Stasi Raid Mar-a-Lago

[Mountain Man]

With such specific descriptions like "potential presidential record", "binder of photos", and "miscellaneous secret documents", there's no way the FBI will be able to add their own incriminating evidence after the fact.

Seriously, why would Christina Bobb sign off on that? Is she a rookie? You would think a seasoned attorney would have demanded a clear and exact inventory of everything that was taken.

[Mountain Man]

"dated on Monday Aug. 8, 2022, at 6:19 p.m."


Now who was it that was gullible again?

To be fair, we know when she signed them, but we don't know when Trump's lawyers actually received their own copy.

[Gondwanaland]

Come on, Gond, you 're familiar with the saying: "The first reports from the field are rarely correct." I don't think they were lies, I think they were just inaccurate reports based on incomplete information.

Although without more information, I suppose it's possible that she signed the inventories and was then told, "We'll send over a copy later," but I admit, that's purely speculative.

But they weren't the "first reports from the field". You've been posting sources for 4 days now making these claims. And even when they were proven to be lying about the warrant you still even today tried to insist they were right about the receipts.


Garland 2
MountainMan 0

[Gondwanaland]

To be fair, we know when she signed them, but we don't know when Trump's lawyers actually received their own copy.

Good. Grief.

Thank you for proving my earlier point. You'll continue to try to defend and believe the sources that lied straight to your damn face.

[Ronson]

With such specific descriptions like "potential presidential record", "binder of photos", and "miscellaneous secret documents", there's no way the FBI will be able to add their own incriminating evidence after the fact.

Seriously, why would Christina Bobb sign off on that? Is she a rookie? You would think a seasoned attorney would have demanded a clear and exact inventory of everything that was taken.

It's problematic in any case because the contents are supposed to be "classified", so she would have to take their word for whatever they had - because she wouldn't be able to look it over.

[Mountain Man]

It's problematic in any case because the contents are supposed to be "classified", so she would have to take their word for whatever they had - because she wouldn't be able to look it over.

"You'll just have to trust us," coming from one of the least trustworthy law enforcement agencies in the country.

I'll say it again: this whole thing is sketchy.

[Mountain Man]

Good. Grief.

Thank you for proving my earlier point. You'll continue to try to defend and believe the sources that lied straight to your damn face.

There's also the slight possibility that I'm trolling you by being overly literal.

Nah, I'd never do that.

[NorrinRadd]

Like I said, Garland only confirmed that Trump's lawyers have a copy of the documents now, but he never said when those documents were delivered, and based on other reports, we are told that it took a request from Trump's lawyers to get an itemized list of seized property. To think that one side of the story is all lies, and the other side is all truth is how the gullible read the news.

Here is a copy of the warrant showing at the end that Ms Robb signed it at 6:19 PM, which according to her televised statements is the time it was given to her (as opposed to merely "shown" to her).

[NorrinRadd]

Who could have ever guessed that The X-Files had the most accurate portrayal of the FBI in popular entertainment when it depicted them as a shady organization working against the best interests of the people?

Oh, man, I've been saying that ever since CometTV started re-airing the series several months ago. I'd forgotten all about that.

All we need are glimpses of CSM lurking in the shadowy corner of every room.

[NorrinRadd]

Source: The Payback for Mar-a-Lago Will Be Brutal

What went around Monday will come around hard for the Democrats when Republicans control the Justice Department and FBI.
Trump derangement syndrome has a curious way of scrambling coherent thought. Witness the Democratic-media complex’s blind insistence the Justice Department raid on Donald Trump’s home is just and necessary—rather than a dangerous move for their party and the republic.

In descending on Mar-a-Lago, the department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation shifted the U.S. into the category of countries whose ruling parties use government power to investigate political rivals. No attorney general has ever signed off on a raid on a former president’s home, in what could be the groundwork for criminal charges.

Yet to read the left’s media scribes, Monday’s search was a ho-hum day in crime-fighting. The Beltway press circled the wagons around Attorney General Merrick Garland and primly parroted Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s piety that “no one is above the law.” “The Mar-a-Lago Raid Proves the U.S. Isn’t a Banana Republic,” pronounced the Atlantic, clearly worried readers might conclude the opposite. It is “bedrock principle” that those who “commit crimes” “must answer for them,” it lectured.

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake attests it’s totally standard to investigate presidents—look at Israel! The New York Times soothingly explains that prosecutors “would have carefully weighed the decision,” and that the investigation therefore must be “serious.” Roll Call produced a law professor to remind all that a judge had to sign off on a “detailed affidavit that established probable cause.” The last time we got this level of reassurance about federal law enforcement’s professionalism was at the height of the Russia-collusion hoax.

If you have doubts about all this, you’re unhinged and lawless. The Washington Post quoted “extremism trackers,” who explained that any GOP statements “delegitimizing the government” were “nudges toward violence.” Said one: “They use events like this to feed into this fantasy they’ve co-created with their supporters.” Several outlets claimed Republicans’ criticism of Justice and the FBI was little more than an effort to “inoculate” themselves against any probes.

Yet not even the Justice Department is so simple-minded. It has longstanding guidelines on politically “sensitive” investigations, particularly close to an election. The guidelines reflect a recognition that it’s impossible to strip politics out of political probes, and that a claimed crime must be severe to outweigh the risk of irreparably landing the department with a reputation as a politicized or corrupt agency. The probe also has to be worth the risk of setting off a toxic cycle of reprisal and escalation.

The bar has always been at its highest when the investigation involves a former president. Even more so when the former president remains a contender for the office. Mr. Garland breezed past all this history and complexity in his “equal under the law” statement Thursday, even as he expressed outrage that anyone might mistrust the department and the bureau that brought us the Steele dossier and the Carter Page wiretaps.

Democrats may be betting that adverse coverage of Mr. Trump will help them in November, or in 2024. They’d better hope so. Their media defenders recklessly ignore the boomerang history of unleashed governmental powers and the long-term political danger of violating precedents and norms. A Democratic Congress enacted, and Jimmy Carter signed, the first independent counsel law in 1978. Two decades later it led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment.

If anything, a perceived political persecution of Mr. Trump could help him to a second term. And he would be even more unrestrained as the 47th president than he was as the 45th. A second Trump administration wouldn’t have the caliber of grown-ups who signed up for the first tour. Mr. Garland’s raid has made even the highest political figures fair prosecutorial game, and the media’s new standard is that the department can’t be questioned as it goes about ensuring “no one is above the law.” Let’s see how that holds when a future Republican Justice Department starts raiding the homes of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, James Comey

and John Brennan.Payback could come even sooner. Democrats set a new low with their Ukrainian impeachment circus, and a GOP House next year might be up for a reprise. Get ready for a few more select committees—perhaps excluding the minority party, as the Democrats effectively did with the Jan. 6 committee—to investigate Mr. Garland’s politicized department or Hunter Biden’s finances. Watch them subpoena sitting Democratic representatives, as the Jan. 6 committee did to Republicans. Reps. Adam Schiff, Ilhan Omar and Eric Swalwell may find themselves on the back bench with a new Republican majority eager to follow Mrs. Pelosi’s example and strip the opposing team’s members of committee assignments.

All this tit for tat will further undermine our institutions and polarize the nation—but such is the nature of retributive politics. Which is why the wholesale Democratic and media defense of this week’s events is so reckless. Both parties long understood that political restraint was less about civility than self-preservation. What goes around always comes around. What went around this week will come around hard.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Some on the left fully comprehend the consequences of what they have unleashed. That's why you'll see a lot of talk from them about Americans not wanting "tit for tat" (the apparent focus group tested phrase) when the Republicans take control of the Senate.

They understand it isn't just the raid (the MSM is now calling it a "search") of Mar-a-Lago. It's the double standard.

For instance, when Obama's AG Eric Holder gets indicted for contempt of Congress over his role in sending guns to drug lords it was all smiles and back pats and that was the end of it, while Peter Navarro is arrested at an airport. When Democrats support underlying causes that end in riots, they are absolved of all responsibility, but when Republicans do it, they are insurrectionists.

So while the MSM cheered on the show trials over the past few years, prepare for much wailing and gnashing of teeth when the investigations are of Democrat activities.

Only then will they see such things as politically-motivated.

Only then will they declare this is damaging the country.

Only then it will probably be too late.

I'm miles past "tit for tat."

I want Gen. 4:24.

[NorrinRadd]

With such specific descriptions like "potential presidential record", "binder of photos", and "miscellaneous secret documents", there's no way the FBI will be able to add their own incriminating evidence after the fact.

Seriously, why would Christina Bobb sign off on that? Is she a rookie? You would think a seasoned attorney would have demanded a clear and exact inventory of everything that was taken.

She's fairly young.

[JimL]

I see that the Trump cult members here are still stuck on stupid. As I had come to realize long ago, there's just no hope for you birdbrains.

[Starlight]

Wait. I thought democrats and republicans switched ideologies....so how does pre-civil rights FBI reflect anything?

If we are talking about current levels of corruption in the FBI / poor functioning of it (as was the topic), the pre-civil rights era is probably not important to that. I do find it fascinating though that Democratic presidents post the civil rights era have always appointed Republicans to head the FBI, and Republicans have never reciprocated by ever appointing a Democrat.

As an aside. It's also noteworthy that this practice has been known to come back to bite Democrats. Obama nominated James Comey in 2013. Before Hillary won her presidential primaries I argued with an old poster from this forum (Sam), saying that she was a poor choice because Comey was a Republican and could sabotage her run by announcing something legally bad about her just before the election. And guess what, two weeks before the general election, in breach of all protocol about talking about investigations into running candidates, Republican Comey announced she was under investigation again for her emails, and then she lost very narrowly in the general election.

[Mountain Man]

Whew... what's that smell?

Oh, hi, Jimmy.

[Starlight]

I see that the Trump cult members here are still stuck on stupid. As I had come to realize long ago, there's just no hope for you birdbrains.

If it comes out that Trump was trying to sell details on how to make nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia for personal profit, doubtless they will tell us that he is a financial genius for hatching such a plan.

After all, they see Reagan as a hero, and he sold weapons to Iran in order to fund terrorists in Nicaragua to overthrow the democratically elected government there.