Mar-A-Lago raided by the FBI

Redandgold said:
You don’t declassify top secret documents by waving your hand over them and shouting, “You are now declassified.” Unless your Michael Scott.
Click to expand...

Ikr? The ole principle of "unlimited executive privilege" brought to us by today's "conservative" party. Sad what's become of them.
 
Last edited:
lotr10 said:
Since I've been there and done that as a magical middle person I can recognize how your argument falls apart in the first sentence: The position of one side in this debate is not extreme. This is NOT an argument between a socialist on one side and a fascist on the other.

But hey I'm wiling to think that maybe I'm a partisan ideologue living in an information bubble so I'll let you help me out. What policies of Trump or modern conservatism do you, as a lifelong republican, believe are extreme?

* Is Trump's position on the border extreme? Is it extreme to want a secure border?

* Is Trump's position on illegal migration extreme? Is it extreme to want to remove illegals from the country?

* Is Trump's position on legal immigration extreme. Is it extreme to favor immigration but want it merit based rather then family based?

* Is Trump's position on taxes extreme? Is it extreme to want to lower business and individual taxes?

* Is Trump's position on regulations extreme? Is it extreme to want to reduce the regulatory burden on business and individuals?

* Is Trumps position on putting America first extreme?

* Is Trump's desire to have a strong US military extreme?

* Is Trump's goal for the United States to NOT be the world's policeman extreme?

* Is Trump's desire to see the other nations in NATO pay their fair share in our mutual defense extreme?

* Is placing targeted tariffs on Chinese goods in an effort to force a level economic playing field extreme?

* Is the idea that there are biological women and biological men extreme?

* Is the idea that abortion in the 3rd trimester is infanticide extreme?

* Is the idea that equal opportunity for all precludes affirmative action type programs for some extreme?

* Were Trump's picks fr the SCOTUS extreme?

I could keep going but you get the picture. I await with interest what a lifelong republican considers extreme on the above list.
Click to expand...
Very selective points of emphasis, not that I agree with all them. How about this viewpoint?
Is it extreme to use the office of the President to personally make millions?
Is it extreme to lie to the American people about the dangers of a pandemic that kills over a million Americans?
Is it extreme to refuse to ever criticize the evil ruler of Russia?
Is it extreme, or just weird, to claim to be having a love affair with another dictator?
Is it extreme for the leader of the world’s most powerful democracy to openly show admiration for every dictator in the world?
Is it extreme for a President to convince millions of Americans that he can force another country to pay for a wall on our border?
Is it extreme for a President to alienate every ally we have?
Is it extreme for a President to be accused of several felonies?
Is it extreme for President to lie the entire length of his Presidency about a plan for health care, or a plan for infrastructure modernization?
Is it extreme for a President to refuse to leave office once defeated in his re-election bid?
Is it extreme for a President to direct a mob to attack our nation’s Capitol!
Is it extreme for President to be accused of stealing and attempting to sell our country’s military secrets?
Is it extreme for the President to seek support from white supremacist organizations?
I could keep going, but I think you get the picture. I await with interest what a lifelong Republican doesn’t think is extreme on the above list. It looks like your list did not attempt to tell the truth about both sides of the orange traitor.
 
lotr10 said:
This makes a great point:

pjmedia.com

Another Huge Red Flag in the Trump Raid Story

pjmedia.com pjmedia.com

“Let me address recent unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department agents and prosecutors,” he said. “I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked. The men and women of the FBI and the Justice Department are dedicated patriotic public servants every day. They protect the American people from violent crime, terrorism and other threats to their safety while safeguarding our civil rights. They do so at great personal sacrifice and risk to themselves. I am honored to work alongside them.”

Well, Mr. Attorney General, if they’re so professional and full of integrity, can you explain why the Wall Street Journal apparently knows the contents of all the classified documents and supposedly “top secret” documents removed from Trump’s home and has apparently reviewed some of them?
Click to expand...
Trump and his buddies had the same information. There is very little loyalty in Trump’s inner circle.
 
IVCguy said:
The core of this argument we are having is whether this unprecedented action, where a Dem DOJ gets a warrant to raid the home of an ex-president and leading candidate in the next coming election represents a necessary step to protect the US/uphold the rule of law or is the weaponization and politicization of the DOJ/FBI against a political opponent. Secondary complications are the low perception of credibility of the DOJ/FBI by a large pct of Americans and the firm belief of another large pct of Americans that Bad Orange Man is criminally bad.

But we can get to the crux of the important elements of this by asking our Marcusian lefties a couple of questions and see if they can provide answers.

Given that a red line has been crossed, or, if you prefer, something that has never happened before has now happened, what are the rules going forward as to who can repeat this action and what are the exact criteria that would justify doing it again?

What do you anticipate the new red line is and can you tell us exactly what it is?

Are you comfortable with the thought of, say, a Pres Trump 47 DOJ taking the same action?

Now, they will not answer those questions. They can't because if they try, they will fall into double standards, irrational statements, and reveal their authoritarian bent. They may, probably will, talk about how stupid I am, I'm in a cult, accuse me of conspiracy theories and blah, yada, blah, blah, blah.

However, I want to preemptively assert that the questions are entirely reasonable - and they did not answer them. But maybe someone will surprise me.

After I see the responses, and lack thereof, then I will explain why their ideology is reflected in it. Stay tuned. It will be fun.
Click to expand...
They had to act before his passed his stolen documents to Putin or some other dictator. He broke major laws!
 
IVCguy said:
The core of this argument we are having is whether this unprecedented action, where a Dem DOJ gets a warrant to raid the home of an ex-president and leading candidate in the next coming election represents a necessary step to protect the US/uphold the rule of law or is the weaponization and politicization of the DOJ/FBI against a political opponent. Secondary complications are the low perception of credibility of the DOJ/FBI by a large pct of Americans and the firm belief of another large pct of Americans that Bad Orange Man is criminally bad.

But we can get to the crux of the important elements of this by asking our Marcusian lefties a couple of questions and see if they can provide answers.

Given that a red line has been crossed, or, if you prefer, something that has never happened before has now happened, what are the rules going forward as to who can repeat this action and what are the exact criteria that would justify doing it again?

What do you anticipate the new red line is and can you tell us exactly what it is?

Are you comfortable with the thought of, say, a Pres Trump 47 DOJ taking the same action?

Now, they will not answer those questions. They can't because if they try, they will fall into double standards, irrational statements, and reveal their authoritarian bent. They may, probably will, talk about how stupid I am, I'm in a cult, accuse me of conspiracy theories and blah, yada, blah, blah, blah.

However, I want to preemptively assert that the questions are entirely reasonable - and they did not answer them. But maybe someone will surprise me.

After I see the responses, and lack thereof, then I will explain why their ideology is reflected in it. Stay tuned. It will be fun.
Click to expand...

You are making way more out of this than is necessary. Being a political candidate or ex public official isn’t a get out of jail free card. If that person breaks the law they should be held as accountable as the rest of us would be.
 
Redandgold said:
Very selective points of emphasis, not that I agree with all them. How about this viewpoint?
Is it extreme to use the office of the President to personally make millions?
Is it extreme to lie to the American people about the dangers of a pandemic that kills over a million Americans?
Is it extreme to refuse to ever criticize the evil ruler of Russia?
Is it extreme, or just weird, to claim to be having a love affair with another dictator?
Is it extreme for the leader of the world’s most powerful democracy to openly show admiration for every dictator in the world?
Is it extreme for a President to convince millions of Americans that he can force another country to pay for a wall on our border?
Is it extreme for a President to alienate every ally we have?
Is it extreme for a President to be accused of several felonies?
Is it extreme for President to lie the entire length of his Presidency about a plan for health care, or a plan for infrastructure modernization?
Is it extreme for a President to refuse to leave office once defeated in his re-election bid?
Is it extreme for a President to direct a mob to attack our nation’s Capitol!
Is it extreme for President to be accused of stealing and attempting to sell our country’s military secrets?
Is it extreme for the President to seek support from white supremacist organizations?
I could keep going, but I think you get the picture. I await with interest what a lifelong Republican doesn’t think is extreme on the above list. It looks like your list did not attempt to tell the truth about both sides of the orange traitor.
Click to expand...
You're not citing "extreme" ideological positions here you're just bitching about Trump's behavior. Those are not the same things.
 
Qcity said:
There were multiple servers involved over a number of years. It was impossible for the FBI to know for certain what was deleted and destroyed; they admitted as much. Yet they then took the bizarre step of actually inserting themselves to recommend to the justice department that no charges be filed.


Two sets of justice at the federal level. The set that includes spying, armed raids and handcuffs for innocent republicans; and the set that allows corrupt, criminal democrats to walk. Plain as day.
Click to expand...
  • 18 U.S.C. §§ 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.
  • 18 U.S.C. §§ 2071: Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally, which carries a penalty of up to three years in prison and disqualification from holding office (more on this below).
  • 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519: Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.
 
redskinfan04 said:
You are making way more out of this than is necessary. Being a political candidate or ex public official isn’t a get out of jail free card. If that person breaks the law they should be held as accountable as the rest of us would be.
Click to expand...
Unless your name is Hillary Clinton.
 
cabezadecaballo said:
Please. The next Congress will address legitimacy of the beef. I want to see the request for the warrant and entire justification released
Click to expand...

The legitimacy is already proven. They found cases of records he was unauthorized to loot, some containing Classified and Top Secret documents. You can't get more red handed than that. Unless you were voice recorded trying to overturn election results. Oh yeah.
 
TigerPaw said:
The legitimacy is already proven. They found cases of records he was unauthorized to loot, some containing Classified and Top Secret documents. You can't get more red handed than that. Unless you were voice recorded trying to overturn election results. Oh yeah.
Click to expand...
Who cares? The current POTUS is a dumba** who makes trump look fiscally responsible LOL. Too bad the FBI won't raid the White house and arrest SJ for stupidity.
 
TigerPaw said:
Yes. If a former POTUS of either party knowingly takes Classified let alone Top Secret documents home with them (or their resort, or both), which is a clear violation, they should be held to account per the statute. And if they will not return them as directed, then the FBI/DOJ should seek a search warrant, and if the warrant gets signed by a judge, they should execute it, and then they should take back the documents. Real rocket science stuff there IVC any more burning questions?
Click to expand...
And they should seek out a judge who hates the subject of the warrant...
 
I enjoy wrestling said:
Blind hatred is a disease. Years from now you will be a case study. It's amazing how the brain works.
Click to expand...

It is blind hatred to say they confiscated records he was not supposed to have? Wow, ok.

They were unsafe where they were. Glad they got them back, for America's sake. You're American right?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: y2h
TigerPaw said:
The legitimacy is already proven. They found cases of records he was unauthorized to loot, some containing Classified and Top Secret documents. You can't get more red handed than that. Unless you were voice recorded trying to overturn election results. Oh yeah.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. He is allowed to have them just like every other president. he also had full power to declassify all of it, if you think he did not declassify them because he was going to do something nefarious, why wouldn't he?
The FBI had full access to these exact documents in February and June where they said he was fully cooperative. Why not take them then?

This is just another Hollywood type production for all the idiots who have TDS blinders on. Do you really think this is anything but politics for show to get the Don?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top