FBI raids Maralago (Trumps home)

submitted by Rob3122 from (self.politics)

Sorry if I missed it but I didn't see a thread on it. I wonder what they'll try to charge him with...

all 32 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]fschmidt 14 insightful - 6 fun14 insightful - 5 fun15 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Another day in the banana republic of America.

[–]gomjabbar 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (20 children)

Back in January the National Archives discovered that Trump had taken 15 boxes of material, including classified documents clearly labeled as classified, back to Mar-a-Lago. This triggered an investigation to trace the chain of custody. This would also be useful to investigate whether there has been mishandling of classified materials, which is a felony. I believe the relevant law is called the Presidential Records Act.

[–]SoCo 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

Trump did most of his work from Maralago as President, so it would be crazy if a ton of boxes of material wasn't always there. The crazy propaganda spin is that he "took boxes there".....no they were always there and just not taken back.

We've already learned that recklessly mishandling records and causing our enemies to obtain it.....is just fine, if you are on a particular party...with the Hillary E-Mail scandal, which wasn't prosecuted.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Not exactly:

  • The National Archives said in February that it had “arranged for the transport of” 15 boxes of White House documents from Mar-A-Lago that should have been turned over to the Archives and never left Washington, D.C.—which included “classified national security information.”

  • Trump reportedly held on to the documents for months and only turned them over when he was threatened with legal action, multiple outlets report.

  • Trump’s removal of the documents could violate the Presidential Records Act, which requires documents to be preserved and turned over to the Archives, along with a federal statute prohibiting “willfully and unlawfully conceal[ing], remov[ing], mutilat[ing], obliterat[ing], or destroy[ing]” any government property.

  • The Archives reportedly asked the Department of Justice to investigate Trump taking the recovered documents to Mar-A-Lago in February and the agency was probing the matter by April, the Washington Post reported at the time, and a grand jury was convened in the case and issued subpoenas as of May.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/08/09/heres-what-to-know-about-trumps-document-controversy-that-led-to-mar-a-lago-raid/?sh=28d4f6f5b969

It seems he took them in February, as he was leaving the whitehouse. And it looks like he wasn't cooperating to get them back.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Are these just the facts?:

  • The National Archives pressed Trump to send 15 boxes of documents from Mar-A-Lago, where they were produced as president. Those boxes made it to the White House and disappeared, disturbingly containing "classified national security information." It's unknown if bringing the boxes of documents to the White House fulfilled Trump's duty and liability of them. Bleachbit.
  • Before this, Trump hadn't moved the documents from Mar-A-Lago and the National Archive pressed him to do so.
  • If Trump were to remove something improperly....it could be supa bad.
  • A grand jury issued subpoenas in May to investigate how documents generated at Mar-A-Lago that went to the White House, where then lost.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Cool. Got a source for those, or did you just make them up now?

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I just repeated what you and your source said, but sticking to just the facts.

It's basically just what you said stated in a less deceptive way, without forgone conclusions and gaslighting assumptions.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Ohh. Nuclear secrets it turns out. The first people executed for espionage in peace time in the US were moving nuclear secrets to the USSR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg

I wonder who Trump was talking to that he refused to return the documents. He's quite the fan of Putin isn't he?

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

They simply said they were looking for classified documents, of which the most concerning would be nuclear secrets. The media spun that into the deceptive click-bait headline that "they were looking for stolen nuclear secrets."

It is pretty clear already that they did not find any, nor any classified material, nor anything very concerning.

They plan on releasing the entire warrant and list of taken items soon, thanks to the DOJ petition, as the DOJ is has been made to look like corrupt fools by the media spins (and their own unprecedented screw ups in the execution of this).

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

They simply said they were looking for classified documents, of which the most concerning would be nuclear secrets. The media spun that into the deceptive click-bait headline that "they were looking for stolen nuclear secrets."

The Washington Post cited people familiar with the investigation as saying nuclear weapons documents were thought to be in the trove the FBI was hunting in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort.

It is pretty clear already that they did not find any, nor any classified material, nor anything very concerning.

What? How can you possibly claim that that's "pretty clear"?

They plan on releasing the entire warrant and list of taken items soon, thanks to the DOJ petition, as the DOJ is has been made to look like corrupt fools by the media spins (and their own unprecedented screw ups in the execution of this).

Trump has the warrant and list of times taken. If it helps his case, he would have released it already. He hasn't. So it looks bad for him.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The Washington Post cited unnamed people trying to exaggerate. I don't think we'll find anything about nuclear secrets in the warrant affidavit.

What? How can you possibly claim that that's "pretty clear"?

Because we already knew some about what was recovered. It was just lame stuff they already knew was there, when they visited in mid-July and looked at it. They told Trump to put a bigger padlock on it.

Trump has the warrant and list of times taken.

Trump had lobbied them to release the warrant. He backtracked on calling for the list of items to be released. I don't think he had or was permitted to release either without the court's approval, but neither are important and both are a misdirection, when you are familiar with these kinds of investigations.....

Only the affidavit for the warrant will have anything useful. The warrant its self will be vague and boring.

There will be two lists of items taken, the lame one given to Trump's attorney, after they snuck and did this with zero oversight, even hiding from the local police. That list will basically say "boxes of papers". It is reported that golf balls and a rain coat were also taken. There will be a usefully detailed list generated by the court days after the watergate-esk raid.

We have to remember this is just about getting old junk to the national archives for display and finishing sorting through boxes of papers to ensure no confidential stuff is left, which they knew was there and were okay with last month, when assessing its security.

[–]agent_pecan 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

Why aren't we fighting?

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Would you for trump's right to steal boxes of the American public's documents?

[–][deleted]  (6 children)

[deleted]

    [–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    It was completely ordinary and legal for Trump to take those "documents". Every past President has done the exact same thing.

    Nope.

    The Presidential Records Act, and at least 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    [–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    "We're going to hold Biden's administration to the same legal standards and thresholds as the trump admin" is not really the gotcha you think it is

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      Sounds to me like this particular whataboutism is concerning Carter Page. Let's look at some headlines about his FISA situation. Honestly I'm totally lost on why, in your theory, the democrat-controlled FBI would admit this or why the MSM would publish it, but let's see what they have to say.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/two-4-warrants-letting-fbi-spy-ex-trump-aide-carter-n1121406

      Jan 23, 2020

      Two of 4 warrants letting FBI spy on ex-Trump aide Carter Page were not valid, says DOJ

      The DOJ now believes it didn't have probable cause to think Carter Page might be acting as an agent of a foreign power, which was required to surveil him.

      https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/fisa-carter-page-warrants/index.html

      Jan 23, 2020

      Two of four FISA warrants against Carter Page declared invalid

      Wow P-38, this seems like great conspiracy material!

      Let's hope the Senate Intelligence Committee had something to say about it. Oh great - they did!

      Wait - aren't there democrats in the senate? Couldn't this be a trick? Never fear my friend P-38, because this Senate Intelligence Committee was ran and led by good honest Republicans.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/trump-russia-senate.html

      Aug 18, 2020

      “While there were several problems with the F.B.I.’s FISA renewals for Page, the committee assesses that "Page’s previous ties to Russian intelligence officers, coupled with his Russian travel, justified the F.B.I.’s initial concerns about Page.”

      While finding that he played an insignificant role in the Trump campaign, the report concluded that the Russians may have thought he was more important than he was. The committee also expressed frustration at Mr. Page’s evasiveness, saying that he was unable to account for his time during visits to Moscow and altered documents, and that his “responses to basic questions were meandering, avoidant and involved several long diversions.” Both parties concluded that despite the later problems with the wiretap applications, the F.B.I. was justified in having counterintelligence concerns about him.

      Oh Huh. Seems like this isn't such great conspiracy material after all.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]Site_rly_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Lol. Ok. Earlier, your suggested course of action was -

        Run the impeachment like the J6 committee. No defense and no rebuttal witnesses permitted. Vote in the House and send it to the Senate for conviction.

        Now, we've together managed to walk it back to, maybe exaggerate for a warrant, and then examine why we did that in some public transparency, and then hand the whole thing over to the other party in senate. Glad you're satisfied with this conversation

        [–]Insider 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Because the Dems support and fund Trumpists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqgP9Ft_1CY

        The system is supposedly extremely rigged, yet somehow Trump gets impeached twice, banned from social media, investigated by the FBI and yet, he's still a free man and will be a major contender to be our next president. Gee, I wonder why.

        Rich dissidents get McAfee'd. Murdered and forgotten about.

        [–]SoCo 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        They must be desperate and fishing. Jan 6 show-tribunal must have turned up squat.

        [–]dissidentrhetoric 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        bastards

        [–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Possibly just trying to recover the classified documents he took from the white house: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/18/politics/national-archives-trump-department-of-justice/index.html

        If that's all he may not be charged, unless they find why he wanted them. But you never know. It might be further to the January 6 committee's investigations.

        [–]Fiyanggu 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        The only reason they raided is to keep the pot of shit boiling because they fear losses in the mid term elections. They're also terrified that Trump will run again in 2024.