Biden's FBI Raids Mar-A-Lago

[Cinga]

4 hours ago, Ann said:

Former Gorsuch Law Clerk:

(this is a very long thread)




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and there is more on the thread


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So in all of that Davis is pretty much saying the same thing I have about POTUS and classified documents, he/she is not subject to the rules and procedures required of everyone else.

[Ann]

6 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

So in all of that Davis is pretty much saying the same thing I have about POTUS and classified documents, he/she is not subject to the rules and procedures required of everyone else.

Making what they did even more ridiculous and unlawful.

[Hedge]

Here’s a surprise!

 

 

[Koko]

On 8/12/2022 at 4:00 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

There is a reason why the DOJ was so willing to turn over the warrant. Warrants never say anything.

 

It's the warrant application that has the information.

[SackMan518]

Again it's standards being held strictly to Conservatives while they look the other way for Democrats. Anyone with more than a dozen brain cells can see what a farce this justice system is and the rest who can't are totally lost and completely demoralized as Yuri Bezmenov would say.

 

[SackMan518]

The search warrant cited three federal statutes as the basis for the search: 18 USC § 793, 1519, and 2017.

18 USC § 793 is titled “Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,” and provides for fines and imprisonment up to ten years. It prohibits “communicating, transmitting, or delivering to any person not entitled to receive ‘any document, writing, … or note relating to the national defense,’ or attempting to do so.”

 

Coincidentally, § 793, also called the “Espionage Act,” is the same statute Hillary Clinton violated, but was never charged. On July 5th, 2016, then FBI Director James Comey terminated the FBI’s investigation of Hilary Clinton’s abuse of classified defense documents on her secret illegal home email server, and said, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

 

Seems totally fair.

 

18 USC § 1519 is titled “Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy,” and provides for fines and imprisonment up to twenty years. It criminalizes the removal of “any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office. . .”

 

18 USC § 2071 is titled “Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally.” It provides for three years imprisonment and — significantly — a bar on holding any public office: a violator “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” The statute prohibits destruction of “any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.”

 

Destruction is quite a stretch here, since the documents are now in boxes held by the FBI someplace, but you can see how some folks are salivating over the potential ban on holding office. Most constitutional scholars think that ban is unenforceable against a presidential run, because the Constitution describes the qualifications for office and those can’t be changed without a Constitutional amendment.

 

So, among these scraps and details we can start to see the outlines of Merrick Garland’s plan. Absent Trump engaging in some kind of spying arrangement or involving foreign actors or something, these document violations are all just process crimes, or what we call “gotcha charges.” All three statutes could apply to any commonplace act of any President retaining documents after he leaves office even without any further criminal intent or act.

 

The FBI will be fly-specking those banker’s boxes of Trump documents to see if they can find one single document that trigger criminal liability under one of those statutes, and Trump won’t get the benefit of the Hilary treatment. They’ll push the charges against Trump.

 

But does it hold water?

 

🔎 Hardly. First, it is unclear how the relative handful of documents Trump retained from his Presidency are any different from the documents that ALL Presidents keep. For example, Barack Obama kept THIRTY THREE MILLION documents for his “presidential library.”

 

It’s true that just because Obama also did something doesn’t make it right for Trump to break the law, if that’s what happened. But it sure raises some serious questions about selective enforcement.

 

Next, what about the argument that Republicans were all-in for Hilary to be charged and locked up for her email server, but now want to cry that it’s unfair to prosecute Trump for removing classified documents? The simple answer is there’s a vast difference between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump — Trump was President at the time; Hilary only wished she was president at the time.

 

Why is that different? First, there’s an ocean of difference between their conduct. Hilary used an illegal and unsecure server that exposed classified information to our enemies, with the criminal intent of defeating FOIA laws. Trump did what every single President in living memory always does, retained a few important documents relating to his presidency.

 

But that’s not all. Even if you can allege that Trump deliberately took highly classified documents, he still had every right to do it under the law. As President, Trump had unilateral power to declassify anything he wanted. While over the years the Legislature has tried to limit WHAT presidents can declassify and has tried to say HOW they have to do it, the Constitution doesn’t give the Legislative Branch those powers over the Executive.

Edited August 14, 2022 by SackMan518

[Hedge]

This originated from Paul Sperry’s GETTR account:

 

 

 

[Hedge]

Trump Truths

 

 

 

 

[Hedge]

Devin and Kash are always worth listening to:

 

 

[Ann]

Of course

 

 

 

 

[devnull]

Think back to January 6th of this year (2022).  Biden, Harris, Pelosi, et all gave speeches.  It was a somber day.  An anniversary of a day we should never forget.

 

Corporate Media played along

 

Fast forward to August 2022.  FBI raids Mara Logo.  Pay no attention to the anniversary of a day they want us to forget

 

Corporate Media plays along

 

 

[Cinga]

On 8/13/2022 at 5:03 PM, Koko said:

 

There is a reason why the DOJ was so willing to turn over the warrant. Warrants never say anything.

 

It's the warrant application that has the information.

 

First attempt by media to unseal will probably be denied based on the claim it may affect another unrelated case

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

"Could have included."  

 

Jesus, these &#%$ing people.

[Hedge]

 

 

 

Speculation:

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

18 minutes ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

Speculation:

 

 

Basham is a bit nutty - so huge grain of salt required. But it also fits with the filing, the passport seizing, and the general sense of impending doom facing the current administration. 
 

Taking him out, with force or law fare, sparks sectarian violence this country hasn’t seen.  
 

Which is what they want IMO. 
 

* And if it happens, they’ll livestream and broadcast the arrest. 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Deranged Rhino

[devnull]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

It's not unheard of for Law Enforcement to confiscate passports of somebody deemed a flight risk.  And a Billionaire with a private jet could be considered a flight risk.

 

Plus it gives the DNC and Corporate Media (but I repeat myself) a Narrative that taking Trump's passport would stop him from fleeing to RussiaRussiaRiussia