Raid on President Trump's Home

[Polar Bear]

Just for shits and gigs... let's say that 45 did take highly classified documents relating to nuclear weapons and signals intelligence — two of the most sensitive areas in the entire U.S. government to an unsecured location. Would y'all still defend him?

We don’t have to, he will be pardon. That’s why this is a waste of time. Same thing with Bidens connection to China.

 

[Locksteady]

I think it's a bad move to basically "find a crime" a former president.

I have no sympathy for anybody with that level of access - much someone with original classification authority - getting book-slapped for behavior that exceeds what would already get the vast majority of other security clearance-holders years of prison time.

This applies equally to Clinton while she was SecState, and she should remain just as vulnerable to investigation as any other former agency head if there is a warranted suspicion she mishandled classified information.

The insulation a President may receive from security violation scrutiny via their appointed FBI director can and should face an equal and opposite scrutiny from a less politically sympathetic Bureau director if their behavior legally justified further investigation - which, in this case, it appears it did.

 

[Salt USMC]

Okay, I have a radical idea but hear me out on this: DOJ agrees not to charge Trump BUT he has to take the Cyber Awareness training every year

 

[Grunt]

Personally, I can only imagine the alleged TS materials that former presidents possess. We will never truly know, but if Trump does, I can imagine that many of them do/did....

 

[JedisonsDad]

So my understanding is that a regular inspection determined his locks weren’t safe enough, and they gave him time to comply and then he didn’t.

If that is true, why didn’t they take the documents then? If the documents were important enough to “raid” now, they were important enough to seize earlier. If they weren’t important enough to seize and secure earlier, they aren’t important enough to “raid” now.

 

[Grunt]

So my understanding is that a regular inspection determined his locks weren’t safe enough, and they gave him time to comply and then he didn’t.

If that is true, why didn’t they take the documents then? If the documents were important enough to “raid” now, they were important enough to seize earlier. If they weren’t important enough to seize and secure earlier, they aren’t important enough to “raid” now.

Yep...that's it in a nutshell. That's why I think this whole situation sucks....

 

[compforce]

Okay, I have a radical idea but hear me out on this: DOJ agrees not to charge Trump BUT he has to take the Cyber Awareness training every year

That would be cruel and unusual punishment. It would be found unconstitutional by SCOTUS

 

[AWP]

Wait, the FBI knew the docs were there, but were insufficiently secured? By leaving them in place, doesn’t that make the agents liable as well?

 

[Cookie_]

So my understanding is that a regular inspection determined his locks weren’t safe enough, and they gave him time to comply and then he didn’t.

If that is true, why didn’t they take the documents then? If the documents were important enough to “raid” now, they were important enough to seize earlier. If they weren’t important enough to seize and secure earlier, they aren’t important enough to “raid” now.

It seems like there are two seperate things going on. The lock is the story in much the way "they searched Melania's closet" is; it's intended to give people something inconsequential to focus on instead of the other parts in question.

From this NBC News article:

Agents went in June to take possession of documents requested by the subpoena, and were given a number of documents by Trump's legal team. The agents made the recommendation to add additional security measures to the storage room they searched.

The federal officials who went to Mar-a-Lago for the June meeting were "coming down to retrieve the documents that were being requested" in the subpoena, the source said, adding that the meeting was arranged with the Trump team's understanding that turning over relevant documents that day would fulfill the subpoena.

Citing "two sources briefed on the classified documents" sought in the subpoena, The New York Times reported Thursday that federal officials were prompted to search Mar-a-Lago because uncollected material was particularly sensitive to national security.


The source familiar with the matter told NBC News that Trump's lawyers last heard from the Justice Department before the FBI search shortly after the June meeting, when federal officials asked for additional security in the storage facility where documents were held. Trump's team added a second lock to the basement storage area, the source said.

After this happened, someone tipped the FBI off that there were still classified documents that they failed to turn over.

Trump this year had to return 15 boxes of documents that the National Archives and Records Administration said were improperly taken from the White House.


A separate source confirmed an earlier Wall Street Journal report by telling NBC News that “someone familiar” with documents inside Mar-a-Lago told investigators there may have been more classified documents at the club than were initially turned over, leading in part to the search on Monday.

The documents seized in the raid were (allegedly) in seperate locations from the previous visit in June.

From The Hill:

Investigators discovered classified documents in two areas: Trump’s personal office above a ballroom and in a storage room near the pool. Sources say there were “boxes everywhere,” with some containing Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). Those are considered some of the highest level of classified documents.

 

[JedisonsDad]

It seems like there are two seperate things going on. The lock is the story in much the way "they searched Melania's closet" is; it's intended to give people something inconsequential to focus on instead of the other parts in question.

From this NBC News article:

Agents went in June to take possession of documents requested by the subpoena, and were given a number of documents by Trump's legal team. The agents made the recommendation to add additional security measures to the storage room they searched.



After this happened, someone tipped the FBI off that there were still classified documents that they failed to turn over.



The documents seized in the raid were (allegedly) in seperate locations from the previous visit in June.

From The Hill:

Thanks for clearing that up. It’s hard to follow what all is happening, without devoting serious hours to reading.

 

[amlove21]

Thanks for clearing that up. It’s hard to follow what all is happening, without devoting serious hours to reading.

Well lucky for you, no one is doing that. Not the press or the lawyers or really anyone. So you’re not behind.

 

[ThunderHorse]

It'd clearly be a fake news political witch hunt, so of course there will be defenders.

---

Everybody keeps mentioning "he was raided over a lock!" but conveniently leaving out there was a grand jury subpoena for these documents? That seems like the bigger part of the story here.

That being said, nothing has been confirmed as to whether the TS/SCI stuff was actually nuke info or not. That's about the only part of this I think would legitimize the actions taken.

If it's shown he had info AND was going to do something with it, then smash him; otherwise, I think it's a bad move to basically "find a crime" a former president.

Gonna need you to remove your politics from your comments and begin using deductive reasoning as it pertains to the warrant. My last comment is strictly based on legal reasoning.

Within the warrant there are three attachments listed. A, B, and C.

There is no D that is even redacted. So this subpoena that they had in June is not applicable to this warrant. If it was it would be a part of the attachments.

ETA: There was no probable cause in that warrant and the scope was too broad. If that is the burden required to get a warrant, then everyone on this board should be scared as fuck because that means they need to probable cause to get a warrant and LEAs will just violate your 4th amendment rights at will. And unlike Trump, most of us don't have to kind of means to go after a local PD civilly for such a gross violation.
______
And now you can put your biased hat back on and think about how this precedent if executed on Obama would create a revolution. Again, Garland, Biden, and co didn't even think about whether they should even do this. Why? Because they're so far beyond rational human beings at this point.

 

[Cookie_]

Gonna need you to remove your politics from your comments and begin using deductive reasoning as it pertains to the warrant. My last comment is strictly based on legal reasoning.

This whole thing is going to include politics, just based on the nature of the people involved.

ETA: There was no probable cause in that warrant and the scope was too broad. If that is the burden required to get a warrant, then everyone on this board should be scared as fuck because that means they need to probable cause to get a warrant and LEAs will just violate your 4th amendment rights at will. And unlike Trump, most of us don't have to kind of means to go after a local PD civilly for such a gross violation.

For example, this is politics, whether you think it is or not. There's 1000s of lawyers who agree/disagree on you assessment, based on their personal politics.

Just a quick Google search can find legal experts who say basically everything counter to you.

So are you the only true paragon of unbiased legal opinion, or do you just have a different view based on your politics and are acting like your above the muck with everyone else?

---

I agree with the bolded, but I'm surprised this seems like a unique thing to you. Warrants have had an extremely low bar forever.

Within the warrant there are three attachments listed. A, B, and C.

There is no D that is even redacted. So this subpoena that they had in June is not applicable to this warrant. If it was it would be a part of the attachments.

So the subpoena probably holds as much legal precedent as "the lock!" that keeps getting mentioned?

Both of them are just bits of information that may or may not hold any significance, and we need to see what was in the affidavit that gave them probable cause?

Cool with me.

And now you can put your biased hat back on and think about how this precedent if executed on Obama would create a revolution. Again, Garland, Biden, and co didn't even think about whether they should even do this. Why? Because they're so far beyond rational human beings at this point.

I literally would not care if Obama was raided because he left office with TS/SCI/Secret information and had it stored in a closet near a pool that may be easily accessible by the public.

Our leaders are people, and I give them no reverence when it comes to things like this.
The fact that they hold a position of public trust means they should be held to the standards of legality, and I don't give a fuck what party they are.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I'm no expert, I don't "practice" law in my current role. I just went to law school. My subject matter is Sports Law and I write all our competition law policy for my organization.

My Fiancée however does practice law and she works for a state that doesn't take shit from the Federal government. Florida is also one of those states, so I could see in the next 30 days protection details at Mar a Lago barring any Federal officer with a badge from entering and the state AG going after that field office and that judge. So yeah, if that's generally the burden to get a warrant, then our government and judges willfully violate 4th Amendment rights on the daily and most of us do not have the means to bring them to their knees and get compensation for that violation of rights. But Trump does have the means, so we'll see where this goes.

Like I said. These idiots didn't think about the precedent they set. And you are right, it's full of politics. But now it's been done and we've entered the beginnings of a Banana Republic. I foresee Federal law enforcement action in Conservative states becoming very difficult to execute in the next 90 days.

_____

Politics hat on:
Let's just keep dividing the country, it's a really great plan that worked well for the Democrats throughout Covid and BLM riots.

 

[Marauder06]

Politics hat on:
Let's just keep dividing the country, it's a really great plan that worked well for the Democrats throughout Covid and BLM riots.

The thing is, that absolutely DOES work. As a group, people are stupid and easily misled. If you give them something to hate and someone they can feel superior to, you can get them to do just about anything. Heap some fear on top of that and sprinkle in a little "injustice" and it's a perpetually-regenerating powder keg.

Many people in the US, including some non-liberals, hate President Trump. Getting on board with the "he's a racist" train gave people an unearned sense of moral superiority. "Our democracy is in danger!" is the constant fear. And the injustice / diversity-inclusion-equity thing is the icing on a very bitterly divisive cake.

Whether he gets charged or not, whether he runs again or not, whether he is DQ'd from future office or not, I think this was a good move for Democrats. Trump is fear, hate, moral superiority, and all of the "muh raciszm!!" all rolled up and personified. And they get to do it under the mantra of "no one is above the law." Democrats have literally nothing else to run on at the moment. They have to bring out their figurative and literal trump card because it's the last thing in their hand that they can play.

 

[Topkick]

The thing is, that absolutely DOES work. As a group, people are stupid and easily misled. If you give them something to hate and someone they can feel superior to, you can get them to do just about anything. Heap some fear on top of that and sprinkle in a little "injustice" and it's a perpetually-regenerating powder keg.

Many people in the US, including some non-liberals, hate President Trump. Getting on board with the "he's a racist" train gave people an unearned sense of moral superiority. "Our democracy is in danger!" is the constant fear. And the injustice / diversity-inclusion-equity thing is the icing on a very bitterly divisive cake.

Whether he gets charged or not, whether he runs again or not, whether he is DQ'd from future office or not, I think this was a good move for Democrats. Trump is fear, hate, moral superiority, and all of the "muh raciszm!!" all rolled up and personified. And they get to do it under the mantra of "no one is above the law." Democrats have literally nothing else to run on at the moment. They have to bring out their figurative and literal trump card because it's the last thing in their hand that they can play.

And don't leave out that weak people fear being ostracized by the mass.

 

[ThunderHorse]

The thing is, that absolutely DOES work. As a group, people are stupid and easily misled. If you give them something to hate and someone they can feel superior to, you can get them to do just about anything. Heap some fear on top of that and sprinkle in a little "injustice" and it's a perpetually-regenerating powder keg.

Many people in the US, including some non-liberals, hate President Trump. Getting on board with the "he's a racist" train gave people an unearned sense of moral superiority. "Our democracy is in danger!" is the constant fear. And the injustice / diversity-inclusion-equity thing is the icing on a very bitterly divisive cake.

Whether he gets charged or not, whether he runs again or not, whether he is DQ'd from future office or not, I think this was a good move for Democrats. Trump is fear, hate, moral superiority, and all of the "muh raciszm!!" all rolled up and personified. And they get to do it under the mantra of "no one is above the law." Democrats have literally nothing else to run on at the moment. They have to bring out their figurative and literal trump card because it's the last thing in their hand that they can play.

Well they had the overturning of Roe to galvanize their base...but I think they misplayed their hand here.

 

[RackMaster]

The thing is, that absolutely DOES work. As a group, people are stupid and easily misled. If you give them something to hate and someone they can feel superior to, you can get them to do just about anything. Heap some fear on top of that and sprinkle in a little "injustice" and it's a perpetually-regenerating powder keg.

Many people in the US, including some non-liberals, hate President Trump. Getting on board with the "he's a racist" train gave people an unearned sense of moral superiority. "Our democracy is in danger!" is the constant fear. And the injustice / diversity-inclusion-equity thing is the icing on a very bitterly divisive cake.

Whether he gets charged or not, whether he runs again or not, whether he is DQ'd from future office or not, I think this was a good move for Democrats. Trump is fear, hate, moral superiority, and all of the "muh raciszm!!" all rolled up and personified. And they get to do it under the mantra of "no one is above the law." Democrats have literally nothing else to run on at the moment. They have to bring out their figurative and literal trump card because it's the last thing in their hand that they can play.

The bolded is the new Left SOP, since Obama. It's been used in Canada, since Obama sent advisors to help Trudeau get elected. Trudeau used it on the Trucker protest. Then against any Conservative politicians that took time to talk to them. And justification for locking up trucker protest leader's without bail, for month's. Supporters lap that shit up. But if they need that extra push, they use Trump’s name and call any opposition a Trumper. Then the media echo chamber repeats it enough, then the mass of idiots believe it. Trump is the International Leftist Boogeyman.

 

[Cookie_]

The thing is, that absolutely DOES work. As a group, people are stupid and easily misled.

I firmly believe that the expansion of social media makes the lines more divided, because people have more exposure to generalized politics without having to develop their own political position.

Facebook/twitter/etc have made it much easier to treat politics like a SEC championship game and not something that actually has consequences.

It's the new Left SOP, since Obama. It's been used in Canada, since Obama sent advisors to help Trudeau get elected. Trudeau used it on the Trucker protest. Then against any Conservative politicians that took time to talk to them. And justification for locking up trucker protest leader's without bail, for month's. Supporters lap that shit up. But if they need that extra push, they use Trump’s name and call any opposition a Trumper. Then the media echo chamber repeats it enough, then the mass of idiots believe it. Trump is the International Leftist Boogeyman.

Stoking fear, hate, and moral superiority isn't unique to a political party. Neither is Members lapping it up themselves while condemning the other side.

I could say the left is just adapting to what some republican voters did while Obama was running against McCain.

Or ya know, go back to when Kennedy had to give a speech saying he wasn't a pawn of the Pope.

 

[Marauder06]

I firmly believe that the expansion of social media makes the lines more divided, because people have more exposure to generalized politics without having to develop their own political position.

Facebook/twitter/etc have made it much easier to treat politics like a SEC championship game and not something that actually has consequences.



Stoking fear, hate, and moral superiority isn't unique to a political party. Neither is Members lapping it up themselves while condemning the other side.

I could say the left is just adapting to what some republican voters did while Obama was running against McCain.

Or ya know, go back to when Kennedy had to give a speech saying he wasn't a pawn of the Pope.

The first part of your post, up to the bolded, part, I agree with.

But were Republicans regularly physically attacking voters on the other side and burning down American cities, and actively calling for the dismantlement of major US institutions during the McCain vs. Obama time period? I know it was a long time ago and my memory sucks, but I don't recall any of that.