January 6 Committee…what a joke!

[Marener]

The FBI agents with shoot to kill orders apparently botched the whole raid, seizing items not on the search warrant list and planting fake top security cover pages on top of files they strew all over the floor.

Nothing was botched. Cover pages are used to obscure the classified documents in photos because the contents of those documents is classified. They took the boxes that contained classified documents in order to catalog the context in which those documents was stored. The entire box was part of the evidence or the crime.

At no point in time was the raid found to be legally deficient even from a far right wing and very Trump friendly judge who demonstrated a willingness to assist Trump at basically every opportunity.

 

[Lockback]

The FBI agents with shoot to kill orders apparently botched the whole raid, seizing items not on the search warrant list and planting fake top security cover pages on top of files they strew all over the floor.

It was a cluster of the first order and should never have happened to begin with. Political persecution bullshit.

 

[markef]

Unequivocally, yes. Records he refused to return even after a subpoena was issued for them.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump asked a staffer to delete camera footage at his Florida estate in an effort to obstruct the federal investigation into his possession of classified documents, according to an updated indictment unsealed Thursday that adds new charges against the former president and names an additional defendant.

The indictment includes new counts of obstruction and willful retention of national defense information, compounding Trump's legal jeopardy even as he braces for a possible additional indictment in Washington over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The additional counts underscore the extent of the yearlong investigation into Trump that first produced charges last month in the form of a 38-count indictment against Trump and his valet, Walt Nauta.

Trump faces new federal charges over Mar-a-Lago camera footage in classified materials case

Donald Trump asked a staffer to delete camera footage at his Florida estate in an effort to obstruct the federal investigation into his possession of classified documents, according to an updated indictment that adds another defendant to the case.

www.pbs.org

Nobody in Biden's incompetent Justice Department had a clue what documents Trump might still be holding that their leftist judges could rule he did not have the right to possess, which is why there was not a single document identified in the unjustly broad fishing expedition search warrant. No wonder armed agents with shoot to kill authoprization were rifling through Melania's underwear drawer.

 

[markef]

Nothing was botched. Cover pages are used to obscure the classified documents in photos because the contents of those documents is classified. They took the boxes that contained classified documents in order to catalog the context in which those documents was stored. The entire box was part of the evidence or the crime.

At no point in time was the raid found to be legally deficient even from a far right wing and very Trump friendly judge who demonstrated a willingness to assist Trump at basically every opportunity.

The cover sheets were planted by Biden's armed raiders with shoot to kill authorization. No wonder the case got thrown out.

 

[Marener]

The cover sheets were planted by Biden's armed raiders with shoot to kill authorization. No wonder the case got thrown out.

The dismissal of the case had nothing to do with the cover sheets.

Not sure why you’re upset about the use of cover sheets. It makes sense in the context of a search warrant expecting to find large volumes of classified material.

 

[markef]

The dismissal of the case had nothing to do with the cover sheets.

Not sure why you’re upset about the use of cover sheets. It makes sense in the context of a search warrant expecting to find large volumes of classified material.

The case was dismissed because the prosecutor was illegitimate and the Biden/Garland mob were lying about everything from day one.

 

[Marener]

The case was dismissed because the prosecutor was illegitimate and the Biden/Garland mob were lying about everything from day one.

You’re lying about basically everything and focusing on irrelevant details.

Whether Smith was properly appointed or not changes nothing about the known facts and obvious criminal behavior of Trump.

 

[berg80]

which is why there was not a single document identified in the unjustly broad fishing expedition search warrant.

I'm not sure in all the time I've spent on this board I have ever encountered someone as deluded as you. So this is going to be my last response to you on this thread. Cuz it's become apparent no manner of factual refutation to your lies and misinformed opinions make any impression on you at all.

If the government did not have probable cause to search MAL for classified docs the magistrate judge would not have approved the search warrant. After the search was executed illegally withheld, classified docs were in fact found in trump's possession. That was prima facie evidence of his guilt. Evidence proving one of the charges in Smith's indictment. The fact that trump got a judge friendly to him to drop the charges does not mean Smith didn't have evidence of trump's unequivocal guilt.

 

[berg80]

You’re lying about basically everything and focusing on irrelevant details.

Whether Smith was properly appointed or not changes nothing about the known facts and obvious criminal behavior of Trump.

Bingo. Parsing the case against trump is a media strategy for the gullible rubes like markef that would not have held up in court.

 

[Delldude]

What do you think they were briefing Biden on in May and why do you think that?

The state of the investigation and what direct it was headed. doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Biden had to make a decision on it.

The article slapped them together because they’re liars and you’re a sucker.

They are all from separate memo/email chains.

The one about briefing Biden was from May.

Yes, a short time, about 60 some days before they decided to execute the SW. And they were up in the air between FBI and DOJ on probable cause right up until they decided to raid MAL.

Then don’t pretend as though the lack of precedent means anything. It’s irrelevant.

I said this event would be 'precedent setting' and would require the nod from Biden, hence the briefing in May. You think they'd go to these unprecedented lengths without a nod from POTUS?

This was a borderline breach of power.

“Since we heard Mr. Toscas say yesterday in the call that he ‘frankly doesn’t give a damn about the optics’ and Mr. Bratt has already built an antagonistic relationship with (Trump) attorneys…I think it is more than fair to say that the DOJ contact with (Trump attorney) just prior to the execution of the warrant will not go well. DOJ said as much yesterday.”

The search warrant and raid are the same thing.

Not true, each are separate events............can't have one without the other.

Raiding Mar a Lago to seize any documents which were marked classified, even if Trump had declassified them and not told anyone, was necessary to protect national security.

Must be why they were given back to Him. Declassification has never been proven although DOJ acknowledged they could be.

 

[Lockback]

You’re lying about basically everything and focusing on irrelevant details.

Whether Smith was properly appointed or not changes nothing about the known facts and obvious criminal behavior of Trump.

Just keep defending the most corrupt, crooked group of thugs in American history.

 

[Marener]

The state of the investigation and what direct it was headed. doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Biden had to make a decision on it.

A baseless assertion. You have no facts to back that up.

We know for a fact that Biden had to make a decision to override Trump’s assertion of executive privilege at the same time as the document. Moreover, the document specifically mentions the override of executive privilege. That’s obviously what the briefing and decision was about.

Which has nothing to do with a search warrant or raid.

They are all from separate memo/email chains.

Agree. Separate. Having nothing to do with each other. But when placed next to each other, gives low information hacks the impression that they are related.

Yes, a short time, about 60 some days before they decided to execute the SW. And they were up in the air between FBI and DOJ on probable cause right up until they decided to raid MAL.

Not that short in a fast moving investigation. There’s no indication anyone was considering a search warrant in May.

I said this event would be 'precedent setting' and would require the nod from Biden, hence the briefing in May. You think they'd go to these unprecedented lengths without a nod from POTUS?

You’re making that up. There’s no basis to assert it would “require” the nod from Biden.

Yes, I think they would search Mar a Lago without getting permission from Biden. That’s exactly what we should expect.

This was a borderline breach of power.

“Since we heard Mr. Toscas say yesterday in the call that he ‘frankly doesn’t give a damn about the optics’ and Mr. Bratt has already built an antagonistic relationship with (Trump) attorneys…I think it is more than fair to say that the DOJ contact with (Trump attorney) just prior to the execution of the warrant will not go well. DOJ said as much yesterday.”

“Breach of power”? What does that mean?

Not true, each are separate events............can't have one without the other.

The fact that you can’t have one without the other means they’re not that separate.

Must be why they were given back to Him. Declassification has never been proven although DOJ acknowledged they could be.

He’s president. They had to give them back.

 

[Delldude]

There’s no indication anyone was considering a search warrant in May.

E mailings from June 2nd noted FBI expected to have a SW in hand 6-6-2022. Some twenty two days later? This shows that it was already discussed and in motion May 11 when FBI issued a subpoena to Trump.

So much for your claim.

Which supports a briefing with Biden May 11th on the direction of the investigation.

Yes, I think they would search Mar a Lago without getting permission from Biden.

I seriously doubt that...........it's a huge WH policy issue.

The fact that you can’t have one without the other means they’re not that separate.

Why not? You can raid a place without a warrant.

They had to give them back.

And DOJ did just that last year.

 

[Marener]

E mailings from June 2nd noted FBI expected to have a SW in hand 6-6-2022. Some twenty two days later? This shows that it was already discussed and in motion May 11 when FBI issued a subpoena to Trump.


View attachment 1242137

So much for your claim.

How does an email from June 2nd (feel free to provide a source to this email) indicate that the search warrant was discussed with Biden on May 10th?

You know what we know was discussed on May 10th? Privilege issues, which we know for a fact were brought up to Biden and are specifically mentioned in the email on May 10th.

The DoJ didn’t even have access to the records on May 10th.

Which supports a briefing with Biden May 11th on the direction of the investigation.

Not at all. The context supports the briefing being issues about privilege.

I seriously doubt that...........it's a huge WH policy issue.

It’s not a WH policy issue at all. It’s a DoJ issue and the standard has been to keep that out of the White House.

Why not? You can raid a place without a warrant.

Not legally.

And DOJ did just that last year.

I know. It’s irrelevant.

 

[Delldude]

How does an email from June 2nd (feel free to provide a source to this email) indicate that the search warrant was discussed with Biden on May 10th?

I never mentioned May 10th or discussions with Biden about a SW. Boy you jump around like a cat on a hot tin roof. Take a step back, take a deep breath.

Link previously provided.

It’s a DoJ issue and the standard has been to keep that out of the White House.

At this level of a search? You can't be serious.

You have a link to that policy?

The context supports the briefing being issues about privilege.

The briefing was the day the subpoena was issued. Based on the June 2nd email, the effort to obtain a SW was well underway and I'm sure that, among other things were discussed and or approved with Biden.

Any discussions of privilege would have happened before the May 10th letter to Trump's attorney where the issue of privilege was mentioned in the past tense.

The DoJ didn’t even have access to the records on May 10th.

I never mentioned that.

Try something else.

 

[Marener]

I never mentioned May 10th or discussions with Biden about a SW. Boy you jump around like a cat on a hot tin roof. Take a step back, take a deep breath.

Okay. If you don’t think they talked to Biden about a search warrant, then there’s nothing to talk about.

Link previously provided.


At this level of a search? You can't be serious.

Totally. Why would they want to involve the president? It makes no sense.

You have a link to that policy?

https://www.justice.gov/d9/attorney_general_memorandum_-_department_of_justice_communications_with_the_white_house_july_21_2021.pdf

The briefing was the day the subpoena was issued. Based on the June 2nd email, the effort to obtain a SW was well underway and I'm sure that, among other things were discussed and or approved with Biden.

“I’m sure” means nothing coming from a political hack like yourself.

Any discussions of privilege would have happened before the May 10th letter to Trump's attorney where the issue of privilege was mentioned in the past tense.

I never mentioned that.

Try something else.

The email from May 10th specifically discusses the privilege issue. It says nothing about getting permission from Biden for anything related to the investigation. We don’t even know who wrote the email.

 

[Delldude]

If you don’t think they talked to Biden about a search warrant, then there’s nothing to talk about.

Nice spin. He was briefed and made a decision and then coordinated with the departments involved. Pretty obvious it was over matters ala Trump.

The email from May 10th specifically discusses the privilege issue. It says nothing about getting permission from Biden for anything related to the investigation.

Never said anything about getting permission.....and it's in the past tense as in previously.

We don’t even know who wrote the email.

What email?

https://www.justice.gov/d9/attorney...cations_with_the_white_house_july_21_2021.pdf

It permits communication with the WH.

 

[Marener]

Nice spin. He was briefed and made a decision and then coordinated with the departments involved. Pretty obvious it was over matters ala Trump.

We already know that they required his input regarding privilege. Everything else you made up.

Never said anything about getting permission.....and it's in the past tense as in previously.

You keyed into language about him having to “make a decision”. Same difference.

What email?

The email from May 10th talking about briefing Biden.

It permits communication with the WH.

Only when absolutely necessary. It wasn’t necessary to tell the White House about a search warrant.

 

[Delldude]

We already know that they required his input regarding privilege.

Previously discussed prior to May 10th. It's May 11th that cuts the mustard. That's when it all started to hit the fan.

The email from May 10th talking about briefing Biden.

I wasn't referencing an email.........the subpoena came out the next day....imagine that.

It wasn’t necessary to tell the White House about a search warrant.

You haven't a clue.

 

[Marener]

Previously discussed prior to May 10th. It's May 11th that cuts the mustard. That's when it all started to hit the fan.

It’s a more rational explanation than trying to bring up something about the search warrant.

I wasn't referencing an email.........the subpoena came out the next day....imagine that

You’re confused. The May 10th email is what you’ve been discussing because it’s the only thing that mentions briefing Biden at all.

You haven't a clue.

Then explain why it would be necessary to inform the White House about a search warrant for Mar a Lago.