Mar-A-Lago Legally Searched by FBI

[Vēritās]

sh.jpg (61.52 KiB) Viewed 332 times

[Some Schmo]

When Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts, and leave no stone unturned.

damned GOP hypocrisy. They act as though this is all political and that it's the first time that someone has been investigated purely for political reasons. This is the same asshole who admitted on Fox News that they were investigating Benghazi just to see Hillary's poll numbers drop.

What a hypocritical damned psychopath.

[Vēritās]

When Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts, and leave no stone unturned.

damned GOP hypocrisy. They act as though this is all political and that it's the first time that someone has been investigated purely for political reasons. This is the same asshole who admitted on Fox News that they were investigating Benghazi just to see Hillary's poll numbers drop.

What a hypocritical damned psychopath.

This incident highlights everything we've been saying about the utter uselessness of FOX News, Brietbart, and the contempt the GOP has for the rule of law.

I mean just listen to how they're reacting to this. They don't have any facts but they're assuming the worst. FOX News is nonstop hyperventilating Republican pundits from Dan Bongino to the RNC Chairwoman jumping to the illicit conclusions that this has nothing to do with due process. I've yet to see ANYONE on FOX point out the obvious fact that the FBI is headed by a Republican appointed by Trump and that you can't just go raid someone's home without probable cause. I federal judge would have to first sign off on it and only if there were evidence of a crime.

None of this is mentioned. Instead we get hyperventilating idiots like McCarthy, Jordan, etc making threats of vengeance against the Justice Dept for having the audacity to treat their glorious messiah the same way they'd have a black person treated for running a stop sign. Remember when Brianna Taylor was murdered by cops after her home was raided in the middle of the night? Racists like ajax immediately defended this as justified because Brianna was dating someone who had a criminal record of drug use!

[Vēritās]

The problem with Trump’s response to the FBI ‘raid’ at Mar-a-Lago

In case anyone needs a refresher, it was in February when questions first emerged about the degree to which Trump mishandled sensitive materials, some of which were labeled “top secret.” In late February, the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA) confirmed that officials uncovered classified information among the documents Trump took to Mar-a-Lago — and that the Archives had consulted with the Justice Department about the matter.

In fact, describing the materials as “sensitive” appears to understate matters quite a bit. In February, The Washington Post reported that the classified documents in question “bore markings that the information was extremely sensitive and would be limited to a small group of officials with authority to view such highly classified information.” The Post went on to note in a follow-up report two weeks later that “only a very few” people even have the necessary clearances to review these records, adding, “The documents are so sensitive that they may not be able to describe them in an unclassified way.”

The result was an extraordinary dynamic: A former American president took these secret materials to an unsecured venue known as a haven for spies.

In April, the Justice Department reportedly began moving forward with a criminal investigation, and yesterday, the FBI showed up at Mar-a-Lago.

The former president did not appear to be pleased. In fact, the Republican issued a 340-word written statement, describing the FBI’s efforts as a “raid,” while arguing, “Nothing like this has ever happened to a president of the United States before.”

There’s some truth to that: Other than Richard Nixon, no former presidents have ever had to concern themselves with criminal investigations after leaving office. But former presidents also weren’t accused of improperly taking highly classified documents to a golf resort, either, so here we are.

Trump, overwhelmed with apparent self-pity, rambled on for a while, whining about the United States becoming a “third-world” country, pretending his other scandals weren’t real, complaining about Hillary Clinton, and marveling at the fact that FBI agents, looking for documents, even “broke into” his safe.

At no point in his 340-word statement did Trump get around to saying that he’s innocent. He also didn’t deny mishandling classified information.

The former president did, however, roll out this gem: “What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democrat [sic] National Committee? Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States.”

There was a notable symmetry to the reference: On August 8, 1974, Nixon announced to the nation that he would resign the presidency. Exactly 48 years to the day, the FBI showed up at Trump’s door, leading the former president to draw a parallel between his dilemma and the scandal that forced Nixon from office.

The problem, of course, is that Trump has no idea what he’s talking about. What’s the difference between the developments at Mar-a-Lago and the break-in at the Watergate a half-century ago? Well, the FBI obtained a search warrant from a judge. Federal law enforcement agents didn’t sneak into any rooms or buildings. The Secret Service was notified and the former president’s lawyer was on the premises during the search.

The Watergate break-in was a crime, the “raid” at Mar-a-Lago was part of an investigation into an alleged crime.

The only thing the two stories have in common is a corrupt Republican president.

[Binger]

DOJ must immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6 investigations.

[Binger]

The problem with Trump’s response to the FBI ‘raid’ at Mar-a-Lago

In case anyone needs a refresher, it was in February when questions first emerged about the degree to which Trump mishandled sensitive materials, some of which were labeled “top secret.” In late February, the National Archives and Record Administration (NARA) confirmed that officials uncovered classified information among the documents Trump took to Mar-a-Lago — and that the Archives had consulted with the Justice Department about the matter.

In fact, describing the materials as “sensitive” appears to understate matters quite a bit. In February, The Washington Post reported that the classified documents in question “bore markings that the information was extremely sensitive and would be limited to a small group of officials with authority to view such highly classified information.” The Post went on to note in a follow-up report two weeks later that “only a very few” people even have the necessary clearances to review these records, adding, “The documents are so sensitive that they may not be able to describe them in an unclassified way.”

The result was an extraordinary dynamic: A former American president took these secret materials to an unsecured venue known as a haven for spies.

In April, the Justice Department reportedly began moving forward with a criminal investigation, and yesterday, the FBI showed up at Mar-a-Lago.

The former president did not appear to be pleased. In fact, the Republican issued a 340-word written statement, describing the FBI’s efforts as a “raid,” while arguing, “Nothing like this has ever happened to a president of the United States before.”

There’s some truth to that: Other than Richard Nixon, no former presidents have ever had to concern themselves with criminal investigations after leaving office. But former presidents also weren’t accused of improperly taking highly classified documents to a golf resort, either, so here we are.

Trump, overwhelmed with apparent self-pity, rambled on for a while, whining about the United States becoming a “third-world” country, pretending his other scandals weren’t real, complaining about Hillary Clinton, and marveling at the fact that FBI agents, looking for documents, even “broke into” his safe.

At no point in his 340-word statement did Trump get around to saying that he’s innocent. He also didn’t deny mishandling classified information.

The former president did, however, roll out this gem: “What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democrat [sic] National Committee? Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States.”

There was a notable symmetry to the reference: On August 8, 1974, Nixon announced to the nation that he would resign the presidency. Exactly 48 years to the day, the FBI showed up at Trump’s door, leading the former president to draw a parallel between his dilemma and the scandal that forced Nixon from office.

The problem, of course, is that Trump has no idea what he’s talking about. What’s the difference between the developments at Mar-a-Lago and the break-in at the Watergate a half-century ago? Well, the FBI obtained a search warrant from a judge. Federal law enforcement agents didn’t sneak into any rooms or buildings. The Secret Service was notified and the former president’s lawyer was on the premises during the search.

The Watergate break-in was a crime, the “raid” at Mar-a-Lago was part of an investigation into an alleged crime.

The only thing the two stories have in common is a corrupt Republican president.

There is more in common than just a Republican president and your version of corruption.

If there is a concern about so-called highly classified documents and information, great. Make it known. However, if in fact that is a legitimate concern and validation for a warrant, there better be a better explanation for Hillary's server and Hunter's laptop getting more than a wink and a giggle giggle giggle from the gaggle gaggle gaggle at the FBI.

[canpakes]

DOJ must immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search for inconsequential archives …

I’d say, having already removed 15 boxes of non-inconsequential archives, with others believed left to recover, is a good reason.

… or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6 investigations.

I think that you’re well past that point, even as the point really doesn’t apply to a guy who had to be forced to return 15 boxes of documents illegally taken.

As Schmo states above, regarding McCarthy’s and other hacks whining about this, “This is the same asshole who admitted on Fox News that they were investigating Benghazi just to see Hillary's poll numbers drop.”

[Dr Exiled]

It looks like there may be a push to use 18 U.S.C. § 2071 and its disqualification language to argue that Trump cannot run in 2024, if convicted of holding onto classified documents. The same argument was used against Clinton back in 2015 and shot down. Qualifications for president are constitutional and can't be changed by statute, only by amending the constitution. This snopes article lays out the arguments: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hilla ... qualified/

[canpakes]

There is more in common than just a Republican president and your version of corruption.

If there is a concern about so-called highly classified documents and information, great. Make it known.

Looks like they made it known.

However, if in fact that is a legitimate concern and validation for a warrant, there better be a better explanation for Hillary's server and Hunter's laptop getting more than a wink and a giggle giggle giggle from the gaggle gaggle gaggle at the FBI.

Good times. Risotto recipes and drunk Hunter pics. Seems that there wasn’t much more with either, after the FBI took a look.



The FBI will now take a look at Trump and his 15 boxes of illegally retained docs, and maybe peek into a few more of his hidey-holes.

Perhaps the FBI is opting for consistency.

[Marcus]

It looks like there may be a push to use 18 U.S.C. § 2071 and its disqualification language to argue that Trump cannot run in 2024, if convicted of holding onto classified documents. The same argument was used against Clinton back in 2015 and shot down. Qualifications for president are constitutional and can't be changed by statute, only by amending the constitution. This snopes article lays out the arguments: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hilla ... qualified/

i was going to facetiously ask if Trump could run for president while in jail, but apparently that's already been asked and answered...

"When we’re talking about federal office, the limitations would really be political, not legal,” said Kate Shaw, a professor of law at Cardozo Law. “The Constitution actually is really clear about what the qualifications to run for president, or a member of Congress or Senate are.”

Those qualifications—listed in Article Two of the Constitution—include being a natural born citizen, being at least 35 years old, and having lived at least 14 years as a resident of the United States. A potential candidate’s carceral status, however, is not listed in the Constitution as a requirement, nor is a candidate’s criminal record. A Trump who has been convicted by the state or federal government of a crime, then, is equally qualified to run as a Trump with no criminal record—at least from a legal standpoint.

...Trump could have been barred from running for any federal office, including president, if he had been convicted in one of his two impeachment trials. He was acquitted in both on the basis of his support among Republican Senators. A conviction for a state or federal crime offers no such burden.

Indeed, at least three incarcerated people have run for U.S. president before with no legal obstacles...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... rison.html