Donnie Dumptruck says Mar-A-Lago's been searched by the FBI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The republicans who reflexively condemned the FBI last week are looking really bad right now.

Watch them start backtracking this week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The republicans who reflexively condemned the FBI last week are looking really bad right now.

Watch them start backtracking this week.

They will never admit it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The republicans who reflexively condemned the FBI last week are looking really bad right now.

Watch them start backtracking this week.

They will never admit it.

They’re going to have to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The republicans who reflexively condemned the FBI last week are looking really bad right now.

Watch them start backtracking this week.

They will never admit it.

They’re going to have to.

That’ll be the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The republicans who reflexively condemned the FBI last week are looking really bad right now.

Watch them start backtracking this week.

They will never admit it.

They’re going to have to.

That’ll be the day.

+1
They haven’t admitted anything. They have been proven wrong a thousand times and still they tell their lies. At this point our best hope is a mass deprogramming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The republicans who reflexively condemned the FBI last week are looking really bad right now.

Watch them start backtracking this week.

They will never admit it.

They’re going to have to.

Why? They have never lost support by doubling down on whatever insanity they supported.

[Anonymous]

A GOP strategist on CNN was saying that Garland needs to indict Trump or resign, because the extraordinary step of searching a former President's home was too great not to have good reason to indict.

I could see his point, and I do believe Garland made the same calculation, but isn't the entire point of a warrant when you have reason enough to search, but are looking for the evidence to indict? So if the evidence isn't there, well you can't go on to that step, can you?

But the point was brought home that Garland is definitely risking a LOT. He can't do otherwise. It's a tough spot to be in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A GOP strategist on CNN was saying that Garland needs to indict Trump or resign, because the extraordinary step of searching a former President's home was too great not to have good reason to indict.

I could see his point, and I do believe Garland made the same calculation, but isn't the entire point of a warrant when you have reason enough to search, but are looking for the evidence to indict? So if the evidence isn't there, well you can't go on to that step, can you?

But the point was brought home that Garland is definitely risking a LOT. He can't do otherwise. It's a tough spot to be in.

Does Garland seem like a reckless attention seeker to you? Cause he doesn't to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A GOP strategist on CNN was saying that Garland needs to indict Trump or resign, because the extraordinary step of searching a former President's home was too great not to have good reason to indict.

I could see his point, and I do believe Garland made the same calculation, but isn't the entire point of a warrant when you have reason enough to search, but are looking for the evidence to indict? So if the evidence isn't there, well you can't go on to that step, can you?

But the point was brought home that Garland is definitely risking a LOT. He can't do otherwise. It's a tough spot to be in.

Does Garland seem like a reckless attention seeker to you? Cause he doesn't to me.

PP you replied to. Right, he had to have a lot of evidence already to risk a search, but I really hope the FBI got the rest of what he needed, is what I'm saying! And that it wasn't spirited away at the last minute, if someone put 2 and 2 together (asking for security TV footage, etc).

Another thing that struck me was that there must be plenty of republicans like this guy on CNN who are conservative but are perfectly fine with (or indeed, really really want) Trump to be charged with serious crimes and be taken out of the running for 2024.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Time to fight back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A GOP strategist on CNN was saying that Garland needs to indict Trump or resign, because the extraordinary step of searching a former President's home was too great not to have good reason to indict.

I could see his point, and I do believe Garland made the same calculation, but isn't the entire point of a warrant when you have reason enough to search, but are looking for the evidence to indict? So if the evidence isn't there, well you can't go on to that step, can you?

But the point was brought home that Garland is definitely risking a LOT. He can't do otherwise. It's a tough spot to be in.

That's so dumb. So if he didn't have enough to indict -- or if he chooses to use prosecutorial discretion not to indict for a violation that is provable but led to no tangible harm to the country -- we all should have just sat on our hands and let info about nuclear weapons and CIA spies in Moscow just sit around in a resort storage room with the spare chairs and beach umbrellas until someone figured out how to get them? Pshaw.
Whether or not there's an indictment coming, I am very glad those documents are now properly secured, and hope there are no gaps in the security camera footage showing the entrance/exit to the rooms where they were stored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
A GOP strategist on CNN was saying that Garland needs to indict Trump or resign, because the extraordinary step of searching a former President's home was too great not to have good reason to indict.

I could see his point, and I do believe Garland made the same calculation, but isn't the entire point of a warrant when you have reason enough to search, but are looking for the evidence to indict? So if the evidence isn't there, well you can't go on to that step, can you?

But the point was brought home that Garland is definitely risking a LOT. He can't do otherwise. It's a tough spot to be in.

What does the GOP strategist think about the FBI Director announcing a few weeks before a Presidential election that one nominee is under investigation and the eventually admitting there was nothing there; and meanwhile the other nominee also was being investigated but the FBI Director did not reveal that? That seems much worse than okaying the execution of a grand jury search warrant supported by evidence that a disgruntled former government employee with a documented history as a petulant security threat has taken Top Secret government files.

[Anonymous]

It’s not a tough spot. Iff a citizen is illegally storing nuclear secrets at their house, you take steps to secure them regardless of what the person’s last job might have been.

[Anonymous]

They have enough to indict Trump. Garland would not have taken this step otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Putin cultivating Trump as an asset might still be paying off for Russia.

Makes you wonder about all the recent Russian murder-suicides . .