|
Tayter Swift posted:Has anyone called this a grand MAL seizure yet
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
McCarthy tryna be cute. https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1556812387914637312
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 05:34
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Not sure I understand it. They are saying, if they could use real descriptors it would take three pages to list all the things they want but they have to call them something else, I guess maybe "Cocktail Napkin 1," "Calendar planner page 2." mdemone posted:I hate having to confirm this to you of all posters, but: yes. toterunner posted:There won't be more to it, and everyone saying that there must be because the raid would be abnormal otherwise will forget saying that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 05:46
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:There are documents in this collection that are so classified they cannot be described with any specificity because they knowledge of them alone is classified at the highest level. Like, "Memorandum regarding our nukes in Iran" or something so loving classified you can't even describe it in a warrant because the description itself is "eyes only" for a very few select government agents. It would only be fitting for this hosed up timeline we live in that Trump would have the proof of extraterrestrial life in the basement of his golf club.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:It would only be fitting for this hosed up timeline we live in that Trump would have the proof of extraterrestrial life in the basement of his golf club. There's no way he wouldn't have blabbed about it at one of his rallies if he knew about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:There's no way he wouldn't have blabbed about it at one of his rallies if he knew about it. Just because he took it doesn't mean he read it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 11:48
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:McCarthy tryna be cute. Pre-announcing your intentions to commit obstruction of justice is a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Pre-announcing your intentions to commit obstruction of justice is a bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off for him. It's worked out pretty good for conservatives in the past
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 16:41
|
|
|
it probably doesn't matter at this point but https://twitter.com/BrianneGorod/status/1557025024267124736
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 16:45
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:it probably doesn't matter at this point but Bad week for trimp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:it probably doesn't matter at this point but How many damned times have we seen rulings ordering Trump's taxes to be turned over to some party or another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:How many damned times have we seen rulings ordering Trump's taxes to be turned over to some party or another. Yes, he's lost every case about it. Last February SCOTUS refused to hear his appeal, and Mazars turned over the previous decade's worth of his taxes to the Manhattan DA. But those were subject to grand jury rules preventing their release. House Ways and Means could do more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
I've been doing some a/b testing, and have found that if you explicitly call for trump to be executed by the state (as per the constitution), snowflakes and sockpuppets will report it and the robocop automatically cripples your account; but if you leave it for the reader to discern what the 'harshest sentence' implies, it doesn't trigger the robocop no matter how may times they mash the 'report' button.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
cr0y posted:What's dark Brandon, I'm assuming something very very stupid A sea of memes with Joe with either an eyepatch or glowing eyes, but never both! I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
Uh, preemptively going to ask you to be real careful about where this conversation goes. e: referencing Uglycat's post, not the meme one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
Red posted:A sea of memes with Joe with either an eyepatch or glowing eyes, but never both! https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/1557100478911111168
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:25
|
|
|
So the facts we know are that: Trump took (15) boxes of classified information with him to his personal residence When told to return them he only returned a portion Investigators went to MAL and spoke to trump’s lawyers and they showed them the remaining documents being held in an unsecured location When requested to secure the documents (I.e. as per federal requirements) they put an insufficient pad lock on the door *something’s missing here* The FBI executes a warrant and seizes the remaining documents The DOJ is not going to go from a polite “please secure these appropriately” to 12 agents executing a warrant at dawn. I’m thinking the records seized just now are not the same records that they have been tut tutting about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
Murgos posted:So the facts we know are that: They had reason to believe some of those docs had been copied/sent/given, sufficient for a warrant. That's going to be the play.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:31
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:How many damned times have we seen rulings ordering Trump's taxes to be turned over to some party or another. But he can't. Since they're under audit you see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
Murgos posted:So the facts we know are that: I don't think your logic follows - it's not like they could just grab the boxes when the lawyers showed them to the investigators. And if your logic relies on the DOJ flexing its muscles and making big moves (even if within their authority), evidence to date shows that they have been MUCH more cautious about Trump. They would take their time and get a proper warrant, and go through five revisions while getting Garland's sign-off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
Devor posted:I don't think your logic follows - it's not like they could just grab the boxes when the lawyers showed them to the investigators. They were literally witnessing a crime in progress. They could have seized them then and there if that was the play. Edit: MAL had to have had a SCIF installed during his presidency. Why wouldn’t the docs have been in there? Maybe that’s what they mean by basement? Murgos fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Aug 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:40
|
|
|
Murgos posted:They were literally witnessing a crime in progress. They could have seized them then and there if that was the play. Right, they COULD have. But they COULD do a lot of things about Trump that they choose not to, because he's an ex president. So any argument that an action is unlikely because they didn't choose to act, is a bad argument. We have seen them choose not to act, continuously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:44
|
|
|
mdemone posted:They had reason to believe some of those docs had been copied/sent/given, sufficient for a warrant. That's going to be the play. Do we actually know this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Trump could clear a lot of this up if he released the warrant he was served
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Devor posted:Right, they COULD have. But they COULD do a lot of things about Trump that they choose not to, because he's an ex president. My point isn’t that they chose to or not to act though. It’s that they went from 0 to super sonic in one go. “Please return them and if you won’t then at least lock them up” isn’t the immediate prelude to a no knock dawn raid. So, to me, it seems unlikely that if they wouldn’t seize documents where they were witness to the crime in progress then they weren’t going to do a raid either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Murgos posted:They were literally witnessing a crime in progress. They could have seized them then and there if that was the play. You'd probably have to log both files and people in and out of a SCIF and if you're intention with classified documents is to crime with them, you probably want to avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 21:55
|
|
|
Let's say Trump kept records to sell or "show off" to certain visitors - the DOJ and FBI would have proof of that and probably why the executed the warrant without any sort of leak or warning? We all know that Trump just hosted a Saudi-sponsored golf event at his course just a short time ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
Depending on what those documents were and who/if they were showed to... This could be a BFD. Like he’s a spy BFD.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Do we actually know this? No but we can reasonably infer it, given that if the docs existing and being stored there is a crime, they'd just have subpoenaed them. They knew what to expect to find, and they argued it needed to be seized now because of a crime in progress. Or recently committed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
mdemone posted:No but we can reasonably infer it, given that if the docs existing and being stored there is a crime, they'd just have subpoenaed them. This (both the inference and the government's argument) are possible explanations. They're clearly the ones you find most compelling, and may even be most likely. But they're not the only explanations and, unless something broke in the last hourish and I missed it, they're purely speculative. There's no more evidence backing them than there is for the explanation that Garland's been sitting on the warrant for a year and finally signed off after being visited last night by the ghosts of elections past, present, and future. There's not even anything explicit that these tie to Trump crimes as opposed to Rudy or Barrack or Jared. Which is to say: Charliegrs posted:Do we actually know this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
I want an anonymized court system so all these loons can be "judged by a jury of their peers". Honestly (judged). * Death threats aimed at an official in law enforcement * Interference with the duties of an official enforcing the law * Physical assault of a law enforcement officer * Destruction of federal property * Theft of classified federal documents Ask any Republican, maga, let alone some proudmalechild and their answer will be clear: Guilty! Waterboard! Electric chair! Death by 1000 paper cuts! And then watch the jury's face when you remind them that the "executive branch" enforces the law, so the above were Trump's violations toward VP, VP, USSS, toilets (and plates), and 15 boxes of documents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Murgos posted:My point isn’t that they chose to or not to act though. It’s that they went from 0 to super sonic in one go. DeathSandwich posted:You'd probably have to log both files and people in and out of a SCIF and if you're intention with classified documents is to crime with them, you probably want to avoid it. Ringo Star Get posted:Let's say Trump kept records to sell or "show off" to certain visitors - the DOJ and FBI would have proof of that and probably why the executed the warrant without any sort of leak or warning? My guess: the Feds bugged MAL when National Archives showed up a few months back to collect the docs. They telegraph to Trump pretty heavily what they want and what they know. Prior to this, they would have gained authorization from a Judge claiming that Trump taking boxes of classified docs justified surveilling the former President over concerns that he intended to misuse them. When NA collects everything, they inventory it and determine that a portion of what they asked for is missing, so now they know exactly what they're looking for. Maybe they even re-approach to say that it looks like some items are missing and he demures because he thinks everyone is stupider than he is. So, they wait until the surveillance shows he lied and where the docs are being held and now they have all the evidence they need to get a warrant application approved to raid MAL. It's either that or a close ally of Trump's ratted him out. Just seems odd that they knew what they were looking for and suddenly knew exactly where it was. negativeneil fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Aug 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
With the net closing in on the Jan 6th stuff, my guess is someone close to Trump has made a plea deal with the authorities and turned into an informer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
when was Mark meadows last at MAL? also this could very well be related https://twitter.com/JaxAlemany/status/1557127681296277511 Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Aug 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:With the net closing in on the Jan 6th stuff, my guess is someone close to Trump has made a plea deal with the authorities and turned into an informer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:when was Mark meadows last at MAL? Don't you need a warrant to do this? I'm always skeptical when you hear "Now the FBI is raiding me!!" Type stuff, seems like just a way to get in the news. I wish I knew how to track down this stuff in public records.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Depending on what those documents were and who/if they were showed to... I want this to be true so bad, because the Adam McKay movie we would get from it would be loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Don't you need a warrant to do this? I'm always skeptical when you hear "Now the FBI is raiding me!!" Type stuff, seems like just a way to get in the news. I wish I knew how to track down this stuff in public records. According to the article, he said they had a warrant. quote:Perry, in an exclusive statement, told Fox News on Tuesday that while traveling with his family earlier in the day, he was approached by three FBI agents who handed him a warrant and requested that he turn over his cellphone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
Scott Perry was also one of the MoC's who asked Trump for a pardon. What for, I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Rigel posted:Scott Perry was also one of the MoC's who asked Trump for a pardon. What for, I'm not sure. "Perry reportedly played a key role in a December 2020 crisis at the Justice Department, in which Trump considered firing Rosen and replacing him with Jeffrey Clark, the acting chief of the civil division of the DOJ.[73] According to The Los Angeles Times, Perry "prompted" Trump to consider the replacement.[80] The New York Times reported that Perry introduced Clark to Trump because Clark's "openness to conspiracy theories about election fraud presented Mr. Trump with a welcome change from Rosen, who stood by the results of the election and had repeatedly resisted the president's efforts to undo them."[73] Before the certification of the electoral college vote on January 6, Perry and Clark reportedly discussed a plan in which the Justice Department would send Georgia legislators a letter suggesting the DOJ had evidence of voter fraud and suggesting the legislators invalidate Georgia's electoral votes, even though the DOJ had investigated reports of fraud but found nothing significant, as attorney general Bill Barr had publicly announced weeks earlier.[73][81] Clark drafted a letter to Georgia officials and presented it to Rosen and his deputy Richard Donoghue. It claimed the DOJ had "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States" and urged the Georgia legislature to convene a special session for the "purpose of considering issues pertaining to the appointment of Presidential Electors." Rosen and Donoghue rejected the proposal.[82] In August 2021, CNN reported that Ratcliffe had briefed top Justice Department officials that no evidence had been found of any foreign powers' interference with voting machines. Clark was reportedly concerned that intelligence community analysts were withholding information and believed Perry and others knew more about possible foreign interference. Clark requested authorization from Rosen and Donoghue for another briefing from Ratcliffe, asserting hackers had found that "a Dominion machine accessed the Internet through a smart thermostat with a net connection trail leading back to China."[83] "
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2022 23:50
|
|