CONFIRMED: As Gateway Pundit Reported — FBI Doctored Mar-a-Lago Photo

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JinMI

As I've expressed in the past, the DOJ will go for a grand jury indictment. This is supported by the fact that they went the grand jury route for the subpoena.

It will take time for a grand jury to be convened and we're not even sure if the FBI has concluded their investigation and handed it off to the DOJ.

On top of that, Garland has indicated that any indictment most likely won't come until after the midterms.

Excellent
As long as they educate the grand jury of the requirement of INTENT.
No one will be able to prove the Hillary standard.
Not even a grand jury that could indict a ham sandwich.

Watching the dems get burnt on “intent” will be Hillaryous.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Or maybe it's because the DOJ state in their filing that the image has been redacted due to sensitive information.

Or maybe you will Believe Anything that you have Heard or Been Told .

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

He's not claiming executive privilege. He's claiming restricted access which is allowed by the PRA for up to 5 to 12 years depending on the document.

That said, those documents are still in possession of NARA. He's not keeping them in boxes strewn across his house.

My only point is that the blanket statement made about documents being in his posession automatically means he's guilty of something, is blatantly false.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Former Presidents do not have executive privilege.

If you believe that Trump still has executive privilege, what happens if Biden says that he waives executive privilege for these documents? Whose executive privilege teaches precedent? The current President or the former President?

Former presidents retain existing Priv claims on certain types of documents forever, but they can not claim exec priv on new things after leaving office.

comrade O is still claiming exec priv on many docs, including from fast & furious, and the JFK and nixon estates still retain exec priv on many docs.

Almost no type of blanket statements could apply because there are so many classification types and sets of rules.

originally posted by: AlecHolland

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: optimisticcontrarian

Is anybody connected with the government or government agency ever going to get arrested over there?

It all seems to be turning into a comedy or tragedy, I can't decide.

Going to be a "Dark Winter"


C O N T E N T S

__________

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

The Dark Winter Scenario and Bioterrorism

October 25, 2001
www.govinfo.gov...

What does Dark Winter have to do with any of this?

I guess you will figure that out at some point unless you become dumb and blind.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Or maybe it's because the DOJ state in their filing that the image has been redacted due to sensitive information.

Or maybe you will Believe Anything that you have Heard or Been Told .

and thats exactly what theyll do

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Some (if not all) the docs "seized" has executive privilege attached "at the time" they (the docs) were generated. 😎

FBI finally admitted they took "some" things illegally. They only violated Federal Law a little bit.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Some (if not all) the docs "seized" has executive privilege attached "at the time" they (the docs) were generated. 😎

FBI finally admitted they took "some" things illegally. They only violated Federal Law a little bit.

So their actions were "mostly legal" 😀

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Some (if not all) the docs "seized" has executive privilege attached "at the time" they (the docs) were generated. 😎

FBI finally admitted they took "some" things illegally. They only violated Federal Law a little bit.

Did they define 'some things'?

With the fbi it could be anything from Melania's underwear to everything in that picture they've been showing off.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

The people whi redacted the photo said in a court filing that that redacted it. What alternative would you have us believe?

a reply to: shooterbrody

The fact that these documents weren't turned over in January with the Fifteen Boxes and then again in June with the subpoena does a long way towards showing intent.

a reply to: carewemust

Not they did not. They said there were some documents that may be attorney-client privilege. Agents were given instructions on how to identify these documents quickly and then separate them from the rest of the documents for review by the filter team. Thereby minimizing the agents' contact with these documents, which is in keeping with previous court rulings on the matter.

Per the search warrant however, they were legally charged by a judge to collect any and all items stored with classified documents. Ergo, it was completely legal for them to take the documents.

No it doesn’t, it just shows you have no understanding of the law.
The discussion shows cooperation.
Cooperation DESTROYS intent.

Show yourself to the door.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: carewemust

Not they did not. They said there were some documents that may be attorney-client privilege. Agents were given instructions on how to identify these documents quickly and then separate them from the rest of the documents for review by the filter team. Thereby minimizing the agents' contact with these documents, which is in keeping with previous court rulings on the matter.

Per the search warrant however, they were legally charged by a judge to collect any and all items stored with classified documents. Ergo, it was completely legal for them to take the documents.

Thanks for highlighting the broadness of the warrant, with no exigency.
That will be important later.
Follow along.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Except it's not overly broad. The reason why the warrant included anything stored together with classified documents is because those items have evidentiary value. If the charge is that classified documents were mishandled then it becomes critical to show a judge or jurors exactly how those documents were stored.

The warrant will stand up to scrutiny, which is exactly why Trump's lawyers aren't attacking the legality of it.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Telling investigators they've collected all the classified documents, and signing a legal document attesting to such, knowing full well they haven't retrieved half of what's on-site is cooperating?

a reply to: Xcalibur254
Except it is
Read the constitution
#4

Not surprised you do not understand this concept.

Even when the doj admitted 4th amendment violations publicly.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Telling investigators they've collected all the classified documents, and signing a legal document attesting to such, knowing full well they haven't retrieved half of what's on-site is cooperating?

Please provide the timeline for discussions provided in the pra.
TIA
Please provide evidence the lawyer lied.
TIA

Cause you know you have to PROVE both.
Not your “sources say”.
Actual proof.

You don’t even have proof of an actual crime at this point.
You have a difference of opinion that the Biden administration used the doj and fbi to try and settle.
Just put his tyranny of FULL DISPLAY.

Did they take any Burger King drive thru receipts or used straw wrappers? Why not? Were they not in proximity of government documents and supposed to be grabbed per the warrant? Melania’s panties were in the same house so “fair game” right?

I think it might be more important right now to put a leash on Joe before he gives another speech that incites a violent overthrow of the government.

a reply to: Ahabstar
Yeah
Violate #1 while at it.

Make a checklist to violate them all…