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

Do you see how you're trying to make it out to Trump being dishonest in negotiations with the FBI? Even though they were asked to install a more secure lock on the storage room and complied AFTER the visit in June.

 

The affadavit is unsealed AFTER the indictment.

 

Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbut his tan suit!

 

Not every bit of minutae is listed in the receipts report.

 

Doesn't have to be. Do some research before you make these types of claims.

 

Deflection.

 

Trump U syllabus:

Absconscion 101, 201, 301 & 401

Prostitute pee 101

 

Your graciousness has the luminescence of 1,000 suns but not 2,000 mules.

 

No. Fact.

 

...in gazpacho font.

 

“The world doesn't need more bent police who pretend to uphold the law in front of an investigation, it needs more just police who practice justice even when nobody is looking.” Abhijit NasKar

 

Bingo.

 

And Trump said the visit was in June. We didn't hear about it then right? Why didn't the FBI make a big fuss about their June visit? Why not raid in June? The only reason we knew about last week's raid was because Trump blabbed about it on social media.

Allegedly, an FBI informant notified the FBI of documents in the storage room that the FBI was not aware of.

 

Because of the very real possibility that this whole thing was just a thrilling 'action-adventure' event staged by Democrats to smear Trump unfairly, and also because a stunt like this is absolutely unprecedented, the affidavit should be revealed RIGHT NOW!

I say that because the more I dig into this, and the more I read, the more it seems unlikely that Trump will ever be "indicted" or charged with a specific crime regarding national security and classified information. Then, as you suggest, without an indictment, Garland and his 'Gestapo' would get to simply let it all just sort of 'fade away' after doing the desired damage to Trump, and never even have to show the affidavit to ANYONE! This reminds me more and more of "Russia, Russia, Russia" every damned day!

 

Sometimes "have a good evening" can actually mean "your place, or Mine?". You appear to be very loved!

 

https://yournews.com/2022/08/14/239...rump-records-during-raid-doj-opposes-request/

Them damn anonymous "sources" again! But if this is true we are in dangerous Constitutional territory. Attorney/client privilege can't simply be dismissed without due cause. What would it be?

 

Great 5 min watch.
Clarifies where Trump stands right now.in relation to the warrant and what was seized in the receipt for property
Any feedback from you would be appreciated, please!

Neal Kaytel

 

What's the FBI doing spying on a former president?

 

Actually, they are a bit more creative as a self proclaimed attorney on this board has yet another take

From what I have seen, the media and these anonymous FBI leakers that every left wing poster swears are real, have already been shifting their reasons for the raid already. First it was classified documents, then it was Nuclear documents, then it was absconding, Mar a lago video tapes show documents were being moved and hidden, and now its espionage. Apparently (and for the life of me I can't figure this out) they have the idea that Trump is the only president who took documents with him when he left, he can't just declassify anything he wants, there was no meeting with the FBI in June as he simply ignored a subpoena, and all Trumps attorney's are lying,

And if you dare provide anything that disputes any claim they make you are a cultist Trump supporter. Its like having a discussion with five year olds. But the actual facts of the matter are as such.
1. A president can declassify any document they want at will. And yes, that means even top secret military weaponry. But, there is accountability for doing such which is why no president would do that.
2. The FBI was at Mar a lago in June, were given access to the documents, reviewed documents, selected documents they wanted to take, and requested another lock be added to the storage facility in which they complied
3. Trumps attorneys certified that no classified documents remained at Mar a lago which makes sense since Trump would have declassified those before he left office
4. According to Trumps attorneys, they were under the impression this was over and have heard nothing since June

All that was needed was a simple request to come back and go through those boxes and I doubt Trumps attorneys would have posed any resistance what so ever.
But instead, they elected to break over 200 years of precedent and raid the property, order all camera systems be turned off, refuse to allow the attorneys to witness the search, spent 9 hours searching the property, with a warrant that provided for
Any document created from January of 2017 to January of 2021
Any box of documents that are in the vicinity of any box labeled classified documents
Any room that can be used by the president or his wife or his staff

Why would they order all cameras shut down and refuse to allow the attorneys to witness the search? Because they don't want anyone to see what they are doing.
Which only provides the American public with the idea that they are there to plant evidence. Which is why you comply with an attorneys request to witness the search so you can't be accused of planting information.

So they knowingly elected to refuse to allow any attorney to witness the process with 40 agents rummaging through everything? Even search warrants for drug dealers and murderers allow the search to be witnessed but a former president is refused over a historical raid of a former presidents home?

And already coming off of the FBI being caught falsifying documents to federal judges to get illegal FISA warrants
High ranking FBI agents getting caught with text stating they will stop Trump from being president
Labeling American parents as domestic terrorist

And they have the idea we are going to take their word for ANYTHING. Its my belief the FBI is a corrupt organization and if they had nothing to hide they would have complied with the attorneys request to witness the search.

Does this fall under the 4th amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

According to the 4th thay have to have an affidavit swearing to criminal conduct, and they have to be specific to what they are looking for. That doesn't mean any document you can find created over 4 years or any box sitting around any other box.

The FBI and the Democrat party knows how this looks and they decided to do it anyway showing most Americans the desperation involved and the willingness to use soviet style tactics (just like they did in the committee hearings) to weaponize federal offices to get what they want.

What absolutely baffles me is they have a following who believe everything they are commanded to believe and that the rest of Americans are magically this stupid. And they don't even have the premise of thought to think if this is allowed, this can happen to you as well. Yet they will gladly give up any rights they have to just get Trump?

Not only have the utterly destroyed the economy but now they have hired 87,000 more IRS agents to browbeat Americans out of money? And their are people out there so ignorant, they will support all of this if they can just get Trump?

Even if the FBI comes up with some crazy document claiming the president was involved in espionage, whos going to even believe this now?

 

No. In the real world, such affadavits are produced after the indictment. It's part of the discovery process, usually after the Jury, if there is one, is sequestered. You can cure your ignorance about this by reading up on the law.

 

It's hardly an unfettered right, and you're incorrectly extrapolating a blurb into a full-blown claim that a President can willy-nilly place the entire nation at risk with a wave of his tiny hand. This is untrue.

You are wrong. Badly so. BTW, this case is about access to documents.

https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2009/11/navy_v_egan/

Quit overreaching to create an unfettered right when it doesn't exist.

A 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Department of the Navy v. Egan has often been interpreted to support broad presidential authority over national security generally and over access to classified information in particular. Along with United States v. Reynolds, Curtiss-Wright, and a few other cases, Egan is regularly cited in support of strong, even unchecked executive authority and judicial deference to executive claims. It has become a cornerstone of national security law as practiced today.

But the case has often been misunderstood and misrepresented, according to a new study (pdf) by Louis Fisher of the Law Library of Congress, who reviewed the development and interpretation of Egan in more than 180 judicial decisions.

The Egan decision was prompted by a narrow statutory dispute: Did the Merit Systems Protection Board (an executive branch body) have the authority to review the revocation of a security clearance by the Navy (another executive branch body)? The court concluded that Congress had not intended to permit such review.

But in reaching that straightforward conclusion, “various passages in Egan strayed from this central issue and created confusion and misconceptions” about the scope of executive authority and the role of the courts, wrote Dr. Fisher. Among such passages was a discussion of the President’s constitutional powers culminating in the statement that “Unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs.”

Over time, Egan came to signify the notion that courts should grant the “utmost deference” — or even absolute deference — to the executive on issues of national security. Citing Egan, one court in 1993 held that “the presumption of reviewability is entirely inapplicable in matters concerning national security.” This is an extreme view that would exclude the courts altogether from national security affairs. “Egan does not support that interpretation,” wrote Fisher. But there it is.

In a 2002 report on leaks of classified information, Attorney General John Ashcroft cited Egan in support of the proposition that “The President has the power under the Constitution to protect national security secrets from unauthorized disclosure. This extends to defining what information constitutes a national security secret and to determining who may have access to that secret.” These statements are true except for the implication that such authority is exclusively the province of the executive. The Attorney General conspicuously neglected to note the qualification in Egan which stated “Unless Congress has specifically provided otherwise….”

Recently, observed Fisher, some courts have presented a more nuanced reading of Egan. In proceedings such as Al-Haramain and Horn v. Huddle, courts have rebuffed executive arguments for complete deference in cases where Congress has legislated its intent into statute.

Fundamentally, Fisher concludes, “Nothing in Egan recognizes a plenary or exclusive power on the part of the President over classified information.” See “Judicial Interpretations of Egan“ by Louis Fisher, Law Library of Congress, November 13, 2009.

Dr. Fisher will be the luncheon speaker at a day-long conference November 18 on “The State of the State Secrets Privilege” at American University Washington College of Law.

 

He isn't my type.

 

Doesn't have to be an agent. Could be someone in his inner circle who tipped off the FBI.

 

It's not. It's investigating an absconder of top-secret US government documents.

 

We are getting ever closer and closer to recovering those missing 17 minutes.