Trump indicted over classified documents

263,995 Views | 3598 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by fasthorse05
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1. Why was Trump's motion to dismiss concealed from the American public until now?

and;

2. Under what circumstances is it constitutional for a criminal defendant's motion alleging constitutional violations to be kept under seal?

Someone let me know.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Special Prosecutor Jack Smith has just admitted that he and other DOJ and FBI minions manipulated documentary evidence underlying the Mar-a-Lago case against Donald Trump. Everybody from Judge Aileen Cannon on down realizes this is bad. Still, I wonder how many people have noticed that Smith has admitted to doing what the J6 defendants are accused and have been convicted of doing: Violating 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2). The statutory charges against the J6 defendants are a specious abuse of the law but they perfectly fit Smith's admitted conduct.

One of the main tools in the DOJ arsenal against anyone near the Capitol on January 6, 2021, is 1512(c)(2), which the DOJ claims means imprisonment for a person who "corruptly...obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding..." That is what the DOJ claims happened when ordinary Americans (a) exercised their rights of free speech and (b) usually inadvertently, entered onto Capitol land after masked agitators had removed "no trespassing" signage and fencing and after the Capitol police had opened the building's doors. The penalty is fines and/or imprisonment, with the latter potentially as long as 20 years.
Quote:

But while the DOJ is focusing everyone's attention on subsection (2), they're ignoring subsection (1):
Quote:

(c) Whoever corruptly
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding...



Does that remind you of anything? It certainly does me.

It reminds me of Smith's admission to Judge Aileen Cannon about his and his minions' handling of the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago, documents that then served as the basis for his decision to indict Donald Trump. (Ignore, for now, the fact that Trump, as president of the United States, had plenary power to do as he would with national security information, unhindered either by prior Executive Orders, administrative regulations, or legislation.
Quote:

As any litigator knows, maintaining documents in the order in which they're seized or produced is enormously important. That's because order itself provides important information about the chronology of events or a person's intent or innocence. It's also of particular concern in this case because these documents were apparently packed by the General Services Administration, which then told Trump to pick them up.

In addition, it's now beyond question that the DOJ doctored the crime scene photos it publicized to the world to "prove" that Donald Trump had allegedly violated national security laws. (See my disclaimer above about Trump's immunity from such a claim.)
Read the rest HERE
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?



Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stat Monitor Repairman said:

Stat Monitor Repairman said:




NPR running interference by launching investigation of Cannon over alleged undeclared trips to judicial conference in Montana.

Hijacks the narrative for the upcoming week and we'll hear demands for recusal.

How bad is it when you got to call in Mary Louise Kelly to get a lick in on Cannon?





Petition must've not moved the needle at all.

Now the judge is a threat to national security.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?

nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG




Deadly force. Remind me again why anyone would ever consider voting for a democrat?
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So freaking unreal! Liberals are sick
VegasAg86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:





Deadly force. Remind me again why anyone would ever consider voting for a democrat?
No option is too extreme when you are trying to stop Hitler from coming into power. No telling what the loons will try if Trump wins.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We like Julie Kelly
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Then you like someone who isn't very smart.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98 said:

Then you like someone who isn't very smart.

Disagree. And we don't like to listen to lying dems. Sorry bud.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HTownAg98 said:

You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.

What about raiding a former president's home is similar to when the FBI "does anything?"

There was absolutely no reason for the FBI to be involved in a former president having a dispute with NARA, much less raiding his home.

It is bananas that this happened. Now, we're just saying "It's normal?" Do you hear yourself?
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98 said:

You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.

she is literally posting up the unsealing of documents verbatim copy and paste. What part are you not liking?
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98 said:

You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.

ok. I read the briefing she's citing to.

The Biden administration concocted the whole thing and the FBI raid was entirely unnecessary. It was purely a political stunt.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jt2hunt said:

HTownAg98 said:

You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.

she is literally posting up the unsealing of documents verbatim copy and paste. What part are you not liking?
The hyperbole about "lethal force." That's standard for nearly every search warrant the FBI executes. She's trying to drum up outrage about standard language in a search warrant. It's nonsense.
jt2hunt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How do you know it is standard language in every case?
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98 said:

jt2hunt said:

HTownAg98 said:

You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.

she is literally posting up the unsealing of documents verbatim copy and paste. What part are you not liking?
The hyperbole about "lethal force." That's standard for nearly every search warrant the FBI executes. She's trying to drum up outrage about standard language in a search warrant. It's nonsense.
go read the briefing. This was a search warrant that was approved and executed based on a litany of lies and lies by omission to the magistrate that approved it.

And all the while many voices in the Biden administration clearly admitted that a FBI raid was completely unnecessary.

So as adamant as you are that this was all "standard FBI procedure," this was actually an armed raid on a former president's home based on what appears to be an illegal investigation from the first place concocted by political adversaries in the name of grabbing headlines.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The bigger problem our friends on the left have at this point is that the judge where venue is mandatory is going to keep on letting the Biden administration wrongdoing reach the public until the public is crystal clear about how we got here and who was directing the show.

Basically, if the wrongdoing alleged that the Biden administration was engaged in is true, there will be hell to pay. They don't just get to disappear this case because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brad's reporting has been pretty solid, and he's very familiar with how the FBI and DOJ operate, as opposed to some former political consultant turned stay-at-home mom turned legal scholar.
Funky Winkerbean
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
VegasAg86 said:

nortex97 said:





Deadly force. Remind me again why anyone would ever consider voting for a democrat?
No option is too extreme when you are trying to stop Hitler from coming into power. No telling what the loons will try if Trump wins.


Death is what they wanted. Good thing the Trump people didn't instigate anything to give the FBI cause to act.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98 said:

Brad's reporting has been pretty solid, and he's very familiar with how the FBI and DOJ operate, as opposed to some former political consultant turned stay-at-home mom turned legal scholar.

All we have to know is the Biden administration currently owns the FBI. And again, Julie does good work.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98 said:

Brad's reporting has been pretty solid, and he's very familiar with how the FBI and DOJ operate, as opposed to some former political consultant turned stay-at-home mom turned legal scholar.
I don't need interpretation from a reporter. I am a lawyer and I read the briefing myself.

The Biden administration is in a 12 piece bucket of trouble on this case.

The usual chiding they've done in the other cases that seems to gain traction with those courts doesn't work in a hostile forum.

This case was a severe blunder for the Biden administration.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HTownAg98 said:

jt2hunt said:

HTownAg98 said:

You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.

she is literally posting up the unsealing of documents verbatim copy and paste. What part are you not liking?
The hyperbole about "lethal force." That's standard for nearly every search warrant the FBI executes. She's trying to drum up outrage about standard language in a search warrant. It's nonsense.
This is nothing like "nearly every search warrant." This has never happened before. Seems a little "robust" to me, but Biden would probably have been glad if Trump had been injured. It would have saved all the lawfare to put him in prison.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BS.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HTownAg98 said:

BS.
No. This is literally novel.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ellis Wyatt said:

HTownAg98 said:

jt2hunt said:

HTownAg98 said:

You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.

she is literally posting up the unsealing of documents verbatim copy and paste. What part are you not liking?
The hyperbole about "lethal force." That's standard for nearly every search warrant the FBI executes. She's trying to drum up outrage about standard language in a search warrant. It's nonsense.
This is nothing like "nearly every search warrant." This has never happened before. Seems a little "robust" to me, but Biden would probably have been glad if Trump had been injured. It would have saved all the lawfare to put him in prison.

Uh, yes it is. Every single LEO has a right to use reasonable force, and that can include deadly force, when executing a warrant. If someone came around a corner at MAL and started shooting at the agents, they'd be well within their rights to return fire. The idea the Biden was hoping Trump would be shot in this raid is just mind-boggling stupid.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98 said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

HTownAg98 said:

jt2hunt said:

HTownAg98 said:

You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.

she is literally posting up the unsealing of documents verbatim copy and paste. What part are you not liking?
The hyperbole about "lethal force." That's standard for nearly every search warrant the FBI executes. She's trying to drum up outrage about standard language in a search warrant. It's nonsense.
This is nothing like "nearly every search warrant." This has never happened before. Seems a little "robust" to me, but Biden would probably have been glad if Trump had been injured. It would have saved all the lawfare to put him in prison.

Uh, yes it is. Every single LEO has a right to use reasonable force, and that can include deadly force, when executing a warrant. If someone came around a corner at MAL and started shooting at the agents, they'd be well within their rights to return fire. The idea the Biden was hoping Trump would be shot in this raid is just mind-boggling stupid.

You've lost it dude. Your bias is running amok.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HTownAg98 said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

HTownAg98 said:

jt2hunt said:

HTownAg98 said:

You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.

she is literally posting up the unsealing of documents verbatim copy and paste. What part are you not liking?
The hyperbole about "lethal force." That's standard for nearly every search warrant the FBI executes. She's trying to drum up outrage about standard language in a search warrant. It's nonsense.
This is nothing like "nearly every search warrant." This has never happened before. Seems a little "robust" to me, but Biden would probably have been glad if Trump had been injured. It would have saved all the lawfare to put him in prison.

Uh, yes it is. Every single LEO has a right to use reasonable force, and that can include deadly force, when executing a warrant. If someone came around a corner at MAL and started shooting at the agents, they'd be well within their rights to return fire. The idea the Biden was hoping Trump would be shot in this raid is just mind-boggling stupid.
seriously go read the briefing.

They do not have the right to lie repeatedly through their teeth to the judge that signed the warrant to get it in the first place.

The "standard" FBI raid you're so adamant was completely routine was based on a warrant obtained by defrauding a court with the fruits of an investigative process that was, in itself, illegal.

So no, there is nothing "standard" or "routine" about this.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jt2hunt said:

How do you know it is standard language in every case?
Because Reuter's reporter Brad Heath SAID SO!
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

They do not have the right to lie repeatedly through their teeth to the judge that signed the warrant to get it in the first place.

The "standard" FBI raid you're so adamant was completely routine was based on a warrant obtained by defrauding a court with the fruits of an investigative process that was, in itself, illegal.

So no, there is nothing "standard" or "routine" about this.
That probable cause affidavit has been a big concern to me from the moment the raid occurred.
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

HTownAg98 said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

HTownAg98 said:

jt2hunt said:

HTownAg98 said:

You all need to stop listening to Julie Kelly.

she is literally posting up the unsealing of documents verbatim copy and paste. What part are you not liking?
The hyperbole about "lethal force." That's standard for nearly every search warrant the FBI executes. She's trying to drum up outrage about standard language in a search warrant. It's nonsense.
This is nothing like "nearly every search warrant." This has never happened before. Seems a little "robust" to me, but Biden would probably have been glad if Trump had been injured. It would have saved all the lawfare to put him in prison.

Uh, yes it is. Every single LEO has a right to use reasonable force, and that can include deadly force, when executing a warrant. If someone came around a corner at MAL and started shooting at the agents, they'd be well within their rights to return fire. The idea the Biden was hoping Trump would be shot in this raid is just mind-boggling stupid.
seriously go read the briefing.

They do not have the right to lie repeatedly through their teeth to the judge that signed the warrant to get it in the first place.

The "standard" FBI raid you're so adamant was completely routine was based on a warrant obtained by defrauding a court with the fruits of an investigative process that was, in itself, illegal.

So no, there is nothing "standard" or "routine" about this.

Which is all irrelevant to the actual execution of the warrant itself. Answer me this. If some dumbass came up behind the agents and starting shooting at them, would the agents have a right to engage and return fire if necessary to neutralize the threat?
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You actually think Trumps folks were going to start shooting at the FBI? What's wrong with you?
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Of course not. That's as ridiculous as thinking Biden was hoping Trump would be injured.
First Page Last Page
Page 94 of 103
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.