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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love your forum title OP!

Such a title would never fly on DCUM if something similar were written about Biden. It would be deleted in a hot second.

DP. I don't love it. But Jeff's reasoning isn't wrong.

Jeff’s reasoning is because Trump did it, it’s fine. That’s terrible reasoning for the people who crowed about Trump’s bad precedents. Now you’re taking these so-called bad precedents and making them kosher. Kind of hilarious actually. I guess it wasn’t THAT bad after all!

Not exactly. Other politicians are not described a la Trump, only Trump himself. It may be true that no one can do it as well as Trump can, but that doesn't mean that no one should. It just means that Trump gets stuck with sub-par insulting nicknames.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MAL not have any security cameras? It seems like someone would have noticed 10 boxes worth of documents being carried inside MAL if the FBI were attempting to “plant” evidence. Am I supposed to believe that the residence of a former president, under Secretary Service protection, has such lax security that this is possible?

Good point. This is so ridiculous...

They don’t plant 10 boxes. They only need what was in their backpacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does MAL not have any security cameras? It seems like someone would have noticed 10 boxes worth of documents being carried inside MAL if the FBI were attempting to “plant” evidence. Am I supposed to believe that the residence of a former president, under Secretary Service protection, has such lax security that this is possible?

Not just security cameras, but a SS security detail and Trump’s strip mall quality legal team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MAL not have any security cameras? It seems like someone would have noticed 10 boxes worth of documents being carried inside MAL if the FBI were attempting to “plant” evidence. Am I supposed to believe that the residence of a former president, under Secretary Service protection, has such lax security that this is possible?

Good point. This is so ridiculous...

They don’t plant 10 boxes. They only need what was in their backpacks.

So the argument is that there were 10 (in addition to the previous 15) boxes of unauthorized classified documents at Mar A Lago but that FBI agents planted some documents from their backpacks?

Have you gotten too much sun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MAL not have any security cameras? It seems like someone would have noticed 10 boxes worth of documents being carried inside MAL if the FBI were attempting to “plant” evidence. Am I supposed to believe that the residence of a former president, under Secretary Service protection, has such lax security that this is possible?

Good point. This is so ridiculous...

They don’t plant 10 boxes. They only need what was in their backpacks.

So now FBI agents working with the National Security Division of DOJ to recover “code word” classified documents now wear backpacks as if Mar-a-Lago was a youth hostel. Interesting theory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love your forum title OP!

Such a title would never fly on DCUM if something similar were written about Biden. It would be deleted in a hot second.

DP. I don't love it. But Jeff's reasoning isn't wrong.

Jeff’s reasoning is because Trump did it, it’s fine. That’s terrible reasoning for the people who crowed about Trump’s bad precedents. Now you’re taking these so-called bad precedents and making them kosher. Kind of hilarious actually. I guess it wasn’t THAT bad after all!

Actually, it's Trump supporters like you who made them kosher. But it's too late to start squealing now when it's turned around and used against your idols.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does MAL not have any security cameras? It seems like someone would have noticed 10 boxes worth of documents being carried inside MAL if the FBI were attempting to “plant” evidence. Am I supposed to believe that the residence of a former president, under Secretary Service protection, has such lax security that this is possible?

Well, they did have a pattern and practice of letting Chinese spies on to the property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could the secret service have stopped the FBI agents from entering if Trump had ordered them to do so? Just curious how this works.

A search warrant is an order issued by a federal magistrate judge based on a showing of probable cause that evidence of a specified crime is likely to be found. The USSS had no discretion once the warrant was verified.

"Probable cause."
This whole thing takes me back to the FISA warrants.... sought by the FBI...... that nearly all those who signed said they wouldn't have signed off on them if they had known the truth.

Sorry, the FBI does not have a good track record in this kind of thing.

The fact that Garland has not issued a statement is concerning. This will taint our DOJ even further. And, rightly so.

Are you kidding? They had probable cause, which you are correct in realizing means that they *think* they'll find evidence but could be wrong, and in this instance they were correct because they did find 10 (additional) boxes of unauthorized classified documents.

What is the problem here? Besides Trump having all these classified documents that he shouldn't have had and refused to give back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MAL not have any security cameras? It seems like someone would have noticed 10 boxes worth of documents being carried inside MAL if the FBI were attempting to “plant” evidence. Am I supposed to believe that the residence of a former president, under Secretary Service protection, has such lax security that this is possible?

Good point. This is so ridiculous...

They don’t plant 10 boxes. They only need what was in their backpacks.

So the argument is that there were 10 (in addition to the previous 15) boxes of unauthorized classified documents at Mar A Lago but that FBI agents planted some documents from their backpacks?

Have you gotten too much sun?

What do you think were in those boxes? LOL

[Anonymous]

This is all backfiring. People who thought the FBI being weaponized was a conspiracy theory are now changing their minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s also entirely possible that now that the U.S. government has retrieved its property that will be the end of the matter and no charges will be filed.

Trump lies about everything. He’s in desperate financial straits. This is another opportunity to raise money and get himself back on the front page.

Why should Trump be above the law when it comes to handling classified material?

Pp here. He shouldn’t be. But it’s possible that the retrieval will be the end of it.

Zero chance of that. DOJ doesn’t seek a warrant under circumstances that suggest either selling access to highly classified information, if not a foreign espionage operation. The warrant was issued only a few days after the Orban visit to Mar-a-Lago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love your forum title OP!

Such a title would never fly on DCUM if something similar were written about Biden. It would be deleted in a hot second.

DP. I don't love it. But Jeff's reasoning isn't wrong.

Jeff’s reasoning is because Trump did it, it’s fine. That’s terrible reasoning for the people who crowed about Trump’s bad precedents. Now you’re taking these so-called bad precedents and making them kosher. Kind of hilarious actually. I guess it wasn’t THAT bad after all!

Your dude crimmed all over the place for decades. That's on you for voting for this criminal fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is all backfiring. People who thought the FBI being weaponized was a conspiracy theory are now changing their minds.

Because Trump is above the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does MAL not have any security cameras? It seems like someone would have noticed 10 boxes worth of documents being carried inside MAL if the FBI were attempting to “plant” evidence. Am I supposed to believe that the residence of a former president, under Secretary Service protection, has such lax security that this is possible?

Good point. This is so ridiculous...

They don’t plant 10 boxes. They only need what was in their backpacks.

So now FBI agents working with the National Security Division of DOJ to recover “code word” classified documents now wear backpacks as if Mar-a-Lago was a youth hostel. Interesting theory.

They had no backpacks on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is all backfiring. People who thought the FBI being weaponized was a conspiracy theory are now changing their minds.

Do you mean that nutters are nutting about this? And some not-nutters (or maybe they should be described as didn't-used-to-be-nutters or just pretending-to-be-nutters-right-now) are being nutty too?

I'm not sure I'd describe that as backfiring. I might use some other words instead.