Irwin20
Well-known member
Lol Judges never turn down a search warrant from the FBI. Just heard Dershowitz say it on the radio. How could a judge possibly know if what was in the warrant is legit?
Last edited:
Mar-A-Lago raided by the FBI
- Thread starter BlueJayFan
- Start date
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
Deep state. Drain the swamp. How many times can the cult get hoodwinked?
At least give Andrew, or Hubman who posted this on another thread, credit for this. You're a plagiarist, void of original thought and your takes are worthless - sounds like something Brandon may have heard during law school.
You're on double secret probation now.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
I heard a fool national reporter call this fact out on the this morning, as well, as if it meant something. Just like you lolWho appointed Christopher Wray again?
. It seems to me that anyone in possession of a few brain cells bumping into each other should realize that that is an appointment that must be made from within its own ecosystem, a.k.a. The Swamp.
One thing is certain- your comment is indicative of how your party works, that is for sure. They only appoint those whom they own.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
With regard to Trump, the only people less trustworthy than pencil neck Schiff…..
Orin Swift
Well-known member
Good ole copy and paste happy is back, all is right with the world.
Orin Swift
Well-known member
So is McCarthy no longer a RINO? Or TBD?
Immediately, if not sooner, I need the AG and FBI director to come out and say something like this;
"We understand that we took an extraordinary step, but here is the factual basis for why we had to do it;
A
B
C
D
E"
If they don't do that, then this is exactly what we think it is, and these leftists have lit a cigarette in a powder keg.
But we can all be entertained by the leftist little girls on here practicing their gaslighting and bold-faced lying techniques.
But perhaps Garland and Wray can give people like me a reason to lower my outrage and take a deep breath. I hope so because CFB season is about to start and I don't need the distraction. Lol.
"We understand that we took an extraordinary step, but here is the factual basis for why we had to do it;
A
B
C
D
E"
If they don't do that, then this is exactly what we think it is, and these leftists have lit a cigarette in a powder keg.
But we can all be entertained by the leftist little girls on here practicing their gaslighting and bold-faced lying techniques.
But perhaps Garland and Wray can give people like me a reason to lower my outrage and take a deep breath. I hope so because CFB season is about to start and I don't need the distraction. Lol.
redskinfan04
Well-known member
If Alan Dershowitz says it than it must be true. Guys never been wrong in his life.
They owe you info on an active investigation even if it compromises it? You want them to prosecute the case publicly before any charges? Mighty bold if you ask me.
Lol. Okay. ?
Hmmm...
You think the judge signs the warrant and it stops there? Following the search warrant, there is this thing...the legal process...where defense attorneys are given the warrant and the affidavit that convinced the judge to sign the warrant. Let's try to imagine what happens if the information in the affidavit turns out to be false...in drug (and other cases), there's a hearing, called a Motion to Suppress, where mostly constitutional issues are explored about whether or not a search was legal.
Imagine an FBI agent (ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE)...some individual agent has to affix his/her name to an affidavit to search the home of the former President. What do you think the chances are that the FBI agent puts false information into that affidavit?
My guess is that the FBI received information (from someone close) that documents of concern...that something was going to "happen" to them...soon. They know the gravity of entering the home of a former President.
The reason(s) for going in will, I'm sure, be revealed soon when the affidavit becomes public.
The reason(s) for going in will, I'm sure, be revealed soon when the affidavit becomes public.
Irwin20
Well-known member
Just following up on what Dershowitz a Liberal said.
Yes, when they do something this stupid and divisive, they must show why it is not stupid or this divisive - unless the intent was to provoke in the first place.
There are general ways to describe things that leave out names and details, but that still identifies the basis you acted on. Then, later, when the details are known, we can judge whether the explanation was true or not.
It's interesting to me that you just assume that this admin, FBI, and DOJ have a shred of credibility when they have revealed themselves to have none with a huge segment of this country. That lack of credibility is why they should not have done this, and why if there is a reasonable justification for doing it, they have to share it. Or, they can tear this country apart and cause violence - which you apparently want or blindly and stupidly can't see the possibility of.
You are correct that an extremely high percentage of search warrants get signed by federal judges, state court judges too. Part of that is due to a coziness between law enforcement and judges that comes from the process of being in their chambers for this kind of thing on a fairly regular basis. The main reason, though, especially with the FBI...they KNOW that what is required in the affidavit to gain a search warrant better be true or there are going to be problems down the road. It's likely that no affidavit in the history of the FBI was more closely scrutinized than this one.
ProV1
Well-known member
I know you all missed me during my sabbatical, and I think this a great time to take a break from my break because this thread is void of facts and rationale thought especially when it comes to Hilliary references.
What is similar: Hillary did not comply with Federal and State department policies relating to her use of a private email account. Trump has obviously not complied with Federal policies when he took or stole documents that were not his for the taking. In the case of Hillary, the DOJ and FBI requested her email. She gave them some but not all because she claimed many were her personal emails (those that had no reference to government business were deleted). This is obviously not cool and law enforcement took legal action through subpoenas of things like servers and recipient emails to recover what they requested. All told, they recovered over 30,000 emails and determined that around 100 contained references to classified material. In the case of Trump, the documents he took have also been subpoenaed and just like Hilliary, he returned some and not the bulk of what was requested. Since Trump has largely blown this off, law enforcement knowing exactly what he has , where it is, and how it is secured, got a warrant to go get what was not his to take. Pretty much the same thing they did with Hillary.
What is different: Hillary never took classified documents. What she did is improperly communicate about classified stuff with a personal email account. Per above, it was found that occurred in 100 of the 30,000+ emails. Was this against policy and the law? Yes and probably. Why was she not prosecuted? Because she claimed that she did not realize some of the references were marked classified and that almost all Secretaries of State before her had used private email, as well. It was a rat hole the DOJ did not want to go down. Trump has actually taken and likely destroyed classified documents. What is gone will not likely ever be recovered because it is not on a server and there is not a recipient to the email as with Hillary. Whether you believe Hillary or not, she claimed her actions were not purposeful. It is impossible for Trump to make the same claim, credibly. He knew what he had, destroyed some of it, and has continually refused to turn over what was lawfully requested of him. As such, they just went in and took it. If they recovered stuff that he is allowed to have, it will be returned.
What will likely happen: Nothing. Just like Hillary. They went and got the stuff they asked for. My guess is that Trump will never be prosecuted for this but the DOJ will complete the investigation just as they did with Hillary. Trumps legal peril is tied to January 6th, not his stealing of classified documents.
What is similar: Hillary did not comply with Federal and State department policies relating to her use of a private email account. Trump has obviously not complied with Federal policies when he took or stole documents that were not his for the taking. In the case of Hillary, the DOJ and FBI requested her email. She gave them some but not all because she claimed many were her personal emails (those that had no reference to government business were deleted). This is obviously not cool and law enforcement took legal action through subpoenas of things like servers and recipient emails to recover what they requested. All told, they recovered over 30,000 emails and determined that around 100 contained references to classified material. In the case of Trump, the documents he took have also been subpoenaed and just like Hilliary, he returned some and not the bulk of what was requested. Since Trump has largely blown this off, law enforcement knowing exactly what he has , where it is, and how it is secured, got a warrant to go get what was not his to take. Pretty much the same thing they did with Hillary.
What is different: Hillary never took classified documents. What she did is improperly communicate about classified stuff with a personal email account. Per above, it was found that occurred in 100 of the 30,000+ emails. Was this against policy and the law? Yes and probably. Why was she not prosecuted? Because she claimed that she did not realize some of the references were marked classified and that almost all Secretaries of State before her had used private email, as well. It was a rat hole the DOJ did not want to go down. Trump has actually taken and likely destroyed classified documents. What is gone will not likely ever be recovered because it is not on a server and there is not a recipient to the email as with Hillary. Whether you believe Hillary or not, she claimed her actions were not purposeful. It is impossible for Trump to make the same claim, credibly. He knew what he had, destroyed some of it, and has continually refused to turn over what was lawfully requested of him. As such, they just went in and took it. If they recovered stuff that he is allowed to have, it will be returned.
What will likely happen: Nothing. Just like Hillary. They went and got the stuff they asked for. My guess is that Trump will never be prosecuted for this but the DOJ will complete the investigation just as they did with Hillary. Trumps legal peril is tied to January 6th, not his stealing of classified documents.
AllSports12
Moderator
Literally copied and pasted from social media.
Do you get paid double for spreading the word?
?
gneiss rocks
Well-known member
Like the FISA court judges who were lied to and presented with falcified and whole cloth fabricated by political opposition...pretty easy they did it 3 times.
He thought OJ was innocent.
winbypin
Well-known member
Nice copy from Facebook.
SayMyName
Well-known member
Unprecedented FBI Raid; Trump Calls It ‘Weaponization of the Justice System’ - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics
The FBI raided the Palm Beach home of former President Donald Trump on Monday. CNN reported that according to an unnamed source,
spectator.org
goldentornado
Well-known member
Seems a jury said the same thing.
winbypin
Well-known member
SayMyName
Well-known member
FBI's Mar-a-Lago Raid Presents a Time for Choosing: The Regime, or America
The pretense of the rule of law is gone.
www.newsweek.com
goldentornado
Well-known member
did you forget the seizure of democrats phone data by trump DOJ? That's right a ex-POTUS which means he has no protection of the office anymore. even though you think he is above the law, he isnt.
Orin Swift
Well-known member
LOL well played ??
but aren't you Glen from Mason?