Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol….. I heard it from state run media. And shame on you for not paying attention to the lies, misinformation, fake conspiracies and intimidation techniques that the FBI has used in the past. Carry on with your naïveté.
And you know this precisely how? Are you proxy to whatever else may have been known before the whistleblower tipped them off?
We know that NARA had identified missing documents when Trump left the WH. We know that boxes of documents were picked up at MAL. We know that on June 3 a Trump attorney signed a letter saying all of the documents had been returned. We know on August 9 another 27 boxes of documents were taken from MAL, per the inventory list attached to the warrant.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out Ivana was cremated and the box they buried out at the first tee at Bedminster was full of more stuff he had stolen.
Until they had in hand documents, they didn’t know which documents would end up being in their hands, now, did they.
Your scheming thoughts of Ivana’s ashes is repugnant. Grow up.
I think you might have some facts a little off. They had been collecting the documents and in July, I believe, a Trump attorney signed a letter stating that there were no more documents in Trump's possession. A confidential source let the DOJ know that there were indeed more documents being kept at his home. That is why the warrant was created, why it went in front of a Trump appointed judge and why said judge signed the warrant. Let's not forget it was Trump himself who signed this law and you can go off on any tangents you like, but it doesn't change the fact that he had classified documents that were illegally in his possession.
Whether or not this is Biden trying to take down Trump is irrelevant. If he committed a crime he committed a crime. That's like saying in court, "well yes your honor I did steal xyz, but it's not fair because so and so doesn't like me and that's the only reason I'm here."
I think you aren’t just a little off, but WAY OFF on the facts here.
Let’s first start with the judge. He wasn’t appointed by Trump … that’s more fake news talking points. The truth is, Federal Magistrate Judges are chosen by Federal District Judges in their specific jurisdictions.
But the more interesting matter here is to have a Magistrate Judge handle such an important matter of conducting what is an unprecedented action of searching the residence of a former President. This type of high profile action would typically involve a higher, Federal District Court Judge, as Magistrate Judges typically do the menial grunt work type stuff. So, it’s very unusual for a Magistrate Judge to be the one issuing such a sensitive search warrant of a former President. This gives the appearance of working around the system, rather than with the system, and specifically using a Magistrate Judge they expected to rubber-stamp the request, as opposed to a higher District Court Judge. And there are some additional interesting details about this particular judge and his affiliation with Jeffery Epstein, and his political support of democrats.
Next, we need to look at the nature of the warrant itself, and there are very specific constitutional issues with this particular warrant, and how it was so broadly written. Under the 4th Amendment, search and seizure warrants must be specific as to the nature of the search, what is being searched for, and what can be seized under that warrant. For example, let’s say hypothetically a search warrant is issued to look for bank transactions between you and an organization under investigation for money laundering. That warrant doesn’t offer a blank check for seizing your TV, Stereo, and all of your household receipts for purchased merchandise. It could include bank statements, and perhaps your computer. But these would be included in the warrant. What a warrant can’t do is grant unrestricted, broad, and unfettered search and seizure of anything and everything the authorities chose to take. This would violate the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures. It cannot be broad, but must be specific. Constitutional experts have now examined the warrant and believe it does violate 4th Amendment standards.
Lastly, and most importantly, ALL warrants must only be issued base upon probable cause. As it stands currently, the DOJ is refusing to release the predicate affidavit, which outlines the evidence and rationale used to establish probable cause. This would provide the details the Judge considered when determining if probable cause exists and has been established, justifying the warrant.
The DOJ keeps insisting that there was no political motive involved in its actions, but refuses to provide the supporting details it based it’s actions on. In other words, they are basically saying there was no bias or animus involved, and we should just trust their word for that? No, not sufficient. “Trust me” doesn’t cut it.
Patel and Solomon could very well be called as material witnesses during the trial, and they know it.
Nervous squealing.
So what?
They are speaking out about their journalistic findings and past legal experiences. I hardly think they are feeling nervous, but rather welcome an opportunity to speak. I have seen them, and there was no nervousness or puffing or squealing.
I think you aren’t just a little off, but WAY OFF on the facts here.
Let’s first start with the judge. He wasn’t appointed by Trump … that’s more fake news talking points. The truth is, Federal Magistrate Judges are chosen by Federal District Judges in their specific jurisdictions.
But the more interesting matter here is to have a Magistrate Judge handle such an important matter of conducting what is an unprecedented action of searching the residence of a former President. This type of high profile action would typically involve a higher, Federal District Court Judge, as Magistrate Judges typically do the menial grunt work type stuff. So, it’s very unusual for a Magistrate Judge to be the one issuing such a sensitive search warrant of a former President. This gives the appearance of working around the system, rather than with the system, and specifically using a Magistrate Judge they expected to rubber-stamp the request, as opposed to a higher District Court Judge. And there are some additional interesting details about this particular judge and his affiliation with Jeffery Epstein, and his political support of democrats.
Next, we need to look at the nature of the warrant itself, and there are very specific constitutional issues with this particular warrant, and how it was so broadly written. Under the 4th Amendment, search and seizure warrants must be specific as to the nature of the search, what is being searched for, and what can be seized under that warrant. For example, let’s say hypothetically a search warrant is issued to look for bank transactions between you and an organization under investigation for money laundering. That warrant doesn’t offer a blank check for seizing your TV, Stereo, and all of your household receipts for purchased merchandise. It could include bank statements, and perhaps your computer. But these would be included in the warrant. What a warrant can’t do is grant unrestricted, broad, and unfettered search and seizure of anything and everything the authorities chose to take. This would violate the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures. It cannot be broad, but must be specific. Constitutional experts have now examined the warrant and believe it does violate 4th Amendment standards.
Lastly, and most importantly, ALL warrants must only be issued base upon probable cause. As it stands currently, the DOJ is refusing to release the predicate affidavit, which outlines the evidence and rationale used to establish probable cause. This would provide the details the Judge considered when determining if probable cause exists and has been established, justifying the warrant.
The DOJ keeps insisting that there was no political motive involved in its actions, but refuses to provide the supporting details it based it’s actions on. In other words, they are basically saying there was no bias or animus involved, and we should just trust their word for that? No, not sufficient. “Trust me” doesn’t cut it.
You are correct in that the Magistrate was not appointed by Trump
He was actually sworn in before Trump took office…
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,543 posts, read 12,517,887 times
Reputation: 10463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
You are avoiding the obvious: This entire discussion is based upon the fact that materials belonging to the US Federal government were stolen, and have been recovered from Trump's property.
These are facts.
They are?
Please prove the true information about (anonymous sources saying something, is not proof):
That Trump knew full well what was in the boxes?
That Trump had packed the 'things in question' into the boxes himself?
If he didn't pack them himself, that he'd made someone else pack the 'things in question' into the boxes?
That Trump moved the boxes to MAL himself, and that he'd known the 'things in question' were in the boxes?
If he didn't move them himself, that he'd had someone else move the boxes, and that he'd known the 'things in question' were in the boxes?
That the 'things in question' were mistakenly packed into the boxes and mistakenly sent to MAL instead of to the archives?
At this time there are no "facts" to back up your "stolen" claim.
All we seem to know at this point is that the GSA had packed and had moved the boxes. Why would the GSA have packed the 'things in question' into the boxes and move them to MAL, instead of moving them to the archives? It would seem obvious that the GSA was aware of what they were packing and moving so why didn't they alert Trump or someone else about the 'things in question'?
Apparently the GSA had said they'd done it by mistake, were the 'things in question' supposed to be sent to the archives and the GSA had mistakenly moved them to MAL along with Trump's personal stuff?
We don't know anything yet if the 'things in question' were intentionally or mistakenly packed and moved to MAL. But by the way it sounds, it was all done by mistake.
So again, prove that it is a "fact" that they were "stolen"? And keep in mind, your feelings are not fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
