![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted: Those aren’t very similar at all. If you want similar, look at Manafort’s case and his attempt to quash a search warrant. View Quote That’s not similar. The Trump warrant specifically allowed seizure of documents that agents didn’t believe were related to crimes, both presidential records and items found co-located with potential evidence. They’ve also seized and kept privileged documents. |
|
It sounds like a Trump lawyer (Tim Trussy sp) is filing a 4th Amendment claim within the next few days. It appears to be a different judge.
No details, just heard on Fox. |
|
Quoted: Your superficial arm waving doesn't change both the Constitution and the case law surrounding it. The warrant was unConstitutionally overbroad. The Supreme Court has ruled on very similar cases multiple times and each time narrows what is and isn't permissible. A general warrant of the type issued is unlawful. Further, the warrant is overbroad not only in the specific location to be searched but also on the documents themselves, basically arguing any document or item that was created during his entire Presidency was fair game. That breadth in and of itself cannot be supported by any affidavit, regardless of the content thereof. Again, the warrant was unlawfully broad and you are just wrong. And, shame on you for supporting it. View Quote I haven't supported the warrant anywhere. You have an opinion and are welcome to it, but it is your opinion coupled with ZERO experience in this field. News flash: Courts don't use the "if it's bad for Trump, it's unconstitutional" test that you wish they did when analyzing evidence or reviewing affidavits. Nobody here has seen the affidavit, yet you continue to speak about it with your imagined authority on the subject. You are adding misinformation into the equation and pretending that because you know of a case that went to the Supreme Court, that case applies to the Mar A Lago raid. At the same time, you present yourself as some type of subject matter expert, when anyone with the tiniest experience in the world of warrants and law enforcement can see you are not. You know just enough about all of it to be dangerous, and dangerous in the sense of jumping to flawed conclusions and presenting them as undisputed facts. There is a possibility the affidavit is valid, the warrant is good, and the search was reasonable. All those can be true and I still think it was a terrible idea to go through with it like they did. Nobody here knows if Trump broke the law or not because there is not enough information available to make either conclusion. To refuse to accept that Trump could actually break any law ever is just as bad as insisting that everything Trump does is illegal/racist/forced on him by his Russian handlers. Whether he broke the law or not, there does appear to be great bias at DOJ against Trump. If the case actually produces charges and goes to trial, which I am very skeptical will happen, Trump's defense has a lot in it's favor and DOJ has to know that at this point. |
|
Quoted: Fitton spells it out. Judicial Watch does a lot of good work. ![]() View Quote |
|
Quoted: Fitton spells it out. Judicial Watch does a lot of good work. ![]() View Quote Fitton is always spot on. |
|
Quoted: That's one thing we can agree on, but is not likely to happen. There are a lot of us on the right tired of the incessant pursuit of Trump and anyone surrounding him, while the establishment completely ignores the criminality on the left. The establishment has to dig and dig and fabricate shit on those surrounding Trump. The most recent - "He's got classified material he's not supposed to have, MAYBE EVEN THE NUKE CODES" !!! While Clinton's bathroom server was known to have contained classified material, was accessed by foreigners and nobody did shit. IRS - Targeted conservative groups for audits. ATF - Trafficked guns into Mexico, to prove that guns were being trafficked into Mexico. Swallwell - Banging a Chinese Spy. Feinstein - Chinese Spy for a driver. FBI - Lied about FISA warrant to spy on Trump. CJCS - Colluded with China. Who was it, State Department? Lied to the sitting President about how many troops were in Syria. Why don't we have a fucking border wall and have enough drugs coming across every day to kill the residents of entire states? Oh, because the left fought the wall at every step. You know why people were pissed about the election? "Hey, we're supposed to have observers from both sides observing the ballot count!" Shut the fuck up, you fucking racist!! "Why did the counting stop in four states at the same time? FUCK YOU, YOU HATE DEMOCRACY!!! "The laws in this state say you can't do mass mail-in voting!" I'm a judge and I just said we can. At every step, even when legitimate concerns were raised by serious people, they were squashed. And on, and on, and on. The right has continued to take it in the ass (figuratively) for fucking years. And we're fucking tired of it. View Quote QFT Got a link to your ur newsletter? |
|
Quoted: Indeed, the last affidavit for the FISA warrants had fabricated evidence, resulting in a felony conviction for an FBI agent. And note, the now felon wasn't investigated by the FBI - they were all fine with the perjury and lies. It took an outside special council to prosecute that turd and obtain justice. What in the world would make anyone who had two brain cells think the FBI won't lie and commit perjury on this affidavit as well? The KGBI has an much credibility at this point as the Nigeria price that keeps emailing me about all the money that he can't get out of his country. I supposed he could be telling the truth this time ... View Quote More factual proof that the FIB is just that....liars for their political masters. |
|
Quoted: I think we all know why. Trump is a threat to the deep state gravy train and the rampant corruption which accompanies it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I believe it is absolutely POSSIBLE that Trump may have (unintentionally) committed the type of "crime" with handling of classified material that ALL PRESIDENTS prior to him undoubtedly also committed unintentionally... and which no reasonable prosecutor would EVER pursue criminally. ![]() Heck, even when people like Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton clearly and deliberately violated such laws, nobody was ever charged with a felony. That is the level of precedent. The fact that the FBI under a Democratic administration has suddenly decided to aggressively pursue something like that for a former Republican president and political rival stinks to high heaven and is extremely disturbing. The relevant question is not whether or not technically a crime might have been committed, but why suddenly all precedent and standards have been flushed down the toilet in order to use the might of the DOJ to aggressively go after a political rival of the sitting president. I think we all know why. Trump is a threat to the deep state gravy train and the rampant corruption which accompanies it. and there you have it. In a nutshell |
|
Quoted: The claim is Trump declassed everything Russiagate the day before leaving office. Per Kash two months ago, not everything was declassed. Some Russiagate information is still classified and in the possession of the National Archives. Kash claims Trump has tasked him with tracking those still-classified documents down and releasing them. The claim that everything Russiagate was declassed doesn't seem completely honest when Trump's own boy is publicly saying some things regarding Russiagate were in fact not declassed. It's not about the docs at MAL, it's about the statement that Trump declassed everything. View Quote Like talking to a wall |
|
Quoted: Except as a matter of settled law, a warrant of the type issued would have been tossed for being overly broad and insufficiently specific thus violating the 4th Amendment. View Quote It was very broad. But we have not seen the affidavit giving the reasons they provided the judge for the scope of the warrant and exactly what they were looking for. I believe it is just another political attack. But we don’t really know because we don’t have all the information. |
|
Quoted: I'm afraid this is all academic at this point folks. I highly doubt there will be a USA holding an election in '24 (at least, what we'd recognize as the USA), and I honestly wonder if 2022 will have one either! View Quote “We’re surrounded. That simplifies the problem.” - Chesty Puller, USMC |
|
Ahem.
https://www.4029tv.com/amp/article/former-fbi-agent-pleads-guilty-in-to-charges-related-to-jon-woods-corruption-trial/40929764 Wiped a drive. At least there were a couple of good guys... GD Thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/FBI-agent-pleads-guilty-to-destroying-evidence/5-2578714/ |
|
Quoted: It was very broad. But we have not seen the affidavit giving the reasons they provided the judge for the scope of the warrant and exactly what they were looking for. I believe it is just another political attack. But we don’t really know because we don’t have all the information. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Except as a matter of settled law, a warrant of the type issued would have been tossed for being overly broad and insufficiently specific thus violating the 4th Amendment. It was very broad. But we have not seen the affidavit giving the reasons they provided the judge for the scope of the warrant and exactly what they were looking for. I believe it is just another political attack. But we don’t really know because we don’t have all the information. We won't have all the information. We will have whatever the FBI shows us. Unfortunately the group "investigating" Trump has already altered documents and used information they knew was no good. It is already a miscarriage of justice allowing those folks to remain in the FBI and clown world that they get to go after Trump again. If it goes to court, I hope its in Florida and the defense can point out how they had previously fabricated a case against trump. |
|
Quoted: It sounds like a Trump lawyer (Tim Trussy sp) is filing a 4th Amendment claim within the next few days. It appears to be a different judge. No details, just heard on Fox. View Quote You gotta wonder if he’s getting Rudy, Sidney and Mike to handle this or is it just a non-serious fundraising push? |
|
Quoted: I haven't supported the warrant anywhere. You have an opinion and are welcome to it, but it is your opinion coupled with ZERO experience in this field. News flash: Courts don't use the "if it's bad for Trump, it's unconstitutional" test that you wish they did when analyzing evidence or reviewing affidavits. Nobody here has seen the affidavit, yet you continue to speak about it with your imagined authority on the subject. You are adding misinformation into the equation and pretending that because you know of a case that went to the Supreme Court, that case applies to the Mar A Lago raid. At the same time, you present yourself as some type of subject matter expert, when anyone with the tiniest experience in the world of warrants and law enforcement can see you are not. You know just enough about all of it to be dangerous, and dangerous in the sense of jumping to flawed conclusions and presenting them as undisputed facts. There is a possibility the affidavit is valid, the warrant is good, and the search was reasonable. All those can be true and I still think it was a terrible idea to go through with it like they did. Nobody here knows if Trump broke the law or not because there is not enough information available to make either conclusion. To refuse to accept that Trump could actually break any law ever is just as bad as insisting that everything Trump does is illegal/racist/forced on him by his Russian handlers. Whether he broke the law or not, there does appear to be great bias at DOJ against Trump. If the case actually produces charges and goes to trial, which I am very skeptical will happen, Trump's defense has a lot in it's favor and DOJ has to know that at this point. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Your superficial arm waving doesn't change both the Constitution and the case law surrounding it. The warrant was unConstitutionally overbroad. The Supreme Court has ruled on very similar cases multiple times and each time narrows what is and isn't permissible. A general warrant of the type issued is unlawful. Further, the warrant is overbroad not only in the specific location to be searched but also on the documents themselves, basically arguing any document or item that was created during his entire Presidency was fair game. That breadth in and of itself cannot be supported by any affidavit, regardless of the content thereof. Again, the warrant was unlawfully broad and you are just wrong. And, shame on you for supporting it. I haven't supported the warrant anywhere. You have an opinion and are welcome to it, but it is your opinion coupled with ZERO experience in this field. News flash: Courts don't use the "if it's bad for Trump, it's unconstitutional" test that you wish they did when analyzing evidence or reviewing affidavits. Nobody here has seen the affidavit, yet you continue to speak about it with your imagined authority on the subject. You are adding misinformation into the equation and pretending that because you know of a case that went to the Supreme Court, that case applies to the Mar A Lago raid. At the same time, you present yourself as some type of subject matter expert, when anyone with the tiniest experience in the world of warrants and law enforcement can see you are not. You know just enough about all of it to be dangerous, and dangerous in the sense of jumping to flawed conclusions and presenting them as undisputed facts. There is a possibility the affidavit is valid, the warrant is good, and the search was reasonable. All those can be true and I still think it was a terrible idea to go through with it like they did. Nobody here knows if Trump broke the law or not because there is not enough information available to make either conclusion. To refuse to accept that Trump could actually break any law ever is just as bad as insisting that everything Trump does is illegal/racist/forced on him by his Russian handlers. Whether he broke the law or not, there does appear to be great bias at DOJ against Trump. If the case actually produces charges and goes to trial, which I am very skeptical will happen, Trump's defense has a lot in it's favor and DOJ has to know that at this point. What hogwash. The warrant was unlawful because it was unConstitutionally overbroad and it violated the 4th Amendment. Full stop. The affidavit is irrelevant to the overbroad nature of the warrant. My contention is that the unredacted affidavit is likely to reveal it was a hoax just like the FISA warrant applications. As for experience, I have sufficient experience with both the process and the law that you seem to lack. If you cannot recognize what noted authorities like Dershowitz, Turley, and groups like Judicial Watch say on the matter, I'd say you're TDS is making you willfully blind regardless of your lack of experience in the matter. The real question isn't whether the FIBs and DoJ have a great bias against Trump. The real question is who is pulling those strings to make that happen? |
|
Quoted: A must-watch. Especially for certain people in this thread. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Fitton spells it out. Judicial Watch does a lot of good work. ![]() Seems like that post put an end to the shenanigans going on in this thread. |
|
Quoted: It was very broad. But we have not seen the affidavit giving the reasons they provided the judge for the scope of the warrant and exactly what they were looking for. I believe it is just another political attack. But we don’t really know because we don’t have all the information. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Except as a matter of settled law, a warrant of the type issued would have been tossed for being overly broad and insufficiently specific thus violating the 4th Amendment. It was very broad. But we have not seen the affidavit giving the reasons they provided the judge for the scope of the warrant and exactly what they were looking for. I believe it is just another political attack. But we don’t really know because we don’t have all the information. The underlying affidavit isn't relevant to the warrant being unlawfully overbroad. The affidavit could say "Trump spit on the sidewalk! That's a crime!". Nothing in the affidavit would support an unConstitutionally overbroad warrant being issued. If the affidavit intimated a specific crime or crimes may have been committed, then the warrant, by necessity, would be limited to obtaining specific evidence of that crime or crimes. It can't be a fishing expedition and it can't rope in anything that isn't nailed down, especially not privileged attorney-client papers (or passports or his laundry bill). |
|
Quoted: the fact that they were able to muster so many agents to serve a warrant at a residence they knew was empty or had at best a skeleton staff tends to suggest that suspicions of the FBI being fully in the bag for the swamp critters, rinos, dems, progressives, and commie sympathizers, in general, is looking more and more likely a possibility. View Quote The suspicions? Really? This has been known fact since the server. |
|
Quoted: The underlying affidavit isn't relevant to the warrant being unlawfully overbroad. View Quote Everything in the warrant must be supported by the statement of probable cause in the affidavit. It is entirely dependent on the affidavit. The particularity and breadth of the location to be searched and evidence to be seized have to be specifically covered in the affidavit. To state otherwise is mind-numbingly ignorant. |
|
I think think piece is relevant to the thread.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/19/think-the-fbi-deserves-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-this-laundry-list-of-corruption-should-make-you-think-again/ |
|
Quoted: Everything in the warrant must be supported by the statement of probable cause in the affidavit. It is entirely dependent on the affidavit. The particularity and breadth of the location to be searched and evidence to be seized have to be specifically covered in the affidavit. To state otherwise is mind-numbingly ignorant. View Quote In the non clown world that's all true, but |
|
Quoted: I think think piece is relevant to the thread. https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/19/think-the-fbi-deserves-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-this-laundry-list-of-corruption-should-make-you-think-again/ View Quote Yes, it is. It rather deftly points out why the FIBs and DoJ deserve no benefit of the doubt whatsoever, and, I would submit, that no court should assume anything they receive from the FIB to be accurate in any way. Quite the opposite, they should assume that anything the FIBs bring to the courts is automatically flawed and/or fraudulent. |
|
Quoted: I think think piece is relevant to the thread. https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/19/think-the-fbi-deserves-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-this-laundry-list-of-corruption-should-make-you-think-again/ View Quote Boom, here you go girls, it will require a little bit of reading ![]() |
|
Quoted: What hogwash. The warrant was unlawful because it was unConstitutionally overbroad and it violated the 4th Amendment. Full stop. The affidavit is irrelevant to the overbroad nature of the warrant. My contention is that the unredacted affidavit is likely to reveal it was a hoax just like the FISA warrant applications. As for experience, I have sufficient experience with both the process and the law that you seem to lack. If you cannot recognize what noted authorities like Dershowitz, Turley, and groups like Judicial Watch say on the matter, I'd say you're TDS is making you willfully blind regardless of your lack of experience in the matter. The real question isn't whether the FIBs and DoJ have a great bias against Trump. The real question is who is pulling those strings to make that happen? View Quote “The warrant was unlawful because it was unlawful.” Just another example of you talking out of your butt. The warrant is issued and predicated upon the content of the affidavit. You don’t get a warrant without an affidavit. The scope of the warrant is set forth in the affidavit, which nobody has seen yet. Your incredibly astute, scholarly analysis, and creative use of wishful thinking have helped you to arrive at a point far from reality. Just remember that your fictitious expertise does not translate into the outcomes you predict. This creates a feedback loop because you believe everything is a conspiracy, and believe you know how it’s all supposed to work, so when it doesn’t that’s just proof of conspiracy. Welcome to my ignore list, Mr. purposely ignorant. |
|
Quoted: “The warrant was unlawful because it was unlawful.” Just another example of you talking out of your butt. The warrant is issued and predicated upon the content of the affidavit. You don’t get a warrant without an affidavit. The scope of the warrant is set forth in the affidavit, which nobody has seen yet. Your incredibly astute, scholarly analysis, and creative use of wishful thinking have helped you to arrive at a point far from reality. Just remember that your fictitious expertise does not translate into the outcomes you predict. This creates a feedback loop because you believe everything is a conspiracy, and believe you know how it’s all supposed to work, so when it doesn’t that’s just proof of conspiracy. Welcome to my ignore list, Mr. purposely ignorant. View Quote More hogwash. The warrant was unlawful because it was overly broad and violated 4th Amendment protections against same. I can't help it if you can't follow simple logic. The affidavit is irrelevant since whatever it says cannot justify an overly broad, unConstitutional warrant. Again, if you can't follow simple logic, there isn't much point in talking with you. Your TDS has made you a laughing stock. You should reconsider your stances on such things. |
|
Quoted: “The warrant was unlawful because it was unlawful.” Just another example of you talking out of your butt. The warrant is issued and predicated upon the content of the affidavit. You don’t get a warrant without an affidavit. The scope of the warrant is set forth in the affidavit, which nobody has seen yet. Your incredibly astute, scholarly analysis, and creative use of wishful thinking have helped you to arrive at a point far from reality. Just remember that your fictitious expertise does not translate into the outcomes you predict. This creates a feedback loop because you believe everything is a conspiracy, and believe you know how it’s all supposed to work, so when it doesn’t that’s just proof of conspiracy. Welcome to my ignore list, Mr. purposely ignorant. View Quote We saw it over and over in the Q threads a few years back. The mental obstacle course some people would willingly put themselves through in order to defend indefensible positions was fascinating. |
|
Quoted: I think think piece is relevant to the thread. https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/19/think-the-fbi-deserves-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-this-laundry-list-of-corruption-should-make-you-think-again/ View Quote Thanks for posting. Going back further there was Ruby Ridge, Richard Jewel, and Waco, to name some more high profile fuck ups. |
|
Quoted: We saw it over and over in the Q threads a few years back. The mental obstacle course some people would willingly put themselves through in order to defend indefensible positions was fascinating. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: “The warrant was unlawful because it was unlawful.” Just another example of you talking out of your butt. The warrant is issued and predicated upon the content of the affidavit. You don’t get a warrant without an affidavit. The scope of the warrant is set forth in the affidavit, which nobody has seen yet. Your incredibly astute, scholarly analysis, and creative use of wishful thinking have helped you to arrive at a point far from reality. Just remember that your fictitious expertise does not translate into the outcomes you predict. This creates a feedback loop because you believe everything is a conspiracy, and believe you know how it’s all supposed to work, so when it doesn’t that’s just proof of conspiracy. Welcome to my ignore list, Mr. purposely ignorant. We saw it over and over in the Q threads a few years back. The mental obstacle course some people would willingly put themselves through in order to defend indefensible positions was fascinating. The only obstacle in this case is someone with TDS trying to justify the unjustifiable and trying to paint an illegally overbroad general warrant into something it's not. It's not fascinating, it's just absurd. |
|
Quoted: We saw it over and over in the Q threads a few years back. The mental obstacle course some people would willingly put themselves through in order to defend indefensible positions was fascinating. View Quote Yeah, and there haven’t been many expressing their regrets for insisting all of that crap was true. I do not agree with the FBI raiding Mar A Lago. I think it has set a terrible precedent that will damage the US in ways people clearly weren’t thinking about when they decided it was a good idea. I believe they could have obtained those documents in other ways that were less controversial, even if doing a search warrant was perfectly legal. I think Trump has a good chance of prevailing against DOJ, so if this was done to take him out of the running for 2024, it has backfired. None of that means the warrant was overly broad or unlawful, especially when we don’t have enough information to make that determination right now. What we have is Hillary Clinton who got caught going 105 mph in a 40, and was given a pass. Then we have Trump, who (based on the quantities of classified they say they took, and granting it was actually still classified) was going 55 in a 40. Hillary didn’t even have to attend a defensive driving course. It would be insane to give Trump a ticket and prosecute him. Additionally, Clinton’s documents were all still classified. There is a possibility Trump’s documents were in fact declassified, and that will mean he wasn’t doing more than 40 in a 40. The agents who swore out the warrant will have to explain what it is that led them to believe the documents were still classified, and face the legal perils that come about if it is determined they did this all in bad faith. But for some here, the realities of how anything works are not important. They only care about outcomes that give them the political results they want, reality be damned. |
|
Quoted: I think think piece is relevant to the thread. https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/19/think-the-fbi-deserves-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-this-laundry-list-of-corruption-should-make-you-think-again/ View Quote There are also things that aren't included in any/most of those lists. What ever happened to the gold they stole? https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104823285/treasure-hunters-fbi-gold-civil-war How about the safety deposit boxes they stole? https://www.judiciaryreport.com/judge_issues_restraining_order_against_the_fbi_stealing_safety_deposit_box_contents.htm I'm sure that the real list of their crimes is miles long. |
|
Quoted: The claim is Trump declassed everything Russiagate the day before leaving office. Per Kash two months ago, not everything was declassed. Some Russiagate information is still classified and in the possession of the National Archives. Kash claims Trump has tasked him with tracking those still-classified documents down and releasing them. The claim that everything Russiagate was declassed doesn't seem completely honest when Trump's own boy is publicly saying some things regarding Russiagate were in fact not declassed. It's not about the docs at MAL, it's about the statement that Trump declassed everything. View Quote Refusal of the Archives to release them does not mean they are still classified. It is the Archives refusing to abide by the law. |
|
|
Quoted: What we have is Hillary Clinton who got caught going 105 mph in a 40, and was given a pass. Then we have Trump, who (based on the quantities of classified they say they took, and granting it was actually still classified) was going 55 in a 40. Hillary didn’t even have to attend a defensive driving course. It would be insane to give Trump a ticket and prosecute him. Additionally, Clinton’s documents were all still classified. There is a possibility Trump’s documents were in fact declassified, and that will mean he wasn’t doing more than 40 in a 40. The agents who swore out the warrant will have to explain what it is that led them to believe the documents were still classified, and face the legal perils that come about if it is determined they did this all in bad faith. But for some here, the realities of how anything works are not important. They only care about outcomes that give them the political results they want, reality be damned. View Quote ![]() You mean like Kevin Clinesmith? The single peon attorney that the FBI offered up as responsible for the criminal activities of nearly all the top brass? The one who got less than a slap on the wrist? |
|
Quoted: Seems like that post put an end to the shenanigans going on in this thread. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fitton spells it out. Judicial Watch does a lot of good work. ![]() Seems like that post put an end to the shenanigans going on in this thread. Paid influencers don't stop. They either thrive because they dance for the mods, or they blow their cover at some point and have to go get another sleeper account from their supervisor. Slight chance there are a couple of the True Believer hobbyists still left, but they did a good job of flaming out through the Trump years. |
|
Quoted: The only obstacle in this case is someone with TDS trying to justify the unjustifiable and trying to paint an illegally overbroad general warrant into something it's not. It's not fascinating, it's just absurd. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: “The warrant was unlawful because it was unlawful.” Just another example of you talking out of your butt. The warrant is issued and predicated upon the content of the affidavit. You don’t get a warrant without an affidavit. The scope of the warrant is set forth in the affidavit, which nobody has seen yet. Your incredibly astute, scholarly analysis, and creative use of wishful thinking have helped you to arrive at a point far from reality. Just remember that your fictitious expertise does not translate into the outcomes you predict. This creates a feedback loop because you believe everything is a conspiracy, and believe you know how it’s all supposed to work, so when it doesn’t that’s just proof of conspiracy. Welcome to my ignore list, Mr. purposely ignorant. We saw it over and over in the Q threads a few years back. The mental obstacle course some people would willingly put themselves through in order to defend indefensible positions was fascinating. The only obstacle in this case is someone with TDS trying to justify the unjustifiable and trying to paint an illegally overbroad general warrant into something it's not. It's not fascinating, it's just absurd. The reason the warrant is so broad, is most likely because the affidavit is based on the bullshit claim of Trump destroying documents/etc. Remember the toilet photo is one of the first things they leaked. That's the only thing that would justify it. To preserve the documents, they have to find and take them all. Trump some how maybe ending up with some classified documents that were packed up for him, doesn't justify their actions. Now the reason for the fabricated destruction of documents claim, was to seize all the documents, some of which probably contains information about their crimes they don't want public, and/or to try to disqualify him from being able to run again, and general slander against him. Also of course fishing/spying. He also has the Trump v Clinton RICO lawsuit, which they could be trying to hamper his ability to win that case. |
|
Quoted: Seems like that post put an end to the shenanigans going on in this thread. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fitton spells it out. Judicial Watch does a lot of good work. ![]() Seems like that post put an end to the shenanigans going on in this thread. ch1966 : Thanks for posting that. Great listen. For those that didn't watch, Fitton spells out how JW sued for presidential records and lost, and the ruling is really interesting given what they are doing to $T right now, especially in light of the involvement of the National Archives. |
|
Here is how the DOJ treats FBI lawyers who lie to help destroy a sitting POTUS.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/12/17/dc-bar-restores-convicted-fbi-russiagate-forger-while-hes-still-serving-probation/ Fox also maintained that Clinesmith had no personal motive in forging the document. But Durham cited virulently anti-Trump political messages Clinesmith sent to other FBI employees after Trump won in 2016 – including a battle cry to “fight” Trump and his policies – and argued that his clear political bias may have led to his criminal misconduct. “It is plausible that his strong political views and/or personal dislike of [Trump] made him more willing to engage in the fraudulent and unethical conduct to which he has pled guilty,” Durham told U.S. District Judge Jeb Boasberg. Boasberg, a Democrat appointed by President Obama, spared Clinesmith jail time and let him serve out his probation from home. Fox and the D.C. Bar sided with Boasberg, who accepted Clinesmith’s claim he did not intentionally deceive the FISA court, which Boasberg happens to preside over, and even offered an excuse for his criminal conduct. “My view of the evidence is that Mr. Clinesmith likely believed that what he said about Mr. Page was true,” Boasberg said. “By altering the email, he was saving himself some work and taking an inappropriate shortcut.” Fox echoed the judge’s reasoning in essentially letting Clinesmith off the hook. (The deal they struck, which the U.S. District Court of Appeals that oversees the bar approved in September, called for a one-year suspension, but the suspension began retroactively in August 2020, which made it meaningless.) Boasberg opined that Clinesmith had “already suffered” punishment by losing his FBI job and $150,000 salary. But, Boasberg assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that Clinesmith also faced possible disbarment. ”And who knows where his earnings go now,” the judge sympathized. “He may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law.” Anticipating such a punishment, Boasberg waived a recommended fine of up to $10,000, arguing that Clinesmith couldn’t afford it. He also waived the regular drug testing usually required during probation, while returning Clinesmith’s passport. And he gave his blessing to Clinesmith’s request to serve out his probation as a volunteer journalist, before wishing him well: “Mr. Clinesmith, best of luck to you.” View Quote |
|
Quoted: We saw it over and over in the Q threads a few years back. The mental obstacle course some people would willingly put themselves through in order to defend indefensible positions was fascinating. View Quote I have never seen a troll rub the fact that they are a troll in peoples faces while trolling before. fascinating. |
|
Quoted: I have never seen a troll rub the fact that they are a troll in peoples faces while trolling before. fascinating. View Quote Whatever kiddo. GD has tons of opinions, tons of brilliant posters, and some real idiots. And depending on the topic, our place on that spectrum slides. It’s what makes this place great, and entertaining. I disagree with the mob plenty. It’s entertaining, and educational. But straight up trolling? Nah. That’s boring. |
|
Quoted: What hogwash. The warrant was unlawful because it was unConstitutionally overbroad and it violated the 4th Amendment. Full stop. The affidavit is irrelevant to the overbroad nature of the warrant. My contention is that the unredacted affidavit is likely to reveal it was a hoax just like the FISA warrant applications. As for experience, I have sufficient experience with both the process and the law that you seem to lack. If you cannot recognize what noted authorities like Dershowitz, Turley, and groups like Judicial Watch say on the matter, I'd say you're TDS is making you willfully blind regardless of your lack of experience in the matter. The real question isn't whether the FIBs and DoJ have a great bias against Trump. The real question is who is pulling those strings to make that happen? View Quote |
|
Quoted: Here is how the DOJ treats FBI lawyers who lie to help destroy a View Quote FIFY Don’t forget about The one who just pleaded guilty to destroying evidence and was turned in by other agents. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Here is how the DOJ treats FBI lawyers who lie to help destroy a FIFY FALSE! The Justice Department relied on Clinesmith’s assertion as it submitted a third and final renewal application in 2017 to eavesdrop on Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Trump was POTUS when Clinesmith falsified evidence. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-sentenced-john-durham-probe |
|
Quoted: Irrelevant? On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, it is relevant as further evidence of the FBI and DOJ (to include parts of the judiciary) being corrupt. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: What hogwash. The warrant was unlawful because it was unConstitutionally overbroad and it violated the 4th Amendment. Full stop. The affidavit is irrelevant to the overbroad nature of the warrant. My contention is that the unredacted affidavit is likely to reveal it was a hoax just like the FISA warrant applications. As for experience, I have sufficient experience with both the process and the law that you seem to lack. If you cannot recognize what noted authorities like Dershowitz, Turley, and groups like Judicial Watch say on the matter, I'd say you're TDS is making you willfully blind regardless of your lack of experience in the matter. The real question isn't whether the FIBs and DoJ have a great bias against Trump. The real question is who is pulling those strings to make that happen? True, it's not irrelevant to the corruption case against the FIB/DoJ and it might be very relevant to the prosecution of their crimes. I was merely stating that regardless of the content of the affidavit, the overbroad nature of the general warrant can't be justified by it. |
|
Quoted: Don’t forget about The one who just pleaded guilty to destroying evidence and was turned in by other agents. View Quote If you have a punch bowl full of shit and someone finds a few drops of punch floating around in there, you still have a punch bowl full of shit. |
|
Quoted: There is a possibility the affidavit is valid, the warrant is good, and the search was reasonable. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Everything in the warrant must be supported by the statement of probable cause in the affidavit. It is entirely dependent on the affidavit. The particularity and breadth of the location to be searched and evidence to be seized have to be specifically covered in the affidavit. To state otherwise is mind-numbingly ignorant. View Quote |
|
Quoted: FALSE! Trump was POTUS when Clinesmith falsified evidence. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-sentenced-john-durham-probe View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here is how the DOJ treats FBI lawyers who lie to help destroy a FIFY FALSE! The Justice Department relied on Clinesmith’s assertion as it submitted a third and final renewal application in 2017 to eavesdrop on Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Trump was POTUS when Clinesmith falsified evidence. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-sentenced-john-durham-probe The FISA warrant was originally approved in October of 2016 and it was based upon the contention that the Russians were covertly in contact with people in candidate Trump’s campaign. The investigation originally targeted Russia interfering with the election. As we all know, it continued after the election ended, and Clinesmith falsified evidence to obtain an updated warrant, while Trump was a sitting President. So it started as not a coup attempt but became one? Normally, the Trump cult is itching for anything that casts Trump as the often-abused, downtrodden (billionaire) hero, so his status as TV celebrity, failed university creator, birth record investigator, candidate, POTUS, ex-POTUS is all irrelevant. The most important thing is he has always been the only thing between the bad guys and all of us. Back when he was donating to the Clintons and partying with Epstein, that was done to stop the bad guys from getting to us. Every time he said “you’re fired” he meant “Murica”. I get it. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.