Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course i expect nothing more from MAGA at this point. They are insurrectionists who want to end American democracy.

But my. God.

How can the slightly more sane of you republicans look at yourselves and say - yup - when the FBI was investigating Hillary’s email, that was correct to do and in fact we are sure she should be locked up for her ‘crimes’.

But a few years later, AFTER 4 YEARS OF A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND TRUMP APPOINTING THE HEAD OF FBI WHO CONTINUES TO THIS DAY, the FBI is now a corrupt wing of the Democratic Party?

Get ahold of yourselves

Oh, FFS. Did the FBI do a pre-dawn raid to search for those emails that Hillary wiped from her server? For that matter, did they do a pre-dawn, long guns drawn raid to even find the server?
Yes - there are still way too many agents at the FBI who are corrupt to the core. Wray has done nothing to rein in the rogue agents.
This raid was so unwarranted and will come back to bite the Dems in the butt. Mark my words.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course i expect nothing more from MAGA at this point. They are insurrectionists who want to end American democracy.

But my. God.

How can the slightly more sane of you republicans look at yourselves and say - yup - when the FBI was investigating Hillary’s email, that was correct to do and in fact we are sure she should be locked up for her ‘crimes’.

But a few years later, AFTER 4 YEARS OF A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND TRUMP APPOINTING THE HEAD OF FBI WHO CONTINUES TO THIS DAY, the FBI is now a corrupt wing of the Democratic Party?

Get ahold of yourselves

Oh, FFS. Did the FBI do a pre-dawn raid to search for those emails that Hillary wiped from her server? For that matter, did they do a pre-dawn, long guns drawn raid to even find the server?
Yes - there are still way too many agents at the FBI who are corrupt to the core. Wray has done nothing to rein in the rogue agents.
This raid was so unwarranted and will come back to bite the Dems in the butt. Mark my words.

Anonymous wrote:Of course i expect nothing more from MAGA at this point. They are insurrectionists who want to end American democracy.

But my. God.

How can the slightly more sane of you republicans look at yourselves and say - yup - when the FBI was investigating Hillary’s email, that was correct to do and in fact we are sure she should be locked up for her ‘crimes’.

But a few years later, AFTER 4 YEARS OF A TRUMP PRESIDENCY AND TRUMP APPOINTING THE HEAD OF FBI WHO CONTINUES TO THIS DAY, the FBI is now a corrupt wing of the Democratic Party?

Get ahold of yourselves

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably a mistake

Ironically, the existence of the SCIF at the president’s private club in Palm Beach was first revealed in a White House press briefing on February 14, 2017, to rebut criticism Trump himself had put sensitive discussions at risk.

Probably the scif at mara Lago. Maybe someone left docs there
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-maralago-idUSKBN15T2Y2

People do not forget and leave classified materials behind. They are controlled.

Trump did say “vault” which is literally what a SCIF is. Also if you have a SCIF, there is a SCIF manager because a SCIF is really a management system of a vault room that requires logs, cameras, and etc. You also can just store classified materials like a stack of newspapers. There’s a ton of regulations on storage.

You CANT store classified papers like newspapers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question from me, a 5 year with regards to these matters.

Why is there still so much paper these days? Is a digital trail too prone to interception? I'm just baffled how there's boxes and boxes and boxes of paper intel these days.

The intel is printed from computers inside of secure rooms. It is then organized into binders for certain readers or categories of readers who are VIPs and who generally prefer to read in their offices rather than go to the secure room to read on their computers.

At times, the VIP will request a copy of a report or set of reports to be retained by their staff in an appropriate safe or facility. That is how paper intel records get brought into these scenarios.

Same poster again- it is also worth noting that Mar A Lago has a SCIF, which is a room approved to store and discuss classified information up to Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information. This may play into why the documents were at MAL. Given the SCIF at his house, it makes a lot more sense to me that these documents were in the house while he was president and not returned, vs that he somehow exfiltrated the documents from the WH and loaded them on a plane bound for FL, AFTER he left the presidency. That is not a very plausible scenario to me.

It leads to the question of why the documents werent just cleared out after the SCIF was decommissioned. The entire thing is odd.

Thank you for the reply!

So it is impossible for people (with the appropriate clearance) to read these sensitive documents (1) anywhere not being physically the secure rooms? So the paper/binders make the documents transportable for review - in the appropriate hands and wider range of appropriate places? And thus the warrant, because the paper documents were taken into an inappropriate/not secured space?

Thank you for indulging my pea brain!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is his excuse for having these documents in the first place? Why would he need to remove "top secret" documents from the white house when his presidency ended? what was he planning on doing them?

When Obama left he did not take stacks of classified materials with him.

According to a PP, it was the GSA's fault for boxing them up and sending it his residence. It's alwasys someone else's fault.

But Fox News disagrees with the GSA conspiracy theory.

I'll repost in case the "it was the GSA's fault" poster missed it:

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/president-donald-trump-fbi-raid-mar-a-lago-house-news

That collection of articles is about as opposite your point as possible. Do you think he boxed those up himself?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm what changed?

That didn’t age well!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a scary development, and I wish more people knew history. We will set a precedent in this country of prosecuting political rivals, and the republicans will do the same thing the next time a republican president is elected. And presidents will know that they can NEVER surrender power, since they’d be prosecuted after leaving office. So that will force them to seize dictatorial powers. This is exactly what happened with Julius Caesar and is how the Roman republic ended. Prosecuting political rivals will put us on the path to a civil war, which will end with one party authoritarian rule.

+1

This is a serious question. Are you assuming there is NO probable cause? What if there is probable cause - should they not raid bc he is a former president? What scenarios are you okay and not okay with this raid? Again, serious question.

Correct. They should not prosecute this “crime” precisely because he is a former president and prospective front runner. Because everyone knows that any prosecution is not actually about enforcing the Presidential Records Act, it is instead a pure power play. And power plays are returned in kind by the other side. This is exactly how civil wars start.

So any President can commit any crime whatsoever because investigating them could cause a civil war? That’s a recipe for a banana republic.

Do you think that there, just maybe, is a spectrum of criminal violations and that, if so, that records retention rules might be on the “not so important” end of that spectrum?

Honest question, if the next GOP president decides to audit every prominent Democrat and then charge many of them with tax code violations, would you think that would be ok? Do you see how prosecuting trump could set a precedent that could lead to things like that? Honest question.

Why are you so sure this raid is solely about the Presidential Records Act? That is the reason that has leaked publically, which is convenient for the Justice Dept because that investigation was already known. However, given the dangerous precedent you describe, it’s highly unlikely that Merrick Garland’s Justice Dept would execute a search warrant/ pursue an indictment solely based on the violation of the PRA. It’s possible there were multiple crimes cited on the warrant that haven’t leaked. It’s also possible that the content of the illegally taken documents implicates Trump on more serious charges. We will not know this until indictments come out. The Justice Dept hasn’t had any leaks before taking such dramatic action. They aren’t going to leak about other investigations and tip their hats.

Perhaps the “records retention act” violation was a pretext to grab all the documents they could find, to go on a fishing expedition to find other potential crimes to charge him with.

According to reports, the Archives was concerned about the nature and subject of missing documents that were so sensitiive that they could not be itemized in the warrant. This isn't a fishing expedition, that isn't how the warrants work. Stop watching Fox.

Really now?

Yes, the reports really say that.

Wow, she has such credentials!

What are yours?

The GOP is freaking out before they have all the information. This is exactly what they do to bills. They vote everything down before reading and having all the information. Something like 23 FBI agents participated in the search. They have a duty to refuse illegal orders. I’ve known many agents and am pretty sure all of them are conservative. That tells me there is something justified in the search warrant. Wait for more information before calling for sedition as one FL state lawmaker has.

You people posted a photo of a paper in the bottom of a toilet bowl as proof. And believe it. I don't know how I can help if that doesn't even raise any questions.

That’s not was submitted to the federal magistrate who signed the search warrant.

Never said it was. I'm just surprised so many here just take things at face value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably a mistake

Ironically, the existence of the SCIF at the president’s private club in Palm Beach was first revealed in a White House press briefing on February 14, 2017, to rebut criticism Trump himself had put sensitive discussions at risk.

Probably the scif at mara Lago. Maybe someone left docs there
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-maralago-idUSKBN15T2Y2

People do not forget and leave classified materials behind. They are controlled.

Trump did say “vault” which is literally what a SCIF is. Also if you have a SCIF, there is a SCIF manager because a SCIF is really a management system of a vault room that requires logs, cameras, and etc. You also can just store classified materials like a stack of newspapers. There’s a ton of regulations on storage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably a mistake

Ironically, the existence of the SCIF at the president’s private club in Palm Beach was first revealed in a White House press briefing on February 14, 2017, to rebut criticism Trump himself had put sensitive discussions at risk.

Probably the scif at mara Lago. Maybe someone left docs there
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-maralago-idUSKBN15T2Y2

People do not forget and leave classified materials behind. They are controlled.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perry’s cell phone was just confiscated today, a day after he filed articles of impeachment against Garland.

Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania? He introduced Trump to Jeffrey Clark and is intimately involved in at least the January 6-related investigation of DOJ and probably the fake electors section of it, too. If you’re implying that he sent out a dumb tweet about the Attorney General and immediately the feds grabbed the phone of a sitting Congressman as a result without proper procedures that would have taken weeks if not months, you can show yourself out.

Not a tweet. Filed articles of impeachment against the head of the DOJ, who then turned the FBI on him. I'm sure proper procedures were followed, just like with the FISAs.

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm what changed?