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