Trump indicted in classified documents case in Florida

a reply to: matafuchs

Why would there be a FISA warrant when no wiretaps or surveillance teams were involved?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: matafuchs

Why would there be a FISA warrant when no wiretaps or surveillance teams were involved?

how do we know if no wiretaps or surveillance teams were involved?

do we just believe all the known liars?

a reply to: WingDingLuey

When your own attorneys and employees rat you out, then testify before a grand jury, tell your crimes and actions and your own building security cameras show your crime(obtained by a subpoena, based on one his employees ratting on him) and finally the man himself has mentioned over and over again, "these are mine, I can do what I want", does not seem covert surveillance was necessary. And heck, the Daily Mail had video from just before they came for the subpoenaed docs showing his team loading lots of boxes that Nauta had texted about(it's in the indictment)on its way to Bedminster.

a reply to: frogs453

I have worked with a lot of attorneys. Most of them are very sensitive people. Easy to intimidate, and to also bring over to the dark side, if you know what buttons to push.

a reply to: carewemust

Hmm... yes we've seen that with the disbarred Guiliani, Ellis, Powell and soon to be Eastman. However, it seems as if his attorney got edgy after his client asked him to commit a federal crime more than once. And the fraud crime exception went through 4 or 5 judges to be pierced.

a reply to: Threadbare

Well, they are accusing him of being a foreign agent,,,,right?

originally posted by: WingDingLuey

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: matafuchs

Why would there be a FISA warrant when no wiretaps or surveillance teams were involved?

how do we know if no wiretaps or surveillance teams were involved?

do we just believe all the known liars?

Yeah
They didn’t do that to Trump before or anything…..


Gross

a reply to: WingDingLuey

Between the indictment and last night's list of discovery items that had been turned over, I think it's pretty clear the government didn't need wiretaps. Trump and his team provided all of the evidence they needed.

The fact that the DOJ provided a list of witnesses when they didn't need to until closer to trial should tell you how confident the DOJ is in their case.

The fact that Trump flipped out on Truth Social today did tell you how much he thinks he's screwed.

No wiretaps needed.

a reply to: matafuchs

I don't see a single charge in the indictment related to him failing to register under FARA.

originally posted by: matafuchs
Keep wondering when they are going to state there have been active FISA warrants on Trump. I mean, if he was being watched, investigated and he is being brought up on conspiracy charges related to other countries....where is it?

The conspiracy charge is Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice. The co-conspirator is likely Nauta. Wiretapping wasn't necessarily required to make the charge. There was CCTV footage of the storage room, and a multitude of witnesses in the case, likely a few who could corroborate the conspiracy charge. And Trump and Nauta were in personal contact, so no reason to communicate by phone.

Now did the FBI possibly bug or install a camera in the storage room(s)? Who knows. Possibly, but that wouldn't require a FISA warrant per se. Don't the Feds bug premises of organized crime groups? A warrant of some kind is needed, but don't believe it is a FISA warrant.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: frogs453

I have worked with a lot of attorneys. Most of them are very sensitive people. Easy to intimidate, and to also bring over to the dark side, if you know what buttons to push.

No you haven't. No they aren't. And if you have, you have made horrible choices finding the best people.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

So, a conspiracy to obstruct justice huh?

Jack Smith said, and I quote that he is charged with "felony violations of our national security laws". So which is it? Did he just hold onto some documents or was he actually trying to sell them? That is not what this trial is about and it should be. Where is the intent to have these documents. Every single past president has been found to have documents that were eventually returned. Yet now when that person wants to run again it is a huge issue?

31 Counts - Willfull retention of documents - 1 for each document.
1 Count - Conspiracy to retain documents and NOT hand them over to a Grand Jury. Hmmmm...I thought this was about not giving them back to NARA?
1 Count - Withholding a document
1 Count - Corruptly concealing a document
1 Count - Concealing a document in a Federal Investigation
1 count - Scheme to Conceal
1 Count - False Statement
1 count - False Statement

The US government is hoping so bad that Nauta is going to flip. They beefed up these charges big time hoping ONE of them sticks.

Because if you take the above information, and you change it to Joe and Hunter Biden, they should be charged in the exact same way. THIS is why people are upset not because it happened to Trump. He will have his day in court...

a reply to: Threadbare

The whole thing about the documents is that he was leaking National Security Secrets. The MSM went so far as to try to tie the LIV/PGA merger too this....too funny.

My point is if someone is truly doing something wrong, you have something they did wrong. If 31 documents laid there for the rest of our lives and no one actually knew about them (still think there is more there also) then it would not affect national security because no one knows they are there.

a reply to: matafuchs

But every single President did not relay military information to random aides with no security clearance on audio. No President claimed in many interviews and social media posts that "these are mine" " I can do whatever I want with them" "I don't have to give them back". No President asked his attorney to destroy government documents that were requested in a subpoena, after served the subpoena,nor requested them to "pluck out" the "bad ones" before returning them. No President had his attorneys sign a false attestation to the government. No President had his people move boxes with documents requested by the government to purposely unsecured areas and out of the state away from the government.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: frogs453

I have worked with a lot of attorneys. Most of them are very sensitive people. Easy to intimidate, and to also bring over to the dark side, if you know what buttons to push.

Seriously?

I can assure you that over here that description is very wide of the mark.

We are like Rhinoceroses - thick skinned. And, of course, liable to charge wildly without warning.....

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: MrInquisitive

So, a conspiracy to obstruct justice huh?

Jack Smith said, and I quote that he is charged with "felony violations of our national security laws". So which is it? Did he just hold onto some documents or was he actually trying to sell them? That is not what this trial is about and it should be. Where is the intent to have these documents. Every single past president has been found to have documents that were eventually returned. Yet now when that person wants to run again it is a huge issue?

31 Counts - Willfull retention of documents - 1 for each document.
1 Count - Conspiracy to retain documents and NOT hand them over to a Grand Jury. Hmmmm...I thought this was about not giving them back to NARA?
1 Count - Withholding a document
1 Count - Corruptly concealing a document
1 Count - Concealing a document in a Federal Investigation
1 count - Scheme to Conceal
1 Count - False Statement
1 count - False Statement

The US government is hoping so bad that Nauta is going to flip. They beefed up these charges big time hoping ONE of them sticks.

Because if you take the above information, and you change it to Joe and Hunter Biden, they should be charged in the exact same way. THIS is why people are upset not because it happened to Trump. He will have his day in court...

It's sounding like some of this stuff could be related to the 2020 election. See my post here.

My personal research and investigation into the 2020 Presidential election concluded that, the US government likely used the national security apparatus to cover-up systematic election fraud. If true, I would say that our country has a national crisis on our hands.

a reply to: IndieA

I'm not sure if a theory of they were damaging election fraud docs stands up. Trump just sat on them for 18 months? Then he asked his attorneys to destroy them? Then the only ones he discussed on audio during one of his tirades was Iranian military plans?

a reply to: frogs453

We shall see.

a reply to: IndieA

If the documents were related to the current government fabricating the results of the 2020 election, and the DOJ and FBI were complicit in it, why would they bring charges using those documents?

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: IndieA

If the documents were related to the current government fabricating the results of the 2020 election, and the DOJ and FBI were complicit in it, why would they bring charges using those documents?

My guess would be that, they would have to think that they could continue to keep those election related documents from the public, regardless.

It would also serve to send quite the message. "Don't mess with us, or our secrets, no matter who you are, no matter what the offense, and no matter what The Constitution says, or else."