The FBI warrant confirmed that Trump is in serious trouble

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  4 months ago  •  83 comments

By:   MSNBC (MSNBC. com)

The FBI warrant confirmed that Trump is in serious trouble
The FBI search warrant against Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago was approved under the Espionage Act and other statutes. 11 boxes of classified material were seized.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Aug. 12, 2022, 11:48 PM UTC By Hayes Brown, MSNBC Opinion Columnist

As the week has passed, the liability that former President Donald Trump faces has become clearer to the media and the general public. But despite knowing for months that the National Archives sought classified materials stored at Mar-a-Lago, the former president's Florida home, Trump and his supporters have never appeared to be ahead of the game.

In fact, I'm not sure that Trump's own team grasped before last Thursday — at soonest — just how much trouble the boss is really in this time.

I'm not sure that Trump's own team grasped before Thursday — at soonest — just how much trouble the boss is really in this time.

As Breitbart News first reported, a federal magistrate signed off on a warrant ahead of the search of Trump's home/office/resort that allowed for the seizure of all "physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, or 1519." Those are the statutes that cover illegally removing, destroying or hiding government documents, obstruction of justice and the Espionage Act.

Everything we've seen since suggests that the usual attempts from Trumpworld to poison the well ahead of bad news haven't been working. There has been nothing that could counter the simple fact confirmed last Friday: Donald Trump is under federal criminal investigation.

Among the dodges Trump offered up is that the material recovered "was all declassified." It's the same argument that former Trump appointee/stooge Kash Patel used in May. He told Breitbart that classified documents then-recently recovered from Mar-a-Lago had actually already been declassified. Trump "declassified whole sets of materials" before leaving the White House," Patel claimed, but, he said, White House counsel Pat Cipollone "failed to generate the paperwork to change the classification markings, but that doesn't mean the information wasn't declassified." (Experts think that it may mean exactly that — and as NBC News reported on Friday, "the three laws cited in the search warrant do not specify that the mishandled documents had to have been classified.")

1660339740781_n_wh_deadline_katyal_220812_1920x1080-bzmjyd.jpg

Neal Katyal: Trump's declassification defenses won't hold up in a criminal trial


Aug. 12, 202205:49

While Trump as president did have the authority to unilaterally declassify most items, there are some major exceptions to that rule, including those related to nuclear weapons. And last Thursday evening, The Washington Post issued a bombshell report alleging that among the documents the Department of Justice sought were "classified documents relating to nuclear weapons."

Attorney General Merrick Garland's announcement that the DOJ would move to unseal the warrant and receipt list had already rocked Republicans by undercutting their claims that the department wasn't being transparent. But The Washington Post's reporting prompted an almost eerie silence from the right on Twitter for hours Thursday night. When Trump attorney Christina Bobb was asked on Fox News about the report, she offered up a less-than-rock-solid defense. Bobb said that she had "not specifically spoken to the president about what nuclear materials may or may not have been in there. I do not believe there were any in there."

Her hesitancy became slightly more understandable Friday when the receipt list she'd signed Monday was unsealed. The three-page list does not detail the subject matter of the documents seized. Instead, it merely lists how many sets of documents were recovered at each of the four levels of classification — confidential (3 sets), secret (3), top secret (4), and "various classified/TS/SCI documents" (1). (TS/SCI stands for "Top Secret/Secure Compartmentalized Information," meaning that access should only be available to specific officials with need-to-know clearance and viewed in highly secure environments.)

"His lawyers have asked for a more specific account of what was removed from Mar-a-Lago," The Wall Street Journal reported. That quote, along with the documents being first reported by the WSJ, Fox News and Breitbart, all conservative outlets, leaves me confident that Trump's team, not the Justice Department, was the source for those outlets' stories published before the court unsealed the warrant.

But that favoritism didn't add many points to the board for Trump. The best that Breitbart could do with its scoop was to wonder why a warrant signed on a Friday might not be executed until Monday.

Other attempts to run defense have also fallen flat. Earlier on Friday, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, tried to downplay the significance of whatever materials might have been found at Mar-a-Lago. "I can tell you that there are a number of things that are classified that fall under the umbrella of nuclear weapons but that are not necessarily things that are truly classified," Turner said at a news conference.

1660971820608_n_phang_BBLOCK_081222_1920x1080-unfe0i.jpg

Republicans rally behind Trump amid escalating investigations


Aug. 12, 202209:51

The idea that anything short of a nuclear-weapon schematic is totally fine to have at a personal residence, even behind a padlock, is a wild leap from the GOP's past attacks on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. But it's also karmic that Trump would be subjected to a search warrant for alleged mishandling of classified materials. As part of the response to the Clinton scandal, he signed a law in 2018 that "stiffened the penalty for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents from one year to five years, turning it into a felony offense." (That specific section wasn't cited in the warrant but could still come up in any future prosecution.)

Of course, the wildest and most nonsensical deflections came from Trump himself. In one post on his social media platform he falsely claimed that "President Barack Hussein Obama kept 33 million pages of documents, much of them classified. How many of them pertained to nuclear? Word is, lots!" In a news release, he claimed that "they" could have obtained the documents "any time they wanted and without playing politics and breaking into Mar-a-Lago. … ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS ASK." He then repeated the false claim that Obama took "33 million pages of documents, many of which are classified" to Chicago.

It's obvious by now that the original game plan from Team Trump — call the DOJ corrupt and demand they reveal the warrant — has backfired.

The National Archives and Record Administration issued a statement in response making clear that it moved 30 million pages of unclassified records to a facility in Chicago where that agency maintains them. All classified records from the Obama administration are accounted for in a facility in the D.C. area, the agency added.

It's obvious by now that the original game plan from Team Trump — call the DOJ corrupt and demand they reveal the warrant — has backfired. Plans B (claim all the documents in question were declassified) and C (hope that nothing related to the country's nuclear weapons program was actually recovered) aren't faring much better. The lack of ambiguity here has him and his cronies on the backfoot. For once, Trump is caught in a binary, one that asks whether classified materials were or were not recovered from his home.

It's the exact kind of black-and-white court case that Trump managed to avoid for his entire time in public life. I don't doubt that he'll come up with a Plan D, E, and F in the coming days and weeks as we wait to see if charges result from Monday's search. But there's nothing he or his team can say or do to change the fact that Trump's future could shift dramatically based on what the DOJ chooses to do about the 11 boxes of classified materials its agents brought home from Florida.

hayes-brown-msnbc.png Hayes Brown

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MSNBC Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    4 months ago

Merrick Garland plays chess. Trump only has pawns.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    4 months ago

But according to his supporters and enablers - 

leslie-nielsen-nothing-to-see-here.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    4 months ago

299994052_5998799243465030_8894841592937656393_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=SMQi0URUAo8AX_rrd7G&_nc_oc=AQkUEJb-tyAnCLmT4wPoL-3j8POH33nYa-iReP5Y9ISILx4q5GWmtzA5WflbDCCozfs&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-cmYCk3XYaskI7rv2o3-4Am6KcdgDK5hVnH8IYmBu1VQ&oe=630A5DDB

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2  devangelical    4 months ago

an unamerican traitor, as are his supporters...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1  Ender  replied to  devangelical @2    4 months ago

Amazes me the people that believe every thing he says. Even when the lies were proven to be lies...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Ender @2.1    4 months ago

never underestimate the willful ignorance of the right wing...

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3  seeder  JBB    4 months ago

Meanwhile, the gop is hair on fire hysterical that the Secret Service spent $490,000 upgrading Biden's security perimeter at his Delaware home. Trump's security details cost more than that every one of the hundred times he went golfing or held a Stupid Rally!

Is it really any wonder that the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as "the gop"?

If I was mired in the gop I'd get out of the cess pool!

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1  Ender  replied to  JBB @3    4 months ago

You ever notice all they have is attack. Not once come out with any policy or direction.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Ender @3.1    4 months ago

The gop is oposes making any progress, ever!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @3.1    4 months ago

"You ever notice all they have is attack. Not once come out with any policy or direction."

That describes the Dems.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    4 months ago

Towlie called. Wants his trademark line back!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    4 months ago

That describes the Dems.

I know you are but what am I?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Sophomore Principal
3.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @3    4 months ago
Meanwhile, the gop is hair on fire hysterical that the Secret Service spent $490,000 upgrading Biden's security perimeter at his Delaware home.

I doubt that there is much hair fire, there is a lot of talk about here but not across the country,

Trump's security details cost more than that every one of the hundred times he went golfing or held a Stupid Rally!

I never seen an annual comparison, do you have one?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4  Greg Jones    4 months ago

So many accusations, so many investigations....with zero indictments. Trump is invincible.

MC_TrumpCuster_web20220817120000.jpg

cb081322dAPR20220813084505.jpg

gv081322dAPC20220813074505.jpg

afb081222dAPR20220812094506.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4    4 months ago

So many investigations - they're just beginning!

Maybe not Teflon Don much longer!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4    4 months ago

Why do those stupid cartoons show him so thin and not the big disgusting pile of ugly shit that he actually is?

They're quite a distance from reality - like the majority of his enablers/supporters.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4    4 months ago

Do you hold that Trump did no wrong?   Not here and not in his Big Lie / Jan 6th behavior?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.3    4 months ago
"Do you hold that Trump did no wrong?   Not here and not in his Big Lie / Jan 6th behavior?"

I don't know TiG, nothing has been proven. All the facts aren't in yet, and many haven't even been disclosed.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.3.1    4 months ago

I did not require proof; sound evidence is sufficient.   Proof is far too grand an objective.   I asked if you think that Trump has done no wrong (based on the evidence thus far).   The notion of 'wrong' is not 'legal guilt' but immoral, unethical or damaging.   Criminal guilt is a question for a jury.   Violation of the CotUS is also a legal determination.

For example, do you think it was wrong for Trump to:

  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states?
  • coerce AZ Speaker Rusty Bowers to submit an alternate set of (fake) electors?
  • tweet, in the middle of the violence at the Capitol, that Pence let him and his supporters down?
  • hold TS/SCI (and lower) classified documents in his home?
  • refuse to call off his supporters during the insurrection until 3 hours later?

Many more examples possible.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4.3.3  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.2    4 months ago

Trump is no longer president.  Any crimes he allegedly committed while in office are irrelevant to me.

If found guilty of something, he should be punished. Until then,.....I don't care.

Time for you to move on...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.4  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @4.3.3    4 months ago

Blatant deflection of my question.   I explicitly excluded the determination of legal guilt and asked about wrongdoing.   

Do you hold that Trump did no wrong?   Not here and not in his Big Lie / Jan 6th behavior?

Time for you to move on...

You are the one who posted @4.   Don't post if you cannot stand tall to a challenge.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
4.3.5  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.2    4 months ago
I asked if you think that Trump has done no wrong (based on the evidence thus far)

Whose "Evidence" ?

From the same ones that we endured through in the "Russian Hoax" impeachment trials (Which Includes Proven False FBI Claims), that said WE HAVE "irrefutable "Damning Evidence" for all to see ?

"(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

Still waiting for Shifty Schiff's "irrefutable Evidence" he still MUST BE sitting on.

And you have seriously this obsession that folks NEED to take what's going on now ........ SERIOUSLY ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4.3.3    4 months ago

Yet these 'alleged crimes' have occurred after he was 'president' and after he WAS ASKED TO RETURN ALL THE DOCUMENTS, SOME OF WHICH WERE TOP SECRET AND CLASSIFIED, HE TOOK TO HIS PRIVATE RESIDENCE IN AN UNSECURED AREA

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.3.7  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @4.3    4 months ago
Do you hold that Trump did no wrong?

That same question can be asked about the FBI and DOJ when it comes to dealing with Trump. Have they lied and fabricated evidence to investigate Trump?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.8  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @4.3.7    4 months ago

Anyone willing to take a stand and answer a direct question?

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.3.9  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.8    4 months ago
Anyone willing to take a stand and answer a direct question?

He "is" innocent until proven guilty. At this point I have seen nothing to change my mind.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.10  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @4.3.9    4 months ago
He "is" innocent until proven guilty. At this point I have seen nothing to change my mind.   

I did not ask if he was guilty, I asked if he has done wrong.   That is not a legal determination.

You claim that you have not seen anything that Trump has done wrong.

Do you NOT think it was wrong for Trump to:

  • attempt to suborn Pence to table certified results from select states?
  • coerce AZ Speaker Rusty Bowers to submit an alternate set of (fake) electors?
  • tweet, in the middle of the violence at the Capitol, that Pence let him and his supporters down?
  • hold TS/SCI (and lower) classified documents in his home?
  • refuse to call off his supporters during the insurrection until 3 hours later?

I have many more examples.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.3.11  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.10    4 months ago
I asked if he has done wrong.

What I think as well as what you think is immaterial, if he broke a law he should be prosecuted.  Feelings are for the voting booth. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.12  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @4.3.11    4 months ago

Funny how so many opinionated people cannot seem to opine on the question of Trump’s wrongdoings.

The obvious answer is that it is wrong for Trump to do each of the listed items.   Refusing to answer is amusing and sad.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Sophomore Silent
4.3.13  gooseisback  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.12    4 months ago
Funny how so many opinionated people cannot seem to opine on the question of Trump’s wrongdoings.

Are you dumb or do you not read what I posted.

(4.3.11) "if he broke a law he should be prosecuted"
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.14  TᵢG  replied to  gooseisback @4.3.13    4 months ago

No I am not dumb.   I asked if you hold that Trump has done wrong and gave you examples.

You refused to state that Trump has done wrong and instead changed the question from wrong doing to breaking the law.   And worse, you made it conditional (“if”) and dodged taking a stand even on your changed question.

Surely you see the difference between stating that Trump has done wrong vs. “if he broke a law he should be prosecuted”.

Try this, was Hillary wrong to use a private server for SoS official business?   Are you able to opine that yes that was indeed wrong or would you be ~~unable~~ to opine and offer instead a mere non-committal platitude:  “if she broke a law she should be prosecuted”?   

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
4.3.15  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.14    4 months ago

I think it depends on where you are trying to go with your questioning.  Did Trump do something wrong while in office?  Most certainly, but does that mean it was illegal?  Is not this line sort of a red herring?  The conversation & seed is did Trump break the law and  you are trying to get someone to admit that Trump did "something" wrong.  You even include some of the seed in your examples while you expand that list to things that can appear to be wrong but may not have been illegal.  With all the information that is lacking to the public about this event, it just seems to be a stretch to go down this path.  I don't think it matters if someone thinks some of that list are examples of Trump being wrong, because believing someone did something wrong is a personal decision.

If Trump broke the law then let him go to court under indictment and lets get it all out in the open.  Until that happens I really don't want to worked up over commentary about it.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.16  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @4.3.15    4 months ago
Did Trump do something wrong while in office?  Most certainly, but does that mean it was illegal?  Is not this line sort of a red herring? 

I explicitly separated wrong-doing from illegal acts.    Yet everyone who responded insists on commingling the two.

The conversation & seed is did Trump break the law and  you are trying to get someone to admit that Trump did "something" wrong.

Yes, Snuffy, I want to see if some are honest enough to even acknowledge that he did something wrong.   And that is like pulling teeth.  Why is that?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
4.3.17  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @4.3.16    4 months ago
And that is like pulling teeth.  Why is that?

Because partisanship dominates everything here.  Your thread (4.3) appears to try to mingle Trump doing something wrong with something potentially illegal.  This entire seed is to talk about the illegal activities that Trump did, but you are attempting to confuse the issue between "wrong" and "illegal".  Your comments are just as partisan as the others are so it doesn't surprise me that nobody will respond the way you desire.  Also as "wrong" is subjective, it can be understood differently by other people.  You may think I am wrong in how I butter my bread because I don't do it like you do, that's what I mean by "wrong" being subjective.  I think it's easier to understand illegal and that is what everybody is waiting on.

IMO, Trump was wrong to have classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.  But we don't know yet how he was wrong.  Did he truly declassify the documents and the paperwork is missing or in channels or not yet released?  Were they still classified?  Was he under the understanding that he could declassify the documents based on him being the sitting President at the time?  There's a lot of information that we just don't have yet and everybody is reacting to what is released by main-stream media.  But we do know that main-stream media is biased and has been known to taint their reporting to fit their bias.  In the absence of knowledge people will revert to their partisan bias and will search out the news sources that confirm their beliefs. For myself I just want it to go to court and end the bickering which I find rather pointless.

I explicitly separated wrong-doing from illegal acts.    Yet everyone who responded insists on commingling the two.

And actually you didn't separate them like you think.

  • hold TS/SCI (and lower) classified documents in his home?

If they were still classified documents then his holding them in his house is definitely illegal.  IMO just declassified would still be wrong as someone could learn sources and/or methods from older declassified documents which is why so many classified documents are classified for so long.  I hope you will agree however that the federal government does tend to go overboard with classifying documents, sometimes to hide their own problems rather than something that is truly for national security reasons.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.3.18  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @4.3.17    4 months ago
Your thread ( 4.3 ) appears to try to mingle Trump doing something wrong with something potentially illegal. 

My comment @4.3 and subsequent comments asked a very simple, straightforward question:

TiG @4.3 ☞ Do you hold that Trump did no wrong?   Not here and not in his Big Lie / Jan 6th behavior?

The answer is obvious; the evasion is pathetic.

IMO, Trump was wrong to have classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. 

If the documents are indeed classified then you need not qualify with IMO ... it would be a fact that Trump would have done wrong on this specific issue.   As for the others I listed, he clearly has done wrong.

Your comments are just as partisan as the others are ...

What party am I blindly supporting?   Learn what ' partisan ' means before using it in an allegation.

There's a lot of information that we just don't have yet and everybody is reacting to what is released by main-stream media. 

That has been one of my key points regarding the classified documents.   Note how many are running about here claiming this is a witch hunt, claiming Trump declassified the documents, etc.   I have argued that there are two key factors:

  1. Were the documents declassified (thus far there is no evidence that this is so)?
  2. Was Trump cooperating with the DoJ (waiting for evidence that he was)?

Until we know the answers to both of these questions claims of who was at fault are just bullshit.   (Note, however, as Dulay has observed, that Trump was wrong to take any documents per the PRA .  Not as serious as holding TS/SCI classified documents, but technically wrong nonetheless.)

And actually you didn't separate them like you think.

You cannot see the difference between doing wrong and breaking the law?     One can do wrong and still not act in an illegal fashion.     It is a much lower bar.   Asserting that someone has done wrong is not the same as stating they are guilty of a crime.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.3.19  MrFrost  replied to  Snuffy @4.3.17    4 months ago
Your thread (4.3) appears to try to mingle Trump doing something wrong with something potentially illegal. 

Isn't extortion illegal? Did he not try to extort the Ukraine? Yes.

Case closed. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
4.3.20  GregTx  replied to  MrFrost @4.3.19    4 months ago

Are you talking about Joe Biden?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Greg Jones @4    4 months ago
So many accusations, so many investigations....with zero indictments

that's what happens when accusations are as fictitious and you run on feelings.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
4.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Greg Jones @4    4 months ago
Trump is invincible.

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." - Proverbs 16:18

Anyone believing that Trump did nothing wrong, and even if he did his criminal actions won't ever catch up to him, has their heads shoved up dirty Donald's ass and thus have a vested interest in him never facing justice since his colon is the new alternate universe they inhabit.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.6  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @4    4 months ago

512

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5  TᵢG    4 months ago
For once, Trump is caught in a binary, one that asks whether classified materials were or were not recovered from his home.

I think it boils down to two things:

  • Were the materials declassified (if so, there would be a formal record of same)?
  • Was Trump cooperating in the return?

We already know that the materials were at a level that, if not declassified, would be illegally held at Trump's residence.

And then, of course, sordid acts by Trump in his Big Lie campaign continue to loom.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6  Nerm_L    4 months ago

So, what's the hold up?  We're still waiting for an indictment.  Maybe Democrats need a bigger tractor.

512

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6    4 months ago

Yes, Nerm, we are all waiting for an indictment.   And we will continue to be forced to wait no matter how many times you complain that we are still waiting.   

Nobody on this forum has insider information into the DoJ/FBI so nobody here can answer the question as to the holdup.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    4 months ago
Yes, Nerm, we are all waiting for an indictment.   And we will continue to be forced to wait no matter how many times you complain that we are still waiting.    Nobody on this forum has insider information into the DoJ/FBI so nobody here can answer the question as to the holdup.

The FBI has been investigating Trump since 2016.  There has been a high profile special counsel investigation and two impeachments.  At this point, the DOJ should have more records on Trump investigations than the amount of material the FBI seized at Mar-a-Lago.  And there's been no transparency from the bureaucracy or Congress for fear of damaging the perpetual investigations.

No one needs to be an insider to understand the political motivations behind perpetual investigation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    4 months ago
No one needs to be an insider to understand the political motivations behind perpetual investigation

You moved the goalpost!    You asked:

Nerm @6 ☞ So, what's the hold up?  We're still waiting for an indictment. 

The context is the FBI search & seizure operation.   Not the history of Trump since 2016; not the notion of perpetual investigation.

For the current context, your question cannot be answered because nobody here has insider information on the workings of the DoJ/FBI.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    4 months ago
The context is the FBI search & seizure operation.   Not the history of Trump since 2016; not the notion of perpetual investigation. For the current context, your question cannot be answered because nobody here has insider information on the workings of the DoJ/FBI.

The DOJ knew Trump had material stored at Mar-a-Lago.  Some material had been returned.  And, apparently, there was a review of security for material Trump retained.  The FBI knew they would find documents at Mar-a-Lago before they set foot on the property.  That secret ain't a secret.

DOJ did not need the raid on Mar-a-Lago to prepare an indictment.  DOJ knew beforehand that Trump had documents stored at Mar-a-Lago.  DOJ had been negotiating for return of the material.  So, what's the hold up?  

Only FBI agents with adequate security clearance can handle and review the seized material.  And that seized material cannot be used as evidence because of its security classification.  It's not necessary to know what is in those documents.  The only requirement for an indictment is that Trump had the documents in his possession.  So, what's the hold up?

FBI search and seizure procedures are being used as an excuse to sustain a perpetual investigation.  The political motivations seem rather obvious.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.4  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.3    4 months ago
FBI search and seizure procedures are being used as an excuse to sustain a perpetual investigation.  The political motivations seem rather obvious.

They're uuuuuuuge !

Attorney General Merrick Garland spoke publicly Thursday afternoon : "Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search, and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken."

Apparently, Mr. Garland found it necessary to go outside his stated so-called standard "Practice", to seek less intrusive means,  because it was President Trump ! 

The "Show Must Go On" !

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.3    4 months ago
DOJ had been negotiating for return of the material. 

You presume the DoJ knew the exact content onsite at Mar-a-Lago.   You do not know this. 

DOJ did not need the raid on Mar-a-Lago to prepare an indictment. 

You presume to know what the DoJ needs/wants to prepare an indictment.   You have no such information.

It's not necessary to know what is in those documents. 

Sure it is.   The level of security and sensitivity of the information is a key factor in the seriousness of the offense.

FBI search and seizure procedures are being used as an excuse to sustain a perpetual investigation. 

So what are you trying to argue here, Nerm, that Trump has done no wrong?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @6.1.4    4 months ago
"FBI search and seizure procedures are being used as an excuse to sustain a perpetual investigation.   The political motivations seem rather obvious.

They're uuuuuuuge !

Attorney General Merrick Garland spoke publicly Thursday afternoon : "Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search, and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken."

Apparently, Mr. Garland found it necessary to go   outside  his stated so-called standard "Practice", to seek less intrusive means,    because it was President Trump !"

You and the majority of his supporters and enablers seem to forget that he is NOT THE president NOW.

Obvious how?

Intrusive how?

I don't expect any coherent or logical answers to the questions.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.5    4 months ago
You presume the DoJ knew the exact content onsite at Mar-a-Lago.   You do not know this. 

DOJ doesn't need to know the exact content.  The only thing DOJ needed to know is that Trump possessed documents.  And DOJ knew that Trump had documents before the FBI raid.  DOJ could not have used the content of the documents as justification for a search warrant.  The justification for the search warrant was only that Trump had documents in his possession in violation of law.

You presume to know what the DoJ needs/wants to prepare an indictment.   You have no such information.

The justification was provided in the search warrant, wasn't it?  Isn't that why the magistrate judge authorized the search warrant?  Or was the FBI raid just a fishing expedition?

Sure it is.   The level of security and sensitivity of the information is a key factor in the seriousness of the offense.

Trump possessing classified documents is sufficient, isn't it?  That only requires the security stamp on the document.  There isn't any need to know the content of the document.  There's nothing to review.

So what are you trying to argue here, Nerm, that Trump has done no wrong?  

Stop stalling and indict Trump.  There isn't any need to drag the investigations out any longer.  A jury will decide if Trump has done anything wrong.  Is that what DOJ is afraid of?

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.8  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.6    4 months ago
Apparently, Mr. Garland found it necessary to go   outside  his stated so-called standard "Practice", to seek less intrusive means,

Do show the "Why" !

You and the majority of his supporters and enablers seem to forget that he is NOT THE president NOW.

Obvious how?

Intrusive how?

[ deleted ]

256

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.7    4 months ago
DOJ doesn't need to know the exact content.

You cannot possibly know what the DoJ needs and wants to secure an indictment.   You also cannot possibly know if they knew the exact contents.   That fact would need to be established.   You are simply presuming.

The justification was provided in the search warrant, wasn't it? 

Justification for a warrant is not the same as justification for an indictment.   This you should know since it is definitional.

Trump possessing classified documents is sufficient, isn't it? 

Yes, technically, but surely you understand that the DoJ would naturally seek to ensure it has a sufficiently strong case before indicting a former PotUS.   That is, if their evidence does not support a sufficiently significant crime (and that judgment is DoJ internal ... you do not know what that is), they will not necessarily indict.   Justice is not 100% pure.

Stop stalling and indict Trump.  There isn't any need to drag the investigations out any longer. 

Again, you do not know what is going on internally in the DoJ.   Your constant complaining will make no difference so you might as well just continue to wait like everyone else.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.9    4 months ago
You cannot possibly know what the DoJ needs and wants to secure an indictment.   You also cannot possibly know if they knew the exact contents.   That fact would need to be established.   You are simply presuming.

Well, duh, that would require transparency.  DOJ has been stone walling.

Again, you do not know what is going on internally in the DoJ.   Your constant complaining will make no difference so you might as well just continue to wait like everyone else.

Well, duh, that would require transparency.  DOJ has been stone walling.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.11  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.9    4 months ago
You cannot possibly know what the DoJ needs and wants to secure an indictment.   You also cannot possibly know if they knew the exact contents.   That fact would need to be established.   You are simply presuming.

Are you just "Simply Presuming" with YOUR Responses, or do you just KNOW ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.10    4 months ago
Well, duh, ...

Exactly Nerm.    It is obvious that all you can do is presume, so stop attempting to portray your argument as fact based.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @6.1.11    4 months ago

You cannot possibly know . . . 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @6.1.8    4 months ago

[Deleted]

All you have is trolling and taunting and your meaningless memes.  

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.15  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.13    4 months ago
You cannot possibly know . . . 

Presume Much ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @6.1.8    4 months ago
Obvious how?

Intrusive how?

I don't expect any coherent or logical answers to the questions.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.17  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.12    4 months ago
It is obvious that all you can do is presume, so stop attempting to portray your argument as fact based.

Yes, technically, but surely you understand that the DoJ would naturally seek to ensure it has a sufficiently strong case before indicting a former PotUS.   That is, if their evidence does not support a sufficiently significant crime (and that judgment is DoJ internal ... you do not know what that is), they will not necessarily indict.   Justice is not 100% pure.

It's like you just argue for arguments sake !

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.18  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.16    4 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1.19  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.12    4 months ago

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif Stop digging.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @6.1.15    4 months ago

299922860_182596730844759_4643250384621413820_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=-c6AxCkwEToAX9R72CA&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-gfizbIobBzmJxMuxCzQtfe032d_vEI7h4E53KemdXLw&oe=630896B4

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1.21  Greg Jones  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @6.1.17    4 months ago

That seems to be the case.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.22  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.14    4 months ago
Why don't you just say 'I do not know' to any question

What ..... PRONOUN - asking for information specifying something:

Was ... VERB - first and third person singular past of  be .

The .... DETERMINER - denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.

Question ..... NOUN - a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information:

....... -a punctuation mark (?) indicating a question.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.23  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.14    4 months ago
All you have is trolling and taunting and your meaningless memes.  

Trolling ...... VERB - carefully and systematically search an area for something:

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.24  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.21    4 months ago
That seems to be the case.

Yep !

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.25  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.20    4 months ago

256

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6.1.26  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.12    4 months ago
Exactly Nerm.    It is obvious that all you can do is presume, so stop attempting to portray your argument as fact based.

Presumption isn't necessary.  The DOJ has already officially stated that Trump possessed classified documents.  DOJ knew Trump possessed documents and records prior to the FBI raiding Mar-a-Lago; that's why DOJ/FBI requested a search warrant.  And DOJ/FBI is claiming the seizure of material has vindicated the search warrant. 

So, what's the hold up?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.27  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.26    4 months ago
So, what's the hold up?

As I stated upfront, nobody in this forum has insider information on the DoJ/FBI thus nobody can provide an answer other than to speculate.   You pretend that you know enough of the details to determine that no indictment will ever come and this is just all more political show.   That is presumption on your part.

If an indictment comes, we will gain information.

If an indictment never comes then I will want to know why.

Until then, we wait.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @6.1.8    4 months ago

I only have two words for you now and then I chose not to address you and I really prefer you don't respond to me any longer or my comments to others

Now

FUCK OFF

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.29  bugsy  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @6.1.17    4 months ago
It's like you just argue for arguments sake !

Most of us have been saying this for months.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.30  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.28    4 months ago
then I chose not to address you

But you did.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.31  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.28    4 months ago
I only have two words for you now and then I chose not to address you and I really prefer you don't respond to me any longer or my comments to others

Now

FUCK OFF

So Cute !

Don't respond to me either Miss FUCK OFF !

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6.1.32  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  bugsy @6.1.30    4 months ago
But you did.

And Does, and Does, and Does.....and ..... DOES !

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7  charger 383    4 months ago

All of thread 6 has been locked.  It has deteriorated into insults and petty bickering

 
 
 
shona1
Junior Participates
7.1  shona1  replied to  charger 383 @7    4 months ago

Morning charger...Awww crapola... there goes my light entertainment for this morning while I was sitting here eating my egg and bacon sanga and having a cuppa...

Now what am I going to do?? Sigh...I will have to go and annoy the cat instead...

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
7.1.1  charger 383  replied to  shona1 @7.1    4 months ago

Sorry, but sounds like you are having a good breakfast

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
8  bbl-1    4 months ago

The FBI warrant confirmed?  Perhaps so, however Trump is now on the attack and his lawyers are filing motions to delay and stall for time.  

The major problem with any investigation involving Trump has the unenviable spector of disclosing information that may put certain individuals in unsafe situations or reveal information and evidence that could prove untenable for national security.

In my opinion, it may prove beneficial to lay substantial portions of the evidence obtained out to the public and deal with the ramifications as they arise with what ever means necessary.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1  Tessylo  replied to  bbl-1 @8    4 months ago

299994052_5998799243465030_8894841592937656393_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=SMQi0URUAo8AX_rrd7G&_nc_oc=AQkUEJb-tyAnCLmT4wPoL-3j8POH33nYa-iReP5Y9ISILx4q5GWmtzA5WflbDCCozfs&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-cmYCk3XYaskI7rv2o3-4Am6KcdgDK5hVnH8IYmBu1VQ&oe=630A5DDB

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
8.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Tessylo @8.1    4 months ago

Maybe Russians from Trump Tower to Mar-a-Lago?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  bbl-1 @8.1.1    3 months ago

Maybe Russians from Trump Tower to Mar-a-Lago?

According to an article I just read, you can add Saudi Arabi to the list as well.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
9  MrFrost    4 months ago
So, what's the hold up?  We're still waiting for an indictment.  Maybe Democrats need a bigger tractor.

So what's the hold up? You have been saying Hillary will be, "locked up any day now", for the last 25 years? Maybe republicans need an actual crime? 

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred
devangelical
GregTx
Dig
Save Me Jebus


20 visitors