Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Stasi Raid Mar-a-Lago

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    I've seen similar claims from Trump cultists that this was an attempt to get him kn a felony to make it so he can't run for office.

    But constitutionally he can be a convicted violent felon who murdered someone, and still run for office because that does not make him ineligible. Hell, he could potentially even run from prison if he wanted to, legally. Stop repeating Trump Cult talking points without doing your research.
    Media reports have indicated that Monday's action took place likely after an informant provided the DOJ with information that confidential documents remained at the former president's Florida residence. If true, that would be a violation of the Presidental Records Act and, if charged and convicted, Trump would be ineligible to serve in federal office again.


    https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/d...11/id/1082784/

    There we go again. This time in an article by Jack Gournell at Newsmax. So I didn't imagine it or misinterpret it. Maybe it's this guy spreading it.
    "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
    "
    Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      Ignorance is never a defense when it comes to classified data. That is abundantly clear in DoD Classified Handling training.
      Ignorance is a defense when the statute in question uses the word "knowingly".

      18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information
      (a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits,...

      source

      18 U.S. Code 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
      (a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location...

      source

      No she didn't. She ignored Congressional demands for her emails 3 years prior. The emails were not on the State Department email server. They were strictly on the clintonmail.com server. She selectively deleted emails at HER discretion, and then provided a thumb drive and a server to the State Department for further email scrubbing. Only then did the final product get to investigators. She knew what she was doing.
      Yes, she knew what she was doing, and what she was doing was legal (as far as anyone can prove). She was not legally required to respond to Congress until they issued a subpoena. She was allowed to delete personal emails until then.

      Some of the work emails were on the State Department server by virtue of the fact that she sent them to an official State Department email address, or received them from such an address. What she did not know is that they were not automatically archived just because they were on the State Department server.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

        Media reports have indicated that Monday's action took place likely after an informant provided the DOJ with information that confidential documents remained at the former president's Florida residence. If true, that would be a violation of the Presidental Records Act and, if charged and convicted, Trump would be ineligible to serve in federal office again.


        https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/d...11/id/1082784/

        There we go again. This time in an article by Jack Gournell at Newsmax. So I didn't imagine it or misinterpret it. Maybe it's this guy spreading it.
        Yes, I've seen it popping up as well. You'd think at least a supposed journalist like Gournell would do the bare minimum of research, but.... *sigh*
        "When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing"
        -Trump Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders


        "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
        - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

          Yes, I've seen it popping up as well. You'd think at least a supposed journalist like Gournell would do the bare minimum of research, but.... *sigh*
          I looked at the Act itself and it could be construed from there. It says "Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records."

          So, that could prevent anyone from being POTUS because it is part of the function of the office to handle original documents.
          "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
          "
          Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

          Comment


          • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
            Fair enough do you happen to have a source for that I am always interested in looking at the facts to see where they lead.
            Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, the Florida judge who approved the warrant for the FBI raid of former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, was formerly assigned to oversee a lawsuit in which Trump sued Hillary Clinton. He also previously represented former convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s employees in a sex trafficking case.

            In the case of Trump v. Clinton, Trump sued Hillary Clinton on March 24, 2022. He also sued the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, LLC, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., Jakes Sullivan, John Podesta, Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, and many others.

            source

            I am not talking about the Carter Page FISA warrant which was got based on a lie by an FBI lawyer. It is the FISA warrant the FBI got based on the unvarifiable Steele Dossier to spy on the Trump campaign and other questionable and/or illeagalities. We know the said dossier was unvarifiable because Comey, after he had signed off on the FISA warrant request, admitted it was. these are just 2 of the incidents that show corruption in the DC office of the FBI there is quite a few more I and others(Rogue) can repost some if you are interested in seeing where the facts lead.
            I'm not aware of a FISA warrant at issue besides the Carter Page warrant. If you know of another, please provide a source.

            My understanding is that the Carter Page FISA warrant did refer to a portion of the Steele Dossier.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

              I looked at the Act itself and it could be construed from there. It says "Prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records from being given access to any original records."

              So, that could prevent anyone from being POTUS because it is part of the function of the office to handle original documents.
              The Newsweek story linked upthread contained this passage.
              .
              On Monday at about 9 a.m. EDT, two dozen FBI agents and technicians showed up at Donald Trump's Florida home to execute a search warrant to obtain any government-owned documents that might be in the possession of Trump but are required to be delivered to the Archives under the provisions of the 1978 Presidential Records Act. (In response to the Hillary Clinton email scandal, Trump himself signed a law in 2018 that made it a felony to remove and retain classified documents.)

              The act establishes that presidential records are the property of the U.S. government and not a president's private property. Put in place after Watergate to avoid the abuses of the Nixon administration, the law imposes strict penalties for failure to comply. "Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, 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."

              The story has been corrected a second time now, to eliminate the quote stating Garland didn’t approve the warrant. Like you, I spent some time today searching out the PRA act and found nothing to corroborate the above. In fact, I couldn’t find anything corroborating the claim that it had been amended by the Trump administration, either.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post

                The Newsweek story linked upthread contained this passage.
                .
                On Monday at about 9 a.m. EDT, two dozen FBI agents and technicians showed up at Donald Trump's Florida home to execute a search warrant to obtain any government-owned documents that might be in the possession of Trump but are required to be delivered to the Archives under the provisions of the 1978 Presidential Records Act. (In response to the Hillary Clinton email scandal, Trump himself signed a law in 2018 that made it a felony to remove and retain classified documents.)

                The act establishes that presidential records are the property of the U.S. government and not a president's private property. Put in place after Watergate to avoid the abuses of the Nixon administration, the law imposes strict penalties for failure to comply. "Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, 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."

                The story has been corrected a second time now, to eliminate the quote stating Garland didn’t approve the warrant. Like you, I spent some time today searching out the PRA act and found nothing to corroborate the above. In fact, I couldn’t find anything corroborating the claim that it had been amended by the Trump administration, either.
                It appears Newsweek is referencing TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - CHAPTER 101—RECORDS AND REPORTS and not the Act itself.

                According to this section, note the word "or"

                "
                Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, 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." Sounds like (in any case) Trump can pay the $2K and run for office again.
                "You should just assume going forward that if I am ever wrong it is a typo" - Backup
                "
                Reality simply does not change based upon consensus or desire." - rogue

                Comment


                • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post

                  SCOTUS has ruled w.r.t. Article I that laws passed by Congress cannot add conditions beyond those specified in the Constitution to qualify for Senate or House. By logical extension, the same should apply to Article II and III. So, if nothing in the Constitution specifies conviction of felony as precluding from office, no law adding that proscription matters.
                  What Supreme Court case was this in? I was actually curious about whether congress could add an extra requirement after I saw Laura Loomer say she wanted to pass legislation to expand the natural-born citizen requirement to apply to all federal offices.
                  Last edited by Terraceth; 08-11-2022, 09:57 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
                    Yes, she says they handed her the warrant and list when they were done with their search onMonday.



                    Today and yesterday.

                    I already linked it to MM

                    Well then,I will similarly demand you post this interview on Monday that you claim exists.



                    I already posted a link to the video.

                    Here it is again, in an even fuller form: https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/sta...84936759693312

                    She says it at around 0:55

                    Eric Trump lied and somebody died.
                    My tablet which is what I am stuck using woǹ't open Twiitter is it on YouTube if so can you post that url preferable the longer clip then the one mm quoted. Otherwise I am going to have to agree mm on this as it fits with what I have seen alredy on Fox news.

                    As for the interviews fox news did not upload them to you tube. You do know that television is still a thing right? I was watching fox news on the television at my Mom's

                    Btw it Would be interesting to see the longer video so I can make sure she is one of Trumps lawyers. At this point I can only trust what I have seen myself.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                      It appears Newsweek is referencing TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - CHAPTER 101—RECORDS AND REPORTS and not the Act itself.

                      According to this section, note the word "or"

                      "
                      Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, 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." Sounds like (in any case) Trump can pay the $2K and run for office again.
                      Not so sure the OR would be left up to the defendant, but thanks for the research. Here’s some more.

                      Expert Explainer: Criminal Statutes that Could Apply to Trump’s Retention of Government Documents
                      .
                      18 U.S.C. 2071 – Concealment, Removal, or Mutilation Generally

                      This is perhaps the most-discussed statute since the search, including because it carries as one of its penalties the possible disqualification from holding public office. (Whether that disqualification could apply to the presidency, or whether it would be an impermissible variation of the constitutionally established qualifications for that office, is a question for another day.) Section 2071 makes it a crime to willfully and unlawfully remove a government record with the intent to conceal or destroy it or to conceal or destroy such documents already in one’s custody. This is a more attractive statute for a prosecutor to apply to Trump than Section 1924, mainly because it does not require that the documents be classified – it applies to all government records.

                      It also seems to fit the facts we know so far, namely that the FBI reportedly searched locations within Mar-a-Lago other than the room originally shown to DOJ during their June visit – suggesting that they had received information in the interim that additional documents were being stored, or concealed, elsewhere. For example, FBI agents allegedly searched Trump’s personal safe and his closet. Evidence that Trump had failed to reveal the full scope or all the locations where government records were being stored both to NARA and then to DOJ would also meet the heightened intent standard required by Section 2071, which is that the defendant act “willfully.” This is a heightened standard which typically requires knowledge of the defendant that the conduct is generally illegal. It would be surprising if Trump was not repeatedly informed of the laws for the handling of government documents while he was in office. Moreover, it is also likely that DOJ and NARA warned Trump in writing that retention of such documents would be unlawful.

                      A question remains, however, whether the statutory requirement that the records in question be “filed or deposited” with a court or a public office or public or judicial officer would apply in this case. Given that any charge would undoubtedly be appealed to the Supreme Court, this textual reading of the statute may offer Trump a counterargument that any records or classified documents in his possession would not be a “filing” in the strictly technical sense. Here too more review is necessary to form a final judgment on the applicability of the statute.

                      There are a number of other statutes discussed, but this seems most relevant.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post

                        My tablet which is what I am stuck using woǹ't open Twiitter is it on YouTube if so can you post that url preferable the longer clip then the one mm quoted. Otherwise I am going to have to agree mm on this as it fits with what I have seen alredy on Fox news.

                        As for the interviews fox news did not upload them to you tube. You do know that television is still a thing right? I was watching fox news on the television at my Mom's

                        Btw it Would be interesting to see the longer video so I can make sure she is one of Trumps lawyers. At this point I can only trust what I have seen myself.


                        Last edited by Juvenal; 08-11-2022, 10:27 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post

                          My tablet which is what I am stuck using woǹ't open Twiitter is it on YouTube if so can you post that url preferable the longer clip then the one mm quoted. Otherwise I am going to have to agree mm on this as it fits with what I have seen alredy on Fox news.

                          As for the interviews fox news did not upload them to you tube. You do know that television is still a thing right? I was watching fox news on the television at my Mom's

                          Btw it Would be interesting to see the longer video so I can make sure she is one of Trumps lawyers. At this point I can only trust what I have seen myself.
                          So, let's roll this back. You snottily demand I give you a link. I give you a link. You then tell me that I have to give another link because you have technical difficulties and that if I don't you'll agree with MM despite having the link there. And then, to top it off, after that demand for a link, you want to hold yourself to a different standard and not provide a link for the interview you claim happened, despite demanding that I provide a link to an interview that happened.

                          So I am supposed to believe your claim without a shred of evidence, but you demand I provide multiple links before you believe my claim.

                          Just.... wow....... The utter gall.

                          EDIT: you'd best thank Juvenal for the effort, because I sure as hell wasn't going to waste my time looking for a youtube link for you after this utter baloney.
                          Last edited by Gondwanaland; 08-11-2022, 10:33 PM.
                          "When you're attacking FBI agents because you're under criminal investigation, you're losing"
                          -Trump Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders


                          "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                          - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                            Ignorance is a defense when the statute in question uses the word "knowingly".

                            18 U.S. Code 798 - Disclosure of classified information
                            (a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits,...

                            source

                            18 U.S. Code 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
                            (a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location...

                            source


                            Yes, she knew what she was doing, and what she was doing was legal (as far as anyone can prove). She was not legally required to respond to Congress until they issued a subpoena. She was allowed to delete personal emails until then.

                            Some of the work emails were on the State Department server by virtue of the fact that she sent them to an official State Department email address, or received them from such an address. What she did not know is that they were not automatically archived just because they were on the State Department server.
                            Hillary knew. Her staff is on record saying that she instructed them on how to identify and remove classification markings from the emails passing through her server. And as a top White House official with training in the handling of classified material, to claim she had no idea what information was being trafficked is not plausible.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Juvenal View Post
                              Thanks for that. So it sounds like the only thing they got was a copy of the warrant after the raid was finished ten hours later, which seems odd. Christina Bobb didn't say that she was given an itemized list of what was taken, only that the warrant apparently stated what they were looking for. Based on other reports, it sounds like Trump's legal team has requested a list of items taken along with the affidavit the FBI used to get the warrant.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                                Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, the Florida judge who approved the warrant for the FBI raid of former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, was formerly assigned to oversee a lawsuit in which Trump sued Hillary Clinton. He also previously represented former convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s employees in a sex trafficking case.

                                In the case of Trump v. Clinton, Trump sued Hillary Clinton on March 24, 2022. He also sued the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Coie, LLC, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., Jakes Sullivan, John Podesta, Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, and many others.

                                source
                                just looked at the link to your source and need to say mea culpa I should have asked for the source from whomever said he had recused himself from the previous case I read the whole thing and he took over the case when another judge so my question was unnecessary but that being so we still have his tweets and other social media communications where he shows his bias against trump which does give rise to valid concerns. But I am willing to let that go as there are larger concerns I have about how the DOJ handled this that being metrics garland not going first with a subpoena when Trump had cooperated fully with them on other subpoenas, and why if they thought Trump was planning to destroy the documents they waited till Monday to serve the warrant they got on friday.

                                I'm not aware of a FISA warrant at issue besides the Carter Page warrant. If you know of another, please provide a source.

                                My understanding is that the Carter Page FISA warrant did refer to a portion of the Steele Dossier.
                                actually there were 4 warrant issued against Carter paige but at least one of the warrants allowed them to spy on Carter Page and any one he had contact with which meant folks he worked with on the Trump campaign so they did get warrants to spy on Trump's campaign with lies. and yes you are right the unvarifiable Steele Dossier was also used to get the warrants.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 10:04 AM
                                40 responses
                                216 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Juvenal
                                by Juvenal
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 01:38 AM
                                31 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by seer, 09-23-2022, 01:02 PM
                                26 responses
                                158 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-23-2022, 10:15 AM
                                22 responses
                                126 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-23-2022, 07:26 AM
                                8 responses
                                50 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X