Eric Trump reveals HE told Donald FBI raided Mar-a-Lago: Ex-President's son claims agents 'ransacked

I am aware, are you aware that nothing I said went against what you said. FMR. Director Comey claimed no reasonable person would prosecute and closed the case. Arguably, there was a reasonable case to be presented but they never presented one. All fine and dandy(not really, but whatever) the point is, this is the same exact crime, arguably even more secure(we're talking papers flushed in a toilet, seriously lol) and yet this one is in the process of being prosecuted.

I'll ask again: Other than politics, what sense does it make?

 

The stage we are at now is roughly equivalent to Comey's public announcement that Clinton was under investigation, and that was politically worse since she was a presidential candidate and it was just months away from election day. It is the FBI doing their job, not a politically motivated exercise, bottom line.

In Clinton's case, there was insufficient evidence to charge her of mishandling classified information. Maybe it's because relevant emails were deleted, but either way the evidence was lacking. In Trump's case, there is clear evidence because documents have been recovered already.

As for politicking, either prosecution would have severe political consequences, especially when you consider a possible prosecution of Clinton in 2016 or soon thereafter. There would be a massive political risk in prosecuting Trump just for political reasons, both because it only helps him feed his favorite "witch hunt" narrative and anything but a conviction would look pretty bad Democrats in particular. If anything is holding DOJ back from acting on the evidence, in fact, it will be a desire to avoid creating a great big political mess. Donald Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and DOJ would still be hesitant to charge him, a former president who is still highly politically relevant and teasing another run. The RNC would probably keep on paying his legal bills, too.

 

"Comey's public announcement that Clinton was under investigation, and that was politically worse since she was a presidential candidate and it was just months away from election day. It is the FBI doing their job, not a politically motivated exercise, bottom line."

It was ELEVEN DAYS from an election. people stayed home because of it, IMO

 

the Trump admin also used personal email, and even his daughter, not to mention the whatsup app

and you can thank the republican Darrell Issa for allowing personal email use to this day

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/f...egulation-hillary-clinton-allegedly-violated/

1) Did Clinton break any laws by using a private email account, exclusively or otherwise?

No. And we’ve known about her private email for a couple of years now after it was originally reported by Gawker. So, old news. Also, guess which lawmaker made sure personal email usage was permitted in the amendments to the Federal Records Act last year? Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

 

Jul 5, 2016 — Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless," but "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," FBI Director James Comey said.


They did the INVESTIGATION then the CONCLUSION, which is what's happening NOW with TFG, investigate THEN decide!

 

During her tenure as United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton drew controversy by using a private email server for official public communications rather than using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. Clinton's server was found to hold over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively designated confidential by the State Department

News reports by NBC and CNN indicated that the emails discussed "innocuous" matters already available in the public domain. For example, the CIA drone program has been widely discussed in the public domain since the early 2000s; however, the existence of the program is technically classified, so sharing a newspaper article that mentions it would constitute a security breach, according to the CIA

On June 14, 2018, the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General released its report on the FBI's and DOJ's handling of Clinton's investigation, finding no evidence of political bias and lending support for the decision to not prosecute Clinton.

A three-year State Department investigation concluded in September 2019 that 38 individuals were "culpable" in 91 instances of sending classified information that reached Clinton's email account, though it found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy

It's a nothing burger, like Bengazzzzzzi and all the other garbage thrown at the Clinton's for 30 years!

 

so should he go after Ivanka? Investigate her inside and out, I mean the right went after Clinton, you want consistency right?

"Ivanka Trump used a personal email account to send hundreds of emails about government business last year"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...15d1e0-e7a1-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html

 

Simples. He broke his sworn oath to protect and defend the constitution.
And he tried to get others to do the same, and when that didn’t work, he incited his mob to riot as a last desperate attempt to subvert the constitution.

 

But their emails: Seven members of Trump’s team have used unofficial communication tools

...Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and daughter Ivanka Trump, both advisers to the president, had used either personal email accounts or the messaging application WhatsApp to conduct official business, according to information from the House Oversight Committee.

The latter is particularly problematic because messages are encrypted between users, meaning that unless Kushner and Ivanka Trump stored copies of their messages or the recipients turned the messages over to the government, there’s no way to record what was said.

...The committee learned that former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland and former adviser Stephen K. Bannon had also, at times, used personal email accounts for official business. Some of those communications, the Journal reports, dealt with a proposal to send nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. McFarland’s account was through AOL, according to the New York Times.

And these are only the most recent examples. In 2017, the Times reported that other Trump administration officials, including adviser Stephen Miller, former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former National Economic Council director Gary Cohn had all used personal email accounts to conduct official business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...am-have-used-unofficial-communications-tools/

 

Sure, but as you pointed out appparently Mr. Issa made a law for it, so whatever at this point. One could argue this so-called federal registry law is outdated. No one really actually uses it, and despite these public statements it's not for the public either. These documents don't go into some museum. They're obscure, we never heard of it until Trump broke it.

As far as I'm concerned, this should be a misdemeanor. It might've meant something pre-21st century technology, but these notes and documents mean nothing now for the historic record.

 

"Orange is the New Orange"

 

From here I can only comment that AFAIAC no other president has had, from the very beginning of his tenure in office, more members of his circle investigated and prosecuted for what can only be called sleaze.
And sometimes dangerous sleaze.
I was told once that removing papers relating to time in office is illegal.
And there was interest in the boxes he took with him when he left.
Why are some squealing here? Surely if he is innocent you can claim à huge moral victory, prove harassment ( called witchunt) and go on to launch another four more Glorious Years. The Democrats would never rise again.
What are you afraid of?

 

All the idiot Dumbocrats have done is make a martyr out of Trump now.
Guaranteed they will come up with nothing as per every other fake claim and have done nothing but guarantee Trump running and galvanized voters against these idiotic Democrat Soviet style tactics.
Thanks a lot dipshit Democrat DC idiots. Most were hoping Trump wouldn't run. You dipshit Dumbasscrats have just guaranteed he will.

It stands to reason? Like the fake claims made to judges for fake FISA warrants?

 

Mike Caputo slithers out from under a rock while Dershowitz tries to be relevant.



Raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate questioned by some legal scholars
Critics say DOJ must be transparent about why it raided the home of a former, and possibly future, president
By Haris Alic | Fox New


"Sean Hannity discuses the ‘unprecedented’ FBI raid on former President Trump’s house in Mar-A-Lago on ‘Hannity.’

Legal scholars are questioning whether the FBI's raid on former President Donald Trump's Florida home over classified White House documents was necessary.

Some experts told Fox News Digital the basis for the raid, which centers on Trump's purported failure to hand over potentially classified documents to the National Archives, is unprecedented.

GOP SLAMS 'WEAPONIZATION' OF DOJ AFTER TRUMP'S MAR-A-LAGO RAIDED BY FBI; DEMS CALL IT 'ACCOUNTABILITY'


"Based on what we now know, it was totally unjustified, even one FBI agent would have been too many," said Alan Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School who served on Trump's legal team for the president's first impeachment case. "The whole process was wrong and Trump was away at the time, so they can't say he was going to destroy anything."

Legal scholars note that when individuals previously violated the law regarding classified documents, the Justice Department has opted to either not prosecute or settle for lesser charges.


UNITED STATES - 2017/05/07: Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard, at the Jerusalem Post Annual Conference in New York City. (Photo by Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) (Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)


"The Presidential Records Act is not commonly a subject of criminal prosecution, even in the most egregious cases," said Johnathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School. "These incidents have generally been handled administratively."

In 2004, for instance, the DOJ prosecuted former Clinton-era National Security Adviser Sandy Berger for the unauthorized removal and destruction of classified material from the National Archives. The former NSA adviser removed from the National Archives five copies of a report detailing the Clinton administration's handling of a series of unsuccessful terror attacks planned by al Qaeda for the 2000 millennium.

Berger, who removed copies of the report by stuffing them in his pants and socks, was sentenced to only two years probation and stripped of his security clearance for three years.

"These cases overall have not been subject to aggressive criminal prosecution in the past," said Turley.

FORMER TRUMP OFFICIAL MICHAEL CAPUTO BLASTS FBI'S MAR-A-LAGO RAID: 'FULL-BLOWN CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS'.......... LOL

A large group of FBI agents raided Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate Monday with search warrants. The raid was reportedly related to materials the former president brought to the residence after leaving the White House in January 2021.

The Presidential Records Act of 1978 and other federal laws bar the removal of classified documents from unauthorized locations. For months, the National Archives has sought to obtain documents pertaining to Trump's White House tenure from Mar-a-Lago. "



cont:
Raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate questioned by some legal scholars | Fox News

 

It would take too long to explain how you’re wrong about so much, and it wouldn’t change your opinion anyway
Just know trumps AGs had 4 years to charge Hillary, and Garland wasn’t there. Is a good AG supposed to lower themselves to the incompetency of their predecessors?

 

If garland refuses to prosecute wire fraud for 4 years, does that mean the next AG isn’t allowed to either?
That’s basically your argument. Sessions and Barr didn’t do their job so Garland shouldn’t either???

 

Not necessarily, but that's my point. It's the same charge, so it should have the same standard. My question is, why doesn't it? I suspect the reason no one wants to actually answer this question, is that there's only one answer: Trump is the political opposition, HRC was running on the incumbent's party. That's it. If there's no reason to prosecute HRC for the emails, there's no reason to prosecute Trump for the same. In fact, again they probably ironically were more secure in Trump's estate then on HRC's-eventually to be hacked emails.

I would ironically be more in support of charging on the 6th then on Records-gate. This is an absurdity on its finest hours.. Two people, the same crime, different results.

 

How many warrants on Trump were executed during that invesigation?

 

I’m skeptical they raided his home over anything close to Hillary having some unmarked classified evidence in her email.

 

Not the crime, but definitely the mistake.
Both Hillary and Trump may have done things illegally.
Difference? Hillary is much better at covering her behind.
Trump's superior arrogance is biting him in the behind.

 

LINK:

Eric Trump alerted his dad to the Mar-a-Lago raid (nypost.com)


'Eric Trump said FBI agents “ransacked” his father’s office and broke into a safe during a raid of the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

In a Monday night interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, the younger Trump said he was the one who alerted Donald Trump about the FBI’s unannounced search of the Florida property earlier in the day.

“I was the guy that got the call this morning. And I called my father and let him know that it happened,” Eric Trump said of the raid.

The former first son confirmed to Hannity that FBI agents conducted the raid to search for any potential confidential documents Donald Trump may have in his possession at Mar-a-Lago.

He blasted the search as politically motivated and insinuated his father is a victim in the investigation.

“To have 30 FBI agents — actually more than that — descend on Mar-a-Lago, give absolutely, you know, no notice, go through the gates, start ransacking an office, ransacking a closet,” Eric Trump griped. “You know, they broke into a safe. He didn’t even have anything in the safe.”

Cont: @ link

 

Apparently that's what the case surrounds. Records taken from the archives and Trump kept them in his personal home. I actually think a lot of things are going to be litigated as a result of this, one of which is this: If a record records Donald Trump's daily activities(instance: Shower log or whatever). Presidential title be damned, it's still the 'person' Donald Trump with his personhood.

There's an argument to be had that any documents that pertained to Trump's actions as President amount to a diary, and therefore would fall under 4th Amendment protections. The idea that the President/person are separate has already been challenged, why not take that challenge to its umpteenth level?

 

Well that's because Trump and his accomplices were/are dangerous sleaze.
End of story!

 

Now you’re just making stuff up.
Reports are that some of the documents removed from Mar a Lago were marked Top Secret. That’s pretty serious.

 

Think he has any audio of his blabbering to foreign leaders?