (fill in name of political opponent) is behind this?" and so forth.
Or, they will throw unsolicited insults that have no relevance or basis in fact at the situation: "Everyone knows that xxxx is a bad person/liar/pedophile/puppy killer." Take a look at the Alex Jones trial(s)/hearings; Jones tries to do this stuff away from the courtroom all the time. Judges are into the rule of law and are not a fan of this tactic.
Last edited:
No way I would make that public if I'm Trump. NO chance. If he does he lets these scheming weasels control the narrative. Make them bring charges.
It's really simple. If there're notes, I'll take a look at them, and see what is common between that and Comey's account, and see where they differ. That will tell me what's likely true (the common part), and then decide how to reconcile the difference (see if it's possible that both can be true, or who's lying).
I thought anyone with common sense would have the same approach.
Otherwise, I don't see anything that establishes Comey as a liar in this case, other than you calling him a liar.
Agreed.
But if he had impulse control he wouldn't have opened the door to the unsealing of the warrant and especially the unsealing of the inventory of items seized. And that's why a defense attorney needs enough gravitas to control his/her client.
To be fair, he ran out of good lawyers a long time ago. Did this Bobb woman get her degree in American Samoa like Saul Goodman?
First off, the penalty for mishandling documents was a lot looser until Trump increased the penalty in response to Hillary. So even if what you said was true about Obama / Bush / Clinton / Hillary, the laws don't apply retroactively.
Second, the FBI is headed by someone whom Trump appointed and deemed to be "a man of impeccable credentials." Before that, it was Comey, and before that, Robert Mueller, and before that, Louis Freeh, William Sessions, and William Webster. You know what they have in common? They are all Republican.
Thank you! Very much appreciate you explaining a complicated matter with bullet points (including segments in bold) that ordinary folks can follow.
It's just disappointing that a lot of folks having no idea what the protocol should be complain about the protocol. (Interestingly, I bet they will be cheering and giving high fives to each other if the exact same process is done on Hunter Biden's home. There will be zero complaint.)
