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

He stole their stuff they took it back.


Republicans push to see affidavit that justified FBI search of Trump's homeSource: Reuters

By David Lawder

"WASHINGTON, Aug 14 (Reuters) - Republicans stepped up calls on Sunday for the release of an FBI affidavit showing the justification for its seizure of documents at former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home amid reports of heightened threats against federal law enforcement personnel.

A search warrant released last week after the unprecedented search showed that Trump had 11 sets of classified documents at his home, and that the Justice Department had probable cause to conduct the search based on possible Espionage Act violations.

Republicans are calling for the disclosure of more detailed information that persuaded a federal judge to issue the search warrant, which may show sources of information and details about the nature of the documents and other classified information. The unsealing of such affidavits is highly unusual and would require approval from a federal judge.

"I think a releasing the affidavit would help, at least that would confirm that there was justification for this raid," Republican Senator Mike Rounds told NBC's "Meet the Press".

"The Justice Department should "show that this was not just a fishing expedition, that they had due cause to go in and to do this, that they did exhaust all other means," Rounds said. "And if they can't do that, then we've got a serious problem on our hands."

Separately on Sunday, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Democrat Mark Warner and Republican Marco Rubio, asked the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to provide the seized documents on a classified basis.


A spokesperson for the committee, charged with oversight of the handling of classified information, said the two senators had also requested "an assessment of potential risks to national security" as a result of possible mishandling of the files.

Representative Mike Turner, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN on Sunday that the Biden administration should provide more details on what led to the search.

"Congress is saying, 'Show us. We want to know what did the FBI tell them? What did they find?'" Turner said.

The Department of Justice did respond to a request for comment on the FBI affidavit.

HEIGHTENED THREATS"

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/repub...-justified-fbi-search-trumps-home-2022-08-14/

 

Thanks for finally clearing this up, for us all. I had gotten some bad info., not from another poster, but from websites which I'd Google searched, to find.

A snappy little article, to read, as well.

 

This is by an Illinois democrat and a Trump hater, but he's at least been down in the litigation trenches and is not an ignoramus:

Much of the initial reaction to the search warrant focused on the Espionage Act, which was cited in the search warrant. While the title of that over 100-year-old law sounds like it has to do with spying, it is possible to violate the Espionage Act just by improperly retaining national defense information and failing to return it to the United States government when it is demanded .... But because the government is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the materials in question were classified, Trump’s “defense” that he declassified the materials would not itself defeat the government’s claim that the information was closely held national defense information, as required by the statutes.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/08/14/trump-classified-documents-doj-opinion-00051584

Of course, Trump's position is that he did not fail to return it when demanded.

 

On that question, I'd almost be inclined to trust a Magic 8-ball, if it told me, "all signs point to no."

However, I just found out that I had steered you wrong, for which I apologize. (EDIT: I had assumed I was replying to Freedom8, to whom my post had been addressed-- but very glad to chat with you, as well, Mia B!) @HereWeGoAgain just posted a link to a clear, concise article on the matter:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...at-mar-a-lago.602641/page-210#post-1073662065

 

I don't know that there needs to be "a record" of declassification when it is done by the CIC. Does there?

 

The Atlantic
You're killn me smalls

Your source is a bias fake. And I'll show why.
Your source makes this statement

The 1988 Supreme Court case Navy v. Egan confirmed that classification authority flows from the president except in specific instances separated from his powers by law. And here is where things get theological: A president can make most documents classified or declassified simply by willing them so.

But thats a lie, isn't it. Because this isn't what the SCOTUS ACTUALLY said in Navy vs Egan
NOWHERE does is state except in specific instances separated from his powers by law



Try again. lol

 

Except his source is bias and knowingly falsified their claim
They stated in their article

The 1988 Supreme Court case Navy v. Egan confirmed that classification authority flows from the president except in specific instances separated from his powers by law. And here is where things get theological: A president can make most documents classified or declassified simply by willing them so.

But that isn't what the SCOTUS stated. Nowhere in their ruling do they claim except in specific instances separated from his powers by law

 

Never mind the guy rolling around on the floor like an idiot.

The source quoted is J. William Leonard, American administrator who was appointed Director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO)
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2002/nr02-55.html

The guy rolling around on the floor like an idiot thinks he knows more than the man who was responsible for this very thing.

 

There IS a process he has to follow.

Your allegiance to dear leader is noted………

 

I have told you. That Navy v Egan thing is NOT on point.

 

Blah Blah Blah dear leader

Everything you have posted has been debunked and you're just pissed.
Aren't you supposed to be on the phone with the FBI calling in posters you think are Trump supporters.

 

Right, because you would know better that the SCOTUS.
Thanks for the update

 

Yes, I'd been impressed that the author had gone straight to the person I'd expect to be the top source, on the matter (and had quoted his predecessor, as well, who the author had also spoken with, in the past).

 

Nope, but I can read what SCOTUS decided.

 

I'll give you a bit of a hand but I doubt you'll take any notice. Navy v Egan was about a very narrow aspect of law....It was prompted by a narrow argument/issue. Did an executive body have the authority to review the revocation of a security clearance another executive branch? Answer was "no." The problem with Egan (apart from the fact it was a divided majority decision) is that some Justices wandered off into rabbit holes of their own creation and along the way, made statements which are obiter dicta, and not as binding as the ratio decidendi, basic to the ultimate decision.

 

I do not know the specifics of the particular case, on which the SCOTUS is, here, ruling, but it seems quite likely that they did not cover everything in their ruling. What makes me feel confident enough to say that, is the excerpt from the ruling, you posted. It says, of the President, "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any congressional grant."
Nevertheless, that does not mean, that there are not some Executive Branch positions, for which the President's determination, still needs to be supplemented, with a security clearance, if not even, in some cases, Senate approval, as well-- does it?

If, then, there are caveats about his selection of personnel which went unmentioned, where the ruling was only speaking in general terms, it seems reasonable that there may also be some specific exceptions, not mentioned in this ruling, about the classification process, since its only real concern may have been the PRIMARY source of the President's authority.

 

Sorry, but nope.
They made it perfectly clear
His authority to classify (and control access to) information bearing on national security that flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant, of which the authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief,

This isn't wandering off into rabbit holes or making contrary statements out of left field. This is a direct decision and the reason for such decision.
Rabbit holes? Your ability to reach into the abyss is unmatched by few, I'll give ya that.
Not to mention, everyone in the US with a high school education knows this and always have.
This is nothing new.

But its amazing how you will post direct contradictions to the SCOTUS and the Constitution over your hatred for Trump. Is there no point of embarrassment you won't cross just to make a bad post against Trump? This is how far you're willing to go.
I find that amazing

 

As I foreshadowed....you take no notice and just rant away. Carry on.

 

Do you even know who sets all laws governing EVERYTHING to be classified or declassified or how anything can be classified or declassified?
Not a committee, not congress, not a special counsel, not the SCOTUS
That's right. ONLY the President of the United States.

ONLY the president can make the laws on what can and can't be classified and everything in between.
WHY?
Because he is the ONLY one impowered by the constitution to do so.

The last president to rewrite all classification duties that the entire government must abide by was Obama.

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
PART 1 -- ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION
PART 2 -- DERIVATIVE CLASSIFICATION
PART 3 -- DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADING
PART 4 -- SAFEGUARDING
PART 5 -- IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW
PART 6 -- GENERAL PROVISIONS
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 29, 2009.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...rder-classified-national-security-information

Have fun

 

If the president has to follow some process, then why is he the ONLY person that writes the laws that govern
Who can and can't read classified information
And what information can and can't be classified
And how long those classifications are in force
And basically, every law pertaining to classified and declassified materials

 

What section of the Constitution will I find that in?

Dunno about the 'ONLY' but but it certainly is true that Obama issued that Order.

 

US Const Article II Section 2 according to the SCOTUS

 

And where in the constitution does a former president get to keep documents?

 

How will the intelligence community know the correct classification, if there’s no record and nobody tells them?

 

Cool. Under what section of that EO could trump have declassified the documents that were found in MaL?