FBI Raid on Trump Inconsistencies and Contradictions

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Uh maybe because that's the timeline? I don't watch cnn.

It's kind of hard to dispute a timeline, especially when it hasn't been disputed by Trumps lawyers. I mean an ats member disputing it doesn't hold much weight.

a reply to: frogs453

I'm not sure how it can be disputed.

For starters, not even your timeline matches your source timeline.

To go even further, your provided source also reports disputed information and is not sourced.

Can I ask an honest and goodfaithed question?

Do you understand media literacy? To discern what you are reading, establishing biased reporting (even if you agree with it)?

a reply to: JinMI

Uh I can't only link to OWNN or bitchute as much as you'd like me to. Just like I don't use the Daily Beast or other very left leaning sites. That's why I use a variety of sources,often link to pdf downloads from government archive sites but may also have an image of the documents, as not everyone likes to have 100s of pdfs downloaded to their devices.

How was my timeline off from what was posted? Because I didn't say May of 21 and then Sept of 21 etc, but instead said all of 21? Or because I said they then contacted the DOJ, and didn't say on this date they publicly said they contacted the DOJ? You're getting very nit-picking now.

Heck I've even posted to video interviews done with random Patriot websites if it was relevant to the discussion.

And why you're trying to argue the timeline when Trump's lawyers have not argued it, is beyond me. I suppose you know wayyy more than they do though. Maybe you should contact them. Because they have been giving interviews left and right and haven't said a thing.

a reply to: frogs453

Uh I can't only link to OWNN or bitchute as much as you'd like me to.

Why dont you go ahead and find any of my posts on this site that link to either of those two. Go on.....I can wait.....

often link to pdf downloads from government archive sites

Do you understand the gov't filing system? A subpoena vs a warrant for instance? What veracity of information is required for the documents you require, say between a subpoena and a warrant? Because during our recent debates, I've notice that it would appear you do not.

How was my timeline off from what was posted? Because I didn't say May of 21 and then Sept of 21 etc, but instead said all of 21? Or because I said they contacted the DOJ, and didn't say on this date they publicly said they contacted the DOJ? You're getting very nit-picking now.

You:

After months of being stonewalled

Despite the source claiming that they were receiving documents at a slower pace and in talks.

You:

After months of more stonewalling. They got a subpoena. They took the subpoena to retrieve documents. They could not search at that time(illegal search and seizure). The lawyers handed over some documents and signed a statement that they turned over all classified material. The DOJ did not believe it was all the documents. They got another subpoena for all of the surveillance video from MAL.

Again with the stonewalling context (thus my question to you about media literacy). A subpoena is not a warrant, and a warrant is not a subpoena. A subpoena is from the grand jury looking for specific things and under that same subpoena did they get the surveillance.

Four investigators, including a top Justice Department counterintelligence official, visit Mar-a-Lago seeking more information about classified material that had been taken to Florida. The four investigators meet with Trump's attorneys and look around the basement room where the documents are being stored. Trump briefly stops by the meeting to say hello to the officials, but he does not answer any questions. During the meeting, the federal officials serve a grand jury subpoena for some of the sensitive national security documents on the premises, and they take away the subpoenaed documents.

Something I will look into though. The GJ also subpoened NARA for the Trump info and not Trump himself.

That sets off some alarm bells.

ETA:

And why you're trying to argue the timeline when Trump's lawyers have not argued it, is beyond me.

Do you think Trumps team takes the time to float around the internet looking for things to argue with? What do you think this is ....twitter!

originally posted by: JefeFeesh
a reply to: Topcraft

Haha. If you do not see those questions as reasonable, then we can conclude you are willfully blind. I always challenge contradictions when I see/hear them, and my acceptance of their answers wanes when the rebuttal is subpar, or worse: a deflection.

Where did I say they were unreasonable? My question is also reasonable. This type of post is meant to wind people up, not gain knowledge. Conclude whatever you want it means nothing to me, along with your acceptance.

Ever hear about the whole “divide and conquer” thing? It’s what is happening right now, and while we argue the rug gets pulled out from under EVERYONE. We are all on the same side, in the same boat. I’m getting real tired of the bickering. So who’s the blind one here?

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: Mantiss2021

Thanks for the well thought out answers.

I don’t agree. Most is conjecture, which by your wording I believe that you realize.

What I have at this point is mostly conjecture as well due to the information that we’ve been provided at this point.

Most of your answers would hold more weight if this was your run of the mill warrant execution but it isn’t. It’s a first in history and politically charged event.

Making the sitting President aware without requesting his input or recommendations would seem prudent. So would using a Judge that is bipartisan with a solid reputation.

On the contrary.

Since Trump was no longer the President (as certified by no less than the sitting Vice-President, Pence, when He certified the electoral votes on January 6th, 2021), but merely a private citizen (like the rest of us), this was just another, typical, search warrant.....

From a legal standpoint.

The law, under which all citizens are equal (or should be equal), does not recognize, or make allowance for, "political charge" content.

Involving the sitting President, in any capacity or extent, even if just to inform, would raise questions of undue influence. Especially in a political climate as highly partisan as we currently find ourselves.

How easily would one side claim that a nod of acknowledgement on the part of the sitting President be claimed as a "smirk of vengeance" and thus evidence of unjustified persecution?

Finally, your recommendation for "using a Judge that is bipartisan with a solid reputation", seems to underscore the idea that this warrant request should, for already disputed reasons, have been treated as something Special. Which it was not. Why should it be considered as such? Because of the personalities being served?

Again, Why?

a reply to: JinMI

Separate subpoena for the footage:

A few weeks after the June meeting between Trump’s lawyers and Justice Department officials, investigators issued another subpoena, this time for security footage near the room where the White House materials were stored.

Link

And you prefer slow pace instead of stonewalling. Here you go from my original link.

NARA grows frustrated with the slow pace of document turnover after several months of conversations with the Trump team.

Trump attorney signs statement in June after returning documents per subpoena:

A lawyer for former U.S. President Donald Trump signed a statement in June that said all classified material held in boxes at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence had been returned to the government

Link

This has not been disputed.

Yes a warrant is different than a subpoena. Yet there is a statement signed by his attorney that all classified documents have been turned over. Again you want to nitpick. The subpoena may have stated all classified info. Which is why Trumps attorney affirmed as such. Even if it specified specific documents, again his attorney stated all classified documents were turned over. The document which has not been disputed by Mr. Trumps attorney.

Which we did find out was not true as numerous classified documents were still on site.

Forgot to add the GJ/NARA info from my timeline link. As NARA has legal ownership of the documents a subpoena for them appears to be required:

News outlets report that investigators subpoenaed NARA for access to the classified documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago. The subpoena, which is part of the process to allow investigators to take possession of the documents from the NARA, is the first public indication of the Justice Department using a grand jury in its investigation.

a reply to: frogs453

Separate subpoena for the footage:

Again, MEDIA LITERACY!!! Look at what The Hill used as a source:
Just the News article by John Solomon

Two months before his Florida home was raided by the FBI, former President Donald Trump secretly received a grand jury subpoena for classified documents belonging to the National Archives, and voluntarily cooperated by turning over responsive evidence, surrendering security surveillance footage and allowing federal agents and a senior Justice Department lawyer to tour his private storage locker, according to a half dozen people familiar with the incident.

Now, to the claim about "all classified material."

From your source:

A lawyer for former U.S. President Donald Trump signed a statement in June that said all classified material held in boxes at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence had been returned to the government, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

The NYT source: archive.ph/B7KrR#selection-627.0-627.307

At least one lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump signed a written statement in June asserting that all material marked as classified and held in boxes in a storage area at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and club had been returned to the government, four people with knowledge of the document said.

So yes, it's VERY disputed! Again, media literacy.

It's not nitpicking. Its people making factual statements that are not at all...factual.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Remember......

You remember that one time, the sitting FBI director put on the Attorney General hat and spoke for all gov't prosecutors.


That.....was awesome.

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

You see...those are all great questions. Problem is I think we gotta wait to see later on in time...what the answers are.

So we can understand looking back (and since we dont see these things apparently going forward)... what the questions really were...when we look back.

a reply to: JinMI

They noted that he originally reported on the subpoena. They did not use further statements from him. He is a conservative reporter that very interestingly was also given access to records at Mar-a-Lago along with Kash after the June visit from the feds. Here is the official letter signed by Mr.Trump.

Link

Why is Mr. Trump allowing a conservative reporter access to classified information?
And you want to talk about vetting sources? The article you linked to was written by a reporter given access to classified info and he claims in his article that the Feds searched in June and got all the info themselves? So it's the feds fault is what he's claiming?

Am I missing something? You link this:

At least one lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump signed a written statement in June asserting that all material marked as classified and held in boxes in a storage area at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and club had been returned to the government, four people with knowledge of the document said.

You quote mine:

A lawyer for former U.S. President Donald Trump signed a statement in June that said all classified material held in boxes at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence had been returned to the government, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

And tell me it's in dispute? My quote states what the time reported and says "the NYT reported. There is no relevant info missing.

Unless again you're using a reporter Mr. Trump gave access to classified and all documents as the source of the dispute?

Ummm... yeah sure ok.

a reply to: frogs453

They noted that he originally reported on the subpoena. They did not use further statements from him. He is a conservative reporter that very interestingly was also given access to records at Mar-a-Lago along with Kash after the June visit from the feds. Here is the official letter signed by Mr.Trump.


Why is Mr. Trump allowing a conservative reporter access to classified information?
And you want to talk about vetting sources? The article you linked to was written by a reporter given access to classified info and he claims in his article that the Feds searched in June and got all the info themselves? So it's the feds fault is what he's claiming?

Lol!! So I use YOUR sources source, and you want to try and turn that on me as providing biased sources? THEY ARE YOUR SOURCES!!!!

And tell me it's in dispute? My quote states what the time reported and says "the NYT reported. There is no relevant info missing.

Unless again you're using a reporter Mr. Trump gave access to classified and all documents as the source of the dispute?

Yes, "4 people who are familiar with the document" isn't as good of a source than the 6 people I know who have seen the document. Get it??

So you answered my question. You do not have media literacy. I hope this trial by fire helps, I truly do.

Again, I've provided no sources, only used your sources and their sources.

So the SCOTUS has upheld the fact that the President has supreme authority on the decision to classify or declassify documents with the exception of nuclear material.Also, that executive order that Obama signed exempts the President and Vice President from any bureaucratic or committee nonesense regarding “approval” or “disapproval “ from some retard in the Guvment .

It’s widely agreed on by national security experts and also upheld by SCOTUS that is a President says the documents are declassified well THEY ARE DECLASSIFIED,

The President doesn’t have to get approval from anyone.
He is the commander in chief. If Trump said he declassified those documents and can provide an email or recording that says he did well the dems are screwed cause their
Fishing expedition on s bunch of declassified docs isn’t
Going to hold up on court.

And if those documents were so important back in June then why didn’t the Archives reps or the FBI take them then? It’s on record they were in the room at Mar A Lago where the documents were!!!

It would be like a cop coming into your house cause they issued u a supeona for a gun they think is stolen and then u show them the gun and then the cops say put a lock on that safe and have a nice day.

Omg if this case will get thrown out for technical violations so quickly it’s going to be ridiculous

a reply to: NorthOfStuff

The GOP/Republicans are demanding answers from the horse's mouths (Garland/Wray) for the points you raise involving the FBI/DOJ.

I love this... Trump hosted a STEAK and SCALLOPS dinner for a group of Republican lawmakers on Tuesday, August 9th...the day after the FBI ransacked his home.

You can smell the Dim panic and dismay in this article: apnews.com...

a reply to: JinMI

They noted that he broke the story and he used to work for them. They mention an article he wrote:

The Times noted that the subpoena was first reported by the conservative journalist John Solomon, who wrote this week that Trump’s lawyers had been making efforts to comply.

The remaining of the story was what the times reported.


So wait, you're arguing my point for me? That lots of people were saying the lawyer signed the document that all classified info was returned? They clearly stated in the article that the times reported the signed letter. There was no dispute on this matter between the Hill or the Times. So why would I need to mention that the times noted multiple people said there was a letter? If there was some dispute between the two I would have searched for more info.

If as you say I don't vet anything, how did I know for days that Solomon had been given access by Mr. Trump to handle and view classified documents? I used this link previously, which started another search, when whoa, I found the letter signed by Trump.

I notice you didn't mention it when you tried to use him to make a point.

a reply to: frogs453

So wait, you're arguing my point for me? That lots of people were saying the lawyer signed the document that all classified info was returned?

If your level of trust and scrutiny is 4 anonymous people and the NYT, which they are all using as their source...thats on you.

I dont take it seriously. Thats actually dismissing your point

Its no wonder most folks are duped as you are.

Youve no facts to even back up your ire! Aka irrational.

a reply to: JinMI

Has Trump’s lawyer disputed this? It's been days. They've all been interviewed, on many news outlets, they have spoken quite freely, yet not on this signed letter.

Guess we wait and see. Duped are those who have seen Ivanka's testimony and Trumps own lawyers under oath all state they and Trump know there was no massive election fraud, and believe that the man still telling them there is, is an honest person.

a reply to: Axios

" For the love of god, the GOP needs to find another candidate."


Hmm.... Is that you Mitt ?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: burntheships

And the lawyer was on TV also saying that Trump and his family watched the whole raid on CCTV from NY. So if it was directed, they did not do it.

They likely did not believe Mr. Trump or they felt all Presidential material should be secured with a proper lock. As to why they requested it.

A quick search shows that Federal Magistrate judges are often used for warrants. I would imagine due to trial judges schedules.

Federal Magistrate judges are often used for warrants. I would imagine due to trial judges schedules.

Sounds like something the current White House press secretary would say. Pathetic