- This topic has 110 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
It’s scary to see how far the dems are ready to go to stop him from becoming president.
If this would be done in Russia against a Putin rival, there would be a global uproar.
If they are so sure that Trump is disliked by the masses and doesn’t deserve to be president, why must they find every way to besmirch him and terrorize him into staying away?
Does anyone else who doesn’t like Trump agree with me?
It’s a typical, old fashioned, political persecution.
The FBI action authorized by a Federal Magistrate requested by the DOJ was no a political matter. The FBI Director is a Republican appointed by Donald Trump, the AG Merrick Garland is a respected prosecutor. A politically sensitive action such as the raid on one of Trump’s residences would have required insurmountable evidence of a crime and that stolen sensitive documents were indeed in the residence. No way they decision was made without a great deal of discussion. One must assume that all involved knew with absolute certainty that what they were looking for would be found in the former President’s residence. In all probability the information was provided to the DOJ by an insider, probably a family member or a close confident of Trump.
Like you and I, a former President as well as a sitting President is not exempt from our laws.
In a matter of time what was found and the reasons for the raid will become known. Stand back and stand by as the revelations will be wild.Menachem,
Sorry for going off-topic but what is the meaning of the term “Kiddush Lubavitch”? Is it meant to be comparable to a “Kiddush Hashem”? One never hears the words “Kiddush Satmar” or “Kiddush Yeshiva” from those groups. Have Chabad leaders considered how strange it sounds and that this only creates “Elokus” doubts and suspicions?
NO,
I don’t agree with you and I detest Donald Trump
The head of the FBI who executed this search warrant (it was not a raid) is a Trump appointee.The DOJ should be able to complete its investigation without further stalling by Trump and associates. Then, if found reasonable, indictments should be issued and a trial determine his guilt.
I would say the same about anyone, Trump is not special.
Unfair, there are many countries where the police routinely harass leaders of the opposition. Indeed that is the norm in most countries. It is just American exceptionalism to believe in things such as fair play and free speech and due process. Next think you know, you’ll be objecting to canceling teachers and media people who don’t hold correct views.
Worse was done in Russia against a Putin rival (he almost got killed and then they put him in jail) and there was no condemnation
It isn’t Dems. It’s the FBI.
Back in 2016, he mentioned “Anyone being investigated by the FBI is not qualified to be president.”
no, I do not agree with you.
‘besmirch’ is a good word to describe Trump, not his opponents. His nicknames for anyone who looks at him askance is totally disgusting.
the january 6 insurrection, started by him, and continued for 3 long hours with him doing diddly-squat, is Trump’s terrorizing, not his opponents.
every thing you say is just the opposite.I’m really curious how u and so many others know on what grounds the search warrant was issued.
Didn’t he say, ” Anyone being investigated by the FBI is not qualified to be president of the USA”. He mentioned it several times, 8/3/16, 9/7/16, 10/15/16, 10/20/16, 10/20/16, 10/21/16, 10/25/16, 10/30/16.
Yaakov doe –
😳 that was the most imaginary/naive/wishful post written about the FBI/DOJ in yearsSyag: Hope does spring eternal….at this point, neither imaginary or naive or wishful. Until someone explains how/why 14 boxes containing classified information were removed from the WH rather than transferred to the Archives pursuant to law, a lawful warrant was issued and served by federal law enforcement.
Well, previous surveillance warrants against Trump’s people are now known to be deeply flawed. But then they expected those warrants to stay in secret court. So, hopefully, this one was more legit.
I presume when Dershowitz will be defending Trump, he will use a Talmudic argument: as President can declassify any document, then any document he took with him are by definition declassified, as him taking the documents shows his intent to declassify.
But for those who are wondering what is in those 10 boxes, you came to the right place! Last time I was at Trump place, I had a chance to peak into his safe while he was distracted pouring liquor. So, here is a list of what was in the safe:
– love letters from Dear Leader
– Hillary’s emails, neatly wiped, in a big envelope with return address: Kremlin
– Hunter’s memo on how to fight corruption in Ukraine
– password to twitter account
– wedding pictures, several separate envelopes
– Obama’s letter to the new President, pleading with him not to lose to Biden
– Presidential seal with a note to give it to Biden in case Biden remembers he needs itJust to be clear, Trump had been forced to return 14 boxes classified materials several months ago after the National Archives learned in February that he had illegally taken these materials from the White House when he left back on January 20th. However, he had failed to return at least 12 other boxes of documents which were equally classified which were seized yesterday pursuant to the warrant signed by a federal magistrate. His lawyers have yet to explain WHY he withheld these documents in the first place and why they lied about the existence of the additional materials he failed to return. Trump himself is in the best position to answer all the questions being raised by the usual Republican shills .
AAQ: There is an explicit process for “declassification” which must be followed, even by POTUS. Dershowitz can make talmudic arguments, but they will fall on deaf ears absent supporting contemporaneous documentation. An ex-President cannot retroactively “declassify” documents he took from the WH that hadn’t been declassified as of noon on 1/20/21.
GH – whew, I am so glad you were there to get the real story for those of us stuck with third hand biased /partisan accountings. I was so curious about the real facts. Thanks.
🙄I love Trump and Hashem loves Trump for all the Chesed he did for our people.
GH, you mention specific declassification regulations, my Dershowitzian argument is that president can use his own procedure. The only problem would be if he were to take anything after 1200 on the inauguration day or maybe after the new guy takes a shvuye. I think a ganav acquires movables when he picks it up with the intent to take it even while still on property of the baal habait. In this case, T was still baal habait lavan when he picked them up and had declassification powers.
Again, if he were to sneak in later while new guy was sleeping at the wheel as usual, T would be hayav. I am sure this is discussed in halochos of renting real estate somewhere
>>>Didn’t he say, ” Anyone being investigated by the FBI is not qualified to be president of the USA”.
At the time he said it the FBI was still a respected government agency that was considered above making investigations for political motives . Today it no longer is.
And it wasn’t Trump who caused them to lose their good reputation . I despise Trump but still lost my respect for the FBI
Menachem
“If this would be done in Russia against a Putin rival, there would be a global uproar.”If what was done?
Do you know what the search warrant contains? Very few do.
We will find out soon enough, if it is false or even for something true but inconsequential then yes you’d be right. but if it is for something more serious then I’t imagine the part that has been professing to support “law and order” “back the blue” would be the most supportive of the FBII’m fairly certain Garland, with extensive trial court experience drilled down fairly deeply on the scienter arguments of whether DOJ could demonstrate that Trump had both knowledge of the nature of removing the relevant documents and the intent to maintain possession in violation of the Presidential records act. Each incoming President is personally briefed on those rules literally from the moment they walk into the oval office. (You generally cannot establish lack of scienter in a federal criminal proceeding by arguing there were ways you might have arguably achieved the same outcome legally albeit in practice you pursued another strategy).
I have to believe, however, that in this case, there was MORE than some minor violation of the rules requiring Presidents to turn over the chotchkas they receive from foreign government valued over $50 along with any communications from foreign leaders (which seems to be what the Trump lawyers claim are the contents of the withheld boxes). Just a hunch that they wouldn’t jeopardize the January 6/election overturn investigation with some nickle and dime Records Act violation and the predictable firestorm it elicited.
While we are free to speculate, we should realize that we dont have any of the facts. This may likely be something minor that Trump is using to augment and promote himself by getting people upset about the system.
On the other hand, for those that are saying that this must be a very legitimate and serious concern if the FBI went through the hoops and was able to get a warrant. In the past, I would have thought the same.
However, the Mueller investigation, has completely changed my mind. No longer are serious investigations necessarily legitimate, even if they are conducted by the highest levels of authority.
We now know that the there was no legitimate basis for this investigation, the people that authorized it knew it as well. Yet, it held us all captive and at the time made us all think that Trump might be guilty of treason. The fact that other unrelated carious white collar crimes were uncovered, does not justify any of this.
Therefore, no longer is a warrant or the fact that there is an investigation any indication that there is a legitimate issue here.
Smerel,
You think that Trump respected the FBI when he fired the director James Comey?
Or when he hired Andrew McCabe and fired him 85 days later – one day before his pension ?
(By the way, in October 2021, McCabe settled with the Justice Department a wrongful termination suit he had filed in August 2019. As part of the settlement, the government agreed to “rescind and vacate” McCabe’s termination, correct its records “to reflect that Mr. McCabe was employed continuously by the FBI from July 1996 until he retired on March 19, 2018 as the FBI Deputy Director” in “good standing,” restore his pension and other benefits, pay his legal fees and expunge any record of having been fired.)
Or when he fired Peter Strzok ?
Or when Attorney General William Barr said he believes the FBI operated out of “bad faith” when it investigated whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia ?
Or when Comey issued a statement in July 2016 on the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system in the middle of a Presidential election where she is the Democratic nominee?
We don’t have any “facts” because the Trumpkopfs have still failed to provide a detailed inventory of what documents they removed from the WH and the legal basis for withholding them under the Presidential Records and Archives regs. Conversely, 45 has repeatedly claimed he is not subject to most laws governing prior occupants of the Oval office, can pardon HIMSELF (along with all his clowns) and could “shoot somone on Fifth Avenue” w/o consequences.
BTW: He is sitting for deposition today in the NYS investigation of the potential fraud in his tax filings and property valuation. Perhaps he will be asked about the “love letters” from the Dear Leader and what they might bring at auction or what other documents got the big “flush” in the West Wing and Mar a Lago (although those matters may be somewhat off-topic for the NY AG).Our xpresident is free to release the search warrant, naturally it would hamper his ability to fund raise over this event.
Most posters here (correctly) seem to be less troubled by the raid, given it even went through Trump appointees, and the legal process requires specificity in what they are searching for. I give benefit of the doubt that our legal system DOES work. There are sometimes surprises and scandals, but not as much as Trump portrays. I doubt they would have searched if it was just for the possible crime mishandling classified documents or to recover those documents. That’s too minor to make such a splash. We shall see in time.
Remember: Trump and Guilliani were the first to mainstream the calls to lock up political opponents and to assume all official governmental proceeding was unlawful, etc. Many posters go in to any news article with that bias implanted in their heads. Seems Trump may learn that one reaps what he sows.
2cents: if your opinion of the search is colored by Mueller report, it is not true that the report was illegitimate. Please read the report yourself instead of Trump/Fox’s characterizations. Trump barely cooperated and also worked to derail the investigation, so Mueller was limited. Nevertheless there are many troubling things in the report. Nothing arose to criminal, the report said, because of our tradition of not charging a president while in office, as well as the lack of cooperation in getting testimony.
I’m not less concerned about the warrant due to those who signed off on it. Im not surprised that the law and order supporters of our Xpresident refuse to accept a legal search warrant and don’t understand how this legal process works. The warrant is sealed, our Xpresident can release a copy of the warrant, the DOJs warrant and supporting affidavits are usually unsealed at the time charges are pressed. President Biden has no legal authority to release the warrant or affidavits in support of it.
For those of you that can access the site, Newsweek just posted an interesting story about some of the foundations for the warrant.If the fourth amendment (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …”) doesn’t apply to the rich and powerful, what rights exist for the rest of us. If a politician can use the legal system to punish their political enemies, what chance do the rest of us have? Are we all rightless “deplorables” at the mercy of the ruling elites?
In many ways, the same issue arose during America’s (pre-Independence, when we were part of England) early history. Those in control of the government (small “r” Republicans), with army support, executed King Charles after a “kangaroo court” (albeit that term would be an anachronism in the 17th century). Public opinion (which mattered even though democracy with a small “d” was still in the future) realized that if the king has no right to due process (something that England, and its colonies, had begun to value starting in the middle ages), than no one has.
As head of the executive branch, Trump had a arguable right to declassify and take home any papers (other presidents tend to donate them to libraries or archives). If there is a dispute over the extent of those powers, it is a civil dispute, not a criminal dispute. Those who object so go into a court and request an injunction against Trump, allowing Trump to argue back that he was authorized to take those papers. Finding a Democratic (large “D”) judge to sign a search warrant, rather than seeking a subpoena in a civil proceeding (with Trump having the right to a lawyer and to participate in the proceeding) is a grievous breach of due process typical of a third world country. It is not the American way (though Obama did say that he opposed American “exceptionalism”) and a big part of what makes America “special” is due process and rule of law, which is lacking in most countries).
Whether you embrace “Trump derangement syndrome” or consider Trump to be as close to a messiah as you are likely ever to encounter, consider how you wouyld feel if someone who hates you can arrange to have the cops break into your house and seize your stuff without giving you legal recourse (other than suing to get your stuff back). That was an issue that was supposedly settled in 1791, and apparently it still is an issue.
Akuperma, if it was possible I would give you 4 stars for that well reasoned and accurate post.
akuperma
I don’t understand your post
Did they not have a search warrant? Did A judge not sign off on it ?
If they didn’t then you are one hundred percent correct.
IF they did , then I don’t understand what you are saying. You accidently skipped half of the amendment “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
akuperma: in addition to ubiquitin’s 1000% correct point, keep in mind the investigation probably has nothing to do with Trump mishandling declassified documents. If I am proven wrong I will admit it. But the criminal investigation is most surely about something else.
Ubiquitin, do you really think this warrant was issued without supporting affidavits? That a judge didn’t sign off on it? It’s certainly to the Xpresidents advantage not to release the warrant or inventory. If he did questions would be answered and it would inhibit his ability to fund raise off these events.
I do have a question though, why did our Xpresident choose to have his personal statement about the search warrant issued by his PAC?
Trump is using this search to renew his “victimhood” status and raise funds for his PACs. I agree entirely with the speculation above that the DOJ would not have approved the warrant if it was focused on a pro forma violation of the Presidential Records Act or some arcane dispute between lawyers at the National Archives and Trump as to which tchachkas he received from foreign leaders must be turned over to the government. There has to be some large issues here. If not, this would be a massive blunder for DOJ and the FBI.
“Please read the report yourself instead of Trump/Fox’s characterizations.”
wow – that’s still the answer to anyone who says something that doesn’t work for you. Will there be a time when we can actually have a conversation without comments like that? Some posters here seem to have done well moving to actual facts, even admitting some of their heros may have done something off. But there’s always the handful who can’t think of anything else to say.
Gadolhadorah, Today Newsweek posted a story that claims that there was a confidential informant who spilled the beans.
Oy, if only Trump had bleachbit
If only the classified info was on an email server
If only the secret service had smashed and wiped their phones
If only his financial suspicions were on hunters laptop.
If only, cuz I’m pretty sure none of those are illegal or problematic.Assuming there is some “there” there, than the last phrase of the underlying statute has some relevance.
“Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing [subject to the Presidential Records Act], that willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined” $2,000, up to three years in prison or “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
Syag:
1. I am in wonder over your statement: “Will there be a time when we can actually have a conversation without comments like that?” On the committee hearings you were in full agreement that we need to see the evidence/testimony ourselves before giving an opinion. At that time, I was actually hopeful you’d watch the hearings. Likewise, if you haven’t read the Mueller report it would be a disfavor to yourself and humanity to let your perceived conclusions of what the report says cloud your political opinions. I’ve pointed out examples of some bad stuff in the Mueller report because no one seems to be willing to read it.
2. Your next message about Hilary, Hunter, etc. Classic deflection by trashing “the other side.” Again, Hillary and Hunter aren’t our heroes. And even if we did like Hillary, we wouldn’t hold her up to god-like status. If they did anything illegal they need to be held accountable. Just like Trump. I would not object to a Hillary investigation.
In all, you put your head in the sand when it comes to readily-available evidence and trash “the other side.” Which isn’t necessarily the other side; Trump vilifies others to take focus off himself and make himself look like a victim. Don’t you see all this?
I was open-minded enough to vote for the guy once. You’re stuck in a loop.There were jars of kimchee from the “Beloved Leader”(aka Kim Jong-un) apparently hidden along with the boxes of classified documents to deter the search dogs used by the FBI agents. Outrageous tactic and also cruelty to animals.
“Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing [subject to the Presidential Records Act], that willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined” $2,000, up to three years in prison or “shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
Did you say the same thing when Hillary destroyed her emails? Hard drive?
>>>I’m fairly certain Garland, with extensive trial court experience drilled down fairly deeply on the scienter arguments of whether DOJ could demonstrate that Trump etc. etc. etc.
This is the standard circular logic that the media is using. How do you know the raid was justified? The FBI /DOG/Garland would not have taken such a dramatic step this unless it really needed to and had solid evidence for that
Not only does such an approach give carte blanche to the government to use unrestrained power to do whatever it wants against it political enemies
Moreover the Steele dossier, the FISA surveillance of Carter Page, the Mueller report, and the near endless web of implications and insinuations should disabuse any fair-minded person that the FBI deserves such a trusting mindset.
Word on the street is there was a confidential informant. We will all know for sure once charges are pressed.
” I am in wonder over your statement”
I highly doubt that
“I would not object to a Hillary investigation. In all, you put your head in the sand when it comes to readily-available evidence and trash “the other side.” ”
Those are a lot of baseless accusations there that are pure bologna. How do you know I didn’t hear the hollywood clipping collage of not publicly released depositions? How do you know i didn’t read the mueller report? Im sick of people with their own denial issues telling everyone with a different opinion that they must have watched fox news. Please show me the source for anything remotely supporting the false accusations you threw at me. Or should I just use this as the litmus test of the lack of credibility of everything else you are posting.
I’ll wait here…
Ms Zola thank you for the heads up about that informant story, I hadn’t heard that and was able to look into it.
er
“2cents: if your opinion of the search is colored by Mueller report, it is not true that the report was illegitimate. Please read the report yourself instead of Trump/Fox’s characterizations. Trump barely cooperated and also worked to derail the investigation, so Mueller was limited.”
I am not sure you understood what I wrote. We now know for certain, based on written communications that were at the time, (meaning at the onset of this investigation) that the Mueller investigation was a political hit job by people in the FBI.
If you are ok with that, you probably do not like our country.
Smerel kind of made my point already.
In short, that was done by the highest levels of authority in the FBI/DOJ, at the time I was also thinking if they are doing this, there has to be some legitimacy to this, but no, it was iligimate in terms of being instigated by political hacks and people in the DOJ that targeted Trump for reasons that had nothing to do with Russia or criminality.
So no, just because the FBI and a judge signed a warrant, does not mean we should just accept it as OK. We now know that this may very well be politically motivated.
I guess we will learn more with time.
ubiquitin’s: a search warrant issued in violation of the 4th amendment is not only void, but renders inadmissable as evidence any and all documents seized pursuant to the search warrant. If Trump’s lawyers are able to argue that in fact ownership of the papers was in dispute, there was no lawful basis for the search warrant. That the Attorney General has a record suggesting personal hatred of Trump doesn’t help the government’s case. The statute in question is problematic. It states that a violation renders the person unable to hold Federal office, but the Constitution also sets forth requirements to be President which Congress can not change suggesting that the law doesn’t actually cover the President. Then there is the question as to who can a record as confidential or classified, but if this is within the power of the executive branch, and since the president is head of the executive branch, Trump would clearly be able to take what he pleases. Ambiguity as to whether a crime even occurred would result in the search warrant be thrown out (and if those requesting it had a partisan motivation, they might be in legal trouble themselves).
Morning Syag:
“I am in wonder” is not an accusation. You had agreed in another thread that we need to examine all facts and not rely on pundits. I really thought we were on the same page at that time.
DID you read the report?
DID you watch the full hearings rather than the clips conservative media may have told you about?“. you put your head in the sand . . . and trash “the other side. Yes an accusation but your posts speak for themselves. Instead of focusing on Trump you bring up Hunter and Hillary. The facts are there was a search warrant issued in accordance with regular procedure. There are legitimate reasons why the feds wouldn’t reveal anything now, and this is standard. If this is really a corrupt scandal, we will see. I agreed that if it was just about seizing docs for the archives, it would be innapropriate. Garland and everyone below him wouldn;t be that foolosh. He’s really been careful by not bringing charges yet or saying much. meanwhile, Trump can release the warrant to the public. Why has he not done that? Waiting for your reply on this.
Trump defends himself by throwing firebombs. Before the media and other fact-finders have a chance to set the record straight, he throws another bomb. It’s highly manipulative. It’s tainted everyone’s trust in basic governmental functions. It has weakened America.
So why doesn’t Trump simply release the warrant?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.