Special Counsel Jack Smith has withdrawn his case

[WorldWatcher]

They also handed a sup on June 6th the day trump allowed them in his home to search

The subpeona was served May 11, 2022 with an original compliance date of May 24, 2022. It was Trump's team that requested a delay in compliance.

So again you are incorrect on the basic facts.

You would know this if you read the court documents.

WW

 

[Blisterfinger]

No, communities will be stepping up to host the Biden library. Trump's going to have to find an opioid shithole for his library.

ABC is paying for Trump's Library LOL congratulations

 

[WorldWatcher]

He was president when he Declassified them and took them. He was completely within his rights. You lose

Trump never said or filed with the court any statement that he'd declassified the documents.

He only said that to the media and on social postings where he couldn't be held to a perjury standard.

WW

 

[Marener]

Looks like all of them

Then let’s see them. Since they’re declassified, that means us normies get to see them.

Where are they?

 

[Blisterfinger]

Trump never said or filed with the court any statement that he'd declassified the documents.

He only said that to the media and on social postings where he couldn't be held to a perjury standard.

WW

You are right, Trump did say that the documents were Declassified and that's good enough for me. It's all really a nothing Burger. No calories and fat free

 

[struth]

It’s idiotic to say that constituted a “search”.

But even if we did accept your idiotic statement, it only made the search warrant more necessary. Trump was purposefully hiding the documents by limiting the scope of the “voluntary search”.

They were left with no other option but to use a search warrant.

when the govt gets invited into someone's home to look around it's a search.

The search warrant wasn't issued until two months later, nothing was being hidden, they were allowed in the room too look around.

Now that FBI agents aren't in fear of retaliation from Xiden admin, we are learning how the search warrant was done completely corruptly

Testimony Reveals Senior FBI Official Expressed Concerns about Trump Raid

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) just sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland revealing new information related to the raid of former President Donald Trump’s residence and the Department of Justice’s reported indictment of President Donald Trump...

judiciary.house.gov

According to Mr. D’Antuono, the abnormalities include:

1. The Miami Field Office did not conduct the search. Mr. D’Antuono testified that FBI headquarters made the decision to assign the execution of the search warrant to the Washington Field Office (WFO) despite the location of the search occurring in the territory of the FBI’s Miami Field Office. Mr. D’Antuono stated that he had “absolutely no idea” why this decision was made and questioned why the Miami Field Office was not taking the lead on this matter. Mr. D’Antuono stated that the FBI “learned a lot of stuff from [the] Crossfire Hurricane” investigation—notably “that the [FBI] Headquarters does not work the investigation, it is supposed to be the field offices working the investigations.” Mr. D’Antuono indicated that his “concern is that [the] DOJ was not following the same principles . . . .” In fact, as recently as May 2023, in response to the report of Special Counsel Durham, the FBI asserted that “investigations should be run out of the Field” and not from Washington, D.C.
   
2. The Department did not assign a U.S. Attorney’s Office to the matter. According to Mr. D’Antuono, it was unusual to not have a U.S. Attorney assigned to an investigative matter, especially a matter of this magnitude. He explained that he “didn’t understand why there wasn’t a US Attorney assigned” and “raised this concern a lot with” Department officials because this was out of the ordinary. Mr. D’Antuono indicated that he “never got a good answer” and was told that the National Security Division would be handling this matter—with Jay Bratt, who leads the Department’s counterintelligence division, as “the lead prosecutor on the case.” Mr. Bratt is the same Department lawyer who allegedly improperly pressured a lawyer representing an employee of President Trump.10 Mr. D’Antuono again noted his concern regarding lessons learned from Crossfire Hurricane, that the Justice Department was not following the principle that “Headquarters does not work the investigation . . . .”
   
3. The FBI did not first seek consent to effectuate the search. Mr. D’Antuono recounted a meeting between FBI and Department officials during which the Department assertively pushed for the FBI to promptly execute the search warrant.12 Based upon his over-20-year tenure at the FBI, Mr. D’Antuono testified that he believed that the FBI, prior to resorting to a search warrant, should have sought consent to search the premises. He testified that this outcome would have been “the best thing for all parties” involved— “[f]or the FBI, for former President Trump, and for the country . . . .” Mr. D’Antuono indicated a belief that either you or Director Christopher Wray made the decision to seek a search warrant, despite opposition from the line agents working this case in the WFO. Following that meeting, Mr. D’Antuono described how Justice Department counterintelligence official George Toscas—who also reportedly worked on the “Crossfire Hurricane and Clinton email investigations”—told him that FBI agents were ready to execute the warrant.16 Mr. D’Antuono pushed back on the Department for trying to unilaterally allocate FBI resources.
   
4. The FBI refused to wait for President Trump’s attorney to be present before executing the search. Mr. D’Antuono testified that the FBI sought to exclude President Trump’s attorney from the search, a move with which Mr. D’Antuono disagreed. Mr. D’Antuono believed that the FBI should have worked with the attorney to get consent to search the residence prior to seeking a warrant for the search. Mr. D’Antuono believes that “there was a good likelihood that [they] could have gotten consent . . . .”

 

[Blisterfinger]

Then let’s see them. Since they’re declassified, that means us normies get to see them.

Where are they?

That's not up to me, I'm not the one who performed an illegal raid on margalago and took the documents.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are right, Trump did say that the documents were Declassified and that's good enough for me. It's all really a nothing Burger. No calories and fat free

Anything a Cult Leader is good enough for members of the cult.

Logically thinking people prefer evidence, testimony and court documents as a measure of reality.

WW

 

[struth]

The agents asked to search they were denied.

I've posted the court document that shows this.

And no, being on property does not mean they got to search.

WW

No they didnt. The Court doument shows they were allowed to search. Moreover, we have testimony now from the FBI Agent, that says consent was never asked for...which was completely abnormal

Testimony Reveals Senior FBI Official Expressed Concerns about Trump Raid

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) just sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland revealing new information related to the raid of former President Donald Trump’s residence and the Department of Justice’s reported indictment of President Donald Trump...

judiciary.house.gov

According to Mr. D’Antuono, the abnormalities include:

1. The Miami Field Office did not conduct the search. Mr. D’Antuono testified that FBI headquarters made the decision to assign the execution of the search warrant to the Washington Field Office (WFO) despite the location of the search occurring in the territory of the FBI’s Miami Field Office. Mr. D’Antuono stated that he had “absolutely no idea” why this decision was made and questioned why the Miami Field Office was not taking the lead on this matter. Mr. D’Antuono stated that the FBI “learned a lot of stuff from [the] Crossfire Hurricane” investigation—notably “that the [FBI] Headquarters does not work the investigation, it is supposed to be the field offices working the investigations.” Mr. D’Antuono indicated that his “concern is that [the] DOJ was not following the same principles . . . .” In fact, as recently as May 2023, in response to the report of Special Counsel Durham, the FBI asserted that “investigations should be run out of the Field” and not from Washington, D.C.
   
2. The Department did not assign a U.S. Attorney’s Office to the matter. According to Mr. D’Antuono, it was unusual to not have a U.S. Attorney assigned to an investigative matter, especially a matter of this magnitude. He explained that he “didn’t understand why there wasn’t a US Attorney assigned” and “raised this concern a lot with” Department officials because this was out of the ordinary. Mr. D’Antuono indicated that he “never got a good answer” and was told that the National Security Division would be handling this matter—with Jay Bratt, who leads the Department’s counterintelligence division, as “the lead prosecutor on the case.” Mr. Bratt is the same Department lawyer who allegedly improperly pressured a lawyer representing an employee of President Trump.10 Mr. D’Antuono again noted his concern regarding lessons learned from Crossfire Hurricane, that the Justice Department was not following the principle that “Headquarters does not work the investigation . . . .”
   
3. The FBI did not first seek consent to effectuate the search. Mr. D’Antuono recounted a meeting between FBI and Department officials during which the Department assertively pushed for the FBI to promptly execute the search warrant.12 Based upon his over-20-year tenure at the FBI, Mr. D’Antuono testified that he believed that the FBI, prior to resorting to a search warrant, should have sought consent to search the premises. He testified that this outcome would have been “the best thing for all parties” involved— “[f]or the FBI, for former President Trump, and for the country . . . .” Mr. D’Antuono indicated a belief that either you or Director Christopher Wray made the decision to seek a search warrant, despite opposition from the line agents working this case in the WFO. Following that meeting, Mr. D’Antuono described how Justice Department counterintelligence official George Toscas—who also reportedly worked on the “Crossfire Hurricane and Clinton email investigations”—told him that FBI agents were ready to execute the warrant.16 Mr. D’Antuono pushed back on the Department for trying to unilaterally allocate FBI resources.
   
4. The FBI refused to wait for President Trump’s attorney to be present before executing the search. Mr. D’Antuono testified that the FBI sought to exclude President Trump’s attorney from the search, a move with which Mr. D’Antuono disagreed. Mr. D’Antuono believed that the FBI should have worked with the attorney to get consent to search the residence prior to seeking a warrant for the search. Mr. D’Antuono believes that “there was a good likelihood that [they] could have gotten consent . . . .”

 

[Blisterfinger]

Anything a Cult Leader is good enough for members of the cult.

Logically thinking people prefer evidence, testimony and court documents as a measure of reality.

WW

Yep, just like Biden taking documents and keeping them for his cult.

 

[Marener]

The search warrant wasn't issued until two months later, nothing was being hidden, they were allowed in the room too look around.

You said they limited the scope of the search, which means a great deal was being hidden.

The FBI did not first seek consent to effectuate the search.

You’re claiming that the DoJ seek consent and that Trump did grant consent but limited the scope. So your own source disagrees with you.

 

[struth]

What was that subpoena for and why does it matter?

It doesn't, I was just highlighting you were incorrect on your time line

It should also be noted that at the time that Xiden was having his DOJ harass his political rival over docuements that he was actively working with the NARA on getting turned over, he him self was actively hiding classified documents he had stolen, and information he had sold

 

[WorldWatcher]

No they didnt. The Court doument shows they were allowed to search. Moreover, we have testimony now from the FBI Agent, that says consent was never asked for...which was completely abnormal

Testimony Reveals Senior FBI Official Expressed Concerns about Trump Raid

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) just sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland revealing new information related to the raid of former President Donald Trump’s residence and the Department of Justice’s reported indictment of President Donald Trump...

judiciary.house.gov

According to Mr. D’Antuono, the abnormalities include:

1. The Miami Field Office did not conduct the search. Mr. D’Antuono testified that FBI headquarters made the decision to assign the execution of the search warrant to the Washington Field Office (WFO) despite the location of the search occurring in the territory of the FBI’s Miami Field Office. Mr. D’Antuono stated that he had “absolutely no idea” why this decision was made and questioned why the Miami Field Office was not taking the lead on this matter. Mr. D’Antuono stated that the FBI “learned a lot of stuff from [the] Crossfire Hurricane” investigation—notably “that the [FBI] Headquarters does not work the investigation, it is supposed to be the field offices working the investigations.” Mr. D’Antuono indicated that his “concern is that [the] DOJ was not following the same principles . . . .” In fact, as recently as May 2023, in response to the report of Special Counsel Durham, the FBI asserted that “investigations should be run out of the Field” and not from Washington, D.C.
2. The Department did not assign a U.S. Attorney’s Office to the matter. According to Mr. D’Antuono, it was unusual to not have a U.S. Attorney assigned to an investigative matter, especially a matter of this magnitude. He explained that he “didn’t understand why there wasn’t a US Attorney assigned” and “raised this concern a lot with” Department officials because this was out of the ordinary. Mr. D’Antuono indicated that he “never got a good answer” and was told that the National Security Division would be handling this matter—with Jay Bratt, who leads the Department’s counterintelligence division, as “the lead prosecutor on the case.” Mr. Bratt is the same Department lawyer who allegedly improperly pressured a lawyer representing an employee of President Trump.10 Mr. D’Antuono again noted his concern regarding lessons learned from Crossfire Hurricane, that the Justice Department was not following the principle that “Headquarters does not work the investigation . . . .”
3. The FBI did not first seek consent to effectuate the search. Mr. D’Antuono recounted a meeting between FBI and Department officials during which the Department assertively pushed for the FBI to promptly execute the search warrant.12 Based upon his over-20-year tenure at the FBI, Mr. D’Antuono testified that he believed that the FBI, prior to resorting to a search warrant, should have sought consent to search the premises. He testified that this outcome would have been “the best thing for all parties” involved— “[f]or the FBI, for former President Trump, and for the country . . . .” Mr. D’Antuono indicated a belief that either you or Director Christopher Wray made the decision to seek a search warrant, despite opposition from the line agents working this case in the WFO. Following that meeting, Mr. D’Antuono described how Justice Department counterintelligence official George Toscas—who also reportedly worked on the “Crossfire Hurricane and Clinton email investigations”—told him that FBI agents were ready to execute the warrant.16 Mr. D’Antuono pushed back on the Department for trying to unilaterally allocate FBI resources.
4. The FBI refused to wait for President Trump’s attorney to be present before executing the search. Mr. D’Antuono testified that the FBI sought to exclude President Trump’s attorney from the search, a move with which Mr. D’Antuono disagreed. Mr. D’Antuono believed that the FBI should have worked with the attorney to get consent to search the residence prior to seeking a warrant for the search. Mr. D’Antuono believes that “there was a good likelihood that [they] could have gotten consent . . . .”

That's all about the August Search Warrant.

Not the transfer of the Redweld (38 documents) and the NA/FBI agents being refused the opportunity for a voluntary search.

If the voluntary search had been allowed:
#1 They would have found the hidden documents in June.
#2 There would have been no need to get a search warrant because the search would have already happened.

Your claim they were court documents showing they were allowed to voluntarily search MAL in June is false.


WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yep, just like Biden taking documents and keeping them for his cult.

Trump wasn't charged with taking documents. Just like Biden and Pence were not charged with taking documents.

WW

 

[struth]

You said they limited the scope of the search, which means a great deal was being hidden.



You’re claiming that the DoJ seek consent and that Trump did grant consent but limited the scope. So your own source disagrees with you.

1) of course, anyone can limit the scope of a Govt consent search. I guess a great deal was hidden, like his wife's panties...he wouldn't let them up there, which apparently pissed them off so they got the search warrant and raided her drawers.

2) how does it disagree with me? Trump gave consent once before. If they wanted to see what was in the boxes, they just had to ask, that's what the FBI agent is saying wasn't done

 

[struth]

That's all about the August Search Warrant.

Not the transfer of the Redweld (38 documents) and the NA/FBI agents being refused the opportunity for a voluntary search.

If the voluntary search had been allowed:
#1 They would have found the hidden documents in June.
#2 There would have been no need to get a search warrant because the search would have already happened.

Your claim they were court documents showing they were allowed to voluntarily search MAL in June is false.


WW

your court documents show they in fact were. They were allowed to search the room where boxes were located. The FBI whislteblower is highlighting that consent was never sought for anything more.

 

[struth]

The subpeona was served May 11, 2022 with an original compliance date of May 24, 2022. It was Trump's team that requested a delay in compliance.

So again you are incorrect on the basic facts.

You would know this if you read the court documents.

WW

Yes. they did on that one, and complied. They were also searved with another.

 

[marvin martian]

Jack Smith was illegally appointed by Garland.
His case would not have lasted one day in court.

Special counsel Jack Smith wasn’t lawfully appointed, can’t …​

Jan 12, 2024 · President Reagan’s attorney general and two law professors who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia are challenging special counsel Jack Smith’s authority to …

He and Garland need to be prosecuted for that.

 

[Marener]

1) of course, anyone can limit the scope of a Govt consent search. I guess a great deal was hidden, like his wife's panties...he wouldn't let them up there, which apparently pissed them off so they got the search warrant and raided her drawers.

2) how does it disagree with me? Trump gave consent once before. If they wanted to see what was in the boxes, they just had to ask, that's what the FBI agent is saying wasn't done

1. In this case we know for a fact that documents that were legally required to be turned over were in the boxes that the DoJ was not allowed to search. This means your assertion that nothing was “hidden” is factually inaccurate.

2. The DoJ was explicitly forbidden from looking in the boxes by Trump’s lawyers. Your source says the FBI never asked for a search. Your claim is the DoJ did ask for a search and Trump allowed it in a limited fashion. Therefore, you disagree with your own source. The FBI agent wasn’t there on June 3rd, so he wouldn’t know the facts.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes. they did on that one, and complied. They were also searved with another.

Another copy of the one they had already received approximatley 3 weeks before. There was only one subpeona.

WW