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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The only part of the affidavit that is relevant to the fbi search is the statements related to why the fbi couldn’t get the documents via other means. So it should contain numbered paragraphs of the dates and times when the DOJ connected with Trump lawyers (or attempted to) and tried again and again and couldn’t reach agreement.  That type of back and forth is what people are wanting to see.  If doj did that and couldn’t get the documents, the I think a lot of people would say “well trump deserved it.”  But no.  FBI doesn’t have the benefit of the doubt with trump after the Russian collusion issue or frankly after it treated Hillary Clinton.  So here, showing that kind of detail in the affidavit would support garland’s statement that they couldn’t get the information by any other means.  And it would show that trump teams statements that after the initial interactions in early June they heard nothing else until the search last week.  Revealing that back and forth doesn’t reveal detail about exactly what they are investigating  or any secrets sources and methods.  But it would answer the questions we don’t know.  Did trump refuse to cooperate thus prompting the raid or did DOJ jump the gun.  [/quote]

Weird, I thought the FBI thoroughly investigated Hilary about Benghazi! And emails.
Russian collusion, I thought a bunch of people connected to Trump went to jail?  And just because they couldn’t pin it on Trump didn’t Mueller say “I’m not exonerating him either.”?[/quote]

You’ve managed to avoid the entire point of what I am saying.  The affidavit could be redacted of sensitive information but also leave behind information that would support or refute Garland’s statement that the DOJ couldn’t get the documents any other way.  [/quote]

Why should Trump be accommodated anymore than he has already been? His lawyers signed an affidavit saying that they don't have any more documents, when they actually did. Why should the DOJ beg and plead and negotiate any more than they already have, when the man is clearly in possession of material he should not have? [/quote]

I view it this way.  If it was super sensitive and he shouldn’t have had it, if he said no to producing it even one time, then get the warrant and go.  If it was super sensitive then I would have expected that to have happened quickly— first couple weeks of June start to finish.  But that didn’t happen.  So I am left to wonder whether 1) it was really sensitive (or just bearing legacy markings), or 2) whether DOJ dragged its feet out of a lack of focus or lack of direction or lack of urgency.  The Washington Post has talked about how Garland took weeks to decide whether the warrant should be executed.  Why?  If it was so clearly sensitive and so clear that Team Trump would not cooperate, then why all the deliberations.  For me, the behavior of DOJ and Garlands telegraphs that the documents were NOT so super sensitive.  [/quote]

Dude. There is no such thing as “legacy markings”.

I know what you want to know—you want to know when and who tipped the FBI off.  Well guess what? You’ll find out, at trial. Which is where this will go if I’m reading the room correctly.

[/quote]

Actually there are legacy markings.  A document that was once classified can be declassified and often, paper versions with the prior mark are still around.  So for example, if a presidential trip to Iraq is being planned that is classified, once it happens and the events are all known and in the past, some elements if they trip are no longer “classified” because the need to secure is past and someone somewhere has declassified them.  A less exciting version is found frequently in federal procurement.  Things can be considered Procurement Sensitive at one stage in an acquisition but later not anymore.  But people don’t go back and re-mark every document.  
Seems to me you are the dense and disconnected people who live in a fantasy world where once a document is declassified all the files (paper and electronic) magically change.  Well that is Harry Potters world.   And no, I don’t give a crap if someone called the FBI.  If Trump had stuff he should not have had, and wouldn’t give it back, then game on.  If this was just an overreaction by Garland, he will go done in history as the guy who opened the door to one party using the DOJ to silence and ruin the lives of political rivals.  If trump deserves this, then fine. But if this isn’t deserved then it is the Biden justice department using its power to silence THE NUMBER ONE rival of Biden. That is what this is if Garland jumped the gun. [/quote]

The inventory included  highly classified documents. There is really no getting around that. They should not have been there. This is pretty open and shut. Doubt very much they would have gone forward with the search otherwise.  Your concerns are noted though, concern troll. [/quote]

I don’t think you are very smart.  If the documents were so obviously sensitive why didn’t they take them in June.  That is the question.  It’s like “oooh Trump has the nuclear codes!! OMG!  Let’s hustle back TWO MONTHS LATER!!!”  [/quote]

You know we’ve answered you a few times.  They didn’t know about them, then. In fact, Trump’s lawyers lied about their existence! Obstructed Justice, if you will.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics