Posted on Aug 10, 2022
Opinion | The FBI search of Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago isn't a 'raid'
394
9
22
3
3
0
It’s clear that the judge agreed with the evidentiary assessments of both the agent and the prosecutor that there was reason to believe there was evidence of a crime at Mar-a-Lago. Hence, the judge authorized law enforcement agents to conduct the search.
This beat-by-beat breakdown of what goes into obtaining a search warrant is important to combat the disinformation already being put out by Trump. He issued a statement Monday, the content of which ranges from misleading to comical. He says the “raid” on his “beautiful home, Mar-a-Lago” was “unannounced.” First, it wasn’t a raid. It was a court-authorized search warrant. As for it being “unannounced,” every search warrant is unannounced, so the occupants don’t have an opportunity to move or destroy evidence. I’ll leave his assertion that his home is “beautiful” to the eye of the beholder.
This beat-by-beat breakdown of what goes into obtaining a search warrant is important to combat the disinformation already being put out by Trump. He issued a statement Monday, the content of which ranges from misleading to comical. He says the “raid” on his “beautiful home, Mar-a-Lago” was “unannounced.” First, it wasn’t a raid. It was a court-authorized search warrant. As for it being “unannounced,” every search warrant is unannounced, so the occupants don’t have an opportunity to move or destroy evidence. I’ll leave his assertion that his home is “beautiful” to the eye of the beholder.
Opinion | The FBI search of Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago isn't a 'raid'
Posted from msnbc.comPosted in these groups: 
Donald Trump
FBI
Donald Trump FBI
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 3
0
0
0
Funny how they are ignoring the fact the DOJ requested these document in June and they (dumpy and his lackeys) would not give them to them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Kind of reminds me of something I saw on a cheech and Chong movie : 'We are not a gang, we are a club!'
Sgt (Join to see) SFC Kelly Fuerhoff MSG Stan Hutchison
Sgt (Join to see) SFC Kelly Fuerhoff MSG Stan Hutchison
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Right.....because all of the judges who've listened to anything having to do with Trump are being non-partisan...we're not seeing an even slight case of hypocrisy when it comes to selective enforcement/investigations...and this has nothing to do with trying to stop Trump from running for President again....
Gotcha.
Gotcha.
(0)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
Sgt (Join to see) Um that wasn't the law until 2018 so...yeah. Maybe try reading the law in place when the email thing happened... because that's what applied then.
Omfg 2 years of rioting where???? Lol. You're just ridiculous and not worth my time with your whataboutism. If you wanna support a conman and grifter go ahead.
Omfg 2 years of rioting where???? Lol. You're just ridiculous and not worth my time with your whataboutism. If you wanna support a conman and grifter go ahead.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - It was only amended in 2018, dummy. The law is actually from 1994.
Yeah, I forgot. It was just peaceful protestors that burned down the neighborhoods.
You are lost.
Yeah, I forgot. It was just peaceful protestors that burned down the neighborhoods.
You are lost.
(0)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
Sgt (Join to see) - Look who signed the amended law... lol.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
"In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
The law - before or after 2018 - says that there has to be clear intentional and willful mishandling or vast quantities exposed that would support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the US. There wasn't any of that. Hillary did what other people in her position or others did before her really. They had a shitty security program - and as he stated that others would face administrative actions in a similar situation as hers. That's true. There are multiple administrative actions that could be taken and are on people who are lower ranking than someone in her position who would get administrative actions and do. As a security manager, I have had to process NDCIs where people sent an email on NIPR that had classified in it because a lot of people - even in the military - don't ever understand classification authority or anything with classified. There are people in the MI community who don't ever read the regulations on classification and cause spillages, etc. And it's just like in the military, rank has privilege. We've all seen when a general or a CSM gets away with something that a junior enlisted or junior officer never would.
Bottom line is she didn't violate any crimes because there wasn't malicious intent to actually steal classified. It was negligence for sure and she should have faced some administrative action but not surprised she didn't. Trump STOLE classified material including nuclear information and has been doing who knows what with it.
93% of the protests were peaceful. The only ones that turned violent were by outside agitators or the cops escalating things. And there were literally no neighborhoods, towns or cities burned down. I've been to Seattle multiple times since then, it's still there. I just went through Portland last month, no neighborhoods burned down. The city is still there. So please tell me what neighborhoods or cities "burned down." None. That's what. None. Stop regurgitating right wing talking points that are full of shit.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
"In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."
The law - before or after 2018 - says that there has to be clear intentional and willful mishandling or vast quantities exposed that would support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the US. There wasn't any of that. Hillary did what other people in her position or others did before her really. They had a shitty security program - and as he stated that others would face administrative actions in a similar situation as hers. That's true. There are multiple administrative actions that could be taken and are on people who are lower ranking than someone in her position who would get administrative actions and do. As a security manager, I have had to process NDCIs where people sent an email on NIPR that had classified in it because a lot of people - even in the military - don't ever understand classification authority or anything with classified. There are people in the MI community who don't ever read the regulations on classification and cause spillages, etc. And it's just like in the military, rank has privilege. We've all seen when a general or a CSM gets away with something that a junior enlisted or junior officer never would.
Bottom line is she didn't violate any crimes because there wasn't malicious intent to actually steal classified. It was negligence for sure and she should have faced some administrative action but not surprised she didn't. Trump STOLE classified material including nuclear information and has been doing who knows what with it.
93% of the protests were peaceful. The only ones that turned violent were by outside agitators or the cops escalating things. And there were literally no neighborhoods, towns or cities burned down. I've been to Seattle multiple times since then, it's still there. I just went through Portland last month, no neighborhoods burned down. The city is still there. So please tell me what neighborhoods or cities "burned down." None. That's what. None. Stop regurgitating right wing talking points that are full of shit.
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use...
Director Comey's statement to the press on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
Sgt (Join to see) - I know who signed the amended law, Captain Obvious.
The fact that she tried to cover up her misdeed by BleachBiting her computer and smashing it with a hammer shows intent to cover it up, no matter what the corrupt government tells you.
Trump stole, huh? He told Melania to put nuclear secrets in her underwear drawer? Or did he stick it in furniture he took? Oh, I forgot...it was the Clintons who stole furniture and gifts intended for the government. (and they had to pay it back). And the DOJ and FBI have lost all credibility when it comes to Trump after years of hearing "Russia, Russia, Russia." Try again.
93% were peaceful? I wonder, then, where did the $2Billion of damage done come from? The peaceful protestors?
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/05/26/after-last-years-unrest-some-businesses-rebuilt-but-many-have-not-recovered
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/jim-treacher/2020/08/31/riot-ravaged-minneapolis-businesses-cant-rebuild-because-the-insurance-wont-cover-it-n867003
https://www.newsweek.com/businesses-year-after-floyd-1596610
The fact that she tried to cover up her misdeed by BleachBiting her computer and smashing it with a hammer shows intent to cover it up, no matter what the corrupt government tells you.
Trump stole, huh? He told Melania to put nuclear secrets in her underwear drawer? Or did he stick it in furniture he took? Oh, I forgot...it was the Clintons who stole furniture and gifts intended for the government. (and they had to pay it back). And the DOJ and FBI have lost all credibility when it comes to Trump after years of hearing "Russia, Russia, Russia." Try again.
93% were peaceful? I wonder, then, where did the $2Billion of damage done come from? The peaceful protestors?
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/05/26/after-last-years-unrest-some-businesses-rebuilt-but-many-have-not-recovered
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/jim-treacher/2020/08/31/riot-ravaged-minneapolis-businesses-cant-rebuild-because-the-insurance-wont-cover-it-n867003
https://www.newsweek.com/businesses-year-after-floyd-1596610
After last year's unrest, some businesses rebuilt. But many have not recovered
Minneapolis business advocates say rebuilding, especially for properties that were leveled by fire, will take five to 10 years. City officials and fundraising groups have calculated the total cost at around $500 million to be shared by 1,500 businesses. But fundraisers have only secured a fraction of what they say they need.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google