“Raid” on Benedict Biden’s Home Was a Sham: FBI Literally Set an Appointment With Biden’s Attorneys

[Couchpotato]

So if they didn't know he had them, why in the hell would they raid his house. Dumbass.

Because they found classified documents at his office, and the nmore in his garage, and then more in his house. At what point does the FBI say ok asshole we are taking this over immediately. I guess never.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Because they found classified documents at his office, and the nmore in his garage, and then more in his house. At what point does the FBI say ok asshole we are taking this over immediately. I guess never.

Have they raided all of Pence's properties when he had LOST classified documents pop up?

 

[Skylar]

More and more Americans see the double standards in the justice system.

Merrick Garland is a complete fraud and no one should call him an honorable person.

As a general rule, law enforcement does not schedule their raids with the subjects of their investigations. Corporate media and even most in conservative media are claiming that Joe Biden’s Delaware home was “raided” by the FBI in search of more illegally held classified documents. These news outlets are either willfully echoing the White House’s contrived narrative or they’re falling for the public relations con job because what happened Wednesday was not a “raid.”​

​

This was all planned. It was scheduled. Biden’s team knew when the FBI team was coming. In fact, they were invited and the appointment was set. According to a statement by Bob Bauer, Biden’s personal attorney:​

​

​

​

After the search, Bauer released another statement:​

​

​

​

This was a public relations stunt. It was designed to bury the scandal by having the last piece of news declaring the FBI essentially exonerated Biden. Scanning headlines and searches for keywords such as “biden classified documents found” yields the narrative the White House wants out there for the public. Instead of the original scandal dominating headlines and searches, the public is being pressnted with headlines like this:​

​

​

​

​

​

In the world of public relations, this is a huge win for Team Biden. The White House will now say the scandal is over, that it was a giant nothingburger, and that the whole thing needs to be put to rest because Biden has been cleared of wrongdoing. None of that is true, but nobody said public relations had anything to do with the truth.​

​

Once again, the FBI has been weaponized by Democrats to play the public for fools. They are being used as actors in Kabuki Theater.​

​

​

​

​

"Raid" on Benedict Biden's Home Was a Sham: FBI Literally Set an Appointment With Biden's Attorneys - 🔔 The Liberty Daily

If you love the news, check out The Liberty Daily's homepage. As a general rule, law enforcement does not schedule their raids with the subjects of their investigations. Corporate media and even most in conservative media are claiming that Joe Biden’s Delaware home was “raided” by the FBI in...

thelibertydaily.com

​

Who said it was a 'raid'?

There's no need. Biden has cooperated fully. It was Biden's people that brought classified documents to the government's attention in the first place.

The entire premise of your thread is misinformed claptrap.

 

[excalibur]

How many times did they request documents from Biden that he didn't turn over?

Trump had full declassification authority and did so before leaving office. Biden may have had declassification authority for documents he himself classified as VPOTUS, that's it, but he has made no such claim.

Biden had NO RIGHT to any he stole while a Senator, that is a clear felony.

 

[excalibur]

Have they raided all of Pence's properties when he had LOST classified documents pop up?

No one cares. Charge him.

And charge Biden for the felonies he committed of the classified documents he stole while Senator.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No one cares. Charge him.

And charge Biden for the felonies he committed of the classified documents he stole while Senator.

Charge them all.... nothing is going to happen

 

[BackAgain]

Cooperative subjects don't get treated like criminals until they obstruct.

Please tell me your not really that gullible.

 

[occupied]

Please tell me your not really that gullible.

Important people anyway get kid glove treatment until they lie and obstruct. He's the president. They get politely worded requests along with anyone else that can afford legal teams.

 

[BackAgain]

Important people anyway get kid glove treatment until they lie and obstruct. He's the president. They get politely worded requests along with anyone else that can afford legal teams.

Yeah. It was a “kid gloves” search warrant raid.

Please. Give it a rest.

 

[occupied]

Yeah. It was a “kid gloves” search warrant raid.

Please. Give it a rest.

You wanted Biden to get a raid to even things up for Trump. I get it. Trump could have just gave all that stuff back when they asked and it never would have even been an issue. He brings all his problems on himself.

 

[Skylar]

You wanted Biden to get a raid to even things up for Trump. I get it. Trump could have just gave all that stuff back when they asked and it never would have even been an issue. He brings all his problems on himself.

There is no 'raid'. The FBI was invited in.

You don't have to have raids when you cooperate with authorities. Its only when you defy a subpoena that they start looking for warrants.

 

[BackAgain]

You wanted Biden to get a raid to even things up for Trump.

What would that sentence be if you wrote it in coherent English?

What post of mine are you referencing where you ever said I wanted Potato to be subjected to a raid? (Hint. Ain’t no such post.)

I get it.

No. No you don’t.

Trump could have just gave all that stuff back when they asked and it never would have even been an issue. He brings all his problems on himself.

Trump could have given anything back. That’s true. But like others, he felt he had a claim to keep retain of the documents. And it must have been discussion-worthy, because the government had been negotiating.

 

[Skylar]

What would that sentence be if you wrote it in coherent English?

What post of mine are you referencing where you ever said I wanted Potato to be subjected to a raid? (Hint. Ain’t no such post.)

No. No you don’t.


Trump could have given anything back. That’s true. But like others, he felt he had a claim to keep retain of the documents. And it must have been discussion-worthy, because the government had been negotiating.

His 'feelings' don't override probable cause. As the judge that issued the warrant demonstrated elegantly. Or the appeals court that upheld it.

You don't get to ignore a subpoena or the law because of 'feelings'.

 

[occupied]

What would that sentence be if you wrote it in coherent English?

What post of mine are you referencing where you ever said I wanted Potato to be subjected to a raid? (Hint. Ain’t no such post.)

No. No you don’t.


Trump could have given anything back. That’s true. But like others, he felt he had a claim to keep retain of the documents. And it must have been discussion-worthy, because the government had been negotiating.

There's nothing to negotiate. He was being given far more forbearance than anyone ever known for a fact to be in possession of a pile of classified files and government property. He got the special treatment until it became clear he was not going to give that stuff up.

 

[BackAgain]

His 'feelings' don't override probable cause.

What probable cause? The one the magistrate judge said he found based on the application submitted? That “probable cause?”

As the judge that issued the warrant. Or the appeals court that upheld it.

Has it been upheld? Has it actually been challenged yet? I don’t think so.

You don't get to ignore an subpeona or the law because of 'feelings'.

No. But you do get to challenge the validity of a subpoena. I don’t recall saying it was based on a mere feeling.

 

[MarcATL]

Hey Genie Ass, they made arrangements w/Trump's lawyer's too.

This was discussed quite in-depth on USMB.

SNAP OUT OF IT!!

 

[Skylar]

What probable cause? The one the magistrate judge said he found based on the application submitted? That “probable cause?”

The probable cause used in the warrant, authorized by a federal judge and upheld by the appeals court.

You don't get to ignore a subpoena or a warrant because Trump had feelings.

No. But you do get to challenge the validity of a subpoena. I don’t recall saying it was based on a mere feeling.

There was no injunction on the subpeona. Meaning it was fully enforceable.

"Feelings' aren't a legal argument, Back. They're an excuse for one.

 

[BackAgain]

The probable cause used in the warrant, authorized by a federal judge and upheld by the appeals court.

No. You mean the determination MADE by the magistrate judge that the allegations amounted to probable cause.

You don't get to ignore a subpoena or a warrant because Trump had feelings.

Nor did I say diddly dog about “feelings.”
Nobody gets to ignore a warrant. It gets executed against you. But you absolutely CAN challenge a subpoena.

There was no injunction on the subpeona. Meaning it was fully enforceable.

There is never an injunction on a subpoena. Subpoenas can be subject to a motion to quash.

"Feelings' aren't a legal argument, Back. They're an excuse for one.

Again I said nothing about feelings.

Try a new line of attempted argument sky.

 

[Skylar]

No. You mean the determination MADE by the magistrate judge that the allegations amounted to probable cause.

Probable cause has been established when a judge agrees that it has. That's how checks and balances work. Law enforcement submits their evidence and arguments that there is probable cause. And a judge either agrees that such probable cause exists, authorizing the warrant. Or disagrees, denying it.

And of course, Trump had lied, there were documents, and Trump had refused to return them.

So ......what is there to debate? Due process was served, and the DOJ were correct in their assertions, with suffecient evidence to establish probable cause.

Your argument is less and less a legal one, and more and more you offering you personal opinion as a standard of law.

Which is meaningless.

Nor did I say diddly dog about “feelings.”

Of course you did:

Trump could have given anything back. That’s true. But like others, he felt he had a claim to keep retain of the documents.

It doesn't matter if Trump 'felt' he had a claim to the documents. Nor does he get to ignore a subpoena or a warrant because he 'felt' a certain way.

His feelings aren't a legal standard. Nor are yours.

 

[BackAgain]

Probable cause has been established when a judge agrees that it has.

Nope. That’s just a preliminary determination.

That's how checks and balances work.

Only partial credit.

What you persist in overlooking is that the determination is subject to challenge. Look up the motion called “motion to controvert a search warrant.” It’s cool stuff.

Law enforcement submits their evidence and arguments that there is probable cause. And a judge either agrees that such probable cause exists, authorizing the warrant. Or disagrees, denying it.

All true, but still excruciatingly simplistic of you.

And of course, Trump had lied, there were documents, and Trump had refused to return them.

That’s not an “of course.” It’s not even true. And again, you ignore that they had been declassified.

So ......what is there to debate?

More than you’ll admit.

Due process was served,

Was it? Really?

and the DOJ were correct in their assertions,

Not necessarily.

with suffecient evidence to establish probable cause.

In a preliminary way. Only.

Your argument is less and less a legal one, and more and more you offering you personal opinion as a standard of law.

No. That would be you. I have yet to see you make a valid legal and meaningful legal assertion. Stop projecting, sky.

Which is meaningless.

But your nleating isn’t?

Of course you did:

Nope.

It doesn't matter if Trump 'felt' he had a claim to the documents. Nor does he get to ignore a subpoena or a warrant because he 'felt' a certain way.

You do realize — I hope — that you’re merely repeating yourself. And not convincingly.

His feelings aren't a legal standard. Nor are yours.

Nor have I ever said they are. Or were.

But his feelings are motivators for his decisions. And when he feels that he’s getting screwed with, he chooses to fight back.

By the way, it is perfectly kindle you to want to disagree. But it would be helpful if you knew what you were talking about.