Stasi Raid Mar-a-Lago

[Stoic]

The American Spectator isn't a hotbed of pro-Trumpism. While Trump does have some supporters there, don't forget that many of the most prominent conservative Never Trumpers (George Will and Bill Kristol for instance) came from there.

Don't know about any of that, but the Association of Mature American Citizens is a conservative advocacy group.

But obviously you hoped to hide behind your typical summary dismissal since the content was something you could not handle.

I don't have the time to deal with your source in detail. Fortunately, I don't need to.

Source: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/comparing-hillary-clintons-emails-and-donald-trumps-boxes-of-files/

Bradley Moss, a Washington-based lawyer who works on national security cases, said the cases of Clinton and Trump are significantly different.

“Trump took properly marked hard copy classified documents from the White House, shipped them to Florida, and stored them in an unsecured location at his residence,” Moss said.

The presence of classified information in Clinton’s emails was less obvious.

“The e-mails were never marked as classified because these were communications from unclassified government accounts,” Moss said.

In three instances, email chains included information with classification markers. It was never clear that Clinton was aware of the presence of that marked information, or if the classification marking was clear.

Marked information is not to be confused with emails containing unmarked information that could be deemed classified. That is a looser definition, and one that can be applied retroactively. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, said in one case, an email in one chain forwarded a front-page New York Times story about a drone strike. Under its rules, the CIA called that classified, Blanton said.

When classified information was clearly involved, Blanton said Clinton’s “briefings were on a different system, a classified Blackberry that was managed by State Department IT people.”

Clinton’s emails included moments when staffers wrote that for them to go into more detail, they would need to switch to a secure classified State Department system.

Moss cautioned that while some documents at Mar-a-Lago were clearly marked as classified, many questions remain, such as “where the records were originally located, who boxed them up, when Trump became aware of the existence of the records at Mar-a-Lago, and what, if any, efforts Trump took to rectify the situation once he was informed.”

The answers to those questions, he said, would help determine if anyone could be held criminally liable, and whether Trump himself faces any legal risk.

As for the personal emails that Clinton erased, the FBI said its investigation might have found some of them. Overall, the agency said it was reasonably confident that there was no intentional misconduct.

© Copyright Original Source

[Juvenal]

Judge signals he’s willing to unseal some of Mar-a-Lago affidavit
.

Reinhart, noting that he had reviewed the affidavit multiple times, said he believed parts of it could be made public without impeding the probe.

The government had argued that its investigation was in the “early stages” and that release of the affidavit could chill potential witnesses, risk the safety of those already interviewed, reveal future investigative steps and disclose significant amounts of grand jury material.

“I’m not prepared to find the affidavit should be fully sealed,” Reinhart said. “I believe based on my initial careful review of the affidavit many times that there are portions that could preemptively be unsealed.”

Reinhart said he would not make a decision until reviewing the government’s proposed redactions and would stay any ruling pending potential appeals — meaning the affidavit may not be made public for some time, if ever.

Months, if ever, I'm thinking.

[Sparko]

Brilliant deduction, Sherlock, he and his crew watched from New York, where he was. That's literally the bloody purpose of cameras, so you don't have to be there to watch what they are recording and transmitting.

where does he say he watched from New York? Source?

eta: never mind Juvenal posted it.

[Sparko]

Trump and his family watched the FBI search Mar-a-Lago via the property's security feed, says the former president's lawyer
.

Former President Donald Trump's attorney said Trump watched from New York as the FBI searched his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida on Monday.

Christina Bobb, one of Trump's lawyers, made this comment during a Thursday appearance on the right-wing media network Real America's Voice. Bobb told host Gina Loudon that, contrary to rumors that the security cameras had been turned off, the property's security feeds were on for most of the FBI's search.

"I think the folks in New York — President Trump and his family — they probably had a better view than I did. Because they had the CCTV, they were able to watch," Bobb said.

You're doing it again.

Thanks.

Gond, never mind my last post above.

They should release the video.

[Gondwanaland]

Thanks.

Gond, never mind my last post above.

They should release the video.

Eric Trump claims they will "at the right time". Of course, that was four days ago, and still nada so.... then again, we also still haven't seen the tax returns his daddy promised (even back in 2011 he said he'd release his tax returns when Obama released his birth certificate..... Obama did the latter, Trump still hasn't done the former) would be released, so perhaps 'at the right time' means 'years later if you're extremely lucky' in Trumpian.

[Mountain Man]

Judge signals he’s willing to unseal some of Mar-a-Lago affidavit
.

Reinhart, noting that he had reviewed the affidavit multiple times, said he believed parts of it could be made public without impeding the probe.

The government had argued that its investigation was in the “early stages” and that release of the affidavit could chill potential witnesses, risk the safety of those already interviewed, reveal future investigative steps and disclose significant amounts of grand jury material.

“I’m not prepared to find the affidavit should be fully sealed,” Reinhart said. “I believe based on my initial careful review of the affidavit many times that there are portions that could preemptively be unsealed.”

Reinhart said he would not make a decision until reviewing the government’s proposed redactions and would stay any ruling pending potential appeals — meaning the affidavit may not be made public for some time, if ever.

Months, if ever, I'm thinking.

At least until after the midterms since the Democrats are counting on this blatant witch hunt to hurt Republicans in November.

[Juvenal]

Yet, if it is true that the lawyers were made to stay outside during the search, a CCTV view would still be better than what they had -- which is not saying much.

A search warrant caught a suspect red-handed retaining highly classified files after they were requested, then subpoenaed, and after his lawyers stated that no such files remained on site. The lawyers then asked to be allowed to tag along with the search teams.

That's a big nope from me.

[RumTumTugger]

Turley thinks there should be a special master. Makes me wonder why Trump's people haven't demanded one.

Trump did request a spiecial Master the DOJ refused that demand for one. Did you even read the post of team's you quoted. Good grief the information is even in the first part you quoted the from her where she quoted fox news explaining it it was even in bold. Go back and read teal's post you are replying to hear you owe a mea culpa for your assertion about Trump that teal's post you are replying to disproves

[Gondwanaland]

Judge signals he’s willing to unseal some of Mar-a-Lago affidavit
.

Reinhart, noting that he had reviewed the affidavit multiple times, said he believed parts of it could be made public without impeding the probe.

The government had argued that its investigation was in the “early stages” and that release of the affidavit could chill potential witnesses, risk the safety of those already interviewed, reveal future investigative steps and disclose significant amounts of grand jury material.

“I’m not prepared to find the affidavit should be fully sealed,” Reinhart said. “I believe based on my initial careful review of the affidavit many times that there are portions that could preemptively be unsealed.”

Reinhart said he would not make a decision until reviewing the government’s proposed redactions and would stay any ruling pending potential appeals — meaning the affidavit may not be made public for some time, if ever.

Months, if ever, I'm thinking.

Interestingly, despite all Trumps rhetoric about how he was demanding that the affidavit be released..... his lawyer showed up Thursday and said she was there to observe, and did not file or speak in favor of the release for her client. The media were the only ones there to legally push for its release.

sounds like the usual Trump routine of blustering and pretending he wants something only to quietly behind the scenes do nothing or even work against it because he doesn't actually want it done. My guess is he's scared of what it might reveal but wants that public front being put out for all to see as if he isn't afraid and wants it released.

[Stoic]

Yeppers, a junior 'judge' more like a physician's assistant to a physician.

Knowing that they were after a very literally unprecedented warrant, the FBI should have been looking for a real judge, not just a magistrate. They needed the squeaky clean optics.

This instead looks like what it actually is - judge shopping. It's way too common even at the best of times, but this was really really politically stupid.

I realize that your post is over a week old, but I came across Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in a discussion with Sparko, and I thought you should see it.

(b) VENUE FOR A WARRANT APPLICATION. At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:(1) a magistrate judge with authority in the district-or if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the district-has authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district; ...

(d) OBTAINING A WARRANT.(1)In General. After receiving an affidavit or other information, a magistrate judge-or if authorized by Rule 41(b), a judge of a state court of record-must issue the warrant if there is probable cause to search for and seize a person or property or to install and use a tracking device. ...

(emphasis mine)

If the DOJ had gone to a "real judge" when a magistrate judge was reasonably available, THEN there would be a problem.

[Sparko]

Sort of. It tells me that IF Trump's attorneys think the search was unlawful, they can file a motion to have the property returned. (Rule 41(g))

What it doesn't say is that the seizure of privileged material in itself makes the search unlawful, or that the government can't use its own people as the "filter" group.

Now, we just have to wait and see whether Trump's attorneys think the search was unlawful, and if so, whether the courts agree with them. I suspect the government won't make the same mistake it made in that case, and try to keep materials after they have been determined to be privileged, given that they have already notified Trump's attorneys about some of the material being privileged.

The opinion was pretty clear and said the same thing I said. The whole point of privileged information is to keep it private, and they reamed the government and the district court for "callous disgregard" in taking the privileged information in the first place and for trying to use a filter group that they controlled. What more do you want???

I guess you are going to read what you want to read and ignore anything that doesn't fit your confirmation bias.

[RumTumTugger]

You truly are a nutter.

So you are trying to say someone who worked security and With security cameras doesn't know what he is talking about. Tell me Gondwanaland what is your experience with security and what you can see usining security cameras?

[Stoic]

Trump did request a spiecial Master the DOJ refused that demand for one. Did you even read the post of team's you quoted. Good grief the information is even in the first part you quoted the from her where she quoted fox news explaining it it was even in bold. Go back and read teal's post you are replying to hear you owe a mea culpa for your assertion about Trump that teal's post you are replying to disproves

No, Trump did not request a special master. Turley thought he did:

Now, sources are telling Fox that the Justice Department not only took attorney-client material but has refused Trump requests for a special master to review the records.

But this is what Fox News had to say:

Sources told Fox News that, due to attorney-client privilege, Trump’s team asked the Justice Department for their position on whether they would support a third party, independent special master to review those records, but sources told Fox News that the DOJ notified Trump's team that they would oppose that request.

A special master is not appointed by the DOJ, but rather by a judge. The DOJ can't refuse a special master if the judge chooses to appoint one.

If Trump's team wants a special master appointed, the DOJ is the wrong place to ask.

[Gondwanaland]

So you are trying to say someone who worked security and With security cameras doesn't know what he is talking about. Tell me Gondwanaland what is your experience with security and what you can see usining security cameras?

So you are speaking for him and telling me he worked security with security cameras at Mar A Lago?

[Gondwanaland]

Trump did request a spiecial Master the DOJ refused that demand for one.

Source?

You do know that the DOJ does not appoint Special Masters, but rather judges do (and thus the DOJ cannot 'refuse that demand for one' - they can enter their objections and arguments, but they have no real say on whether one is appointed or not)..... right?

So where is the filing by the lawyers requesting a Special Master?

Or is this another case of bluster by the Trump crew saying they want something and then not actually following through, like they did with the affidavit yesterday?

Did you even read the post of team's you quoted. Good grief the information is even in the first part you quoted the from her where she quoted fox news explaining it it was even in bold. Go back and read teal's post you are replying to hear you owe a mea culpa for your assertion about Trump that teal's post you are replying to disproves

Well given that you, Fox News, and apparently Turley, don't know how a special master is appointed..... sounds like you owe the mea culpa.