What's new

Donald is about to go through some things...

I am not defending Trump. I know you struggle thinking outside the "us or them" dichotomy box. Trump is absolutely a hypocrite but we already knew this. That does not make his actions any less reasonable, nor does it "prove" his guilt. For the record I have no doubt he probably took documents he shouldn't have. But like anyone else there should be a presumption of innocence before pronouncing guilt. No matter how heinous the crime may be, the criminal is still entitled to their rights, all the way through the justice process, whether we like it or not.

I am saying that I think people jumping all over other people using their 5th amendment rights as automatically guilty is a false equivalency and a problem in the perceptions of our justice system. And it is generally good practice to say as little as you can until you have fully consulted with your lawyers, and even then it is best to say as little as possible.
Whoa whoa LG. I appreciate you clarifying things here. I liked your previous post and most of this last post although we could do without the ad hominem attack.

I’d think an innocent person would want to clear things up with the AG as soon as possible. If there were misunderstandings or mistakes, clear them up. I don’t think one should just automatically take the 5th because they don’t want to answer questions.

But Thanks for the clarification.
 
I dont think thriller was talking about trump pleading the fifth in regards to this search warrant being executed to retrieve the documents. I believe he was talking about trump pleading the fifth in a totally separate court case that is taking place in court.
Its hard to keep up with all the cases in trump world. There are a lot of them.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Exactly. I think LG got his wires crossed. And then he took this from a 1 to 11 in a split second. Not sure I deserved that at all but whatever.
 
Well i mean if you are in a courtroom and are innocent and have spoken with your lawyer in preperation for the case then i might want to speak to prove my innocence and get the case over wih so i dont have to continue going to court and paying my lawyer.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Exactly this.

If everyone just plead the 5th every time, I’m not sure if our court system would really operate anymore. It’s my understanding that the 5th shouldn’t be used as the default

I’d think the AG might actually be less inclined to go for the kill against a rich guy. White collar crime is the hardest to prove for public prosecutors. It would be naive to think the AG office has it in for him. Especially considering how often AGs refuse to go after millionaires and billionaires.
 
I dont think thriller was talking about trump pleading the fifth in regards to this search warrant being executed to retrieve the documents. I believe he was talking about trump pleading the fifth in a totally separate court case that is taking place in court.
Its hard to keep up with all the cases in trump world. There are a lot of them.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
I get that. I think I clarified what I was talking about as well.
 
At trial absolutely. During the investigation say as little as possible.

Well i mean if you are in a courtroom and are innocent and have spoken with your lawyer in preperation for the case then i might want to speak to prove my innocence and get the case over wih so i dont have to continue going to court and paying my lawyer.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Yeah I addressed that too.
 
If everyone just plead the 5th every time, I’m not sure if our court system would really operate anymore. It’s my understanding that the 5th shouldn’t be used as the default.
The primary professional motivation for police is to close cases. The primary professional motivation for prosecutors is to put people in jail. In the pursuit of these objectives, they are protected against punishment from almost all malfeasance. Your thought here seems a little naive.
 
Well i mean if you are in a courtroom and are innocent and have spoken with your lawyer in preperation for the case then i might want to speak to prove my innocence and get the case over wih so i dont have to continue going to court and paying my lawyer.
Congratulations for obviously never having been there. You speaking to prove your innocence in court to get the case over with isn't how court proceedings work.
 
To obtain a search warrant, you need two things,” according to Barbara L. McQuade, the former U.S attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. “You have to have conducted a sufficient investigation beforehand to demonstrate probable cause that a specific crime has been committed, and you need to show convincingly that evidence of that crime will be found at the location. These are not blind fishing expeditions.”

Political affiliation, as a matter of Department of Justice policy, cannot have any influence on that process. And even if it could, the present optics are a bit awkward. The current FBI director, Christopher Wray, a longtime Republican, was appointed by Trump; prior to that, in private practice, he defended former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a member of Trump’s transition team, during the so-called “Bridgegate” scandal.

Given the sensitivity of this case, McQuade said, Wray will have almost certainly been briefed in detail and had to have approved the move to obtain a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. Even then, there was never any guarantee it would be granted.

The warrant was issued by a federal magistrate judge in Florida.

“Even if you don’t believe politics isn’t involved in criminal investigations,” McQuade said, “magistrate judges tend to be especially neutral and detached, because they’re selected by U.S. district court judges – entire benches – and so you end up with people who are really quite moderate.”

Tracy Walder, a former FBI special agent and CIA operative, laughed when asked whether obtaining a search warrant in an investigation into an ordinary American was as simple as just dialing up a judge to railroad a personal enemy.

Walder noted that the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago was executed by the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the Department of Justice. “I was on that squad at the FBI,” Walder said. “I will never forget when I had to go and get a search warrant. My supervisor told me, ‘If you don't get it, don’t bother coming back to the office. Turn in your badge, you're done.’ You need an overabundance of information to obtain one to a point that — I'll be frank — is annoying. I could have a guy on the phone admitting to a crime, and that wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient.”

In Trump’s case, Walder said, the very fact that the FBI felt compelled to seek out a warrant underscores the gravity of what it has determined so far. Unlike wiretaps or surreptitious entries, search warrants become public information, especially when they target public figures; the inevitable fallout from targeting a public figure of this magnitude will have been considered extremely carefully at all levels of law enforcement involved.

Among the documents that Walder believes were stowed improperly at Mar-a-Largo were President's Daily Briefs (PDBs), the top-secret bulletins handed to the commander-in-chief every morning of his administration. These materials can often contain information that would compromise human sources or other mechanisms by which the U.S. intelligence community gathers its intelligence. Trump famously revealed highly classified intelligence related to an ISIS terror plot to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and former Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak while they met with him in the Oval Office in 2017.

Federal investigators, Strzok added, could have found all the probable cause they needed for a search warrant while at Mar-a-Lago at Trump’s invitation.

CNN reported that on June 3, Jay Bratt, the head of the Counterintelligence and Export Control section at the Justice Department, traveled to the property with three colleagues. They met with two of Trump’s attorneys there, and briefly with Trump himself. The attorneys allowed the investigators access to a basement room where the presidential documents were being kept. Some had Top Secret markings, according to one source interviewed by CNN.

Five days later, at the request of the investigators, Trump’s aides installed a padlock to the door of the storage room.

“They probably saw stuff that Trump should absolutely not be in possession of,” Strzok said. “Subpoenaing it won’t work, because of the chain of custody. And Trump isn’t acting in good faith to just hand the stuff over. The only other option left is to get a warrant.”

@Al-O-Meter
@Bucknutz
@Just Ted

read the above. This isnt some political witch hunt. This is law enforcement doing their jobs. One my favorite parts: Trump famously revealed highly classified intelligence related to an ISIS terror plot to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and former Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak while they met with him in the Oval Office in 2017.

trump has a history that shouldnt be overlooked.
 
Last edited:
To obtain a search warrant, you need two things,” according to Barbara L. McQuade, the former U.S attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. “You have to have conducted a sufficient investigation beforehand to demonstrate probable cause that a specific crime has been committed, and you need to show convincingly that evidence of that crime will be found at the location. These are not blind fishing expeditions.”
...
“Even if you don’t believe politics isn’t involved in criminal investigations,” McQuade said, “magistrate judges tend to be especially neutral and detached, because they’re selected by U.S. district court judges – entire benches – and so you end up with people who are really quite moderate.”
LOL. It could be like that or it could be the FBI went to a judge who was a democrat party donor and had ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

One my favorite parts: Trump famously revealed highly classified intelligence related to an ISIS terror plot to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and former Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak while they met with him in the Oval Office in 2017.
I'm glad you liked that because it ignores that the president has the broad power to declassify anything for any reason at any time without any process requirements. An aide could have handed Trump a document with 'Top Secret - Classified' stamped in red ink across the face of it and Trump had the power to decide on the spot that it was no longer classified and he could immediately communicate the contents to whomever he wanted. The limitations on Trump was that he wasn't allowed to take or destroy the only copy of a thing. All records had to be preserved.
 
read the above. This isnt some political witch hunt. This is law enforcement doing their jobs. One my favorite parts: Trump famously revealed highly classified intelligence related to an ISIS terror plot to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and former Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak while they met with him in the Oval Office in 2017.

trump has a history that shouldnt be overlooked.
Why did you tag me. Just because I don’t agree with you on all things?

This isn’t new information. Did you just learn about this?
 
LOL. It could be like that or it could be the FBI went to a judge who was a democrat party donor and had ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

I'm glad you liked that because it ignores that the president has the broad power to declassify anything for any reason at any time without any process requirements. An aide could have handed Trump a document with 'Top Secret - Classified' stamped in red ink across the face of it and Trump had the power to decide on the spot that it was no longer classified and he could immediately communicate the contents to whomever he wanted. The limitations on Trump was that he wasn't allowed to take or destroy the only copy of a thing. All records had to be preserved.

It wasnt like that. If you can read then you will see that info on the judge that issued the warrant is right there. It wasnt a democtatic party donor with ties to epstein. In fact the head of the fbi is actually a republican with ties to trump and other repuclican politicians. Its literally the opposite of what you accuse.

I agree that trump had the power to do what you said. Not sure why you would defend that action. I have the power to abuse my child. Doesnt mean its defensible or ok.

Its weird how hard you are willing to defend trump in his instance and attack law enforcement. It really tells a lot about just exactly how partisan you are. Its definitely time to stop discussion with you as nothing will get through. You read all that i just posted about how the process works from people who know how the process works and just through it out the window to instead believe a fairy tale that your paty has invented as how the process actually worked.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Why did you tag me. Just because I don’t agree with you on all things?

This isn’t new information. Did you just learn about this?

We had been discussing being fit to be president. I was just giving another example of why i dont think he is fit to be president.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
We had been discussing being fit to be president. I was just giving another example of why i dont think he is fit to be president.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Once again, he had the right to discuss this information about an terrorist plot. This doesn’t make him unfit. I would hope we as a country would discuss terrorist plots with countries that could be in harms way. It could hurt and kill civilians.

Just because you scream he is unfit doesn’t make him unfit. Do you want me to start posting everyday something Biden, Pelosi, AOC or others did and scream they are unfit like thriller does? You can’t have a real discussion this way. That is why thriller blocks everyone who disagrees with him, because he doesn’t want a genuine conversation about politics.
 
I'm glad you liked that because it ignores that the president has the broad power to declassify anything for any reason at any time without any process requirements.
No process requirements? Trump doesn't need to communicate that information has been declassified? So, any official from Trump's administration could claim that any piece of information was de-classified by Trump's desire to de-classify it, even when Trump did not thing to so indicate? I doubt you believe that. So, there is at least the process requirement of communicatiing that material has been de-classified.

Of course, that's something you want to dodge. Did Trump de-classify this material in Mar-a-Lago? He certainly can't at this point.
 
It wasnt like that. If you can read then you will see that info on the judge that issued the warrant is right there. It wasnt a democtatic party donor with ties to epstein. In fact the head of the fbi is actually a republican with ties to trump and other repuclican politicians. Its literally the opposite of what you accuse.
Do you know the head of the FBI and the judge who signed the warrant are different people? Judge Bruce Reinhart, who signed the search warrant to raid Mar-o-Lago, is a democrat donor and had ties to Jeffery Epstein. The article you posted and to which I replied was about the integrity and impartiality of federal judges. The idea that any federal judge would never be biased is silly and in this case plainly refuted by seeing the donations to democrat party candidates. The judge who signed off on this raid supports efforts of the democrat party.
 
Once again, he had the right to discuss this information about an terrorist plot. This doesn’t make him unfit. I would hope we as a country would discuss terrorist plots with countries that could be in harms way. It could hurt and kill civilians.

Just because you scream he is unfit doesn’t make him unfit. Do you want me to start posting everyday something Biden, Pelosi, AOC or others did and scream they are unfit like thriller does? You can’t have a real discussion this way. That is why thriller blocks everyone who disagrees with him, because he doesn’t want a genuine conversation about politics.
If you read the post below yours (one brows) then you might see that its possible he didn't have the right to discuss this information.
anywho, I was just giving you another example of why I think he is unfit. There are so freaking many examples. Its actually quite incredible.
 
In regards to talking to cops or not talking to them... I have always argued that answering their questions and being kind to a cop can be to your advantage. Not each and every cop uses each and every traffic stop and question in the traffic stop for nefarious reasons to try to get you.
Today my co worker was late to work. I asked him why. He was speeding and was pulled over. Cop asked him if he knew why he was pulled over. Co worker said yes, I was speeding and im sorry about that. Cop didn't give him a ticket. Maybe if my co worker would have refused to answer the "do you know why I pulled you over" question or answered it in a different more vague way in an attempt to deflect or deceive then maybe the cop decides to write him a ticket just because the cop gets annoyed by the responses people give to that question.

Maybe he would not have got the ticket even if he didn't answer the question the way he did but I think that cops are humans and probably appreciate a little honesty, humility and kindness in the course of their interactions with civilians.
 
Good old Eric Trump putting his foot in his mouth again.

He is saying that Biden had to have signed off on the search of mar a lago because when his dad was president Donald Trump attempted to wield power over the Department of Justice in inappropriate ways. Therefore Biden must be doing the same thing. He fails to recognize that the way trump ran things was the incorrect way and also assumes that every president tries to wield power of the department of justice rather than let them just do their job without interference.

Eric Trump just claimed that under Donald Trump‘s presidency, the Justice Department cleared search warrants with Trump himself.

Some great tweets in there. One of my favorites: So unintentionally telling. Ya see, gumbo, that's how it worked in the White House when ya dad, Cheeto Jaba, gurgled and slothed and lounged his way thru the place. This is not, in fact, how it works in a normal White House

The fact that Eric was even privy to the inner workings of the white house while not being qualified is troubling in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad you liked that because it ignores that the president has the broad power to declassify anything for any reason at any time without any process requirements. An aide could have handed Trump a document with 'Top Secret - Classified' stamped in red ink across the face of it and Trump had the power to decide on the spot that it was no longer classified and he could immediately communicate the contents to whomever he wanted. The limitations on Trump was that he wasn't allowed to take or destroy the only copy of a thing. All records had to be preserved.
I recall that incident. He has the power you describe, but we should not tolerate him being this casual with intelligence. This was Trump. The attention span of a gnat, who seldom, if ever, took the responsibilities of his office seriously. Because he had the power then, does not mean we shrug, and say “that Trump. What a scamp!” (Not that anyone here is saying that, but the response to what Trump did at the time was not so forgiving).The quote fish focused on revealed how stunningly casual Trump was in revealing the classified intelligence of an ally(Israel) to the Russians:

“This is not intelligence that the United States gathered or owned. It wasn't up to the United States to share, and so doing so really jeopardizes that relationship. It potentially damages trust that's critical in these kinds of arrangements. And I think that's one of the really big worries here," Miller told NPR. "And in this case it's important, because this is apparently an ongoing stream of intelligence into Islamic State plotting. I mean, what could be more important?"

BuzzFeed also confirmed The Post's report, with one U.S. official saying that the disclosures from the president to the Russians were "far worse than what has already been reported."

The New York Times also noted that "Trump's disclosure does not appear to have been illegal — the president has the power to declassify almost anything. But sharing the information without the express permission of the ally who provided it represented a major breach of espionage etiquette and could jeopardize a crucial intelligence-sharing relationship."


Like Trump gives a **** about allies and sensitive intelligence. I can’t imagine the DOJ and FBI doing this, knowing full well the political firestorm that would surely erupt from the Republicans, without betting they had a winning hand in the long haul. If they’re going to set this level of precedent, I think they believe that winning hand is the evidence they believe existed at Mar-a-Lago that justifies the precedent. Winning as in evidence of a crime, not Garland acting for Biden.
 
Top