Live updates: DOJ releases redacted Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  one month ago  •  27 comments

By:   Adrienne Vogt, Aditi Sangal and Elise Hammond (CNN)

Live updates: DOJ releases redacted Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit
The Justice Department has released a redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit. Follow here for the latest live news updates.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    one month ago

The DOJ says Trump hid, "The Fruits Of His Crimes".

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    one month ago

I'd love to see the video of who actually looked at those top secret and classified documents!!!!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JBB    one month ago

This gives evidence where the investigation is going! 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.1  1stwarrior  replied to  JBB @2    one month ago

384

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3  Tacos!    one month ago

It's gonna be 50 black pages.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Tacos! @3    one month ago

No doubt.

Which will be worthless.

 
 
 
GregTx
Junior Participates
3.2  GregTx  replied to  Tacos! @3    one month ago

It does have a lot of black on it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3    one month ago

A lot of black but substantially less than what you expected:

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    one month ago

Looks pretty black to me.    
Especially the potentially most substantive portions.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.2  Snuffy  replied to  Sparty On @3.3.1    one month ago

That was to be expected.  I would love to have seen the unredacted affidavit but I never expected to see that before any indictment.  In the 15 boxes of documents that NARA received in Feb, there were a large number of classified documents.  So Trump will need to answer for those.  But because so much of the pertinent information is blacked out we don't know how the FBI concluded that there was probably cause that there was more to be found, we have to take their word for it.  Because some of the FBI leadership has shown a partisan nature in their dealings, I find it difficult to allow for blind trust here.  Add to this that the warrant was very broad allowing them to take just about any document they wanted to and this continues to look like they are hunting for crimes.  It's already been confirmed that anything that is found in the documents they seized that can be used in other legal cases can be handed over.  Add to this the recent revelation from Zuckerberg about the FBI before the 2020 election and we have a federal agency that has a lot of self-cleanup to perform in order to regain the level of trust they once had.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.2    one month ago

"But because so much of the pertinent information is blacked out we don't know how the FBI concluded that there was probably cause that there was more to be found, we have to take their word for it.  Because some of the FBI leadership has shown a partisan nature in their dealings, I find it difficult to allow for blind trust here.  Add to this that the warrant was very broad allowing them to take just about any document they wanted to and this continues to look like they are hunting for crimes.  It's already been confirmed that anything that is found in the documents they seized that can be used in other legal cases can be handed over.  Add to this the recent revelation from Zuckerberg about the FBI before the 2020 election and we have a federal agency that has a lot of self-cleanup to perform in order to regain the level of trust they once had."

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.3.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.2    one month ago
Because some of the FBI leadership has shown a partisan nature in their dealings, I find it difficult to allow for blind trust here.

Just because they refused to lick dirty Donald's shoes doesn't mean they have shown a "partisan nature". The sycophants continued deflection and defense of the Mango Mussolini is weaker than a spineless invertebrate.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.3.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.4    one month ago
The sycophants continued deflection and defense of the Mango Mussolini is weaker than a spineless invertebrate.

Do you know anymore about Mussolini than you know about invertebrates? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.6  Snuffy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.4    one month ago

Fuck Off

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
3.3.7  Snuffy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.3.5    one month ago

Probably not but he does have the party line down.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
4  Greg Jones    one month ago

So....three weeks out and still no perp walk for 45?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
5  Hallux    one month ago

A whole weekend to wash, rinse and spin at the very least twice as many squirrels as previously proffered by Donald's apologists!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1  Ronin2  replied to  Hallux @5    one month ago

TDS driven idiots expect everyone to believe the highly partisan AG and DOJ based off of this? 

Talk to us when charges are brought against Trump, there is a trial, and evidence for both sides is revealed.

Then there might be some credibility. But given the whole Russian collusion debacle; two impeachments; and the Jan 6th committee- expecting this to be nothing more than airing dirty laundry in an effort to tarnish Trump and Republicans before midterms. If a trial comes it will be a 3rd world kangaroo court circus. 

Until then fuck Garland, the DOJ, and the upper echelon of the FBI that has allowed the agency to be turned into a tool for the Democrats.

Midterms are coming. Hopefully Democrats will suffer the election losses they deserve for what they are doing to this country.

 

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
5.1.1  Hallux  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1    one month ago
Midterms are coming.

True enough, but if you think women will vote R over a rise in the price of a carton of milk and ignore losing control of their bodies you may have a rude awakening come November.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
5.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Hallux @5.1.1    one month ago

You don't seem to understand women very well, and now you collectively insult them by implying they all think alike.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
5.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.2    one month ago
You don't seem to understand women very well

Perhaps not, but then I have not received many complaints from them. What I do understand is the fact that women are registering to vote at twice the rate that men are.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
5.2  Hallux  replied to  Hallux @5    one month ago

jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png That didn't take long.jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6  Tacos!    one month ago

Thanks to TiG for linking me to the doc itself.

Seems like it's not a small (like 1 or 2) amount of documents, and Trump or his people will have to answer as to each one of them. From the affadavit,

184 unique docmnents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documents marked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET.

Mind you, that's before the big raid. This is just part of establishing probable cause. So it started with 184 and I'm sure it's safe to assume the FBI found more.

Now this is a little bit interesting:

Of most significant concern was that highly classified records were unfoldered, intermixed with other records, and otherwise unproperly [sic] identified."

So, for at least some of these records, Trump or his people may not have known they possessed classified records. On the other hand, there is this:

NARA has identified items marked as classified national security information within the boxes."

So for some of these records, if they were actually marked before NARA found them, then Trump and his gang should have reasonably known they had classified material.

Regardless, it looks like this will be his defense:

A President Has Absolute Authority To Declassify Documents.

and

Presidential Actions Involving Classified Documents Are Not Subject To Criminal Sanction.

So basically, nothing retrieved from Mar-a-lago was classified because Trump sez so. That may actually fly, but I would hope there is some procedure associated with declassification - like the president is supposed to actually tell somebody and the telling should be specific. I really hope the president can't just say "everything in that room that was classified is now not classified."

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Dulay  replied to  JBB @6.1    one month ago

Here is an interesting document that I came across when researching Trump declassifying documents:

Trump-Declassify-2020-10-20.pdf (documentcloud.org)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @6    one month ago
That may actually fly, but I would hope there is some procedure associated with declassification - like the president is supposed to actually tell somebody and the telling should be specific.

There is a quite substantial process and rules for declassification including, of course, the official recording of the declassification: 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7  seeder  JBB    one month ago

original

 
 

Who is online










26 visitors