FBI Raids Former President Donald Trump’s Home

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Given passes?

So you forget just how long she was under investigation, by both parties, and personally interviewed about the issue in question?

I'm no Clinton fan and if she had been found to have done wrong I'd be all for the 'lock her up' crowd. But after years of looking into it, including the Republicans trying, and finding nothing... seriously, Frozen that shit already (ie, let it go).
Well she was definitely found to have done something wrong, that part wasn't in question. And it dragged on because she wasn't honest about that. In the end they really did give her a pass, offering the weak excuse that they couldn't be sure she knew what she did was wrong. Which is not a bar that particular crime would normally be held to. And this shortly after her hubby had run across the tarmac to talk to the AG. (but they just talked about their grandchildren, honest).

So she definitely got a 'gimmie' there. I expect trump will probably get a 'gimmie' here as well.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,102
113
Washington DC
Given passes?

So you forget just how long she was under investigation, by both parties, and personally interviewed about the issue in question?

I'm no Clinton fan and if she had been found to have done wrong I'd be all for the 'lock her up' crowd. But after years of looking into it, including the Republicans trying, and finding nothing... seriously, Frozen that shit already (ie, let it go).
No point, Serryah. Just another whataboutery.

Anything to divert attention from the issue, which is that Trump removed classified documents from a secure facility and refused to return them despite repeated requests.

They tried to do this the easy way, he chose the hard way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,984
2,076
113
New Brunswick
Well she was definitely found to have done something wrong, that part wasn't in question. And it dragged on because she wasn't honest about that. In the end they really did give her a pass, offering the weak excuse that they couldn't be sure she knew what she did was wrong. Which is not a bar that particular crime would normally be held to. And this shortly after her hubby had run across the tarmac to talk to the AG. (but they just talked about their grandchildren, honest).

So she definitely got a 'gimmie' there. I expect trump will probably get a 'gimmie' here as well.

Yeah, the Republicans gave her a 'gimmie'...

:rolleyes:

Oh, and interesting reading...


Seems they were trying for a few months before the 'raid' to get the boxes.

Trump lied.

So here we are.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,984
2,076
113
New Brunswick
No point, Serryah. Just another whataboutery.

Oh absolutely but this dude dwells in it as much as Alex swims in the pond with gay frogs.

Anything to divert attention from the issue, which is that Trump removed classified documents from a secure facility and refused to return them despite repeated requests.

Yep, and linked above is the letter sent to him about it.

They tried to do this the easy way, he chose the hard way.

Cause the harder way gives him ammo to yell "They're persecuting me! WITCH CUNT - I mean - HUNT!"

And they don't get the more they try to 'help' Trump, or make it seem 'reasonable', it puts him even deeper in the shit.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,102
113
Washington DC
If you're interested, I'll explain the difference between State Department secrets and defense and intelligence secrets, Serryah.

The peanut gallery isn't interested, and they don't give a damn about Hillary one way or t'other. They're just desperately trying to protect Jesus Superman Trump.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
No point, Serryah. Just another whataboutery.
I'm reminded of The Princess Bride ... "you always use this word. I do not think it means what you think it does". :)

This isn't whateboutism, this is precedent. Whataboutism is when you attempt to dismiss a current bad behavior by pointing to the fact that someone else did a DIFFERENT bad behavior. As in "You stole from that person" "So what you cheated on your wife!" . That's whataboutism. And it's logically not defensible.

Precedent is where you compare the SAME or very similar wrongdoings and it is entirely logically acceptable. In this case Trump has allegedly classified documents in his possession in his home some of which may be classified or contain information (defense info) that he is not allowed to be in possession of. In hillary's case she was in possession in her home of classified documents that she was not allowed to be in possession of.

the circumstances are very similar. It is entirely reasonable to compare the two.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,102
113
Washington DC
I'm reminded of The Princess Bride ... "you always use this word. I do not think it means what you think it does". :)

This isn't whateboutism, this is precedent. Whataboutism is when you attempt to dismiss a current bad behavior by pointing to the fact that someone else did a DIFFERENT bad behavior. As in "You stole from that person" "So what you cheated on your wife!" . That's whataboutism. And it's logically not defensible.

Precedent is where you compare the SAME or very similar wrongdoings and it is entirely logically acceptable. In this case Trump has allegedly classified documents in his possession in his home some of which may be classified or contain information (defense info) that he is not allowed to be in possession of. In hillary's case she was in possession in her home of classified documents that she was not allowed to be in possession of.

the circumstances are very similar. It is entirely reasonable to compare the two.
Wutabout Hillary is classic whataboutery.

But do compare the wrongdoings. Let's see how they're "the same or very similar."

You can start by demonstrating that Hillary ignored repeated requests to turn over the documents after she was no longer Secretary of State.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Yeah, the Republicans gave her a 'gimmie'...

:rolleyes:
Yep. They did. Well trump did at any rate, the republican party had moved past it. Looks like that is going to work for him in the end.
Oh, and interesting reading...

Seems they were trying for a few months before the 'raid' to get the boxes.

Trump lied.

So here we are.
For sure. I mean lets get real, it would be a startling circumstance if he DIDN'T lie :) But - that just means his case and hers is even more similar.

She lied, she had illegal documents, she got a pass. He lied, he (probably) has illegal or at least unlawful documents, he'll get one too in the end. That's WHY they don't mind the passes, they know it'll be their turn one day.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,984
2,076
113
New Brunswick
If you're interested, I'll explain the difference between State Department secrets and defense and intelligence secrets, Serryah.

The peanut gallery isn't interested, and they don't give a damn about Hillary one way or t'other. They're just desperately trying to protect Jesus Superman Trump.

Sure? I've heard it from a couple of sources that either have worked with, worked in, or know this stuff inside and out as an outside source, but more info never hurts to hear and learn.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Wutabout Hillary is classic whataboutery.
Codswallop. That's just blatantly untrue by any sane definition of the word for the exact reasons mentioned.

But do compare the wrongdoings. Let's see how they're "the same or very similar."
I did. I suppose there are SOME differences - Ivana didn't run across the runway to have a secret meeting with the AG yet :) But both were in posession of documents they shouldn't have been in their homes, and the similarities go up from there.
You can start by demonstrating that Hillary ignored repeated requests to turn over the documents after she was no longer Secretary of State.
She didn't get a chance, they'd already siezed it. But she did delete messages and claim she didn't realize they were important. Sooooo.... yeah.

It's 100 percent obvious to any non partisan independent obverver that the cases are VERY similar. And it's pretty obvious that regardless of any criminal charges being laid or not BOTH did something they KNEW was wrong or sketchy and BOTH were very dishonest about it.

Now if you raised a fuss about it when hillary did it then you have every right to do so now. But if you tried to excuse her behavior then... well we reap what we sow in life don't we :)

That's why it's important to be non partisan about this kind of crap and call bad behavior out for what it is.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,102
113
Washington DC
Actually, I did. I was in the intelligence community for a while, and it absolutely did, and does, piss me off when "important" people ignore the law and walk away laughing.

The rest of your stuff is bullshit. So Bill talked to the AG. Why not? Anybody can talk to the AG, if they can get to her. There is nothing even morally wrong, let alone illegal, about trying to convince the prosecuting authorities not to prosecute.

And your "precedent" crap is just that, crap. Prosecutors decide for a variety of reasons not to prosecute. It has absolutely no precedential effect.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
Actually, I did. I was in the intelligence community for a while, and it absolutely did, and does, piss me off when "important" people ignore the law and walk away laughing.
Well then fair enough, you can call trump out on this and that's entirely fair. I"m not happy with either either. (wait - either of them either... damn english is stupid)

The rest of your stuff is bullshit. So Bill talked to the AG. Why not? Anybody can talk to the AG, if they can get to her. There is nothing even morally wrong, let alone illegal, about trying to convince the prosecuting authorities not to prosecute.
Ohhhh - you think they talked about the case? Because they swear that they didn't. But even you obviously believe they were lying. And it is absolutely immoral AND potentially illegal if political power was brought to bear to force that decision. But of course we don't know if that's why he ran across the tarmac .. apperently it was just to talk about their grandchildren.

By your own interpretation of events it would appear they are being dishonest in your mind. So... yeah. Sorry, your protest is pretty hollow.

And your "precedent" crap is just that, crap.
Again - blatantly untrue by any sane definition.
I get that it interferes with your echo-chamber opinion of her and trump but repeating a lie won't make it true. When you are discussing a similar previous event and it's resolution and comparing it to a similar current event and possible outcomes then it's discussing precedent. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances - that's literally the definition and these are very similar events.

Sorry if that doesn't play to your narrative but that's life. There really isn't much of a substantial difference between the two people in this specific issue. Both probably should have been charged and tried, both probably won't be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,102
113
Washington DC
What political power does a Democratic ex-President who's been out of office for sixteen years have over a Republican Attorney General?

So your thesis is that if a cop pulls you over for speeding, but lets you off with a warning because he likes the cut of your jib or you told him a dirty joke he hadn't heard before, neither he nor the entire force can ever give out a speeding ticket again?

OK, thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
What political power does a Democratic ex-President who's been out of office for sixteen years have over a Republican Attorney General?
I thought you claimed you worked in intelligence.

So your thesis is that if a cop pulls you over for speeding, but lets you off with a warning because he likes the cut of your jib or you told him a dirty joke he hadn't heard before, neither he nor the entire force can ever give out a speeding ticket again?
In fact the law very commonly requires that if an organization or power has behaved towards a person one way historically in the past that this is how they should be treating people now. That's pretty normal. And lets just address the logic leap you made there - in one circumstance a cop determined someone should not be given a ticket so that means in EVERY circumstance that's the case? Do you need me to explain further why that's not a reasonable argument?

But in any case i've made no argument as to what "should" happen. Hillary DID have the result she had in similar circumstances, therefore my belief is that trump will experience a similar outcome. Not that he should or shouldn't. That's how this all started remember - someone wondered how long it would take before he got let off and i said we can make some guesses, how long did it take for hillary when she went through it. It's not like i said "hillary got off so trump should' or anything like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,102
113
Washington DC

FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search followed months of resistance, delay by Trump​

By Josh Dawsey, Carol D. Leonnig, Jacqueline Alemany and Rosalind S. Helderman
August 23, 2022

Donald Trump’s lawyers received ominous news in an April 12 email from the National Archives: The FBI would soon examine sensitive documents the former president had reluctantly returned to the government from his Florida club three months earlier.

The communication, which has been reviewed by The Washington Post, was a crucial pivot point in the probe of Trump’s handling of classified documents that led to the dramatic search of his Mar-a-Lago Club earlier this month.

Within weeks, Trump would have new lawyers to deal with the documents, and the FBI’s attention would shift from top-secret material Trump returned to the Archives to classified items they believed he had kept in Florida. One lawyer who received the email, former White House deputy counsel Pat Philbin, would be interviewed by FBI agents who considered him a witness in the rapidly expanding investigation.

Some of Trump’s allies have blamed the rushed and haphazard packing process during Trump’s final days in office for the presence of documents the FBI found in Trump’s bedroom, office and a first-floor storage room at Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. But the key events that led to the FBI search took place only this year, after months of slow-rolling conflict between the former president and law enforcement agencies.
Some material recovered in the search is considered extraordinarily sensitive, two people familiar with the search said, because it could reveal carefully guarded secrets about U.S. intelligence-gathering methods. One of them said the information is “among the most sensitive secrets we hold.”

This account of Trump’s effort to keep the FBI from reviewing the classified material is drawn from newly released correspondence and court filings, as well the recollections of multiple people with direct knowledge of the investigation or who were briefed on events. Many of them spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the ongoing criminal probe.

In a legal filing on Monday, Trump’s lawyers insisted that he had been cooperating with Justice Department requests. In fact, however, the narrative they laid out, as well as other documents and interviews, show that Trump ignored multiple opportunities to quietly resolve the FBI concerns by handing over all classified material in his possession — including a grand jury subpoena that Trump’s team accepted May 11. Again and again, he reacted with a familiar mix of obstinance and outrage, causing some in his orbit to fear he was essentially daring the FBI to come after him.

In a May 10 letter to Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran that was released Tuesday, acting archivist Debra Steidel Wall outlined weeks of resistance that followed the April 12 email. Trump tried to delay and thwart the FBI’s review of the records he had turned over to the Archives in January, Steidel Wall wrote, despite a finding by the Justice Department that the records included 100 classified documents comprising 700 pages of material, some of it extraordinarily sensitive information related to secret operations and programs with very limited access, on a need-to-know basis.

In a legal filing on Monday, Trump’s lawyers insisted that he had been cooperating with Justice Department requests. In fact, however, the narrative they laid out, as well as other documents and interviews, show that Trump ignored multiple opportunities to quietly resolve the FBI concerns by handing over all classified material in his possession — including a grand jury subpoena that Trump’s team accepted May 11. Again and again, he reacted with a familiar mix of obstinance and outrage, causing some in his orbit to fear he was essentially daring the FBI to come after him.

In a May 10 letter to Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran that was released Tuesday, acting archivist Debra Steidel Wall outlined weeks of resistance that followed the April 12 email. Trump tried to delay and thwart the FBI’s review of the records he had turned over to the Archives in January, Steidel Wall wrote, despite a finding by the Justice Department that the records included 100 classified documents comprising 700 pages of material, some of it extraordinarily sensitive information related to secret operations and programs with very limited access, on a need-to-know basis.

The May 10 letter said government lawyers had concluded that executive privilege is held by the current president, not a former one, and that President Biden had delegated to Steidel Wall the decision as to whether the FBI should be allowed to view the records. “I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s ‘protective’ claim of privilege,” she wrote, indicating she would allow the FBI to begin viewing the records in two days. Before it was released publicly, the letter was published by John Solomon, a Trump ally who runs a news website.

In Trump’s inner circle, concern has been rising since June that the former president has created legal jeopardy for himself, according to multiple people in his orbit. “Mar-a-Lago is a big problem,” one of the people said.

Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich did not respond to specific questions for this article. In an email, he said Trump “will defeat this massive abuse of government just like every one before by exposing the lies and championing the truth.”

Protecting presidential records​

Under the Presidential Records Act, a 1970s-era statute passed in the wake of the abuses of Richard M. Nixon’s White House, documents prepared for the president are considered public property, overseen by the National Archives after a president leaves office.

After Trump’s term ended in January 2021, Archives officials identified various high-profile items that had not been sent to their collection and requested they be located and turned over. What followed was a tortured standoff among Trump; some of his own advisers, who urged the return of documents; and the bureaucrats charged by the law with maintaining and protecting presidential records. Trump only agreed to return some of the documents after a National Archives official asked a Trump adviser for help, saying they may have to soon refer the matter to Congress or the Justice Department.

More at link, not that anybody'll read it

Fake news!
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,102
113
Washington DC

Trump wants to be treated like Hillary Clinton? By all means.​


By Dana Milbank
August 30, 2022

* * * * *

For months, voters have been telling Republicans they are tired of hearing Trump and his allies relitigating the 2020 election. Finally, Republicans are moving on. They are now relitigating 2016. Seven and a half years after the world learned of Clinton’s private server, GOP leaders cry anew: But her emails!

So, by all means, let’s relitigate. In fact, Trump should be treated exactly the way Clinton was:

The FBI should undertake a sprawling, multiyear investigation into Trump’s conduct, grilling him and his staff, running extensive forensics, and examining whether his actions allowed hostile actors to compromise U.S. security. The FBI should continue to keep him under investigation while he runs for president in 2024.

In July 2024, after Trump secures the GOP nomination, the head of the FBI should break with long-standing Justice Department protocols and publicly announce that while he doesn’t recommend prosecuting Trump, Trump was “extremely careless” with classified information, that “any reasonable person” in Trump’s position would have known their actions were inappropriate, that “it is possible that hostile actors gained access” to government secrets, and that “there is evidence of potential violations” of law.

Then, 13 days before the 2024 election, a top official with the Democratic nominee’s campaign should announce that he has heard via leaks by “active” FBI agents of a coming “surprise” related to the Trump investigation.

Eleven days before the election, the FBI director, in another breach of protocol, should send a public letter to Congress announcing that he has reopened the investigation into Trump because of new, “pertinent” information.

Two days before the election, the FBI director should say the new information announced in his previous bombshell amounted to nothing. But by then it is too late: The news of the reopened probe will dominate coverage in the closing days of the campaign, and, analyses will show, cause Trump to lose an election he otherwise would have won.

That is precisely what happened to Clinton in 2016. And Trump wants to be held to the same standard? Well, fair is fair.

* * * * *

Linky-dinky.

This is an op-ed, but the facts stated are correct, with links in the original.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,837
113
The FBI should undertake a sprawling, multiyear investigation into Trump’s conduct, grilling him and his staff, running extensive forensics,
They did. It ran almost 4 years. They even included his family.

after Trump secures the GOP nomination, the head of the FBI should break with long-standing Justice Department protocols and publicly announce that while he doesn’t recommend prosecuting Trump, Trump was “extremely careless” with classified information, that “any reasonable person” in Trump’s position would have known their actions were inappropriate
They already did that too - that's basically what the mueller report was.
Then, 13 days before the 2024 election, a top official with the Democratic nominee’s campaign should announce that he has heard via leaks by “active” FBI agents of a coming “surprise” related to the Trump investigation.
Democrats have done far worse than that already - 'steele dossier' anyone?

So - there's the rub. The democrats have ALREADY DONE as much or worse to trump as was done to hillary. And a lot more - Hillary didn't have fbi agents colluding with each other to 'guarantee' she won't win the presidency.

So - now that they've already done all that stuff, how about they complete the process and just let him off the hook without anything further. Just like hillary.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,102
113
Washington DC
OK, let's see your sources on the FBI doing that to Trump before the 2016 election or the 2020 election. Not the Democrats, the FBI.

If you don't know the difference, go away and don't bother me, boy.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,984
2,076
113
New Brunswick
OK, let's see your sources on the FBI doing that to Trump before the 2016 election or the 2020 election. Not the Democrats, the FBI.

If you don't know the difference, go away and don't bother me, boy.

If the picture that's come up about the stuff they found is valid... Trump is in very, very deep crap.

Hillary - for all she's a lot of things (cuntwad for one) at least never went THAT far.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
26,660
6,996
113
B.C.
If the picture that's come up about the stuff they found is valid... Trump is in very, very deep crap.

Hillary - for all she's a lot of things (cuntwad for one) at least never went THAT far.
Right ? A copy of Time magazine oh the horror . How far beneath the dignity of his office a magazine cover .