The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Government Agrees to Unsealing of Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant and Attachments
Various media entities asked that it be unsealed—see, e.g., the New York Times' motion, filed yesterday—and the government has just filed a motion agreeing, at least as to the warrant and some of its attachments (I'm not sure whether there are others that aren't included within the government's position):
Although the government initially asked, and this Court agreed, to file the warrant and Attachments A and B under seal, releasing those documents at this time would not "impair court functions," including the government's ability to execute the warrant, given that the warrant has already been executed. Furthermore, on the day that the search was executed, former President Trump issued a public statement that provided the first public confirmation that the search had occurred. Subsequently, the former President's representatives have given additional statements to the press concerning the search, including public characterizations of the materials sought. As such, the occurrence of the search and indications of the subject matter involved are already public.
This matter plainly "concerns public officials or public concerns," as it involves a law enforcement action taken at the property of the 45th President of the United States. The public's clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred under these circumstances weighs heavily in favor of unsealing. That said, the former President should have an opportunity to respond to this Motion and lodge objections, including with regards to any "legitimate privacy interests" or the potential for other "injury" if these materials are made public….
This Court should unseal Docket Entry 17, subject to the presentation of
countervailing interests by former President Trump.
UPDATE [8/11/22, 4:12 pm]: The Magistrate Judge responds: "The United States shall immediately serve a copy of its Motion on counsel for former President Trump. On or before 3:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 12, 2022, the United States shall file a certificate of conferral advising whether former President Trump opposes the Government's motion to unseal."
UPDATE [8/12/22, 3 pm]: Trump agreed with the unsealing, with the following statement:
Not only will I not oppose the release of documents related to the unAmerican, unwarranted, and unnecessary raid and break-in of my home in Palm Beach, Florida, Mar-a-Lago, I am going a step further by ENCOURAGING the immediate release of those documents, even though they have been drawn up by radical left Democrats and possible future political opponents, who have a strong and powerful vested interest in attacking me, much as they have done for the last 6 years. My poll numbers are the strongest they have ever been, fundraising by the Republican Party is breaking all records, and midterm elections are fast approaching. This unprecedented political weaponization of law enforcement is inappropriate and highly unethical. The world is watching as our Country is being brought to a new low, not only on our border, crime, economy, energy, national security, and so much more, but also with respect to our sacred elections!
Release the documents now!
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Look up "Richard Burr warrant affidavit" for an example of an "unsealed" affidavit.
Most every alleged fact was redacted except the boilerplate.
Odds of same here?
No bet. There are too many possibilities.
Frankly, given the low threshold for getting such a warrant given a non-hostile 'judge', (Again, I'm surprised "magistrate" 'judges' are a thing, constitutionally.) they probably didn't need much in that warrant besides the National Archives saying they weren't sure they got everything they wanted.
Garland is an Ivy indoctrinated lawyer dumbass and a liar. He needs to move to North Korea, where political opponents are prosecuted. His news conference was a disgrace of gaslighting. He has to be impeached by the Congress in January, 2023.
I thought there was a presumption of openness, and sealing required a motion for good reason. I guess that doctrine does not apply to political opponents of party of the lawyer scumbags.
When the secret police comes around for all of us, and there is no legal recourse, what should be done? When all the judges are vile scumbag lawyer traitors, and servants of the Chinese Commie Party, what should be done?
Only formal logic has the correct answer.
Y’know, you talk an awful lot of shit for someone living under a tyrannical and ruthless government that is about to send secret police to your house.
I'm sure Judge Reinhart really analyzed Merrick Garfinkel's affidavit.
Apparently the new definition of transparency is invisible.
Given they wouldn't let Trumps lawyers see the warrant before/during the raid how would you even know it was the same one and not concocted after the fact? If it is I'd assume it's redacted to oblivion.
Trump gave you guys a couple of days to come up with every excuse and lie and invention under the sun about the search, to attack the FBI and the judge and Biden and invoke Clinton and her emails and every other thing you could think of, and you guys did not let him down. Now with the prospect of the warrant being unsealed you guys came up with three? four? five? pure suppositional speculative made-up fictions about it in no time flat. Sterling work, folks.
Wow, Hillary and Hunter will have had thousands of days to come up with excuses for their post-midterm warrants.
And you guys have had thousands of days to produce evidence of something, anything to arrest them for, and while sheer invention hasn't failed you yet, producing actual evidence always does.
You can be arrested for watching some of the videos that Hunter Biden made of himself.
Just an FYI
You just can't produce them in court.
Huh? Why would I produce Hunter Biden child porn and crack smoking videos in court?
You see you'd only be able to produce them if they were real, like all the evidence of election fraud.
You want me to produce for you Hunter Biden's child porn videos?
No, I want them presented as evidence in court, if they exist.
So you're reasoning is, they must not exist because if they did exist the FBI would arrest and charge Hunter Biden?
No I'm saying you guys claim evidence for stuff exists and it almost always turns out to be lies.
lol good one that means there aren't videos of Hunter Biden leaked all over the internet!!!
It just means you're claiming there are! And you lie!
When BCD claims there are Hunter Biden videos leaked all over internet it proves there aren't any Hunter Biden videos leaked all over the internet!
- Sincerely,
Someone whose never been called "Smart".
No, no. BCD's claims never *prove* anything. They're *much* more worthless than that.
You got roundly mocked for this unsupported nonsense yesterday. Back at it again, I see!
lol are you high?
You said the same nonsense on Wed. When asked to back it up, you had nothing.
And now here you are again, did you forget, or more likely you don’t care or have shame.
I said I had nothing regarding the Hunter Biden laptop leaks that happen to be all over the internet?
Are you high?
No, you slinked away in shame, unable to produce any proof of your child porn accusations.
Not before some empty bombast like you're doing here - pretending you don't recall what your own thesis is.
It'd be a shameful display, but you don't seem to care much about shame. Or consistency. Or the truth. I don't really know why you come here.
I slunked away in shame? You can read minds now?
And you literally think I should post links to Hunter Biden child porn videos on this forum?
lmao wtf, you are high af
Well, looking at just how madly specific Politifact got in fact checking that claim, I'd be inclined to believe it was there. That's their usual go-to when they want to deny something is true: Fact check a really, really specific and oddball version of the claim.
But the real claim is actually about his hacked ICloud account.
'Well, looking at just how madly specific Politifact got in fact checking that claim, I'd be inclined to believe it was there.'
This is magical thinking.
Nah, it's long experience reading Politifact "fact checks". Generally when something's actually false, and easily proven to be, they're fairly general in their statements. They'll attack the high level claim.
But when you find them fact checking some incredibly specific and over the top claim, it's often because they focused like a laser on some detail or version they could disprove.
Granted, it's not as bad as their "needs context" fact checks, which amount to admitting the claim is actually true.
So, Politifact decides to fact check the claim that “Hunter Biden had 25,000 pics of him torturing and raping children under age 10 in China on his laptop.”
Where did he even find the time? That just screams, "We found the easiest to debunk version of this claim to make our job easier, rather than looking around to see if there was a version of the claim that was possibly true."
If he'd been obviously innocent, they would have fact checked something more general, like "Hunter Biden caught having child porn". But they might have had trouble doing THAT, given the crap that IS circulating around on the internet.
I'm sure that's all YOU need to satisfy your hunger for the truth, luckily the legal system has higher standards. Heck, even the more debased media outlets would ask you to tighten it up a bit.
Nige falls back to the premise that Hunter can't be guilty because no one's charging him with a crime!
Good one dude.
No, I fall back on the old reliable that Hunter Biden isn't guilty just because you guys say he is.
When you think about the smartest people you know, do you think that's how they would draw conclusions?
Oops Wrong thread.
A federal magistrate judge signed the warrant. It was provided to the target’s clown-level lawyer at the conclusion of the law enforcement action. This is birther-class delusion from this white, male, right-wing blog’s carefully cultivated collection of poorly educated, disaffected, bigoted culture war losers.
Carry on, clingers. Your betters will let you know how far and how long — and, as always, you will continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans.
There was zero chance that Reinhart was going to deny a warrant request from one of his little hatted friends
I guess you guys are as unlucky as you are bigoted, delusional, powerless, and deplorable,
"Reverend Jerry Sandusky"!!!!!!!!!!!
Heard you missed me, I'm back!
and let us Bitter Klinger's know, is it true what they say about Chilie Mo's in Prison?? Gotta be some reason you're still alive, and don't believe it's your superior lawyering skills,
Frank "How's Penn State O-Line looking this year?"
If they can do this to Trump (or Scott Perry), they can do it to you and me!
What? .... Oh, they can? . . . And always could?
Never mind.
Exactly how much of a fucking idiot are you? Here is a video of Trump's lawyer talking about how the FBI let her see the warrant during the search.
https://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/status/1557094454107971584
But Eric Trump, who wasn't there, said they wouldn't let her see it so why should we believe her over him?
We aren’t talking about the warrant, which merely lays out the limit of the search, which is what the Trump lawyer saw, but rather the affidavits supporting the search warrant, which they very likely have not seen.
Does Trump (or his attorneys) have a copy of the warrant? If he has it is he free to release it?
Yes, he does. I'm pretty sure he's free to.
Considering that Trump had basically unlimited declassification power up until Biden was inaugurated, the odds that he has anything he hadn't ordered declassified that wasn't an accident aren't that great.
At the same time, though, I recall news accounts that the intelligence services were purporting to refuse his orders to declassify some things, as though they'd actually had that authority. What could have happened is that he'd ordered some stuff declassified, and the people down the chain had refused to act on the order, so that it is none the less listed as classified.
"Yes, he does. I'm pretty sure he's free to."
On what do you base "yes he does"? Earlier reports by his son and attorney claim they were not provided with the warrant or an inventory.
If he is free to release the warrant (assuming he has it) what is the purpose of it remaining under seal after it was executed?
The report was that one of Trump's attorneys requested to see the search warrant (while the search was ongoing), and was refused. That is different from claiming that they were not provided with the warrant or an inventory.
The requirement of Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(f)(1)(C) is that the officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 imposes a requirement that the executing officer must present the property owner with a copy of the warrant before conducting his search. United States v. Grubbs,/i> 547 U.S. 90 (2006).
The person from whose premises the property was taken -- Donald Trump -- was not present for the search. The Rule 41(f) requirement was met if agents left a copy of the warrant and receipt for property was left on the premises at the conclusion of the search.
I have now read the DOJ motion regarding unsealing. Page 2 thereof recites, "Former President Trump, through counsel, was provided copies of each of [the search warrant and attachments] on August 8, 2022, as part of the execution of the search." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854/gov.uscourts.flsd.617854.18.0_2.pdf
If you believe that assertion, you probably also believe that former Pres. Obama was born in the United States.
PRO TIP: President Jugears McTraitor wasn't.
If he is free to release the warrant (assuming he has it) what is the purpose of it remaining under seal after it was executed?
Because Trump is a petulant baby man. Or he thinks keeping the mystery is better for him than showing all.
There was no pressing need for Trump to order declassification when he could use his presidential powers to authorize himself and his team to have access. In that case the Biden administration is free to revoke that access or insist on compliance with rules for storage of classified information.
I doubt that it matters whether the documents were classified or unclassified -- 18 U.S.C. § 2071 makes no such distinction.
It's actually kind of amusing the way you state there wasn't any need, and then explain why he actually would have needed to.
" Considering that Trump had basically unlimited declassification power up until Biden was inaugurated, the odds that he has anything he hadn't ordered declassified that wasn't an accident aren't that great. "
An accident? Have you followed the descriptions of the government's unnecessarily courteous efforts to arrange compliance with the law in this circumstance?
Birther Brett turns into Credulous Brett when politically convenient.
Comments here are amazing.
Talk about cultists. Wow.
Yes, talk about the FBI is talk about cultists, and so is talk about FBI supporters and enablers.
Pointing at laughing at how many people are making up like spy thriller level nonsense based on nothing to try and defend Donald freaking Trump does not mean we worship the FBI, weirdo.
This attempt at I'm rubber you're glue ended up pretty laughable.
Spy thriller level nonsense like high-level FBI bureaucrats passing notes to each other about their insurance policy to control the outcome of a presidential election?
Truth is stranger than fiction, especially on Swamp gas.
Conspiracy theorist that's harming our Sacred Democracies!
SILENCE HIM TWITTER CENSORS!
- Sincerely,
The Federals at the FBI
Nothing like that is happening. Are you okay?
You haven't seen the news about Twitter's resurrecting of the "pre-bunk" policy ?
You aren't aware of the arguments made in the past as to why "election integrity" claims had to be censored?
You can't put those two facts together to understand the reference I am making?
It will be interesting to see what the equivalents of Hunter's laptop and COVID "dis"information are for this election cycle.
It will be interesting, but we likely won't see them until December, I hope you realize. With every election cycle, the censorship has gotten more comprehensive.
Brett, sometimes when you don't see the thing you hope to see, it's that it's not there; it's not a giant liberal coverup.
BCD and Michael P are well beyond caring about the truth, but I implore you not to turn off your critical thinking so hard.
Twitter can actually issue a press release about their intention to engage in censorship, and you'll deny it. Remarkable.
'We don't know what colossal pile of horseshit we're going to come up with but we ALREADY anticipating getting outraged when it doesn't gain traction!'
Brett, even taking your understanding of what Twitter is doing, you're talking about a media blackout well beyond that.
Would you describe what the media did before the 2020 election with the Hunter laptop story?
A "media blackout" or something else?
A failure to launch.
BCD, Hunter Biden was all over the place in 2020. I'm not sure you know what a blackout is...
The fact that some things happen that would be hard to imagine beforehand, does not justify imaging bizarre things happening and then basing one's worldview on those imaginings reflecting reality.
(Also, you realize Putin's propaganda is precisely based on this idea of throwing out as many bizarre theories as possible (e.g., MH17 was abducted by aliens, no it was full of corpses already and staged by the Dutch, no wait, it was a Chechen, no the Ukrainians, no the Americans, but definitely not the Russians) so that people decide it is impossible to know the truth and everyone is lying to them, so best just to trust their "instincts", which just means leaning into one's own biases. Don't think your cult and it's leader isn't aware of how that works. (e.g., Italian space lasers changing votes, well, that's obviously not true but something "fishy" must have happened)
Bernard what claim troubles you. POTUS is the primary classification authority with some possible exceptions for Restricted Data under the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.
Of course he should announce to the proper channels that he has declassified certain documents. And those that remain classified should be stored is an approved repository.
There is no claim that these are documents Trump tried to declassify. That's Brett speculating that Trump would *never* be dumb enough to keep things he could have declassified but didn't.
Which...um...is a bit of a lift.
“There is no claim that these are documents that Trump tried to declassify”.
Yes there is. A former Trump admin official made the claim on the evening of the raid. He said “I was in the room when he did it”.
I have no idea whether or not it’s true. Not even gonna have that argument because none of us know. But “there’s no claim” is false.
A former Trump admin official made the claim on the evening of the raid. He said “I was in the room when he did it”.
...Dude.
So you think the guy is a liar basically because you hate his boss so that means a claim the he clearly made doesn’t actually exist.
Look at how fucked up your brain actually is.
I think based on how convenient this is, and how no one is corroborating it, I wouldn't bet my paycheck, bevis.
I wouldn't bet a nickel on it, much less my paycheck. Because like I said, I don't know anything about it. Nor do you. I'm still rational enough to notice that there is a claim to that effect, even though I can't stand DJT. Trump has so messed your mind up that you can't simply acknowledge that your statement of no clam to that effect was wrong.
As to acknowledging Biden's truths, you're trying to assert that the $3T BBB would be free, that massive energy inflation is Putin's fault (somehow the sorcerer managed to impact NA natural gas), and that 8.5 equals zero. I mean, ok. Your judgement of truth is completely dependent on the team jersey color.
Some say technically correct is the best kind of correct, but luckily I don't practice law anymore so I can have a bit of a higher bar for such things than a tossed-off attempt like that.
See? Trump broke you. You let him do it. That's sort of sad.
You can't admit absolute obvious fact.
No, I'm q
Pretty good error right there.
But what I was saying was that were Obama caught with classified info and someone I'd never heard of claimed *after the fact and without corroboration* to have totally heard him declassify it, rest assured I'd say that's not worth giving even an iota of credence.
If a claim has zero credibility value, I'm fine ignoring it in discussions of what happened - aren't you?
Meanwhile, the next true statement Biden or anyone in his administration makes will be the first made by the administration and you slavishly support their complete dishonesty.
…Dude.
I do try to support true statements regardless of who makes them.
Talk to the Trumpists, Bevis.
They're the ones who swallow anything.
Is every word Biden has ever spoken the unvarnished truth? No.
But there is no fucking comparison between the two. Look, Trump just claimed Obama took 30 million pages of documents, including classified material, when he left office.
A fat, complete lie. But we'll hear it repeated.
Meanwhile Biden truthfully says inflation was zero in July and you join in the Trumpist chorus .
IT WAS NOT ZERO IN JULY. IT WAS 8.5%
Holy shit. Y'all just can't help yourselves.
Trump is full of shit. Always and forever. I've said that on here a thousand times.
Y'all are every bit as bad as the Trumpists though. You can't admit truth either.
Bevis, there are multiple indices over multiple periods for inflation in July.
You know this. I don't get why you act like you don't.
A politician trumpeting a real metric, actually measured and promulgated by the government, that is advantageous compared to other metrics is not being full of shit.
The only take that counts is what people experienced. Which was a helluva lot greater than zero. Biden can keep spinning out bullshit and y’all can say “yay, Joe!!!” and the people that count are going to continue to decide that they want someone else running things.
As hard as the Republicans are trying to fumble it Biden just won’t let them.
The president can declassify documents. The president cannot *secretly* declassify documents. If he doesn't "announce" the declassification--IOW he doesn't actually follow the process--then they aren't declassified.
Just as a statement of fact: declassified documents are often (but not always) less valuable than classified documents; they cease to be secrets. An example of when declassifying (or in this case, unsealing) a document makes it more valuable: the very warrant used to raid the Trump private club and residence that Trump is whining about and using to stir up the crazies and rake in more cash. Making it public takes the wind out of his sails and the cashflow out of his outrage.
"The president cannot *secretly* declassify documents. "
No one here claimed he "secretly" declassified documents.
Also, There is no claim that he owned the documents. They were and remain US government documents. The question is whether he is allowed to be in possession of them pending etablishment of a presidential library and a settlement with the rchives as to their storage.
That sounds a lot like the legal arguments that capsized when launched by Trump Election Litigation: Elite Strike Force.
And have precipitated disciplinary actions against a bunch of those unprofessional, inept, un-American losers.
Considering that the FBI felt it was necessary to actually get a warrant, after getting a subpoena, because Trump refused to hand them over, I'd say it's pretty clear he is not allowed to possess them.
Considering that Trump felt the need to sue over election shenanigans, after alternative electors presented themselves, because states did not correct their vote certifications, I'd say it is pretty clear he won the election.
Is that how this works, or are you assuming that the government is axiomatically right?
Yes, that's what these bootlickers think.
You're close to being correct, in the sense that you've chosen to be the opposite of it.
Do you think the FBI didn't make sure this was airtight? Do you think Garland signed off on it haphazardly?
It's nice that you brought up the other illegal behavior that Trump is going to be nailed to the wall for. It's nice to know that you can sometimes actually reference the truth.
Trump lost those suits. The FBI got the warrant. Try again.
What claims?
All the "claims" that are pure conjecture.
The warrant is hopelessly vague. - Brett
Everything significant will be redacted. - Bob
Trump declassified everything. - Brett again.
Or if he didn't it was because of some sort of deep state conspiracy. - #3 for Brett.
The released warrant will be phony - Social Justice.
You really need to understand the difference between claiming something, and stating that it's possible.
Except, you tip over from 'it is possible' to 'it is certain' with regularity.
Yes, Brett.
You are good at leaving yourself some sort of little backdoor escape from your claims.
"I recall news accounts." Where?
"The odds aren't that great."
It's BS - a way to make a claim and then be able to weasel out.
Sort of like your birtherism.
Yes, I do have a nasty habit of actually saying what I actually mean, rather than what that cardboard cutout in your head would have said.
You have a nasty habit of making careful insinuations and hints, and lacking the courage to be explicit.
I recall news accounts that the intelligence services were purporting to refuse his orders to declassify some things,
And where did you see these accounts?
If you want footnotes and cites for comments start with yourself.
IOW, you won't say.
I'm not asking for "footnotes and cites," just the sources of your "accounts." Easy enough. Just say, "Fox News," or "OAN" or whatever.
But you won't say, because you know they are ridiculous.
What Mr. Bumble said.
But, See, for instance.
They weren't exactly "leap to it" when he ordered things declassified and they didn't want to. It's quite possible, even likely, that they never acted at all on some of his declassification orders towards the end of his administration.
What an astonishingly blatant conflict of interest that represented.
Explain why there is a legal COI
Didn't say it was a 'legal' COI. Just quite the scope for abuse of power.
For instance, he was declassifying stuff right up to the last minute.
Trump Declassifies Crossfire Hurricane Material
– 4:35 p.m., Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2021
I think it's quite possible that they simply slow walked some of his declassification orders, and then dropped them when Biden took office, so that even though he had lawfully declassified some documents, the records would still show them as classified because the bureaucrats didn't act on the order.
I save an order yesterday from, I believe, Mark Meadows declassifying the Crossfire Hurricane material. The comment was tat through FOI requests, it still does not appear to be formally declassified to this day.
Saw a comment today by Mary McCord suggesting that the search was probably incident to an allegation of an Espionage Act violation, which very strongly suggests that they were looking for classified documents being mishandled. As many will remember, McCord was the Acting AAG for National Security during that time (2016-17) and was almost assuredly in the approval chain for the four FISA warrants on Carter Page, that turned out, according to the IG, to have been fraudulently acquired. This is at the core of Crossfire Hurricane.
The interesting question is going to be whether they were looking for the Crossfire Hurricane documents that Trump had ordered declassified, but apparently weren’t. That would be pretty egregious…
Technically, not a matter of Trump ordering things declassified, but they weren't.
A matter of him actually declassifying things, (The order itself is sufficient.) and them not doing the paperwork to record their compliance.
Trump's White House itself said tweets don't count, so you need to take that up with Trump before you claim he actually declassified anything.
Why do you think the tweet's encompassed the entirety of his actions?
Because his orders got ignored?
Because absent evidence I don’t make shit up.
https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1042210304527138816
Weird.
First, Trump's White House said tweets don't count, so what are you even arguing?
Second, this is about disclosure, not declassification. PII is an example of unclassified material that nevertheless cannot be disclosed.
Now that's how I like my Gaslightr0 goalposts, placed squarely ontop of one of your slippery slopes then pushed down it.
One of his tweets says he ordered them declassified ages ago, but then the wrangling is over whether his tweets constitute orders. Methinks Trump was fucking with his base.
Is seems rather odd to do all this over that technicality.
So there's probably more to it than that.
He’s being investigated, in part, under 18 USC 793(e) of the Espionage Act for taking and refusing to return national defense info.
Interesting. 793(e) applies to "information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation".
Three observations:
1. the classification status of the information is not directly relevant. It could be indirectly relevant though, as the criteria for classification of national defense information mirrors the 793(e) criteria. Classification then serves as evidence of an executive branch determination that those criteria are met; this was considered in US v. Morison. The courts might find that determination by the branch of government charged with national defence due deference.
2. On the other hand, the courts may recognize that information can be declassified even though it still meets the criteria for classification. This is recognized in part 3.1(d) of E.O. 13526 that defines the classification system:
In those cases, declassification would not necessarily indicate that the information no longer meets the 793(e) criteria.
3. the statute applies when the accused "has reason to believe" the information is dangerous. Not when he believes it is, not even when it actually is, all that is necessary is that he have reason to believe it is. That is a very inclusive standard.
I think it's quite possible that they simply slow walked some of his declassification orders,
There you go again. You don't "think it's quite possible." You think they did exactly that.
Everyone in the federal government, including those in his administration, is an anti-Trump activist, out to destroy the poor man, according to you.
Do you have any idea how deranged that is?
This is literally the exact opposite of what you're saying. This is not Trump ordering something and them saying "No." This is Trump tweeting something and then Trump saying, "Just kidding; my tweets don't count as actual orders."
So Trump said he ordered things declassified.
That's it?
Even you understand that he lies a lot, and that a tweet is not a declassification order.
And that there is way more going on here than the Mueller report and the Clinton email business.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/6/donald-trump-orders-hillary-clinton-russia-documen/
Guess what hasn't been declassified?
Trump said he gave that order, but it turns out he was lying:
“The President has the authority to declassify documents that are otherwise currently and properly classified. The President has not exercised this authority with respect to any of the FD-302s remaining at issue in this case,”
...
“[T]he White House has made clear that the Twitter statements ‘do not require altering any redactions on any record at issue in this case, including, but not limited to, any redactions taken pursuant to any discretionary FOIA exemptions. Nor do the President’s statements on Twitter prevent the Department from taking appropriate exemptions and redacting documents consistent with law and the positions the Department takes in FOIA matters.
https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/doj-admits-to-federal-court-that-trump-lied-to-his-supporters-on-twitter-about-declassifying-all-russia-docs/
You understand the difference between classification and discretionary FOIA exemptions, right? Because quoting that suggests you don't.
"Exemption 1 of the FOIA protects from disclosure national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy, provided that it has been properly classified in accordance with both the substantive and procedural requirements of an existing executive order."
Where did you get that? From https://www.justice.gov/archives/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-discretionary-disclosure-and-waiver? If so, you should have read the rest of the paragraph:
"Thus, if information is in fact properly classified, and therefore is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 1, it is not appropriate for discretionary FOIA disclosure."
it is one of the enumerated exemptions to disclosure. Did you forget what you were getting pedantic about for a second there?
Go back and read the passage that you quoted carefully. Note what it does and does not say:
You're trying to conflate classification with the discretionary FOIA exemptions.
"including, but not limited to" does not mean only redactions pursuant to discretionary FOIA exemptions. It would also mean redactions of classified materials.
Possibility A: The redactions were only discretionary FOIA exemptions and all the Russia files were entirely declassified as Trump claimed via tweet, but he still didn't want transparency as he implied in his tweet.
Possibility B: The redactions included both discretionary FOIA exemptions and mandatory FOIA exemptions due to national security risks and Trump lied to imply transparency and then had to have the DOJ walk it back to include saying that he didn't even want the discretionary redactions unredacted.
Which do you think is more likely? Neither changes the fact that Trump was manipulating his base with false "transparency" in the Russia election interference matter.
Michael - classified information is one of the justifications to exempt the information from FOIA requests.
Thus, redactions based on FOIA may well include redactions for the material being classified.
Do you get it now?
That hasn’t been FORMALLY declassified. Legally, I don’t think that it works for the President, with plenary declassification authority to order documents declassified, and then gets charged for mishandling them, when the bureaucrats who were supposed to have done it, didn’t. Regardless of rules and regulations, he was the chief Executive, and all of their power to declassify came from him, as President.
The Trump White House said otherwise.
Trump could, of course, clear this all up with a statement about what the documents were and why he had them. But his followers thrive on conjecture, speculation and boiling rage, so why bother?
Doesn't he kind of have to wait until he's gone over what the feebs claim they carried away?
Ah, yes, another endless audit. Funny how taking the time to go over the claims and documents didn't stop him or his supporters going apeshit.
No, he knows what he kept, presumably, and he can say what documents he has regardless which of them the FBI took. Plus, he has a list of what documents they took. So he can release that. But, again, better to let his supporters make up all sorts of imagined stories rather than tell them the truth. Worked with "Stop the Steal", it'll work for him here too. In both cases, however, the country is worse off.
A document-level list? Really?
Okay, I should have said items taken, not documents, because, yes, it is not a document-by-document listing.
For this to detail to be relevant, though, you have to assume that Trump didn't know what documents he had. Because he knows what is gone, helped by a list generally describing the things taken.
So my point remains, Trump doesn't have to wait to tell everyone what he had that was classified or related to nuclear secrets or whatever and then explain why that wasn't a problem.
He is the one with the freedom to be transparent and all the information needed. But of course he won't say what he had, because (a) he likes his cultists speculating and foaming at the mouth and (b) the list is likely to raise eyebrows as to why he'd be holding such documents in a basement that was minimally secure to start with and then, after being asked, behind a padlocked door. Very secure. The securest!
Why would the FBI get a city order that only prevents themselves from releasing info? The seal applies to everyone.
The differences between a constitutional republic and a tin pot dictstorship go deeper than just in the republic the cripples appear in the military parade because the purpose is to honor them, not for the tin pot guy to show the people who has the guns as it is in the dictatorship. The difference include that in a cconstitutional republic, not only can public servants refuse obviously unlawful orders when their bosses start put the tin pots over their head and emulating the dictators. They are expected to.
How dumb, Hillary also had unlimited power to not use email and instead call people on the phone in order to avoid the FOIA and so Republicans should never have expected to find anything in her email.
So, again, “declassified” does not mean “I get to keep it.” Also, if all the talk about nuclear-related documents is accurate then it’s possible that sort of information cannot be unilaterally declassified (the “basically” in your “basically unlimited”).
Almost as if Trump doesn't want it released.
We'll see if that's the case if he files with the judge who has now ordered the release.
Expect any filing to come with a fund-raising appeal.
Which is why I'm loving the fact that the DOJ requested the release and it was granted. Bluff called. Next move?
Hasn't been granted yet. Now we see what the cousins claims are in the warrant. Will the claims justify sending dozens of agents in a 6am raid?
Turns out probably yes.
In a bare legal sense, sure. We live in a nation of ham sandwiches, the government can legally justify about 300% of what it actually does. So I have little doubt that they can legally justify an unprecedented raid on a former President.
Trump could easily have legally justified raiding Hillary, too, if he'd felt like it. I doubt that the bare legality of it would have made you any less outraged.
You're on the brink of accusing Trump of dealing unfairly with Trump for failing to find a pretext to raid Clinton.
When campaigning, Trump ran on, among other things, going after Clinton for her crimes. On taking office, he was persuaded that it was a bad idea, and refrained, where he easily could have.
This administration, by contrast, did go there.
I fully expect that, in the coming months and years they will go a lot of places no previous administration had the gall to go. Long standing political norms have been falling like tenpins lately.
Biden did not campaign on going after Trump, and thus far nobody has shown that he did, merely asserted it.
Trump DID launch a DOJ investigation of Clinton. It found nothing.
On taking office, he was persuaded that it was a bad idea,
Or there never was a criminal case, your ravings notwithstanding.
Like not trying to violently overthrow the government?
Pretty sure their only move is to continue screaming about tyranny, threats, bluster, and repeating “planted” and “Hunterillaryjews” non-stop.
How's that egg feeling on your face this morning?
Most of us have, no doubt, seen copies of the search warrant. That is not the issue here, but rather the affidavits supporting the warrant and showing probable cause for the search warrant are. As far as I can tell, the only people who have seen them are in the DOJ, FBI, the magistrate judge, relevant court employees, and possibly the White House. And possibly media outlets, which if true, would tend to negate the justification for secrecy.
How is this not their own document containing only their own confidential information? They could email a copy to the Times -- or pay for a 2-page ad spread for it. They don't need the court to unseal a specific copy they filed.
I believe sealing is equivalent to a court order not to disclose the document. DoJ could give a press conference explaining the search, but that is contrary to department policy.
In the sense that I can't publicly disclose something you filed under seal, sure. But it would surprise me a bit if you filing something under seal based solely on your own confidential information would serve to prohibit you from later changing your mind about the confidentiality and publicizing it yourself.
It would surprise me if they wanted to piss off a cooperative 'judge' that way.
No doubt. I'm just sanity checking whether they're really constrained, or are just proceeding this way for cover/choreography. (Putting this together with the fact that they don't even appear to be moving to unseal the affidavit, they're scoring points with the public for being "transparent" while not actually offering to unseal anything that matters, and may score even more of an optical windfall if the judge denies the motion or Trump's counsel opposes.)
The New York Times motion to intervene seeks unsealing of the affidavit. I haven't read the DOJ's filing, but Professor Volokh's excerpt addresses the warrant and Exhibits A and B, without mention of the probable cause affidavit.
I agree that all documents, including the supporting affidavit(s), should be disclosed publicly.
I would say it's about 50/50. Legally, yeah, I think they're actually bound by the court sealing, regardless of whether or not they're the party that asked for it.
As a practical matter, they could get away with violating the sealing order, at the cost of pissing off a reliable rubber stamp. Why should they?
As you note, they're only unsealing the part that doesn't really matter, they're keeping their excuse for the raid sealed.
they could get away with violating the sealing order, at the cost of pissing off a reliable rubber stamp
"A reliable rubber stamp." Fuck you. You have no idea what was in the request or the warrant, but here you are attacking the judge for issuing it.
Be surprised.
So what is the term when the government can't find anything illegal in a fishing expedition and just infodumps everything to allied third hand parties in the hopes that they will find some angle as a consolation prize?
Saving our democracy?
we really don't have a democracy while only two parties control who can even appear on the ballot.
It's called "Your imaginary scenario."
well last 1 billion times you guys claimed they had him 100% case closed it turned out to be a big fat lie. 1 billion and one times the charm?
The case is closed on this one to the extent that the asshole isn’t withholding the documents he unlawfully possessed, or giving our government the runaround, any more.
You guys elevated this obvious crook to enormous power and protections, then claim impunity is innocence.
It's called wishful thinking on your part.
It’s called “a scenario completely detached from the reality of what is going on,” which is awkward. That’s why we shorten it to “Turnip appears right and truly fucked.”
Does anyone know whether Bob from Ohio drives a white Crown Vic?
Police interceptor model?
Gee, it's almost like the FBI made damn sure they had an air-tight case before they crossed this line or something, and have nothing to hide.
Other than the probable cause affidavit that would say anything actually meaningful, as Bob notes below?
“Release the Long-Form Warrant!”
[releases long-form warrant]
“No, the REAL Long-Form warrant!”
“That is the real long-form warrant.”
“COVER-UP! PLANTED!”
Oh, did you find a copy of the affidavit laying around somewhere? Or are you just playing cutesy word games?
Predicting the inevitable future. Obviously. Don’t worry, sunshine, all the answers are coming.
At least to the satisfaction of low-thought lefty drones. Others' inconvenient questions will be haughtily dismissed. Since we're predicting the inevitable future and all.
Hilarious.
haha yeah just like they did when they were spying on his campaign and then later when they were spying on him as President!
airtight haha yeah, nothing to hide, haha yeah
Given the public interest, I am glad there is rapid movement toward transparency. People will draw their own conclusions after they read the supporting documentation and affidavits on whether the search and seizure was political or not.
How do you figure the gullible, bigoted, delusional audience will see it?
That is a very good question, Arthur.
It really depends on how transparent the federal government is, right? = How do you figure the gullible, bigoted, delusional audience will see it?
Let's see everything the judge saw in making his decision to sign the warrant.
LOL.
Video evidence showing people smashing the windows at the capitol building, crushing and beating police officers, rummaging through offices and stealing furniture is played on nearly every network for everyone to see. It's all over YouTube.
Republican legislators and the MAGAts: they were tourists who didn't do anything wrong.
It doesn't matter what the judge saw. It doesn't matter that they took an additional 12 boxes of documents out of Trump's club. It doesn't matter that it was likely an inside whistle-blower with direct knowledge making the claim. These are all facts that represent reality and the MAGAts have their own facts and their own reality already.
???
XY,
What Shawn is saying is that nothing matters less to MAGAts than facts and evidence. All that matters is Trump.
Oh. I get it now. Thx for explaining that.
Yeah, well I just want to see what the judge saw, to understand how the decision to sign the warrant was made. We don't have any facts and evidence on why the warrant was signed (and executed). Given the gravity of what happened here and the public interest, we should expect complete transparency (and not make conclusions until we see it all). Once it all comes out, people will make their own conclusions.
No, we shouldn't expect complete transparency until the investigation is concluded. In this case, Trump has made claims and revealed facts that make it reasonable for the government to unseal the search warrant and attachments, but that still doesn't justify complete transparency regarding what their investigation (or whoever they are investigating) has found.
There are reasons the details of investigations are kept secret until the conclusion. There is a limited, narrow reason to make an exception in this case, including because the person served with the warrant wants that info released. But, no, the general public doesn't get to see all the info they had in addition to that which was necessary to get the warrant. Investigations can't effectively operate that way and it wouldn't be fair to innocent people who get investigated either.
(Basically, you want the FBI to participate in a trial in the media, rather than investigate and present their findings to a grand jury or jury if/when that becomes justified. That's dangerously wrongheaded, especially if your purported purpose is to avoid partisan witch-hunts. Recall, the thing Trump wanted from Zelensky to release the aid was the announcement of an investigation. Because, unlike you, he knew that announcing investigations does damage all by itself. So too leaking details of incomplete investigations.)
They'll need X-ray vision to see through the redactions.
If so, Trump could release all the details. Couldn't he?
The warrant does not describe the alleged "facts" supporting "probable cause".
Its the affidavit and attachments that has this info. Trump does not have this.
You have been told this a number of times. If you don't believe it, do your own research. Senator Burr's affidavit was unsealed, its on the internet.
Or you could just proceed with your normal ignorance.
Yeah, you keep saying it as if it makes a difference - Trump could release the warrant any time he wants, end of story. Wy he doesn;t want you but was still happy for you lot to go hog-wild on the story is an interesting question. The FBI/DOJ were clearly willing to keep the whole thing quiet and not release anything or make a fuss, but Trump made sure the story blew up and his orc hordes rampaged all over it, while he himself has made no move to answer any pertinent questions about why he chose to retain those documents and what he planned to do with them.
'Wy he doesn;t want you'
'Why he doesn't want to'
So you decided to "just proceed with your normal ignorance." Not surprising.
No. Trump could release the warrant. He hasn't. Whining about the DOJ not being sufficently servile to Trump and jumping at his commands, I leave to you.
I also note that nobody has even bothered to suggest that Trump answer questions about the documents.
What documents? Do you have an inside source?
The documents recovered by the Feds. Are you even following the story? Nobody's even denying that the documents were real, were there, and that they shouldn't have been. There have been conspicuous areas of silence in all the noise generated by his orc hordes - not releasing the warrant, not denying the presence and nature of the documents and most defintitely not explaining to the public what the hell they were doing there.
Not one thing you've claimed it true but as the Rev. is fond of saying "carry on".
Furthermore this wouldn't have blown up if Trump hadn't posted about it, the Geds were being discreet ON HIS BEHALF, getting an amazing amount of the special treatment and exceptionalism you guys seem to think he deserves but you all joined his ugly-pity-cry petulance parade and now he has questions to answer about those documents and the warrant he himself hasn't released will be partially unsealed. Oops.
Hey Turdy MacTurdface shut the fuck up if you don't know what you are talking about. When you post something like this it just shows what a stupid fuck you are:
"Nobody's even denying that the documents were real, were there, and that they shouldn't have been."
The whole issue is if Trump had or did not have justification for keeping what was there. As has been endlessly point out to you but you are such a stupid fuck you don't seem to understand every prez since Nixon has taken stuff the NA thought rightfully belong to them and lawyers from both sides have argued over what the exprez could keep and what had to be returned.
A lot of the current arguments seem to be if what Trump took was classified, if Trump as prez moved to unclassified it, if agencies unclassified it in a timely manner; something both sides were still arguing about.
There is also a side issue of if one or both sides were acting in good faith.
To make matters worse you seem to misunderstand what a warrant is; not to mention when Trump's lawyer got a copy of the warrant in question. A warrant basically says LEOs have legal rights to enter and search. Since Trump was in NY and the search was in FL Trump was never in a position to see or get the warrant. His lawyer claimed she was shown the warrant by an agent ten feet away but maybe later got a copy.
Thing is the warrant says nothing about what was the basis of issuing the warrant. Given the judge has a history of not being a Trump fanboy the real question is why was the warrant issued. Some speculation says a member of Trump's inner circle wore a wire and may have provided information that Trump knew he was doing wrong. Other speculation is the justification for the warrant is really thin and needed a friendly judge to issue a warrant.
There have been plenty of posts in this thread about how it is common for redactions by the DOJ/FBI to make the release of justifications for a warrant to be meaningless.
As I have posted multiple times Trump's superpower is his ability to make libturd heads explode with what later turn out to be meaningless statements. So Trump hedging about releasing the warrant will quickly fall by the wayside if the supporting documents for the warrant are as thin as some folks seem to think; conversely if there is solid justification for the warrant again Trump's hedging will be meaningless as well.
My money is the redactions in the supporting documents will make the whole thing seem like making a mountain out of a mole hill.
You are literally the first person I've seen to suggest that Trump might have been legally permitted to hang on to those boxes. Nobody else has made that argument at all. Well done on finding a new wrinkle in the scrotum-sack of Trump defending. Trump, of course, hasn't adressed the question of the boxes at all.
You sure do a lot of speculating.
Now that the warrant is being unsealed, Trump supporters are reducing it to an irrelevance, barely worth even mentioning, nothing at all! Which still raises the question of why Trump didn't release it, let alone his own version of the story behind those boxes.
The big question is what we’re the documents, and why shouldn’t they have been there? There have been allegations that the documents related to Crossfire Hurricane, Trump, as primary declassifier at the time, had ordered them declassified, and they weren’t ever formally declassified, even now, 1¹/₂ years later.
Sorry Ragebot, you’re too much of a partisan asshole to bother reading any more of your bullshit.
Yeah, Trump really likes letting you lot go mad with speculation and conjecture rather than coming out and actually clarifying anything.
People should stop saying Trump declassified the Crossfire Hurricane documents. He declassified some of them. Specifically, documents in a binder provided to the White House by the DOJ, except for items in the binder that are protected from disclosure by law (PII, FISC documents, etc.).
But, sure, maybe he kept the binder. That's not 12 boxes.
His job as a foreign paid shill isn't to believe, it's to lie, obfuscate, frustrate and gaslight patriots.
This talk about "redactions" is an attempt to move the goalposts yet again, and for a specific reason. Let me translate this for my naive fellow non-Trump-cultists.
First: We need to see the warrant.
Next: Oh, the warrant doesn't count; we need to see the warrant application.
Next: Oh, the warrant application doesn't count; we need to see an unredacted version.
And why do they want to see the unredacted version? It's not because they think there's something substantive in there. It's because they think the name of the "spy" is in there, and then they can harass/threaten him.
What spy? I call that a red herring, in response to your claim of goalpost moving.
The one that the MAGAts have been talking about. Mole, spy, informant, whatever they want to call him that they think best suits their rhetorical needs: the person who informed the government that Trump still had all sorts of documents he wasn't supposed to have.
How do we know there was a mole, spy, esp in the first place?
Cool story, bro. Too bad the lion's share of the discussion (around here, at least) included the application from the start.
And if you're really suggesting that someone saying "we need to see the warrant application" must specify that they mean the unredacted version, that's just too cute for words.
But there's no chance you get an unredacted version that identifies confidential sources, classified info, and the like during an active investigation.
Just say you'll never be satisfied unless OAN can camp out in the FBI offices whenever agents discuss this investigation. Shorter version: You'll never be satisfied.
"Well, yeah, we're going to huff and puff about openness and transparency, but here's no WAY we're going to give you anything that would explain the basis for this unprecedented public spectacle. We're just going to give you some surface-level stuff that says 'Trump was bad, yo.'"
"Wait... what do you mean you're not satisfied with that?"
You need to be smarter than your imaginary conversation makes you appear.
As far as I am aware, Crossfire Hurricane is over. Long over. And yet, despite Trump being able to declassify everything, including the redactions, he very explicitly left the redactions in place. Is that because Trump is part of the deep state? Or is it because some things simply can't be made publicly available.
Eventually, these affidavits are almost certain to be released, probably without redactions, but definitely not until there's an indictment, if it comes.
That's how it works. There are good reasons why it works that way. Basically, you're just arguing for a special exception to the time-tested way criminal investigations are run to protect the innocent as well as ensure the guilty are caught.
Keep hoping for a trial in the media, but that's not what serious people want.
If you want an explanation for the public spectacle, you would have to ask Trump. My first thought is that he believed that making the search public would help him in a possible Presidential run in 2024. But perhaps it's not even that calculated--maybe he just wants to be the center of attention.
A warrant application need not identify an informant by name, but it ordinarily includes facts evincing the informant's basis of knowledge and reasons for believing the informant to be reliable and credible.
Like the anti-Trump FISC warrant applications that the DOJ IG said were deeply flawed?
Like the Houston warrant application that led to the deaths of Dennis Tuttle and Rhogena Nicholas?
Are you preemptively claiming that the warrant you have never seen is flawed?
Because that's dumb as hell.
I read him as saying that warrant are often flawed.
I read him as demanding to see the warrants, but ensuring us that he won't believe anything in them that doesn't fit his preconceived views because, in some other case, there were inaccuracies.
(For the record: I definitely want greater scrutiny of search warrants and consequences for law enforcement officers caught lying in them. We can call the corrective legislation the Breonna Taylor Act.)
... the same people that are still insisting that Trump won in 2020 are going to change their mind on this? That's what you think?
This is the problem. No amount of facts will change the mind of people already upset that their cult leader has been challenged in any way.
"I'm not sure whether there are others that aren't included within the government's position"
Attachment C seems to be the one containing the alleged facts supporting alleged probable cause.
A is the property to be searched, B is the property to be seized.
So this looks like a typical regime misrepresentation.
maybe DOJ will unseal the Hillary indictment
maybe DOJ will unseal the Hunter indictment
What?
The concept of the double standard flew right over your head
I do find there to be differing standards between things that exist (this warrant) and things that don't exist (these made up indictments.)
I'm not too troubled, since I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
Sarcastr0
August.12.2022 at 9:51 am
Flag Comment Mute User
I do find there to be differing standards between things that exist (this warrant) and things that don't exist (these made up indictments.)
I'm not too troubled, since I can tell the difference between fantasy and reality."
Thanks for demonstrating you lack the ability to recognize the double standard
Oh, I'm happy he has plenty of ability to recognize issues. It's about the only way he can hone to such an art form his playing dumb about them.
There is and was no Hillary indictment. Do you need a refresher? That's what you are supposed to be mad about. I know it's hard to keep all your outrages straight. But you're mad there was no indictment, okay?
NOVA Lawyer
August.12.2022 at 2:46 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
"There is and was no Hillary indictment. Do you need a refresher? That's what you are supposed to be mad about. I know it's hard to keep all your outrages straight. But you're mad there was no indictment, okay?"
Nova -Off course everyone knows there was no Hillary indictment - Again thanks for confirming that you lack the ability to recognize the double standard.
Go back to the previous thread if you want a refresher on why Hillary's e-mails are not the same as that's going on with Trump here. (Though I'd note the lack of indictment for any of them, Trump included).
And good lord were you opaque on what you were trying to say.
Sarcastr0
August.12.2022 at 3:48 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Go back to the previous thread if you want a refresher on why Hillary's e-mails are not the same as that's going on with Trump here. (Though I'd note the lack of indictment for any of them, Trump included).
The life of brian described your willful ignorance quite well - Note that the email scandal was just a small part of her transgressions
Life of Brian
August.12.2022 at 12:12 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
"Oh, I'm happy he has plenty of ability to recognize issues. It's about the only way he can hone to such an art form his playing dumb about them."
Yeah, you partisans think all sorts if insane stuff about the Clintons. That does not make it true.
Are you a Clinton Death List devotee?
Appealing to the authority of LoB is...an interesting strategy.
Sacastro
well known public info
emails
unsecured server
pay for play
uranium one
just to name a few of the multitude
keep playing dumb and ignorant
well known public info
emails
Everybody has them
unsecured server
Fully investigated, similar to practices by former SoS, and determined not to be a chargeable crime.
pay for play
Not "public info", but your fevered imaginings.
uranium one
Having virtually nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, fully vetted, and nothing scandalous, much less illegal, involved.
just to name a few of the multitude
of fake scandals
keep playing dumb and ignorant
You seem to be trying to corner the market for that shtick.
Was Trump indicted today and I missed it?
What double standard? She was definitely investigated. The way we were told that likely affected the outcome of the election. Her home wasn't searched, so far as we know, because she turned over the server and otherwise cooperated with the investigation, including being interviewed by the FBI.
Hunter Biden hasn't been indicted. He is currently being investigated. I'd give at least even odds he will be indicted. If his home hasn't been searched, it's likely because he cooperated or whatever the FBI needs isn't likely to be found there.
But as to double standards:
Most Democrats, according to polling, want Hunter Biden to be investigated. Me too. And prosecuted if he cheated on his taxes or committed another crime.
Most Republicans, however, don't want January 6 investigated and don't want Trump's possible violations relating to the recent search investigated.
There is a double standard, but it isn't in the direction you think. Democrats want corruption prosecuted. Republicans want Democratic corruption prosecuted.
That's the double standard.
If democrats wanted corruption prosecuted, they would have pushed for the Hillary prosecution.
If democrats wanted corruption prosecuted, they would have pushed for the entire Biden family prosecution
If democrats wanted corruption prosecuted, they would have pushed for the pelosi prosecution.
If democrats wanted corruption prosecuted, they would have pushed for the prosecution of the russian collusion hoax perpetrators. The one that was prosecuted got his law license back. Another was fired, but somehow got his forfeited pension restored.
double standard.
You assertion and back it up with a stupid example.
The example is shown to be stupid, a counterexample is provided, your assertion is refuted.
You ignore all of the above, but make the same assertion with even dumber supporting points.
You just like making false or logically unsound statements. Which explains why you are a cultist out defending tfg.
It wouldn't surprise me if Trump's lawyers oppose disclosure of the warrant. Trump's people have already said it's not up to Trump to disclose, it's up to the Justice Department - not true, of course, as Trump could disclose the warrant - but probably expecting Justice to stay shtum and hence allowing Trump to win a small propaganda point.
Happy to concede if I'm wrong.
"Happy to concede if I'm wrong."
Its not the warrant that matters. Its the affidavit and attachments to said affidavit. Trump does not have that.
The warrant will describe at the very least the materials that are the subject of the warrant.
"materials that are the subject of the warrant"
Ok, yes, but how specific.
"boxes of documents" or "16 brown banker boxes"?
Same with the receipt.
Let's see. I'm not sure other than to score points why Trump wouldn't disclose the warrant if it was something as anodyne as "boxes".
Yes, it's a truly dumb argument to say the warrant contains nothing interesting, so I won't release it. That's all the more reason to release it. Then the cult leader could at least claim he's being transparent and, obviously, we need more information.
Instead, he doesn't release what he has, which suggests it's in his interest not to disclose it, but to whine that it isn't disclosed. Bob somehow misses this manipulation of his followers.
Trump could release the warrant, but hasn't, THEREFORE it's not the warrant that matters.
Or the receipt of the materials removed, apparently.
Bob, lets start with the warrant and see what it says.
Not caring about what Trump won't give up is pretty transparently toolish.
Sarcastr0, I think we agree (partly) here. Where I differ is I would publish the warrant along with any and all documentation/affidavits the judge used in making his decision to sign off on the warrant.
I want it all to come out, but I'm not going to complain that the stuff that's rarely released isn't released at the same time.
Well, yeah, I think we all would like to know everything about this search, but there are good reasons why the FBI doesn't comment on criminal investigations and why grand jury evidence and testimony is sealed prior to the indictment. And why it stays sealed if there is no indictment.
It would be unusual for the FBI/DOJ to release the warrant application so it's inappropriate to cry FRAUD if they don't, regardless of how eager we all are to see what's in it.
This. For god's sake, this, people.
Ok, I understand. You do not actually object to making the warrant + FBI affidavit + supporting documentation that the judge used to sign off on the warrant, public. We agree here.
Timing potentially matters. A week delay, no big deal, right? I mean, it takes time to get approvals in any bureaucracy. That I get. A month, or delaying until after the election, or playing the 'national security card, so just trust us'....NFW. That won't work. It guarantees escalation.
It's a bit late to be worried about escalation at this point, the raid itself was escalation, unless they can actually prove something pretty horrific. Some technical violation or other won't cut it at this point.
I believe that's why they've started rumors about the nuclear codes, they've realized they've really stepped in it.
Right, so rich and powerful Republicns aren't subjected to the same laws as everybody else, it has to be 'something pretty horrific.'
Notice how the goal always gets set to something stupid.
The FBI proved it to a judge. They will never be able to prove the need for the warrant to you, Brett.
My understanding is that the nuclear codes are changed on a daily basis so even if someone were to walk out with them, they've got a very limited window where they could potentially be used (and that's assuming that there aren't other safeguards in place other than just knowing the codes).
Whether Trump opposes unsealing may depend on whether he regards the fundraising potential of a sealed warrant to be greater than that of an unsealed warrant. Grifters gonna grift.
Surely you're not suggesting that a world-respected ex-president with a track record of above-board real estate dealings and the establishment and management of a high-quality academic institution might be any kind of grifter?
I love that the one President who did not come into considerable wealth AFTER his term in office is a "grifter" while the ones who came into fabulous wealth after their terms are not.
I love that you don't understand that Trump has been a grifter and tax cheat his whole life.
"tax cheat his whole life"
As exhibited by the numerous tax evasion convictions, right?
"I love that you don't understand that Trump has been a grifter and tax cheat his whole life."
His numerous convictions demonstrate this.
Trump is what a downscale hayseed imagines an accomplished, skilled, educated businessperson must be like.
Downscale hayseeds, the crowd at studio 54 and Roy Cohn, right?
Downscale hayseeds, who believe an accomplished, skilled, educated businessperson would be part of the crowd at Studio 54, or seek the advice of Roy Cohn.
You don't imagine that, do you?
You’ve seen a list of Cohn’s clients? And his results?
Roy Cohn was a disgusting person. He was McCarthy's henchman, then discredited for his dishonest conduct. He was a beneficiary of nepotism and an abuser of political influence. He represented assholes, from Steinbrenner and Trump to mobsters, Alan Dershowitz, Roger Stone, and the Roman Catholic Church. He was disbarred for trying to cheat an elderly client (after being charged with professional misconduct repeatedly in other cases). He lied about being gay while persecuting gays. He lied about having AIDS until AIDS ended those lies by killing him.
Roy Cohn was a piece of shit. Naturally, assholes like Curle have an affinity for that piece of shit.
. . . and with kids taking hand outs from Ukrainian mobsters. Oh wait, that’s the OTHER grifter. The social-justicey one.
Trump historically preferred taking bribes from the Russians. They have deeper pockets. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/14/donald-trumps-ukraine-scandal-has-its-roots-in-russia
That article doesn't say anything remotely like what you said.
In reality, Hunter Biden was taking money from the Russian-aligned Ukrainians, as well as directly from a billionaire in Moscow.
Kolomoisky is Zelensky’s boss and Hunter’s sugar daddy from what I’ve seen. Where are you getting your Russian connected intel?
"In reality, Hunter Biden was taking money from the Russian-aligned Ukrainians, as well as directly from a billionaire in Moscow."
Ukraine company pays Hunter thousands more than he's worth. Hunter and Joe shared money.
Ukraine has received at least $13.6B from us this year.
That seems like money quite well spent by Ukraine.
Martinned
August.12.2022 at 5:13 am
Flag Comment Mute User
Trump historically preferred taking bribes from the Russians. They have deeper pockets. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/14/donald-trumps-ukraine-scandal-has-its-roots-in-russia"
martinned - you might want to check the credibility of the source
He appears to have already made that calculation regarding declassifying documents to bring them home legally versus keeping them classified and hoping he could rely on elected Republicans to protect him from legal liability again.
Classified documents are probably worth more money and the rich and politically powerful never get jail. At worst they get "house arrest" in their Florida mansions.
Except that Trump was the primary declassifier at the time the documents were boxed up. Are we talking the Crossfire Hurricane documents that he ordered declassified, and apparently weren’t?
Yeah, he was the decider. (Except, apparently, when we're talking about who should go to jail for what.)
Once again: he didn't order them declassified. He tweeted about them being declassified. As Mark Meadows then swore under oath, he talked to Trump and clarified that this wasn't an actual order.
That was in October 2020. On January 19, 2021 he followed up by signing a memorandum to the AG, DNI, and CIA Director ordering them to declassify a collection of Crossfire Hurricane documents.
A big concern is that he used the cocktail napkins when serving finger food to guests and they may have pocketed some of them. Fortunately the FBI has the visitor logs so they will be able to work their way thru the food chain. The National Archives wants them all back.
I wonder why the NA is SwATTIng Obama.
I don't know enough to presume anything and I won't bother making any assumptions. Hopefully we will have the application and the warrant and we will know.
Okay, I have will make one assumption: that most everyone is going to be underwhelmed by the story when the details are revealed.
Not everyone. Based on the banality of this comment thread I’m already underwhelmed.
I saw a headline about public approval of the search, which is doubtless based 90% on partisan leaning and 10% on leaks and rumors.
Trump(&McConnell) squashed Garland's SCOTUS nomination. How is Garland ethically/professionally permitted to be involved in any warrant or subpoena decision relating to Trump? How is this not a conflict of interest?
What did Trump do? And we don't assume spite as a conflict in our politicians.
1) Trump had precisely nothing to do with Garland's SCOTUS nomination.
2) What's the conflict of interest? Law enforcement/prosecutors are adversarial</I towards defendants; there's no "conflict of interest" in someone who doesn't like you trying to prosecute you. A judge, not a prosecutor, is supposed to be neutral.
Merrick Garland only has his current political appointment because Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Trump may also quite possibly be Biden's election opponent in 2024. The conflict of interest is patently obvious. Garland should recuse himself and appoint a special counsel or, at the very least, direct a nominally non-political subordinate to head the investigation.
Garland’s a Democrat. His boy Biden gets in based solely on his ability to take from one group and give to another. He’d only be in trouble if he wasn’t a crook. Recusal is for choirboys.
What. Is. The. Conflict?
See, words have meaning; they're not just sounds. A "conflict of interest" implies that there are two different interests, and they oppose each other. What are the two different interests Garland has?
I'll explain as if you were a toddler.
If Trump beats Biden, Garland loses his job.
I can't dumb it down any further for you and won't waste any more of my time or yours trying.
Your legal analysis suggests you work the bad shifts at the parts counter of a rural Chevy dealership.
Congratulations on your recent promotion from vehicle detailer. That goofy red hat must have caught your boss’ eye.
Thus all potential candidates for President are immune from federal prosecution!
You're an idiot.
Only Republican ones.
Why only Republican ones? A Democrat could also challenge Biden for the Democratic nomination.
Yes, such a person would not be immune from prosecution per The Rules.
You'll have to ask the crowd chanting "Lock her up" why the rule of lenity only applies to Republicans. But it's pretty clear they only apply it one direction.
Hello, NOVA Lawyer
I believe I have something you earned with your prognosticative prowess. How can I get it to you?
Hey Reverend!
I appreciate your effort to get me something that belongs to me. I am in the DMV, so if you are or will be anytime soon, we can meet at a place of your choosing. Otherwise, contact me via email: proton dot me username novalawyer20036
And thanks!
"You'll have to ask the crowd chanting "Lock her up" why the rule of lenity only applies to Republicans. But it's pretty clear they only apply it one direction."
She was not raided. Odd.
She gave the FBI what they asked for, the first time. She also agreed to an interview during the investigation without asserting the Fifth Amendment 400 times. In fact, she didn't assert it at all.
The Hillary example does exactly the opposite of what you want it to do.
"She gave the FBI what they asked for"
They requested a completely erased server?
If anyone beats Biden, Garland loses his job. Does that mean that the Attorney General has a conflict of interest for investigating anyone in the United States?
The investigation of Hunter Biden began in prior to January 2021. Obviously, F.D. Wolf is very, very worried about the conflict of interest inherent in a Trump appointee investigating the son of his political opponent.
The Post says secret nuclear materials were among the items being searched for. Anyone want to argue that even if that proves to be true, there's nothing wrong with it?
Why didn't they just ask for them back? What possible motive would Trump have for keeping them? He's been out of office for 20 months. If he had some nefarious purpose for keeping some documents, do you think a man with properties all over the world would keep them in a box at his home? Or wouldn't at least have copies somewhere else?
I'm sure the government appreciates your credulity (and that of the lapdog media), but none of this adds up, unless the Presidential Records Act was a flimsy pretext for hoping to find evidence of something, of anything, in a classic fishing expedition.
Certainly if it's not true there will be a statement to that effect coming from Trump or his lawyers any minute now, right?
They did.
One of the January 6 insurrectionists claimed as his defense that he wasn't even there; he was handing out bibles elsewhere in DC. But he was wearing an ankle monitor for a previous crime he had been convicted of, and it placed him there. "They wouldn't do that because it would be stupid" is never the right answer when discussing a criminal.
Even many honest liberals are concerned when the current regime raids the home of the opposition leader for the first time in American history for what seems the equivalent of possessing overdue library books. And I realize you are not concerned, but for many of us, "Trust us, we're from the government", is not sufficient, and we continue to seek answers.
They want a civil war. I hope they get it.
You want to start a civil war over the government retrieving classified documents from a guy who wasn't supposed to have them?
" They want a civil war. I hope they get it. "
You know who got it, and good?
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Not Ricky Shiffer. Not anymore.
Replaced right-wing losers are likely my favorite culture war casualties.
"I realize you are not concerned"
David thinks the 60 million people who voted for trump are maggots, worse than communists.
Go for the ad hominem I guess.
Its all he deserves.
I mean, some maggots serve a useful function, so that's not true.
Among other functions, they are highly effective at cleaning out a wound if you have no proper medical supplies.
Wait till you guys find out what you guys think of liberals.
What will you say if it turns out to be as the Post reports, and your 'doesn't add up' turns out to be cultish straw-grasping? Will you apologize?
Mishandling classified documents -- possibly containing nuclear secrets -- is the equivalent of not returning library books? Your moronic comment tells us everything we need to know about you.
Theft of nuclear secrets, failure to return a copy of Game of Thrones on time; pretty much the same thing.
Which is why there's a statute on the books making overdue library books a felony, and why 18 USC § 2071 specifies a penalty of 10¢ per day for stealing government documents.
You do realize that saying "We're looking for stolen nuclear secrets!" doesn't actually establish that nuclear secrets were stolen, right?
To anyone who isn't a Trump apologist it would explain why they took such a step now after years of essentially giving him a free pass on so many of his shenanigans. Still wouldn't trust it, though. Trump plants his own leaks to maximise confusion and outrage and obfuscate the truth.
Are you saying the government is lying here or that probable cause is a easy bar?
Like, how foolish have your initial takes been riven to be in the last 2 days? Shouldn’t you learn from that and not go off on possibilities in a quickly evolving story??
It costs you nothing to keep your always pro-Trump speculations to yourself for a bit.
I'm saying that, when the government wants to do something, it crafts an excuse for doing it, that appears to justify the action. Sometimes the excuse will be a genuine reason, sometimes utter bullshit. But they ARE going to produce an excuse.
They want to raid a former President, what are they going to say? "The National Archives wants us to retrieve some used cocktail napkins!"? No, they're going to provide an excuse that facially seems adequate.
It doesn't have to be TRUE.
You're treating this as though the government were entitled to a presumption of good faith. Nope. That ship sailed years ago, then they sank it, and publicly nuked the wreck.
You're assuming they WANTED the shitstorm that goes with raiding this particular former president, rather than being obliged to do it as a last resort and attempting to be as discrete as possible under the circumstances, only for Trump to blow it up.
No, I'm personally assuming that they have drank their own Koolaid and licked the jug clean, genuinely think Trump is the greatest threat to democracy in the history of mankind, and believe that they are justified in doing absolutely anything within their power, legal or illegal, to make sure he never gets anywhere near the Oval office again.
Mind, this status of worst threat to democracy in history will instantly transfer itself to whoever gets the Republican nomination in 2024, if it isn't Trump. Remember, they have literally declared every Republican nominee since Wendel Wilkie to be the next Hitler.
There's a nasty dynamic here which isn't limited to politics, you see it in law enforcement, too. You think somebody is bad, and cut some corners going after him. You come up empty, do you decide you were wrong about him?
No, because then YOU'RE the bad guy, for cutting the corners! No, you decide he's bad and slippery, and cut more corners. Which requires evaluating him as even worse, of course, to justify it. And every cycle through the loop you get more compromised, and lower your evaluation of your target to keep your own self-regard.
This dynamic has resulted in many a cop framing people. It has also resulted in the Democrats being absolutely convinced that Trump is a shambling monster of historic proportions. Because if he weren't they would be the bad guys for everything they've done to try to get him.
You're weaving yourself quite the purple story there, Brett! Never mind that you're indicting basically the whole DoJ in order to cover for this one guy who is not known for honesty.
Putting in lots of work to keep hope alive that this guy you claim not to like much is being set up...good luck with that.
Sarcastr0, the DOJ is not known for honesty in it's efforts to get Trump, either, as you're well aware. Like I said above, that ship has sailed, they have no reputation to fall back on anymore.
You haven't shown a single cut corner or instance of framing or any indication that the Feds are treating him as anything other than a guy who hung on to documents he wasn't supposed to, and who they nonetheless treated with retraint and kid gloves. Your exaggerating is hysterical and self-serving.
Nige, it's true that I'm assuming you didn't spend the last 6 years trapped in a cave. And thus are aware of their fraud on the FISA court, for instance.
I'm aware that the so-called fraud was minor and not even directed at Trump and no amount of exaggerating will make it seem like the huge epic extra-legal institutional weight of all-powerful secret US elites being brought to bear to crush Trump.
I wonder how "We are going to take EVERY SINGLE RECORD MADE FROM 1/20/17 TO 1/20/21 is not a rather blatant fishing expedition"
Remember folks, to be a Democrat you have to simultaneously believe:
Trump is so smart he could arrange an insurrection without writing anything down.
Would leave incriminating documents in a building with 40 toilets where anyone could find them
Remember folks, to be a Trump supporter you have to believe the chaos, confusion and disorder that follows Trump around is simultaneously awesome for making liberals' heads explode and also not Trump's fault or responsibility.
Your derangement is not Trump's responsibility, you boob.
You've succesfully rebranded a moral compass as derangment in order to protect Trump. Congrats!
Part of your moral compass includes forcing masks, vaxxes, "gender affirming" drugs and surgeries, and buggering instructions upon innocent children. And those were the lucky ones who survived the pregnancy.
lmao your moral compass seems to have fallen out of Satan's knapsack.
Yes, Satan loves it when people take steps to protect people during a pandemic, provide appropriate health care and educate young people about the facts of life. Trump supporters prefer people to get sick and die in ignorance.
What steps are the homosexuals taking to protect people from the Monkey Pox pandemic?
How will you manage to work gay sex into every conversation once monkeypox goes away, I wonder?
There will never be a shortage of groomed or gay molested children so long as homosexuals exist.
Just as there will never not be some sort of raging STD epidemic, whether it's AIDS, MRSA (USA-300 strain), Blinding syphilis (lol wtf), Super gonorrhea (again wtf), or Pride Pox.
'The homosexuals?' All of them?
Oh look, some diseases you don't think are fake.
They asked. He short-armed the response and, it appears, gave them plenty of runaround.
They tired of it, called his bluff, imposed adult supervision, enforced the law, and showed him who is boss. He responds with whimpering and bluster, then has his bluff called.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. And, in Trump’s case, rely on profoundly stupid supporters.
No wonder you losers are uncompetitive in the culture war.
Nice movie scenario you live in. Now, do Beevis and Butt-head.
This is why guys like me kick the deplorable, bigoted shit out of guys like you, the Volokh Conspirators, and their fans in the American culture war.
Open wider, clingers.
Film credits please.
Sure.
A movie about an unstable lawyer with unstable friends.
It seems pretty clear they did just ask for them back.
The possible motives for Trump keeping the documents are endless and involve everything from hoping to use them to embarrass his political opponents in 2024 to making money off of them to just being able to brag about having them.
If he had some nefarious purpose for keeping some documents, do you think a man with properties all over the world would keep them in a box at his home?
As this shitstorm shows, that was the place he knew the government would be most reluctant to enter to take them back and he knew that, if they did, he could wrap himself tightly in the mantle of victimhood.
Or wouldn't at least have copies somewhere else?
I'm not sure how this sort of speculation provides any defense of Trump. "Sure, you were able to retrieve documents that don't belong to Trump, but he has copies squirreled away in a dacha on the Black Sea!" That's not doing the work you need it to.
“The Post says secret nuclear materials were among the items being searched for.”
Materials? Like U-235? Seems more up Biden pal Igor Kolomoisky’s alley.
BTW - any odds as to when the Post gets around to covering the honeypot operation managed out of DNC offices at the Watergate building? John Dean’s honey is getting a little long in the tooth.
"Post says secret nuclear materials were among the items"
a leak? Impossible, Garland said DOJ was just a bunch of dedicated professionals.
I'm sure the leak is 100% accurate unlike the hundreds of false info reported in the last 7 years.
So much for insisting on transparency, eh Bob?
What's "transparent" about a vague leak?
It's closer to transparent than the endless lies and speculations you've been indulging in based on Trump's selective silences. Which isn't very close, but still.
Do you ever stop to think about your silly snark?
Do you understand the difference between transparency and leaking out a small bit of information (which may or may not be true)?
"The Post says secret nuclear materials were among the items being searched for."
Garland figures, hey, it worked for Bush...
Garland stealing W's moves...
So you are arguing the AG is lying, TiP? That's what it appears you are saying.
Oh no, how could anyone ever besmirch the honorable and noble AG Merrick Garland!
HOW DARE HE! CENSORS SILENCE HIM FOR HARMING OUR SACRED DEMOCRACIES!
You're a weird little dude.
Does your mother ever let you go outside to play with the other kids, or does she constantly keep you locked in the basement?
Was Merrick Garland the Washington Post's unnamed source for their report? Don't be shy, tell us what you know!
TiP is the one who says it was Garland, take it up with him.
I am saying that I suspect the characterization is a stretch. Time will tell. And the DoJ better have the goods this time.
Time will indeed tell.
No need for hot takes now; plenty here have gotten burned claiming all sorts of nonsense like Crossfire Hurricane is the real target.
I'm hoping folks lean into the 'President can declassify merely by thinking about it.' plan.
"I'm hoping folks lean into the 'President can declassify merely by thinking about it.' plan."
I haven't seen a source for what magic incantation he must invoke to declassify stuff, but I've been too lazy to look.
Has anybody actually said THAT? No, I don't believe so.
What we've said is that he can declassify merely by SAYING, "This is declassified." to the relevant people. HE has the declassification authority, it's declassified when he says so, not when the bureaucrats get to acting on his orders, if they ever do.
I haven't dug into details on the declassification authority, but if a president wants to declassify something for his review as ex-president, and he has the authority to do that, why can't merely thinking it be enough?
Is there a process spelled out somewhere that he has to use to exercise his authority?
(genuine question).
I would say because, at a minimum, there needs to be some evidence created that he had actually done it.
He can testify that he did it, whatever "it" is.
If there's no explicit process for declassifying them, I'd argue that the act of retaining the documents is enough to exercise the authority, otherwise we're in "he didn't say the magic words" territory.
And if there's no explicit process to declassify documents, I don't see how you get to PC for a search warrant.
Among other things, TiP, the law not only forbids taking home classified documents, it prohibits taking documents that don't belong to you.
And there are declassification procedures. Just walking out with top secret documents does not declassify them.
Classifying documents requires magic words, not sure why you think it wouldn't or shouldn't take magic words to declassify them. Other than you like to use the term "magic words" to do all your intellectual work for you.
Plenary declassification authority may obviate the need to follow SOP (though that's pretty bad practice).
However, there is no way it obviates the need to say or do *anything at all* - such a formalist reading could not have been intended - it provides no real benefit, while allowing former Presidents to lie if they happen to be caught with classified material.
"Post says secret nuclear materials were among the items"
Huh? Some in a leak told the Post that? This is why hearsay is generally prohibited as evidence in court. We have no idea who the leaker was, what their position is, whether they were the least bit credible, whether they were in a position to know, what axe they had to grind, etc. For the first two years of the Trump Administration, the DOJ and FBI extensively used leaks to further their conspire theories against Trump, etc, and the primary targets of these leaks were the WaPo and NYT. Why should we believe that that leak is any different? The leak, as a red herring, has the advantage that it shifts the focus from where it probably should be - possibly from the FBI’s Counterintelligence Branch and their Crossfire Hurricane investigation (where many of their leaks were ultimately determined not to be completely honest).
The reason to possibly doubt that nuclear secrets are involved is that Trump would not have any real interest in nuclear secrets. That involves details. He appears to abhor details. He is a big picture guy. Why would he have knowingly absconded with nuclear secrets?
The former president now says he is encouraging the immediate release of the search documents (presumably the warrant and the inventory).
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds...
The guy who said he would release his tax returns?
We will see what his lawyers file in Court. They can oppose it, agree to it, or say nothing (or say "we don't object," the easy way out.)
The warrant has been public for several days, as well as a high level inventory. What has not been public is the supporting documentation, providing the reasonable cause for the warrant.
Assuming for the sake of consideration that accounts are true that Trump stole highly classified nuclear-weapons-related documents, a question worth asking is exactly when did he do it? Is that an item to put on the timeline of the Trump coup attempt? What other events and personal interactions occurred immediately before he stole the documents? Were others involved in the decision to do that?
Imagine how much of a brainless bootlicker you have to be to actually even remotely believe this obviously fake CYA.
And exactly how the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and Reptilians fit into this nefarious conspiracy? We must keep asking these important questions so we can finally bring down Orange Man Bad. Was he the man on the Grassy Knoll? We're just beginning to scratch the surface.
Wolf — The guy tried to cancel the election. He had a lot of help doing it. So yeah, there is a nefarious conspiracy. The problem isn't to find something to add to it. The problem is to somehow narrow it, so you do not unjustifiably include the entire Republican Party.
By the way, does anyone know whether documents with the highest national security valence are themselves tracked by mandatory record keeping? If you move such a document from one location to another, is there some record that has to be updated to keep track of it?
Tracking depends on many factors.
Level and access type (Secret/Top Secret? SCI? SAP?, COMSEC, etc.)
Also each department/agency has its own rules about safeguarding, transporting, and transferring classified material.
But generally when transferring a classified document from one location or agency (or company), to another, then there are classified receipts that are required (usually with specific timeframes for returning the receipt).
I'm not familiar with the specific White House and/or NARA procedures but there is fed law (as noted above).
One thing that's definitely going to happen is Trump is going to have someone's head - and that someone is a person who is very close to him.
There literally can only be a handful of folks who could have known exactly where the documents were and what their contents were.
That's not something a maid or servant would know.
Or (drooling conspiracy ahead!!!!). . . Biden has Del Boca Vista wiretapped and audio/video records everything!!!!!!!!
Cassidy Hutchinson? Once upon a time (it) was there......
The GSA could know what the contents were, they packed them. Lots of people would have known where they were. And the raid doesn't have to be on the basis of the feds actually knowing there was a legit target, they merely had to allege such.
It's possible the feds have a mole in Trump's inner circle. It's also possible they want him to think that, and they actually just went back to the FISA court to get another wiretap order on somebody one or two hops from him, and have his communications regularly listened in on.
I think it will be some time before the fog of war lifts.
The "fog of war" has become a permanent feature of our government fed by what passes for reporting today.
Are you saying that they could use the GSA packing list as probable cause for a search warrant? Or proof a a crime....
They could certainly use the GSA packing list as probable cause for a search warrant. As proof of a crime? I think you'd need a lot more than that.
None of that is right, Brett, but keep playing lawyer.
Setting aside the usual loony speculation and refusal to grasp the obvious, that's not how FISA works. You're again talking about something you don't understand. The "hops" are for metadata, not for content. One can only listen in to the communications of (or read the emails of, or whatever) the target.
Also, positing that Trump is discussing on the phone with a suspected foreign agent (the only category to which FISA applies) the fact that he has illicitly retained nuclear secrets is not exactly complimentary towards him.
So - you are claiming that the only conversations that the FBI listened to with the 4 FISA warrants on Carter Page were his? That seems like an immense waste of time for all of the work that they went through to get the warrants, as well as for their legal exposure (Clinesmith lost his job for lying to the FISC). He was a straight shooting fairly recent Annapolis grad, very unlikely to ever doing anything close to traitorous. Moreover, it was obvious that there were other Trump associates considered for the FISA warrants, but they stopped looking when they got the first Page warrant. Also, the IG noted that the Steele Dossier was critical in getting the warrants approved, and the Dossier had nothing to do with Page, and everything to do with Trump and his inner circle, two hops away.
Reddit predicts that Barron was the mole. Hilarious if true.
You're assuming a level of care and common sense inappropriate when discussing Donald Trump.
This last week has shown why we should be thankful Cocaine Mitch kept Garland off the SC. Garland fits the profile of former AGs like Reno, Lynch and Holder.
And if any of the current Court die in the next two years, and there's even a tie in the Senate, he IS going to end up on the Court.
Were I a betting man, I'd bet pretty strongly against an old moderate like Garland being on the short list, even.
Yeah, it's true: He isn't the right gender, race, or perversion to tick the right boxes, but they still claim the seat was stolen, and they don't doubt he'd be reliable.
Beside all the baggage he's created as AG, I think the biggest issue to appointing him (if an opening should occur) is his age.
If an opening occurred the Dems would want a much younger candidate as was the case with PBJ.
Yeah, thinking about it, just being a heterosexual white male is enough to guarantee he wouldn't get the slot, and wanting to stick it to Republicans wouldn't over-ride that.
So, scratch that prediction, I'm persuaded it was a mistake.
FFS, Reagan said he'd appoint a woman as well.
No need to pivot into white man boo-hooing.
It's the 'perversion' that sticks out. That's a proper old-school reactionary talkin'.
I want to see republican heads explode when Biden nominates a second Black woman.
Define Black and woman.
I agree. Look for an Asian American judge as they are not really represented on the court at this time.
He could nominate Sri Srinivasan just to make Ilya Shapiro's head explode.
That would be amusing, I must admit. I'm unlikely to like anybody he'd give serious consideration to nominating, but I'd at least get a chuckle out of it if he did that.
For conservatives, that would be about the best case scenario if Democrats control the senate (thank you Trump!) and presidency—which is why there is an approximately 0% chance of it happening.
That all of y’all can argue with such vociferous righteousness over something about which you have almost no actual knowledge is telling as to what political partisanship does to intelligence. An important component of intelligence is recognizing what you don’t know.
As to this situation the sum of what we know is very very close to zero. But still there are nearly 300 messages of calling each other stupid because you’re right and the other guy is wrong.
It's hard to see your point when you've been a generous contributor to these comments.
Beavis, my response to your call for patience is some combination of "yes, you're 100% right" and "have you MET the internet before?"
Before midnight last night, Trump called for the immediate release of the search warrant. Twelve hours later, despite the fact that he has the power to release the warrant at any time, he has not done so. Why?
Hold on, everybody, apparently Trump has taken to the socials to claim the Feds planted nuclear weapons in Mar A Lago. That'll teach his supporters round here to THINK BIG next time.
Joking aside, note that he's doing literally ANYTHING other than clarifying, just throwing out more red meat.
After checking the prevailing winds, I say prove it.
A tip to people watching this case. If you take a courtlistener URL, like the link at the top of the article, and strip off everything after the last slash you get a link to the docket as a whole: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64872441/united-states-v-sealed-search-warrant/
“The Post says secret nuclear materials were among the items being searched for.”
One supposes that why they searched in Melania's closets and undies drawers. Ok, ok, look, somebody had to say it. Might as well be me.
We now know that Turnip is being investigated under the Espionage Act (see Breitbart and possibly WSJ for confirmation). Below is a pre-release primer on some things we might expect:
“… one of the statutes that’s likely on the table for the Former President is 18 USC 793(e), basically taking national defense information you’re not authorized to have and refusing to give it back.”
https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/08/10/dojs-june-mar-a-lago-trip-helps-prove-18-usc-793e/
As Bradley Moss points out:
.
Of the 39,000,000 pages of Obama's documents that he still hasn't turned over to the NA, do you think any of them are classified?
The reality-based world indicates you are delusional and wrong, but in the disaffected clingerverse you are about average and by Volokh Conspiracy standards your assertions are considered a public service by a true sovereign patriot.
There are zero pages of Obama's documents that he hasn't turned over to the NA. Why must you lie about everything? Those 30-million-odd documents are in the hands of the archives, not Obama's.
Maybe when you begin sixth grade in a couple of weeks your teacher will explain to you the difference between fact and fiction. Please be sure to come back and let us know how the lessons are going.
You leaped on that lie like a tick on a hog.
Here’s what you have to believe to accept the latest “Trump had nuclear secrets” BS.
Trump had classified nuclear documents. (Let’s put aside for the moment the President’s inherent authority to declassify anything.)
The government made diligent, repeated requests for these documents, but Trump, for some inexplicable reason, wants to keep them, and refuses to give them up. Of course, Trump, unaware of the existence of copiers, doesn’t duplicate them and return the originals. Nor does he move them to any of his properties around the world. He just keeps them in boxes at his house, though, again, the government has allegedly repeatedly informed him it knows they are there.
This is so preposterous, only a journalist could believe it. But the Trump-haters, unlike Monica Lewinsky, will swallow any load they’re fed from a Democrat White House.
Taking those boxes triggered all-out attacks on the FBI, the judge, the DOJ, the government, Biden, threats of civil war, and calls for intervention by state officials. One guy died. It's an unedifying spectacle, but more or less what you'd expect.
So, we know from this that Trump knows he can do literally anything and Republicans will throw their bodies on the line for him. Even if he gets caught. So he doesn't care, he does what he wants.
The Feds know it too, so they act with care and leniency and discretion that would never be afforded to anyone else, give him every chance to return the stuff, only resorting to a warrant as a last resort, it's sealed, there's no publicity or leaks or announcements from the Feds. It blows up anyway, because Trump blows it up.
All of this is entirely in character with Trump and how he acts and how he is treated. Appeals to incredulity are just you embarrasing yourself.
Maybe he listened to an advisor who told him that a copy of a document that is classified (or nuclear Restricted Data) would be subject to the same restrictions as the original.
Perhaps that advisor also told him that sending national security information to a foreign country would be a far more serious violation than keeping it at home.