FBI 'raided' Mar-a-Lago

[TheTexan]

Kash Patel has also said previously that he was standing next to Trump when he said that these documents are declassified.

I suppose we're just to assume that he is lying too?

 

[TheTexan]

This is a picture-perfect recitation of the Biden FBI's view of the matter. It's a tempest in a teapot, ginned up for purely political purposes. But this is a perfect recitation of the party line.

Let's restate it in other terms: "A procedure wasn't followed!"

Yes, and if the FBI cared even the slightest about retaining any kind of credibility, they would be behaving in this matter as transparently as possible.

But they are doing just the opposite, being as opaque as possible. Which of course, is not in the least bit surprising.

 

[Snowball]

https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/1563243471074623490

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump was obtaining these files for parties in his true network. For example:

Trump Condemns His Own Supporters Days After Pardoning ‘The King Of Medicare Fraud’ & Releasing Traitor From Parole
https://www.newswars.com/trump-cond...medicare-fraud-releasing-traitor-from-parole/

"Just days ago, Trump pardoned a host of fraudsters who donated to the Aleph Institute — an organization that was started by the Orthodox Jewish Chabad-Lubavitch movement which counts the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as a member.

Philip Esformes acquired a $1.6 million Ferrari and a $360,000 Swiss watch and traveled around the United States on a private jet, a spending spree fueled by the spoils from what federal prosecutors called one of the largest Medicare fraud cases in history
Trump also pardoned Jared Kushner’s criminal father, Charles Kushner, as well as “career con-man” Mark A. Shapiro and his partner Irving Stitsky, who stole millions of dollars from hundreds of investors by selling worthless interests in bogus real estate investment offerings.

In November,
the Trump administration quietly ended traitor Jonathan Pollard’s parole to allow him to leave the country and “make aliyah” in Israel.

Pollard, a Jewish-American intelligence analyst who stole US military secrets and sold them to Israel, received a hero’s welcome last Wednesday by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after being flown out of the US on billionaire GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson’s personal private plane.

Another criminal Trump pardoned early in his term was Sholom Rubashkin, a money laundering fraudster who ran a Kosher slaughterhouse and meatpacking operation in Iowa employing hundreds of illegal aliens — including illegal alien children — that resembled a house of horrors.

Trump invited Rubashkin to a White House Hanukkah party last month.

Trump pardons Israeli officer who enlisted spy Pollard
https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...israeli-officer-enlisted-spy-pollard-75365099

 

[ClaytonB]

Yes, and if the FBI cared even the slightest about retaining any kind of credibility, they would be behaving in this matter as transparently as possible.

But they are doing just the opposite, being as opaque as possible. Which of course, is not in the least bit surprising.

Precisely. And lest anyone accuse me of being a Trumper, I have no pre-commitment to the idea that Trump is clean. It's possible that Trump is dirty. But even if that were true, it is almost certain that whatever the FBI has cooked up for the Mar-a-Lago raid has absolutely zero to do with it. The Mar-a-Lago raid is transparently political and has nothing to do with any sort of inquiry into facts or truth.

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[Sonny Tufts]

That does not specify a process, it just says "things should be documented".

Additionally, there are no criminal charges associated with violating that provision, which makes it more of a recommendation than a law.

It's more than a recommendation. It says the President SHALL take all steps as may be necessary to assure that his decisions are adequately documented.

While it's true that the Act doesn't provide for a penalty for its violation (and I don't know if there's some other statute that does), his failure to abide by the Act makes his after-the-fact claim that he really did declassify the stuff he took far less credible, especially if that was the only instance in which he ever declassified something without documenting it (which I would bet was the case).

As I said earlier, if you look at all the other things involving the President that are routinely documented, it's beyond belief that he declassified the stuff he took without putting it in writing.

Kash Patel has also said previously that he was standing next to Trump when he said that these documents are declassified.

I suppose we're just to assume that he is lying too?

Presidential aides have lied for their boss many times before. I sometimes wonder if it's a job requirement.

Here's a story to recall. While it's from NBC News, which to many on this site makes it presumptively false, many other outlets have reported the same thing (including Fox News):

In October 2020, Trump tweeted, “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”

When news organizations sought to obtain the supposedly declassified documents, they were told they were still under wraps. Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows said in a sworn court filing in the case, “The president indicated to me that his statements on Twitter were not self-executing declassification orders and do not require the declassification or release of any particular documents.” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311

 

[Sonny Tufts]

But they are doing just the opposite, being as opaque as possible. Which of course, is not in the least bit surprising.

When you're conducting a criminal investigation it's not surprising at all.

 

[TheTexan]

It's more than a recommendation. It says the President SHALL take all steps as may be necessary to assure that his decisions are adequately documented.

While it's true that the Act doesn't provide for a penalty for its violation (and I don't know if there's some other statute that does), his failure to abide by the Act makes his after-the-fact claim that he really did declassify the stuff he took far less credible, especially if that was the only instance in which he ever declassified something without documenting it (which I would bet was the case).

Regardless, by law, there is not a specified procedure for either declassifying documents, or for even documenting it under the PRA.

It is entirely reasonable to believe that his order to declassify something fell through the procedural cracks. Do you disagree with that statement?

 

[TheTexan]

When you're conducting a criminal investigation it's not surprising at all.

2 realities.

You live in a reality where the FBI act with integrity and honor.

We live in a reality where the FBI has repeatedly earned our distrust.

From your side, the redactions are wholly necessary and justified.

From our side of reality, the redactions are almost certainly to cover up the FBI's misdeeds versus any kind of legitimate reason.

And when the truth does come out - as it always does - in 1 year, 5 years, or 50 years -

Our side of reality, will be proven right, again. (as we have been, again, and again, and again, and again)

And your side of reality, will just carry on pretending like this never even happened.

 

[fcreature]

2 realities.

You live in a reality where the FBI act with integrity and honor.

We live in a reality where the FBI has repeatedly earned our distrust.

From your side, the redactions are wholly necessary and justified.

From our side of reality, the redactions are almost certainly to cover up the FBI's misdeeds versus any kind of legitimate reason.

And when the truth does come out - as it always does - in 1 year, 5 years, or 50 years -

Our side of reality, will be proven right, again. (as we have been, again, and again, and again, and again)

And your side of reality, will just carry on pretending like this never even happened.

Well put.

 

[ClaytonB]

2 realities.

You live in a reality where the FBI act with integrity and honor.

We live in a reality where the FBI has repeatedly earned our distrust.

From your side, the redactions are wholly necessary and justified.

From our side of reality, the redactions are almost certainly to cover up the FBI's misdeeds versus any kind of legitimate reason.

And when the truth does come out - as it always does - in 1 year, 5 years, or 50 years -

Our side of reality, will be proven right, again. (as we have been, again, and again, and again, and again)

And your side of reality, will just carry on pretending like this never even happened.

 

[dannno]

Prove that I believe all of the things on your list.

I said potentially 12. How did you score? Afraid to admit it?

But I do believe #9, and the burden's not on me to prove it's true. I don't know whether you believe the election was stolen or, if you do, whether it's because you swallowed Trump's claims that it was. But the undeniable fact is that Trump and his lemmings filed a boatload of lawsuits seeking to change the results and failed miserably. In addition, some of his lemmings sent phony slates of electors to the National Archives; that didn't work either.

So you think you can demonstrably prove that the claim that the election was fair because there was no major fraud is BS? Well why didn't Trump hire you?

The bottom line is that after all of the legal procedures for determining the outcome of the election concluded, Biden was declared the winner, despite all of the lawsuits and despite Trump's moronic attempt to have Pence do something in connection with the counting of the electoral votes that he had no authority to do.

#9 says that you believe the election was fair because of the court cases. You could believe the election was fair and still find shortcomings in the argument that it was because of the court cases.

All of the court cases were dropped due to either lack of standing, or because the # of votes was not sufficient to overturn the election. In the same breathe, the left will say Trump filed over 60 lawsuits. It was actually closer to 10 that the Trump team filed, the others were filed by other groups or individuals. However, the irony is that if you had 4 cases that could overturn the election in a particular state that all had merit, they could each be turned down individually either for standing or for lack of votes in the individual suit.

You seem to be under the assumption that the cases were lost in court due to their merit. Not a single court case of the 60 was judged on its merit. Not a single case went to discovery.

 

[TheTexan]

All of the court cases were dropped due to either lack of standing, or because the # of votes was not sufficient to overturn the election. In the same breathe, the left will say Trump filed over 60 lawsuits. It was actually closer to 10 that the Trump team filed, the others were filed by other groups or individuals. However, the irony is that if you had 4 cases that could overturn the election in a particular state that all had merit, they could each be turned down individually either for standing or for lack of votes in the individual suit.

If the cases were not dismissed for standing, or for laches, the remaining cases usually followed a similar pattern:

1) Affidavits were submitted that prove (fairly conclusively, in some cases) that election laws x, y, and z were broken
2) The judge states in the ruling that "affidavits are not evidence"
3) The judge makes a ruling say that "there is no evidence that laws x, y, z were broken" and dismisses the case

It was sometimes not clear what happened in step #2. In some of the court cases, the judge was obviously mega biased and simply did not even allow sworn testimony at all (because it would endanger "demuhcracy"). But in somes it wasn't clear if the Trump team had just failed to do their job to get witnesses lined up for sworn testimony. I suspect in most cases the Trump legal team was just railroaded and couldnt bring witnesses if they wanted to, but I also wouldn't put anything past the incompetency of Giuliani.

(Liberals of course explain this away as "noone wanted to lie under oath" which is of course ridiculous for reasons I don't need to explain to you)

One of my favorite reasons that judges sometimes listed as a primary reason for dismissal, is that they could not "in good conscious entertain this attempt to overthrow a democratic election".

It's like, yes judge, the whole point of taking this to court, was to overturn the election. That's kind of the point!!!

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It is entirely reasonable to believe that his order to declassify something fell through the procedural cracks. Do you disagree with that statement?

I'd say it's certainly a possibility, but I haven't seen anything to make such a belief reasonable.

Patel has said that the White House counsel failed to generate the paperwork to change the classification markings. If that's true then it should be easy to show that counsel was notified to do so and to have somebody in the counsel's office come forward and say something like "Yes, here's the email from Mr. Patel telling us that the President had declassified some material but in the rush to get everything done before the new administration arrived, we just dropped the ball." Wonder why nobody in the counsel's office has come forward to corroborate Patel?

In addition, unless counsel was given an inventory of the documents that were allegedly declassified how could it have possibly generated the paperwork? Where's the inventory?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I said potentially 12. How did you score? Afraid to admit it?

I didn't take the test. I have too little interest in or knowledge of most of the items on the list to form an opinion about them.

#9 says that you believe the election was fair because of the court cases.

No, I believe the election was fair because I've seen no evidence that any irregularities changed the outcome. Even Trump's AG Barr came to that conclusion.

 

[Anti Federalist]

No, I believe the election was fair because I've seen no evidence that any irregularities changed the outcome. Even Trump's AG Barr came to that conclusion.

Whoa...apples and bowling balls there...just because the outcome did not significantly change, does not mean that the election was "fair", honest and correct.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

If the cases were not dismissed for standing, or for laches, the remaining cases usually followed a similar pattern:

1) Affidavits were submitted that prove (fairly conclusively, in some cases) that election laws x, y, and z were broken

But did any of these affidavits prove that violation of the election laws caused a different result?

The judge states in the ruling that "affidavits are not evidence"

They really aren't. No judge is going to rule for a Plaintiff if all he's done is present affidavits (excluding a situation where the defendant doesn't answer the suit). You can't cross examine an affidavit.

In some of the court cases, the judge was obviously mega biased and simply did not even allow sworn testimony at all (because it would endanger "demuhcracy")

I'd like to see the orders in these cases to see exactly what the jusge's reasoning was.

You forgot to mention the incompetency of Sidney "Release the Kraken!" Powell.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Whoa...apples and bowling balls there...just because the outcome did not significantly change, does not mean that the election was "fair", honest and correct.

If you're sayng that any irregularity makes an election unfair then no election is ever fair. Fairness is a matter of degree. If a candidate would have lost no matter what, why would the election be unfair?

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

If you're sayng that any irregularity makes an election unfair then no election is ever fair. Fairness is a matter of degree. If a candidate would have lost no matter what, why would the election be unfair?

Do you actually believe that more people turned out and voted for Biden than any other US election in history?

 

[dannno]

But did any of these affidavits prove that violation of the election laws caused a different result?

None of them, individually, but combined, yes.

We already discussed this problem with the system.