Trump says FBI agents raided his Florida home

a reply to: network dude

You guys can claim that Biden would've been notified because it's such a controversial move. I can claim that Biden's handlers would've insulated him from it, so he would have plausible deniability after the fact. Both theories have the same amount of support behind them.

a reply to: SourGrapes

That was the ATF. But they are still under the authority of the DOJ.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

No one is ever responsible for anything in this disgusting government.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

You guys can claim that Biden would've been notified because it's such a controversial move. I can claim that Biden's handlers would've insulated him from it, seei he would have plausible deniability after the fact. Both theories have the same amount of support behind them.

Horse hockey.

Steve Bannon said on Fox that Biden definitely knew about it, that he would have to have signed off on it.

Bannon would know.

a reply to: VierEyes

Why would Bannon know? He has no contact with this administration.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: VierEyes

Why would Bannon know? He has no contact with this administration.

He knows how an administration operates.

a reply to: VierEyes

He knows how the Trump administration operated. From what everyone says, the Trump administration was unique in how it operated.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: VierEyes

He knows how the Trump administration operated. From what everyone says, the Trump administration was unique in how it operated.

Come on. You're not seriously so naive as to believe Biden knew nothing about a raid on the former president of the country.

a reply to: VierEyes

And like I said, why wouldn't they try to insulate him from the blowback?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: VierEyes

And like I said, why wouldn't they try to insulate him from the blowback?

Is that all you've got? Sad. Especially that you believe such a thing.

a reply to: VierEyes

My scenario has just as much evidence as your scenario.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

You guys can claim that Biden would've been notified because it's such a controversial move. I can claim that Biden's handlers would've insulated him from it, so he would have plausible deniability after the fact. Both theories have the same amount of support behind them.

so you think Garland went rouge. Well, that is an interesting concept. But as I said, if he doesn't do the perp walk soon, the entire left looks to be the kind of stupid my snark cannot tackle.

Biden didn't know. I can see that as a t-shirt with his stupid look.

Arrest him soon, or this will become the largest joke since Joe Biden.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
I don’t know much about how warrants are carried out, but is it SOP for the FED’s or local cops for that matter to make everyone but them to leave the area being searched?

If it's true Trump removed classified documents from the White House, woulsn't the White House, Secret Service, whoever overseas presidential transitions also be guilty of a major national security # up?

It's hard to believe there's no form of screeming/vetting/cataloguing what has been removed - are there any signa of investigation on those sides?

An unprecedented search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago presents Merrick Garland's Justice Department with tricky next steps

Legal experts said a case against Trump would present the Justice Department with murky questions.

In interviews, former Justice Department officials told Insider any consideration of charges against Trump will involve murky questions of law layered on top of the political sensitivities around prosecuting a former president.

former Justice Department officials and legal experts cautioned that Trump's status as a former president — and the singular authority he once held over the classification and location of records — could complicate the consideration of charges over the handling of government documents.

People still need to be careful about not jumping to conclusions about the former president's own criminal exposure because of the unique authority that a president has with respect to classified information," said Brandon Van Grack, a former top official in the Justice Department's national security division who also served as a prosecutor in the special counsel investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

"Ultimately, there are some dots that would need to be connected before the conduct here would rise to the level of exposing a former president to an unauthorized removal and retention charge," Van Grack told Insider. "It doesn't mean it's not incredibly serious. But there still would need to be a lot more information that we have available before jumping to the conclusion that the president has serious criminal jeopardy."

MSNBC

Based on this MSNBC Merrick Garland will have a lot of work ahead of him to prove the justification for his raid on a former president. And that even if Trump did retain classified material that fact alone would probably not be enough to justify the DOJs and FBIs actions.

I wonder what else Merrick Garland thinks he has beyond what we already assume that would be enough to justify his actions. Or if Merrick Garland is simply using one of his last chances before the mid terms to settle political scores.

a reply to: Spader

Hard to say. Probably a case by case basis. You don't get to watch cops search your car. Usually you're near another squad car with a different officer while they perform the search.

But there's not much to go off of with a former president. I mean, I'd have to imagine a secret service presence is always at that residence even when he isn't. But at the end of the day, we're all speculating. Trump is the only one who can release info until there's an indictment at the soonest, or as long as after the trial.

Just heard on the tv, had it on in the background. . .

The FBI was spying on Trump and had an informant inside his home?

Is this true?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Spader

Hard to say. Probably a case by case basis. You don't get to watch cops search your car. Usually you're near another squad car with a different officer while they perform the search.

But there's not much to go off of with a former president. I mean, I'd have to imagine a secret service presence is always at that residence even when he isn't. But at the end of the day, we're all speculating. Trump is the only one who can release info until there's an indictment at the soonest, or as long as after the trial.

If you are represented by an attorney and the attorney is present there is no rational basis for denying them to be present. Everything that should have been taken - is supposed to have been listed in the warrant. Given the fact that they were in negotiations regarding whatever documents they took - they should have know exactly where and what they were looking for.

His civil rights were violated in an obscene way. There was 0 reason for this other than to impact 2022, cover for cheating in 2022 and hope for some odd conviction to remove trump from 2024.

I have a feeling that bernard Kerik is right. The next escalation for the deep state will be violence against him. I hope that the secret service is keeping extremely vigilant.

a reply to: Imperator2

Yea, I'm not really sure what rights to an attorney present on your behalf are. I know you have the right to one while you are yourself interacting with law enforcement and justice officials in a verbal matter. But if they have a warrant to search, I have never looked into attorney rights for representation.

As far as what they knew, had, or motivating factors... I tend to lean towards what you said... Politically motivated. But we don't really know. And we probably won't for some time. I'll be surprised if this was truly justified, but time will likely tell. I think Trump has a copy of the warrant. He should release it.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

A primer.



This part is important as to what the warrant says:

If the warrant lacks accurate information as to what will be searched, the search is unlawful.