AG Merrick Garland will be issuing a statement at 2:30pm today.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I do believe you're right. I don't recall any other president being elected without being a politician first. The whole P grabbing thing and people acting mad over it was hilarious from the moment they started flipping out. First of all, what man, who likes women, hasn't grabbed a puss? Either you like other men or you're a virgin if Trump's words regarding that made you mad. (Not YOU, just using that term in general)

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

Haha, oook. Let's see by tomorrow at 3 if he blocks this motion to unseal. Garland called his bluff for sure. Trump wanted to bluster about the situation but not actually let you know. They have a list already. 2 pages, they could release it. They won't. The former guy really does not want you to see what they were after and subsequently found. And he has only a day to try to find a way to spin it.

Trust me, frog, if Garland had anything of substance, he most certainly would not be holding on to it. It would have either been released or "leaked".

a reply to: loufo

Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

If Garland or anyone else around him had anything on Trump, they'd release it. Democrats have been notorious for prematurely releasing information in the past when they thought they had something to hurt Trump with. Their patience regarding Trump is thinner than a strand of Pelosi's hair. Maybe if they hadn't been so gung-ho about making something out of nothing for the past 6 years then it would be easier to agree with your statement.

a reply to: LSU2018

No kidding. Garland would have held a press conference outside of MAL if not allowed the press to go in with the FBI team.

a reply to: LSU2018

Whatever you say. Guess we have to wait and see.

originally posted by: loufo
a reply to: LSU2018

a real man listens to his mother.

A real mother doesn't lead her son astray and set him up for failure.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: LSU2018

Whatever you say. Guess we have to wait and see.

I'm patient, always have been. Surely you can admit that democrats have cried "WOLF!" too many times in the past to believe anything they say today without evidence being presented.

a reply to: LaughingAtCultists

So what you are saying is that there is no legal reason a former president cannot be served with a search warrant as part of a criminal investigation? Thanks for clearing that up.

If he's not saying it I am loudly. That's why it's never happened before.

Not even to Nixon! And if they would've served one on Johnson. Oswald
wouldn't be found guilty with out a trial. So open your eyes and get
some sun. It's gonna be a long dark winter. The racist even said so.

Brought to you by Pfizer

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

Haha, oook. Let's see by tomorrow at 3 if he blocks this motion to unseal. Garland called his bluff for sure. Trump wanted to bluster about the situation but not actually let you know. They have a list already. 2 pages, they could release it. They won't. The former guy really does not want you to see what they were after and subsequently found. And he has only a day to try to find a way to spin it.

Garland was a nervous wreck in his statement today, even while reading from a #ing teleprompter.
If he would have had to say something off the top of his head, he would have passed out right there.
I really believe that you have a bigger hard on for Trump than the Dem con artists do.
This is a #ing nothing burger with fries, like you guys always serve.
I’ll take mine with no pickle.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: LSU2018

No kidding. Garland would have held a press conference outside of MAL if not allowed the press to go in with the FBI team.

Remember when Maddow illegally got her hands on Trump's tax returns and every news station told the population to tune into her show that night? The look on her face when she revealed his tax returns was priceless. Democrats have been fantastic at failing. Maybe that's why they're so miserable and hateful.

Since Monday I've been told by people in this site that a search warrant was premature and that they should have just issued a subpoena, that Biden definitely personally ordered this search, and that the FBI are definitely trying to good something which is why the warrant is sealed.

All of those claims were refuted today. It will be interesting to see what the narrative becomes tomorrow.

originally posted by: LaughingAtCultists

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: LaughingAtCultists

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: LaughingAtCultists

originally posted by: VierEyes
You don't issue a search warrant for a former president.

Where in the constitution or legal code does it say that?
Of course if the DoJ isn't allowed to investigate the potential opponent of a currently elected president, then that must mean all future DoJs must be barred from investigating any potential political opponents of any future presidents as well. The only way this standard makes sense is if every time the presidency flips, the other party becomes immune. By that sort of logic, Trump would never be allowed to let the DoJ investigate Clinton, Biden, etc.
Or can the Trump cultists just admit that they want a legal double standard?

1. Trump was cooperating.

2. All they had to do was ask him for what they wanted.

3. He's a former President. They need to address him with respect, which they haven't. It is expected that former Presidents are extended some GD courtesy.

4. Obama walked off with a trove of documents and has never been confronted let alone raided.

5. Clinton had an entire server of documents. No one ever busted into her home.

Where in the constitution or legal code does it say that you have to treat a former president as anything other than a normal citizen?
"Respect" that gives special privileges is not what Americanism is about, right? Wasn't there some kind of war to get rid of kings and nobles ruling over disadvantaged castes? Funny how all that goes out the window when convenient for "patriots."

I don't think any liberal wants to start bringing up what's in the Constitution. 99% of the liberal agenda would suddenly go *poof* and vanish. Didn't we just go through this with abortion?

Well the amusing thing is that I'm not a liberal. In fact, I myself would never claim to be an American patriot because my views are more in line with authoritarian systems like Vedic theological monarchy. Maybe the closest name for the ideological basis would be the "radical traditionalism" used by John Michell, although his interpretation of traditional culture is more libertarian than mine. I think the pharoahnic Egyptians were onto something with the idea that music must be strictly regulated because it directly influences reality.

Sounds great as long as your the Pharaoh.

a reply to: LSU2018

Maybe that's why they're so miserable and hateful.

They’ve never known anything else their entire lives.
Failure, misery and hate.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

Haha, oook. Let's see by tomorrow at 3 if he blocks this motion to unseal. Garland called his bluff for sure. Trump wanted to bluster about the situation but not actually let you know. They have a list already. 2 pages, they could release it. They won't. The former guy really does not want you to see what they were after and subsequently found. And he has only a day to try to find a way to spin it.

Garland was a nervous wreck in his statement today, even while reading from a #ing teleprompter.
If he would have had to say something off the top of his head, he would have passed out right there.
I really believe that you have a bigger hard on for Trump than the Dem con artists do.
This is a #ing nothing burger with fries, like you guys always serve.
I’ll take mine with no pickle.

If Garland had anything truthful to tell us, he wouldn't need a teleprompter. How many times have we seen a Sheriff have to appear in front of a live news camera to give us information about something? Lots of times, and you never see a teleprompter.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: RazorV66

Haha, oook. Let's see by tomorrow at 3 if he blocks this motion to unseal. Garland called his bluff for sure. Trump wanted to bluster about the situation but not actually let you know. They have a list already. 2 pages, they could release it. They won't. The former guy really does not want you to see what they were after and subsequently found. And he has only a day to try to find a way to spin it.

Garland was a nervous wreck in his statement today, even while reading from a #ing teleprompter.
If he would have had to say something off the top of his head, he would have passed out right there.
I really believe that you have a bigger hard on for Trump than the Dem con artists do.
This is a #ing nothing burger with fries, like you guys always serve.
I’ll take mine with no pickle.

If Garland had anything truthful to tell us, he wouldn't need a teleprompter. How many times have we seen a Sheriff have to appear in front of a live news camera to give us information about something? Lots of times, and you never see a teleprompter.

We have seen them do it hundreds of times……when they have nothing to hide.
The fact that Garland even mentioned the “integrity” of the FBI, cements that they are full of sh!t.
Everyone knows the FBI has already lied to the FISA court to get warrants on Trump’s people.
There is nothing they could say to make me think that they wouldn’t do it again.

originally posted by: frogs453
So I took a deeper look at Jay Bratt who signed on the court paperwork. It's not a good thing at all for the former guy. His position of Chief of the Counterintelligence section:

The Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) supervises the investigation and prosecution of cases affecting national security, foreign relations, and the export of military and strategic commodities and technology. The Section has executive responsibility for authorizing the prosecution of cases under criminal statutes relating to espionage, sabotage, neutrality, and atomic energy. It provides legal advice to U.S. Attorney's Offices and investigative agencies on all matters within its area of responsibility, which includes 88 federal statutes affecting national security. It also coordinates criminal cases involving the application of the Classified Information Procedures Act.

DOJ

The former guy is sweating bullets right now.

Quite some time ago, I postulated whether it might have been Trump's plan to use National Security secrets to bargain for sanctuary in a country lacking extradition treaties with the US.

Judge who approved FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search represented clients linked to Jeffrey Epstein
Bruce Reinhart worked as a federal prosecutor until Jan. 1, 2008, when a day later he became a defense attorney representing employees of Epstein.

Was Jeffrey Epstein's Lawyer Behind the Mar-a-Lago Raid?
Reinhart, she added, was named in a Crime Victims’ Rights Act lawsuit which, per the Miami Herald, “accused him of violating Justice Department policies by switching sides, implying that he leveraged inside information about Epstein’s investigation to curry favor with Epstein.”

I'm reminded of rumors that Trump had/has Epstein's address book. Who do we know that likes little girls and might need some serious damage control?

[subscriber.politicopro.com...]
[Was Jeffrey Epstein's Lawyer Behind the Mar-a-Lago Raid?]

edit on 400000055America/Chicago311 by nugget1 because: eta

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: frogs453
So I took a deeper look at Jay Bratt who signed on the court paperwork. It's not a good thing at all for the former guy. His position of Chief of the Counterintelligence section:

The Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) supervises the investigation and prosecution of cases affecting national security, foreign relations, and the export of military and strategic commodities and technology. The Section has executive responsibility for authorizing the prosecution of cases under criminal statutes relating to espionage, sabotage, neutrality, and atomic energy. It provides legal advice to U.S. Attorney's Offices and investigative agencies on all matters within its area of responsibility, which includes 88 federal statutes affecting national security. It also coordinates criminal cases involving the application of the Classified Information Procedures Act.

DOJ

The former guy is sweating bullets right now.

Quite some time ago, I postulated whether it might have been Trump's plan to use National Security secrets to bargain for sanctuary in a country lacking extradition treaties with the US.

Quite some time ago, we realized Liberals are mentally insane.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

I don't remember that, but I'll look for your opinion on it. Who really knows. To be honest my opinion and before people scream at me, it's only my opinion, I believe he is only motivated by money, power and adulation. Those 3 things drive every decision he makes. Being a narcissistic personality he does not believe there can ever be consequences for his actions. I've unfortunately known that kind of person. It's awful.

a reply to: nugget1

I'm reminded of rumors that Trump had/has Epstein's address book.

hmmm, wonder if slo joe's name is in there, with a note for special fetishes

Dark Brandon (000) 000-0000,
fetishes, leg hair rubbing, hair sniffing, showering with daughters, titty twisting.
son hunter loves crack and nasty hookers