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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The core issue is still that Trump is ignorant about how anything in government works. He assumes that Presidential documents from his term are his documents, not government records. He will never understand this because he is incapable of even considering that the documents are not his.

What a toddler. "It's MINE!". Small grubby hands full of ketchup.

What's scarier than a toddler with nuclear info? Of course I'm taking things seriously.

Yes, but you can’t incarcerate a toddler. You can incarcerate a career criminal. His state of mind is relevant to what is happening right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all understand the intent was to use these documents selectively to ratf*ck anothet election, right??? Because that is 100% what will happen.

I don’t assume that Trump was holding these documents for the purpose of interfering with another election, although it’s entirely possible. He may have also planned to use them to curry favor with certain foreign leaders for his own personal dealings.

Favors like announcing investigations against his political opponent? That kinda favor? Don’t be naive. This is just another iteration of the same move he always makes.

Why do think I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt? I think Trump would have no qualms about disclosing highly confidential and sensitive information to Putin about our nuclear weapons program if it would help Trump with a development deal in Russia. I’m not at all saying he wouldn’t interfere with an election, just that my notions of what he may have intended to do with the documents isn’t limited to just election interference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rest of that story is that Biden was in this from the beginning and didn’t hear about it ‘when we did, through the media’. His administration waived Trump’s executive privilege. That will probably go to the SC. Given the history of the FBI targeting, I know how that will probably go

Source for these claims?

Idiot PP took the bait. Trumpy “journalist” John Solomon was given the OK to release the letter to get his base all riled up about Biden. But what the letter actually does reveal is hideously bad for Trump.

There is no bait to take. What I said was true. Garland said it was all him and the Biden administration claimed they had nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all understand the intent was to use these documents selectively to ratf*ck anothet election, right??? Because that is 100% what will happen.

I don’t assume that Trump was holding these documents for the purpose of interfering with another election, although it’s entirely possible. He may have also planned to use them to curry favor with certain foreign leaders for his own personal dealings.

Favors like announcing investigations against his political opponent? That kinda favor? Don’t be naive. This is just another iteration of the same move he always makes.

Why do think I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt? I think Trump would have no qualms about disclosing highly confidential and sensitive information to Putin about our nuclear weapons program if it would help Trump with a development deal in Russia. I’m not at all saying he wouldn’t interfere with an election, just that my notions of what he may have intended to do with the documents isn’t limited to just election interference.

I guess I’m just saying none of us should be surprised—another election flooded with leaked documents that no one can verify. I want to vomit. And I don’t think the press has learned much from last time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rest of that story is that Biden was in this from the beginning and didn’t hear about it ‘when we did, through the media’. His administration waived Trump’s executive privilege. That will probably go to the SC. Given the history of the FBI targeting, I know how that will probably go

Source for these claims?

Idiot PP took the bait. Trumpy “journalist” John Solomon was given the OK to release the letter to get his base all riled up about Biden. But what the letter actually does reveal is hideously bad for Trump.

There is no bait to take. What I said was true. Garland said it was all him and the Biden administration claimed they had nothing to do with it.

Garland said no such thing. You are a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rest of that story is that Biden was in this from the beginning and didn’t hear about it ‘when we did, through the media’. His administration waived Trump’s executive privilege. That will probably go to the SC. Given the history of the FBI targeting, I know how that will probably go

Source for these claims?

Idiot PP took the bait. Trumpy “journalist” John Solomon was given the OK to release the letter to get his base all riled up about Biden. But what the letter actually does reveal is hideously bad for Trump.

There is no bait to take. What I said was true. Garland said it was all him and the Biden administration claimed they had nothing to do with it.

You don’t understand what you read. Biden did not direct the FBI to do anything. They were asking a federal agency (NARA) to give them documents— NARA held off for a long time to give TFG time, eventually NARA said your claims of privilege are not yours, they are the actual president’s and he says to go FY, so we’re going to cooperate with the FBI. In a nutshell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The rest of that story is that Biden was in this from the beginning and didn’t hear about it ‘when we did, through the media’. His administration waived Trump’s executive privilege. That will probably go to the SC. Given the history of the FBI targeting, I know how that will probably go

Source for these claims?

Idiot PP took the bait. Trumpy “journalist” John Solomon was given the OK to release the letter to get his base all riled up about Biden. But what the letter actually does reveal is hideously bad for Trump.

There is no bait to take. What I said was true. Garland said it was all him and the Biden administration claimed they had nothing to do with it.

You don’t understand what you read. Biden did not direct the FBI to do anything. They were asking a federal agency (NARA) to give them documents— NARA held off for a long time to give TFG time, eventually NARA said your claims of privilege are not yours, they are the actual president’s and he says to go FY, so we’re going to cooperate with the FBI. In a nutshell.

+1 It specifically said the Biden administration left it up to NARA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's motion for relief (that for some bizarre reason was filed as a separate action rather than in the warrant proceeding) is a hilarious embarrassment:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22161730-trump-request-for-judicial-review-of-search

+1

It was filed on the civil docket as if it were a new civil case even though it complies with none of the requirements of the FRCP or local rules. Seems like the clerk’s office threw up their hands with this Frankenstein’s monster of a lolsuit filing and will let the judge Dort it out. The argument itself is tantamount to a waaaaaahmbulance with no supporting affidavits or other admissible evidentiary basis.

Since there's no summons or service, I wouldn't be surprised if the Government just ignores it and files nothing at all.

The summons won't issue until they pay the filing fee, which of course was not paid when the original filing was made. Trump stiffs everyone else, of course he tried to stiff the court too.

By d we hat authority can a clerk issue a summons wrt a filing styled as a “motion” under FRCP 4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's motion for relief (that for some bizarre reason was filed as a separate action rather than in the warrant proceeding) is a hilarious embarrassment:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22161730-trump-request-for-judicial-review-of-search

+1

It was filed on the civil docket as if it were a new civil case even though it complies with none of the requirements of the FRCP or local rules. Seems like the clerk’s office threw up their hands with this Frankenstein’s monster of a lolsuit filing and will let the judge Dort it out. The argument itself is tantamount to a waaaaaahmbulance with no supporting affidavits or other admissible evidentiary basis.

Since there's no summons or service, I wouldn't be surprised if the Government just ignores it and files nothing at all.

The summons won't issue until they pay the filing fee, which of course was not paid when the original filing was made. Trump stiffs everyone else, of course he tried to stiff the court too.

By d we hat authority can a clerk issue a summons wrt a filing styled as a “motion” under FRCP 4?

He also filed in a different district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's motion for relief (that for some bizarre reason was filed as a separate action rather than in the warrant proceeding) is a hilarious embarrassment:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22161730-trump-request-for-judicial-review-of-search

+1

It was filed on the civil docket as if it were a new civil case even though it complies with none of the requirements of the FRCP or local rules. Seems like the clerk’s office threw up their hands with this Frankenstein’s monster of a lolsuit filing and will let the judge Dort it out. The argument itself is tantamount to a waaaaaahmbulance with no supporting affidavits or other admissible evidentiary basis.

Since there's no summons or service, I wouldn't be surprised if the Government just ignores it and files nothing at all.

The summons won't issue until they pay the filing fee, which of course was not paid when the original filing was made. Trump stiffs everyone else, of course he tried to stiff the court too.

By d we hat authority can a clerk issue a summons wrt a filing styled as a “motion” under FRCP 4?

There is no summons on the docket. The US hasn't filed anything and I don't expect they will until they are properly served.

[Anonymous]

A gentle suggestion - if you do not regularly practice in the federal district courts, it may not be constructive for you to opine on what will, could or should happen with respect to procedural issues like issuance of summons or responses. There are a number of posts here that present themselves as knowledgeable but are not.

[Anonymous]

How many records did he burn to try and coverup the fact that he stole them I wonder….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many records did he burn to try and coverup the fact that he stole them I wonder….

Doubt it, that would be like burning money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many records did he burn to try and coverup the fact that he stole them I wonder….

Maybe they should get a warrant to search Mar-A-Lago’s septic system.

[Anonymous]

Trump’s lawyers’ pro hav motions were rejected for procedural defects. The clerk’s entry directs them to the sample motion on the court’s website so they can try to not screw it up again.

Pro hac applications are not that hard, people. This is just embarrassing.