FBI raids Mar-A-Lago

Trumpenstein is claiming it’s a siege. They took away the fifteen boxes of documents he brought away from the White House. A federal judge had to have seen enough evidence to allow a search warrant for an ex president’s home. This is big. 


Jaytee said:

Trumpenstein is claiming it’s a siege. They took away the fifteen boxes of documents he brought away from the White House. A federal judge had to have seen enough evidence to allow a search warrant for an ex president’s home. This is big. 

If the source is TFG do we even know if this really happened at all?


What can he be charged with here, if anything? Breaking the Presidential Records Act?



drummerboy said:

What can he be charged with here, if anything? Breaking the Presidential Records Act?


well, it is a federal crime to remove classified documents. 


I'd like to take a moment to note for the record that the Director of the FBI who authorized this was appointed by him.


Here’s one thing that was posted on Twitter. The 15 boxes of material that were transported to Mar-A-Lago is potentially big trouble for someone. Some were classified.


Jaytee said:

drummerboy said:

What can he be charged with here, if anything? Breaking the Presidential Records Act?


well, it is a federal crime to remove classified documents. 

The entire Hillary Clinton email "scandal" was because of the same criminal laws now at issue with Trump.

For example -

Aside from the new possibility that Clinton perjured herself, recent reports that classified information may have passed through clintonemail.com present the biggest legal threat to the candidate. Under 18 U.S.C.§ 2071, anyone who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys,” public records, or attempts to do so, has committed a felony. Those found guilty can be fined, imprisoned for three years, and “disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”

According to 18 U.S.C.§ 1924, it is a misdemeanor for government employees to “knowingly” remove classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”

Steve said:

I'd like to take a moment to note for the record that the Director of the FBI who authorized this was appointed by him.

Wray is far from being a leftist radical democrat as trumpenstein is claiming the FBI is today, in fact Wray is a member of the federalist society. Meanwhile on Fox News…. 



mrincredible said:

Here’s one thing that was posted on Twitter. The 15 boxes of material that were transported to Mar-A-Lago is potentially big trouble for someone. Some were classified.

The constitution defines the qualification for office of the president. That would supersede any statutes.


Andrew Yang sees his opening. Jerk.


RTrent said:

mrincredible said:

Here’s one thing that was posted on Twitter. The 15 boxes of material that were transported to Mar-A-Lago is potentially big trouble for someone. Some were classified.

The constitution defines the qualification for office of the president. That would supersede any statutes.

I don't think the constitution says you have a right to run. I would think a statute could prevent you from running.

I think.


nohero said:

Andrew Yang sees his opening. Jerk.

Pretty pathetic.  Christopher Wray is not stupid and would not have signed off on this if there was a real basis.  At not inconsiderable risk of being wrong, I would hazard a guess that those who believe this is a witch hunt are so lost in Trumpland that they are unreachable.  The bigger problem is the Republican leadership who is calling this a witch hunt while secretly celebrating because they want to be done with Trump.


Of course, no Vice President has ever had a mob of his own President's supporters besiege the Capitol in order to *literally* have his head.

So there's always a first time for everything. 


drummerboy said:

RTrent said:

mrincredible said:

Here’s one thing that was posted on Twitter. The 15 boxes of material that were transported to Mar-A-Lago is potentially big trouble for someone. Some were classified.

The constitution defines the qualification for office of the president. That would supersede any statutes.

I don't think the constitution says you have a right to run. I would think a statute could prevent you from running.

I think.

I believe that RTrent is right.  If you look at the term limits and related cases (e.g.Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)), it's pretty clear that if one meets the Constitutional standards for eligibility, one may not be excluded from office.


Steve said:

I believe that RTrent is right.  If you look at the term limits and related cases (e.g.Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)), it's pretty clear that if one meets the Constitutional standards for eligibility, one may not be excluded from office.

It seems that whoever posted the tidbit I reposted here may have not understood the actual law here. So I won’t delete my post but I will retract it here. 

I’m trying to sit in my hands with this one. Clearly something of high importance is going on. Serving a search warrant on a former president has the potential to be extremely radioactive to all involved parties. Especially given Trump’s wealth, media access and ability to work up his followers into a violent reaction. 

But there are many things we don’t know. I do hope there is a press conference by the DOJ very soon to address the many questions we all have. I know that can’t tell us everything but it would be helpful if they are transparent about what they can and can’t share. 


mrincredible said:

It seems that whoever posted the tidbit I reposted here may have not understood the actual law here. So I won’t delete my post but I will retract it here. 

I’m trying to sit in my hands with this one. Clearly something of high importance is going on. Serving a search warrant on a former president has the potential to be extremely radioactive to all involved parties. Especially given Trump’s wealth, media access and ability to work up his followers into a violent reaction. 

But there are many things we don’t know. I do hope there is a press conference by the DOJ very soon to address the many questions we all have. I know that can’t tell us everything but it would be helpful if they are transparent about what they can and can’t share. 

I think that the point made by RTrent was in reference to an earlier post which quoted 18 USC § 2071 which provides that a person convicted under that statute "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."  Someone else suggested that this might preclude "him" from running for and being elected POTUS in 2024 (by which time I hope that he is dead and buried in a Potter's Field).

ETA:  It appears that you quoted and highlighted that language from that statute.  That being said, yes it is quite significant that Mar-a-Lago was raided.


nohero said:

Andrew Yang sees his opening. Jerk.

Another inanity of attempting another 15 minutes of attention and fame.


Steve said:

I believe that RTrent is right.  If you look at the term limits and related cases (e.g.Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)), it's pretty clear that if one meets the Constitutional standards for eligibility, one may not be excluded from office.

Correct.

This was published 2 hrs ago -

With an argument that the disqualification provision of Section 2071 is unconstitutional as relates to the presidency.
Article II of the United States Constitution establishes three criteria for presidential eligibility: One must be a “natural born citizen,” at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
Since the Constitution prevails when it and a federal statute conflict, the argument would be that Congress lacks the authority to alter that list of criteria — such as by adding a requirement that one has not been convicted of unlawfully taking government documents.
Notably, the Constitution does authorize Congress to render people ineligible to hold federal office as a penalty for convictions in impeachment proceedings. But nothing in the text of the Constitution says lawmakers may use ordinary criminal law to do so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/09/us/politics/trump-fbi-investigation.html

But that's not what I based my comment on. We were told this by a SC justice at a seminar where the qualification for president came up.

Not that I needed to be told such. To me it seems logical when the constitution has  a rule for qualification or whatever then a statute cannot alter it.


Yes, Stefanik. That is how the law is supposed to work. Anyone can be investigated.

In other words, Stefanik is saying that some should be treated as the nobility in the day, immune from the law. Pimping to create a new class of aristocrats for politicians and the very rich?

Good thing this bunch wasn't around when the country was founded. Washington was asked "Would you be king?" This current bunch of deplorables would have said yes.

Sad to see some are working to destroy a democracy that so many have fought, bled and died for.

ps. - and he's not a U.S. President.


I heard that Hillary Clinton emailed Hunter Biden to tell him he could watch the Mar-a-Lago raid on his laptop.


MOL Coming Attractions (probably) - 


Certainly a coming attraction on other local sites. 

nohero said:

MOL Coming Attractions (probably) - 


Trump MO:  1.  Hillary is a crook...lock her up.   2.  Do not believe Fake News about him.  3.  Belittles military wounded and prisoners of war.  4.  Only I can fix America's problems.  5.  Do not trust the deep state that thwarts him.  6.  Breaks long-term international cooperation alliances.  7.  Sows distrust of the State Department.  8.  Sows distrust of CDC, Fauci, and vaccines. 9.  In advance of election sows distrust of election officials. 10.. Fires lots of people so that he has lots of acting cabinet and department heads without much experience and total allegiance to him.  11. Ignores 50 or more court rulings about his losing the election.   12.  Sows distrust of Congress and Vice President.    13.  Sows distrust of Justice Dept. and FBI.....     

If the Russians or Chinese ever wanted to plant a better person to internally weaken the United States government, they could not have picked a better person.    What is ironic is that Trump uses the courts as weapons to sue lots of people who he wants to harm, but when the courts rule against him, he belittles and ignores the courts.  Thank goodness for the people who stand up to stop him.  


"It was a beautiful raid, a perfect raid, everyone knows it, you know it, there's never been such a beautiful raid like this before, it was tremendous."


MOL has some "Deep State" theorists, also.

ml1 said:

Certainly a coming attraction on other local sites. 

nohero said:

MOL Coming Attractions (probably) - 


Trumps "signed a law in 2018 that stiffened the penalty for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents from one year to five years, turning it into a felony offense." 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/09/why-the-trump-search-warrant-is-nothing-like-hillarys-emails-00050691

He's like the Russian sub captain in "The Hunt For Red October", who turned off the safety devices on his torpedoes, which then came around and hit his own boat.


Karma is alive and well…didn’t trumpenstein say something to the effect of “pleading the fifth is for mobsters”??? 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business