Jump to content

Rogue Agency: FBI & DOJ Corruption: Regime Gestapo/FBI Raids 45th POTUS Private Residence


Recommended Posts

Kevin McCarthy Pledges to Investigate Garland After Mar-a-Lago FBI Search

In response to the Department of Justice (DOJ) sending FBI investigators to former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate this week, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) vowed to open an inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland if Republicans win control of the House of Representatives in this year’s midterm races.

 

“When Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department,” McCarthy said.

The highest-ranking Republican in the House also issued a warning for Garland. “Preserve your documents and clear your calendar,” he said.

 

https://truthout.org/articles/kevin-mccarthy-pledges-to-investigate-garland-after-mar-a-lago-fbi-search/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This tweet sounds about right.

 

So I'll preemptively say this. If the DOJ/FBI releases the warrant first, then I'll inspect it with a very jaundiced eye.

 

If it's first revealed through a leak to the NYT or the like then my default position is to believe absolutely none of it.

 

And the longer this takes to see it, the more likely a leaking spin story is being fabricated behind the scenes.

 

Get out the narrative and it becomes the truth.

 

It's the bed you've made leftists.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breaking news just released: 

Personal note from President Trump on the top of the stack inside one of the boxes.

 

”Tell the guy dressed like a water buffalo that we’ll never give up, never surrender.”

The Big Guy

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

That's the thing - the cult thinks we idolize Biden like they do Trump.

 

And we don't.

 

NO BODY Is above the LAW - except for Donald J Trump

 

 

Joe Biden was my least favorite choice to win the Democratic primary. Unfortunately, the primary process seems to prioritize the opinions in people in states that Democrats are less likely to win, meaning that Democrats get dragged to the center while Republicans have become a lunatic fringe.

 

If tomorrow, the Justice Department announced that Hunter Biden was facing charges and Biden decided to not run in 2024 I would cheer because it would mean someone more competent on the ticket.

 

So say what you want about him. Go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Joe Biden was my least favorite choice to win the Democratic primary. Unfortunately, the primary process seems to prioritize the opinions in people in states that Democrats are less likely to win, meaning that Democrats get dragged to the center while Republicans have become a lunatic fringe.

 

If tomorrow, the Justice Department announced that Hunter Biden was facing charges and Biden decided to not run in 2024 I would cheer because it would mean someone more competent on the ticket.

 

So say what you want about him. Go for it.

So who was your most favorite Democrat running in the primary? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

Joe Biden was my least favorite choice to win the Democratic primary. Unfortunately, the primary process seems to prioritize the opinions in people in states that Democrats are less likely to win, meaning that Democrats get dragged to the center while Republicans have become a lunatic fringe.

 

If tomorrow, the Justice Department announced that Hunter Biden was facing charges and Biden decided to not run in 2024 I would cheer because it would mean someone more competent on the ticket.

 

So say what you want about him. Go for it.

 

Exactly.

 

If Joe Biden broke the law - arrest/indict him.

 

If Hunter broke the law - arrest/indict him.

 

Those are things the cult will never say about their master.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

But that's not the case at all, and the actions of administrations past have not resulted in the swat team swarming the premises. 

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-is-the-obama-administration-trying-to-keep-11000-documents-sealed-67555/

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/obama-administration-sets-new-record-withholding-foia-requests

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2022/02/20/bush-obama-trump-all-use-presidential-record-act-hide-history/6803334001/?gnt-cfr=1

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-us-govt-sets-record-for-failures-to-find-files-when-asked-2016-3

 

 

Your standard is admirable, but naive.  It doesn't occur.  It hasn't occurred.  It won't occur with Biden.  Hillary Clinton--she of completely reckless behavior and self-inflicted wounds, is now positioned as the heroine of the story.

 

The only difference here is folks who screamed loudly about an authoritarian government are perfectly comfortable with authoritarian activity under the right circumstances.  To be fair, of course, it's possible that Trump was 'guilty' of everything he's been accused of over the past 5 years, though completely improbable that he could be guilty of it all.  Billy Joel could rewrite his song "We Didn't Start the Fire" just focusing on allegations made over the past 5 years, most of which ended with nothing. 

 

So, after 5 straight years of "Wow, He's Russian", "Wow, He's a Ukrainamaniac", "Wow, Michael Avenatti, trust him!", "Wow, Stormy Daniels!", "Wow, he's beaten the IRS and they don't know it!", "Wow, his calls for peaceful protest really meant storm the Capitol!", and now...."Wow, suddenly, Presidential records issues result in the need for an armed force to search his home just before the mid-terms!".

 

Consider that you're being played for a chump, because there is a high probability that you are. 

Ok, gonna take this point by point.

 

1. Rolling Stone article on Obama keeping documents classified

The Obama administration invoked executive privilege over 11,000 documents. We can debate whether or not they should have, but Obama did not physically take the documents to his home. He simply invoked privilege to keep them from being made public. The government retained custody of the documents the entire time.

 

This is obviously different than a former president absconding with classified documents to their home.

 

2. PBS article on Obama administration withholding FOIA requests

The Obama administration set a record for censoring government documents or denying access to them under FOIA. Once again, the government retained custody of these documents and they were not taking to Obama's house. It's a bad look for Obama but has absolutely no relevance to the Mar a Lago search.

 

3. USA Today Piece on the Presidential Records Act

This is an opinion piece that is behind a paywall so I can't read all of it, but it appears to be arguing that Presidents should waive certain privileges. Seems like a good idea, but I don't see how it has anything to do with former presidents taking classified documents into their homes.

 

4. Business Insider piece on Obama administration and FOIA

This is another article outlining how the Obama administration was not transparent with FOIA. Once again, this has nothing to do with someone taking classified documents.

 

None of these articles had anything to do with people taking classified documents out of government custody.

 

5. Hillary Clinton's emails

Clinton used a private email server in her house that contained classified info contrary to policy. The State Department IG investigated this and referred it to the FBI. During the course of the investigation, Clinton handed over the server itself, as well as a thumb drive with emails.

 

None of this investigation involved physical documents, it was only about emails, therefore, the only physical evidence would have been the server itself, which the FBI took into possession from Clinton. Had she not turned it over, they may have executed a search warrant, but because she did, there would be no expectation that there would be any physical evidence at her home.

 

6. Trump is a Russian?

While the Trump campaign worked closely with Russian agents during the 2016 election, there was no explicit agreement with the Russian government, and therefore there was no basis to charge him with conspiracy. To say the investigation was fake, however, requires blinding oneself to the evidence. Trump's campaign was clearly working with Russians and therefore should have been investigated.

 

However, the ideas like the 2016 election was stolen, or that Trump was taking orders from Putin are nonsense and have no basis in reality.

 

7. Ukraine

Trump asked for a quid pro quo to his personal benefit in order to deliver aid to a foreign country. That is... bad.

 

8. Michael Avenatti

Avenatti is in jail because he's a fraud. The whole Resistance love affair with him was incredibly cringey

 

9. Stormy Daniels

Trump's lawyer went to jail for facilitating hush payments to Daniels. I don't know what the controversy is here.

 

10. The IRS

I don't know what this is in reference to

 

11. Jan 6

There is more to the potential crimes on Jan 6 than the riot. Trump took actions he was told were illegal in order to try to overturn the election

 

12. Presidential Records

Trump, as a private citizen, possessed classified government documents in his home. He refused to return them for months. When the government did get them, they apparently believed that not everything was returned. They obtained a search warrant and went to Mar a Lago in plainclothes and were escorted about the premise by the Secret Service. The search was apparently so low key that people at the building didn't realize what was going on for some time during the search.

 

The bottom line here is: should private citizens be able to keep classified government documents without permission or clearance?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

This tweet sounds about right.

 

So I'll preemptively say this. If the DOJ/FBI releases the warrant first, then I'll inspect it with a very jaundiced eye.

 

If it's first revealed through a leak to the NYT or the like then my default position is to believe absolutely none of it.

 

And the longer this takes to see it, the more likely a leaking spin story is being fabricated behind the scenes.

 

Get out the narrative and it becomes the truth.

 

It's the bed you've made leftists.

 

 

 

Why doesn't Trump release it then?  Then you can "trust" that it's coming from a reliable source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

Why doesn't Trump release it then?  Then you can "trust" that it's coming from a reliable source.

 

That would be fantastic if only Trump and his lawyers actually had all the documents in their possession.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/search-warrant-very-thin-trump-lawyer-claims

 

Christina Bobb was one of the three attorneys for Trump who reportedly arrived on the scene Monday after FBI agents began to search the property. Bobb said after a brief back-and-forth with the agents that she managed to see the search warrant but was not allowed to see the affidavit that contains more details on why the search was permitted. Since the raid, which Trump himself revealed in a statement claiming he was the target of a political operation, there have been calls for him to release the warrant.

 

"It was very, I would say, thin, and as you can tell, it went from public records. The affidavit, the supporting documentation of what the probable cause was to obtain the warrant, has been sealed, so we're not allowed to see that. We have to go to court to request the judge to release that, which may or may not happen," she said in an interview Tuesday on Real America's Voice. "So, we don't know what the probable cause is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Ok, gonna take this point by point.

 

1. Rolling Stone article on Obama keeping documents classified

The Obama administration invoked executive privilege over 11,000 documents. We can debate whether or not they should have, but Obama did not physically take the documents to his home. He simply invoked privilege to keep them from being made public. The government retained custody of the documents the entire time.

 

This is obviously different than a former president absconding with classified documents to their home.

 

2. PBS article on Obama administration withholding FOIA requests

The Obama administration set a record for censoring government documents or denying access to them under FOIA. Once again, the government retained custody of these documents and they were not taking to Obama's house. It's a bad look for Obama but has absolutely no relevance to the Mar a Lago search.

 

3. USA Today Piece on the Presidential Records Act

This is an opinion piece that is behind a paywall so I can't read all of it, but it appears to be arguing that Presidents should waive certain privileges. Seems like a good idea, but I don't see how it has anything to do with former presidents taking classified documents into their homes.

 

4. Business Insider piece on Obama administration and FOIA

This is another article outlining how the Obama administration was not transparent with FOIA. Once again, this has nothing to do with someone taking classified documents.

 

None of these articles had anything to do with people taking classified documents out of government custody.

 

5. Hillary Clinton's emails

Clinton used a private email server in her house that contained classified info contrary to policy. The State Department IG investigated this and referred it to the FBI. During the course of the investigation, Clinton handed over the server itself, as well as a thumb drive with emails.

 

None of this investigation involved physical documents, it was only about emails, therefore, the only physical evidence would have been the server itself, which the FBI took into possession from Clinton. Had she not turned it over, they may have executed a search warrant, but because she did, there would be no expectation that there would be any physical evidence at her home.

 

6. Trump is a Russian?

While the Trump campaign worked closely with Russian agents during the 2016 election, there was no explicit agreement with the Russian government, and therefore there was no basis to charge him with conspiracy. To say the investigation was fake, however, requires blinding oneself to the evidence. Trump's campaign was clearly working with Russians and therefore should have been investigated.

 

However, the ideas like the 2016 election was stolen, or that Trump was taking orders from Putin are nonsense and have no basis in reality.

 

7. Ukraine

Trump asked for a quid pro quo to his personal benefit in order to deliver aid to a foreign country. That is... bad.

 

8. Michael Avenatti

Avenatti is in jail because he's a fraud. The whole Resistance love affair with him was incredibly cringey

 

9. Stormy Daniels

Trump's lawyer went to jail for facilitating hush payments to Daniels. I don't know what the controversy is here.

 

10. The IRS

I don't know what this is in reference to

 

11. Jan 6

There is more to the potential crimes on Jan 6 than the riot. Trump took actions he was told were illegal in order to try to overturn the election

 

12. Presidential Records

Trump, as a private citizen, possessed classified government documents in his home. He refused to return them for months. When the government did get them, they apparently believed that not everything was returned. They obtained a search warrant and went to Mar a Lago in plainclothes and were escorted about the premise by the Secret Service. The search was apparently so low key that people at the building didn't realize what was going on for some time during the search.

 

The bottom line here is: should private citizens be able to keep classified government documents without permission or clearance?

 

Here's the simple reality imo.  Many things said or done when viewed from the eyes of the political opposition can be spun, manipulated, or considered unethical.  Allegations of wrongdoing, integrity concerns etc are common place.  With our complex laws, rules and customs, I'd think an allegation of wrongdoing is just an aggressive prosecutorial mindset away. 

 

You mentioned Biden in Ukraine earlier.  He boasted about directly inserting himself into the political process of an ally,  threatened to withhold taxpayer funds earmarked for said country, in a situation where he clearly had a significant conflict of interest.  In his video clip, he sounded much more like Paulie Walnuts from The Soprano's than the VP of the US.  Your commentary that implies everyone thought it was for the greater good changes nothing about his actions.  You commentary that his actions may actually have been to his son's detriment are silly, especially in light of the disinformation that followed with his son's business dealings and laptop story.  

 

On the other hand, to the victor go the spoils. We couldn't get a simple story on HB and his questionable dealings with his father past the disinformation strategists in Washington, the notion that the Obama admin just had to insert themselves in Ukrainian politics was child's play. On top of that,  it would be naive to think that Biden's actions--from strong arming to flexing muscle to protecting his people--don't happen on a regular basis in Washington.  As they say, politics make strange bedfellows and traditional establishment Republicans are one video clip away from being exposed. 

 

There is a difference here, on that we agree.  You'll continue to trip over yourself to suggest things are different, and they are.  I'll continue to point out the obvious flaws in your thinking--but the reality is simply that there is ample evidence that Trump is a victim of political persecution, it's become a mainstream talking point---from folks like former AG Barr, major political players on the R side, folks like Alan Derschowitz, and even recently former Dem future Pres Candidate Andrew Cuomo.  

 

I'lll go back to the words of one of the most powerful men in the world, and his very ominous yet truthful comment about the system in play.  

 

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ALF said:

Kevin McCarthy Pledges to Investigate Garland After Mar-a-Lago FBI Search

In response to the Department of Justice (DOJ) sending FBI investigators to former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate this week, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) vowed to open an inquiry into Attorney General Merrick Garland if Republicans win control of the House of Representatives in this year’s midterm races.

 

“When Republicans take back the House, we will conduct immediate oversight of this department,” McCarthy said.

The highest-ranking Republican in the House also issued a warning for Garland. “Preserve your documents and clear your calendar,” he said.

 

https://truthout.org/articles/kevin-mccarthy-pledges-to-investigate-garland-after-mar-a-lago-fbi-search/

While I'm not at all comfortable with the notion the Rs take back the house, in the political world, the appropriate tactical response would be to go scorched earth against Garland.  Review professional and personal life, look for vulnerabilities that can be exploited, leak information to the appropriate sources, etc.   It would be a hoot to see his home raided.   It won't happen, but it would be cool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Nineforty said:

Donald J Trump, traitor to America, is on his way to Justice. time is ticking.

 

Just like the 48 other times, eh?  Good luck (again and again and again).

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Here’s what jurors would be asked to decide:

 

Did the defendant, without authorization, have possession of, access to, or control over a document that was National Defense Information?

 

Yes. The Archives spent a year telling him he was not authorized to have it under the Presidential Records Act.

 

Did the document in question relate to the national defense?

 

We don’t know what the documents in question are, but given WaPo’s description in February, then absolutely.

 

Bonus fact: The jury decides if something was NDI, not the former Original Classification Authority (the fancy term for, “the President gets to decide whether something is classified or not”). So if the agency whose document Trump stole is still trying to protect it from hostile powers, if that agency still believes it is classified, if it remains secret, then a jury is likely to find that it’s NDI.

 

Did the defendant have reason to believe the information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation?

 

Trump is such a psychopath that the answer to this might normally be in question. After all, he routinely treated top secret intelligence like it was toilet paper or party favors for visiting Russians.

Except DOJ went to Trump’s residence in June and told him this information could harm the US. Then they wrote him a letter, saying that it could harm the US and could he please put a padlock on the basement room that had, up until that point, been accessible to all the suspected foreign assets who’ve paid the price of admission to Mar-a-Lago.

 

Did the defendant retain the above material and fail to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it?

 

Yes! The Archives asked and asked and asked. And then DOJ went to his home and asked again!

 

Did he keep this document willfully?

 

Yup. Again, DOJ asked and asked and asked. Trump exhibited awareness the Archives were asking. He stopped in to say “hi!” when Jay Bratt, the head of DOJ’s espionage section, came to visit. And he still hoarded the document.

This may be why Trump claims that nothing was in the hotel safe in his bridal suite, by the way. Keeping these documents at Mar-a-Lago was willful by itself. But keeping such documents in his safe would be proof that he, personally, was hoarding it.

If the FBI really did scoop up highly sensitive documents when they were at Mar-a-Lago the other day, then there may be relatively few steps left to charging him — aside from cataloging the 12 new boxes of stolen documents. DOJ may only need permission from the agencies that own these documents to make the declassifications required to prosecute it.

By going to Mar-a-Lago and asking for these documents in person on June 3, DOJ made it very easy to prove that Trump had been asked, but refused, to give any classified documents found in Trump’s possession on Monday back.

 

18 USC 793E

 

https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/08/10/dojs-june-mar-a-lago-trip-helps-prove-18-usc-793e/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

Here's the simple reality imo.  Many things said or done when viewed from the eyes of the political opposition can be spun, manipulated, or considered unethical.  Allegations of wrongdoing, integrity concerns etc are common place.  With our complex laws, rules and customs, I'd think an allegation of wrongdoing is just an aggressive prosecutorial mindset away. 

 

 

I get that people see things through a political lens, but what you did was to take things that have absolutely nothing to do with people taking classified documents out of government custody and claim that they were the same as what happened at Mar a Lago this week.

 

It would be a good argument to point out the various government officials who had taken classified materials from the government (Hillary Clinton, Gen. Patraeus, Colin Powell, etc.) and argue why their instances were similar or dissimilar to Trump's. But instead, you just threw a bunch of irrelevant stuff on the wall hoping that people wouldn't look into it to realize it had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand or even the point you were trying to make.

 

Laws often are complex, but this isn't a particular complex situation. A private citizen had classified materials in their home and the government suspected they hadn't returned everything when asked. And while we don't know what specifically they were looking for because Trump won't release the search warrant, one main difference is a new law passed in 2018 to specifically address this issue. Because of that law (signed by Trump), what may not have been a crime in the past may be one today.

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • DRsGhost changed the title to Rogue Agency: FBI & DOJ Corruption: Regime Gestapo/FBI Raids 45th POTUS Private Residence
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...