Donnie Dumptruck says Mar-A-Lago's been searched by the FBI
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
But you know how right wing commentators will interpret this: Trump took empty folders as "mementos" of his time in the White House. He never had the sensitive info in the first place. Never mind he did have some folders that were NOT empty, but I can just see that minor detail being completely overlooked. |
Anonymous
What do you think, Einstein? |
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Her certification is qualified to the extent it recites that the certification is narrowly based on information provided to her. She does not state that she conducted the search or that she has any personal knowledge. |
Anonymous
|
Maybe it's "Let's get all this piddly missing-top-secret-documents stuff out there now, so when the REALLY bad s%$t comes out, everyone will be sick of hearing about it all." |
Anonymous
|
Start with the assumption that all of this would have become public eventually. DOJ is committed to an indictment based on the 15 boxes returned to NARA in January alone. The indictment would have laid all of this out, although in less granular detail. Once an indictment is issued, and Trump arraigned, he is in a different posture. So it’s better to get this out in the open now, rally his supporters and try to limit damage. Also, it’s helpful to his defense to know exactly what materials were siezed and who could be a cooperating witness. I don’t for a second believe his lawyers think they will prevail on a claim of “executive ptivilege” but with Trump its always about the public narrative. |
Anonymous
Yes, but she is now faced with an unenviable choice: spill the dirt on exactly what she was told, who told her, when, etc. or go down for a false statement to the FBI. I also think she may be held to a due diligence standard for verifying what she was told was true. |
Anonymous
You are correct, her statement is prefaced by “based on information that was provided to me”. Which means that Christina Bobb - at the very least - is a fact witness in the obstruction investigation. But based on her previous work for Trump planning the January 6 insurrection (look up her work as a Trump campaign volunteer in the Willard Hotel war room/command center) I think she’s more than merely a witness in this NARA/Espionage Act/Obstruction investigation. Christina Bobb is likely a suspect and maybe, just maybe, an informant. |
Anonymous
Pretty much this. Diffusing the impact and rallying the troops. Not sure it’s going to work, but he will do plenty of damage. |
Anonymous
The traitors are rallying alright. Go look at the Biden speech thread. They’re apoplectic. |
Anonymous
Our poor progeny is going to be quizzed on this *^##! |
Anonymous
Classic demagoguery. There always has to be an evil enemy. Hillary. Obama. Biden. The FBI. Antifa. Fauci. BLM. Teachers. Vaccines. Drag queens. Hospitals for children. Trans athletes. Windmills. Anyone or anything other than Putin. |
Anonymous
That’s a tough false statements charge to prove under 1001. She eventually will be asked to testify about the extent of her personal knowledge about the location and handling of documents. The exposure on a charge of obstruction is more open-ended. There’s no way she flips. She’ll plead the Fifth and roll the dice on being indicted. Bear in mind that there are no DC AUSAs on the DOJ papers filed in Florida. Just the head of NSD. This is in itself fairly unusual, and taken together with the representation that the investigation is at its “very beginning,” suggests we have a long way to go. |