Affidavit For Mar A Lago Search Warrant Released, And It Could Not Be More Damning For Donald Trump

[HereWeGoAgain]

"I don't know. He's pretty damn dumb."

I second that.

Lame.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I used to be involved in some high-end sales and also sat in meetings where "experts" were presenting to the board their proposed courses of action (not a member, just there by direction) and have seen some very wealthy people do some awfully dumb shit.

This tells me absolutely nothing.
For all I know you were the moron.

 

[otto105]

Meh, same raft of shit that the DOJ has already leaked to WAPO and other leftist media outlets.

Yeah, hang Mike pence and defund the FBI.


Fucking maga fuckup

 

[BackAgain]

"The real problems this country faces right now"

I think the MAGAtards are worse since Fat Donnie lost. Especially on this site.

Another libtard lie. Okfume doesn’t think.

 

[White 6]

White, that’s what it means when we say “presumed innocent, in the eyes of the law, until and unless a defendant’s
guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” It doesn’t mean the accused IS innocent. It is just a presumption to make sure a prosecutor can damn well prove guilt; and it’s designed primarily to avoid the conviction of an innocent person.

And you know, I presume, that the system, being imperfect, has led to situations where people who in fact didn’t do “it” have gotten convicted? That’s what we like to call “a bad result.”

Anybody can accuse President Trump of the nonsense being spewed in that warrant. But that does most certainly not make the allegations “the truth.” And if anybody were ever to accuse you of a crime of which you ain’t guilty, you’d certainly cherish the legal presumptions and the high burden of proof being carried by the accuser.

I have been on juries, just not as serious as hers. I'm good with presumption of innocence, but I do not close my eyes to listening to, or ready the reports from insiders, or news report. My personal opinion is he was wrong to take much of that with him, wrong to let his lawyer swear there was no mover to be found at Mar-a-Lago, and of course wrong, not to send it back when ask by proper authority.
Innocent? Innocent of what? As far as I know, he has not been charged with anything yet, as the search warrant was just part of the investigation. Do I think him a piece of shit? Sure. Do I think guilty? He hasn't even been charged.
You are in luck though, it is unlikely, I will be called to sit on a jury in this mess, he created (again) and if asked if I had any person feelings toward the former president, voted out of office, I would admit, I think he is a piece of shit, but would not judge him guilty with hearing the witnesses and seeing the evidence. I would be real interested in any jury that came about. He has some pretty fast peers. If there is a trial, where do you get that jury pool, with clearances to see the evidence? Also true is there is top secret and there is top secret. I have personally seen top secret, where the only thing that made it top secret was that it was that the info available from open sources was all in one place. Bottom line is it looks bad if true, but we do not and may not ever find how bad. I find the situation fascinating in the extreme. Guilt/innocence? All I can tell you for certain, based on what I know, is he was an asshole, looks dirty as hell, and should have known better than to take that stuff with him, and then fight to keep the GD stuff.

 

[okfine]

I have been on juries, just not as serious as hers. I'm good with presumption of innocence, but I do not close my eyes to listening to, or ready the reports from insiders, or news report. My personal opinion is he was wrong to take much of that with him, wrong to let his lawyer swear there was no mover to be found at Mar-a-Lago, and of course wrong, not to send it back when ask by proper authority.
Innocent? Innocent of what? As far as I know, he has not been charged with anything yet, as the search warrant was just part of the investigation. Do I think him a piece of shit? Sure. Do I think guilty? He hasn't even been charged.
You are in luck though, it is unlikely, I will be called to sit on a jury in this mess, he created (again) and if asked if I had any person feelings toward the former president, voted out of office, I would admit, I think he is a piece of shit, but would not judge him guilty with hearing the witnesses and seeing the evidence. I would be real interested in any jury that came about. He has some pretty fast peers. If there is a trial, where do you get that jury pool, with clearances to see the evidence? Also true is there is top secret and there is top secret. I have personally seen top secret, where the only thing that made it top secret was that it was that the info available from open sources was all in one place. Bottom line is it looks bad if true, but we do not and may not ever find how bad. I find the situation fascinating in the extreme. Guilt/innocence? All I can tell you for certain, based on what I know, is he was an asshole, looks dirty as hell, and should have known better than to take that stuff with him, and then fight to keep the GD stuff.

Finding jurists will be damn near impossible.

The BackAgain creep should understand, but if it didn't come out of his big mouth personally it's a waste of time to him.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Have a fucking party.

You can throw a nice party with an EBT card. Enjoy!

 

[bodecea]

trump's gonna go through some things.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

nope. gonna have all my bands and all the musicians I know. It will be epic.

You can call it Kookapalooza!

 

[BackAgain]

I have been on juries, just not as serious as hers. I'm good with presumption of innocence, but I do not close my eyes to listening to, or ready the reports from insiders, or news report. My personal opinion is he was wrong to take much of that with him, wrong to let his lawyer swear there was no mover to be found at Mar-a-Lago, and of course wrong, not to send it back when ask by proper authority.
Innocent? Innocent of what? As far as I know, he has not been charged with anything yet, as the search warrant was just part of the investigation. Do I think him a piece of shit? Sure. Do I think guilty? He hasn't even been charged.
You are in luck though, it is unlikely, I will be called to sit on a jury in this mess, he created (again) and if asked if I had any person feelings toward the former president, voted out of office, I would admit, I think he is a piece of shit, but would not judge him guilty with hearing the witnesses and seeing the evidence. I would be real interested in any jury that came about. He has some pretty fast peers. If there is a trial, where do you get that jury pool, with clearances to see the evidence? Also true is there is top secret and there is top secret. I have personally seen top secret, where the only thing that made it top secret was that it was that the info available from open sources was all in one place. Bottom line is it looks bad if true, but we do not and may not ever find how bad. I find the situation fascinating in the extreme. Guilt/innocence? All I can tell you for certain, based on what I know, is he was an asshole, looks dirty as hell, and should have known better than to take that stuff with him, and then fight to keep the GD stuff.

I’m not challenging your right to call shit as you see it. I’m merely noting that there is a world of difference between saying “Trump stole the documents” and saying “Trump allegedly stole the documents.”

Liberals aren’t the only ones guilty of making that mistake. I’ve seen conservatives do it, too. Hell, I sometimes speak imprecisely and do it, also.

But I’ve noticed that with the usual crew of “orange man bad” liberals and libtards, their tendency is to assume the unproved as gospel truth. It frankly makes it difficult to rationally discuss anything with these folks.

Thankfully, it is true that in most courts of law, judges know the difference and apply the law. A prosecutor can say in an opening that “Trump was in possession of stolen documents.” BUT he should be interrupted with an objection and the objection should be sustained. Instead, what the prosecutor should be saying is that the government “will prove” x, and z.

And then the defense attorney can open and say, “the Assistant US Attorney has claimed that the government will ‘prove’ x, y and z. But don’t forget, he can’t just ‘say’ it. He has to actually do it. He has to prove it. And he has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And I want you to keep an open mind because it is our position that ‘no; he won’t.’ He will not prove beyond a reasonable doubt any such things. Why not? Because we tell you, now, that the evidence for ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ just ain’t there.”

Finding jurists will be damn near impossible.

The BackAgain creep should understand, but if it didn't come out of his big mouth personally it's a waste of time to him.

okfume is bleating like a wounded ewe again. Poor little libtard.

Even a simpleton like you, okfume, should grasp it, but you won’t; so I’ll tell you: there is certainly a chance that the Brandon crime crew will seek to indict Trump but it would be an imbecilic miscalculation. There is a good chance that someone there will decide for Brandon to retreat before it gets to that.

If no indictment. No trial.

If a trial, of course it will be nearly impossible to find a jury (especially in DC) that hasn’t already been flooded with all the left wing bullshit and the DOJ’s leaks. It prejudices President Reump if that happens and it will be the fault of Brandon, Garland and the media.

I’m sure that would make you happy, though.

 

[okfine]

I’m not challenging your right to call shit as you see it. I’m merely noting that there is a world of difference between saying “Trump stole the documents” and saying “Trump allegedly stole the documents.”

Liberals aren’t the only ones guilty of making that mistake. I’ve seen conservatives do it, too. Hell, I sometimes speak imprecisely and do it, also.

But I’ve noticed that with the usual crew of “orange man bad” liberals and libtards, their tendency is to assume the unproved as gospel truth. It frankly makes it difficult to rationally discuss anything with these folks.

Thankfully, it is true that in most courts of law, judges know the difference and apply the law. A prosecutor can say in an opening that “Trump was in possession of stolen documents.” BUT he should be interrupted with an objection and the objection should be sustained. Instead, what the prosecutor should be saying is that the government “will prove” x, and z.

And then the defense attorney can open and say, “the Assistant US Attorney has claimed that the government will ‘prove’ x, y and z. But don’t forget, he can’t just ‘say’ it. He has to actually do it. He has to prove it. And he has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And I want you to keep an open mind because it is our position that ‘no; he won’t.’ He will not prove beyond a reasonable doubt any such things. Why not? Because we tell you, now, that the evidence for ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ just ain’t there.”

okfume is bleating like a wounded ewe again. Poor little libtard.

Even a simpleton like you, okfume, should grasp it, but you won’t; so I’ll tell you: there is certainly a chance that the Brandon crime crew will seek to indict Trump but it would be an imbecilic miscalculation. There is a good chance that someone there will decide for Brandon to retreat before it gets to that.

If no indictment. No trial.

If a trial, of course it will be nearly impossible to find a jury (especially in DC) that hasn’t already been flooded with all the left wing bullshit and the DOJ’s leaks. It prejudices President Reump if that happens and it will be the fault of Brandon, Garland and the media.

I’m sure that would make you happy, though.

See it? There is exactly what I stated. Self centered egomaniac.

 

[BackAgain]

See it? There is exactly what I stated. Self centered egomaniac.

See? Not any concern about always being dishonest from the asshole okfume.

Still off topic, too, ya hack bitch.

The topic was the false libtarded claim that the affidavit as released (heavily redacted) couldn’t be more damaging to Trump.

And we know that’s not true, because even the un-redacted portion that remains doesn’t help the government’s prospective “case.”

Just more libtarded wishful thinking expressed as it it had any factual basis. Lying twats like okfume lap that shit right up.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I’m merely noting that there is a world of difference between saying “Trump stole the documents” and saying “Trump allegedly stole the documents.”

Meanwhile, reasonable people are concerned about the world of difference between a President who steals documents, then lies about it and refuses to return them vs. the 99.99% of decent people who could never imagine doing anything like that.

 

[skye]

Now that the Rats released the affidavit....everything is clear!

not

 

[BackAgain]

Meanwhile, reasonable people are concerned about the world of difference between a President who steals documents,

Still no evidence of theft; so we can eliminate you as a reasonable person, fumblenuts.

then lies about it

No evidence of having lied about “it.”

and refuses to return them

Actually, you lying hack dope, he had been negotiating with the attorneys for the National Archives. And, he has already provided them with many boxes of the documents. So thats two of your lies for the price of one. You’re a real asshole.

vs. the 99.99% of decent people

No one you associate with, then.

who could never imagine doing anything like that.

He didn’t do anything “like that.” You suck at this, fumblenutz.

 

[MisterBeale]

so, you can read between the lines, or you have X-ray vision to see the blacked out part.

Which is it?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The execution order unsealing the affidavit can be found here. The letter from the DOJ explaining the reasoning behind redactions is here. The heavily redacted list of requested redactions is here. And finally, the affidavit itself is here. And that affidavit wastes no time in making clear that this is a serious matter:


And when it comes to the conclusion, the document is even more harsh:


That’s far from all that’s still visible, and still incredibly damning for Donald Trump.

When it comes to the statutory authority behind the affidavit, the FBI goes immediately to the heart of concerns:

This is a criminal investigation. The FBI has cause to believe that there have been multiple violations of federal law. That law calls for fines and/or imprisonment. And they believe the “fruits of crime” will be found at “PREMISES”—otherwise known as Mar-a-Lago.

Does that sound like enough to get measured for an orange jumpsuit?

Hold on for another paragraph.

Who are they (the justice system/judge) giving in to by allowing this type of insight into an open investigation, especially one of this magnitude?

No agency, to my knowledge, has ever been required to turn over evidence from an investigation that is currently still open and on-going. And what exactly does allowing everyone to peep the government's case achieve?

 

[Penelope]

Wow, exactly the speech that will accompany real investigations starting after the midterms.

It doesn't matter, look at Hunter Biden , as you want him hung up to dry. Kemp said the election is too close, Kemp knew since Jan 22.

 

[Penelope]

tramp made laws about classified material, now that is coming back to bite him.

Lock her up, remember that chant from tramps rallies, well she didn't have any classified mats.

Why might I ask, why did tramp scurry away with unclassified and classified documents. Selling them would be one reason, maybe he made copies of them all.

 

[SweetSue92]

It couldn't happen to a nicer, more deserving guy. I'm sure. Good luck to the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and God Bless the United States of America, as they seek to protect our country from those that would go against our laws and traditions for personal benefit or advantage.

Which laws?

Which traditions?

The law that has grandparents in prison for years for wandering around a public building while looters and burners get a few months and a fine? Those laws?

The laws that say an unvaccinated tennis player can't compete but allows thousands of unvaccinated to pour over our border every day? Those laws?

We have no "laws" anymore. We're post-law now. Catch up.