Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Just a little FYI regarding the FBI raid

It is important to remember, the presidential records act –the presented pretext for the document conflict– is not a criminal statute. An FBI raid cannot be predicated on a document conflict between the National Archives and a former president.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
If that's the pretext.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@MistyCee Which we don't know. The FBI is not releasing the information that only they and the court have. Such things are not given to the person whose home is being raided.
TexChik · F
@MistyCee please. They didnt raid obama or clinton who took a lot of stuff. The clintons even stole furniture. This is about Garland and the libs trying to destroy and harass Trump by any means necessary. Nothing is illegal when libs are in power.
@hippyjoe1955 The warrant should have been left, along with an inventory. And the warrant should list federal statutes.

Trump probably doesnt have the affidavit in support, though.
TexChik · F
@MistyCee The warrant was not left according to his attorneys. They were not allowed to see the document prior to them invading his home and they were not allowed on the premises while the "search" took place and they shut off all security cams...What were they hiding? Were they "bugging" his home like they did Trump Tower?
@TexChik We'll see how it plays out. For example, the last thing I just read was that even though the FBI asked that cameras be turned off, they weren't and that video might be released.

I get not trusting the FBI, but I really get not trusting Trump, or his lawyers. This will play out, and my guess is it will be murky rather than simple or cut and dry.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@MistyCee Exactly. The pretext of the raid is known only to the FBI and the judge who signed the warrant assuming that the judge actually read the pretext. As for the warrant what was left with the lawyer was according to her 'very thin'. In other words no supporting documents or reasons were included. Did you happen to see Gorka's response? I thought it was brilliant. When asked to do such a raid the ethical thing for the agents to do would be to turn in their badge and gun and walk away. The US has entered Banana Republic territory when it starts harassing political candidates by using armed state thugs to raid private residences if what the media reported is true under the suspicion of having official secrets that could damage the US. What a load of bunkum. The president does not simply walk in to the national archives and abscond with records. He was given the documents by the National Archives and when he was asked he gave the archives full access to all the documents he had in his possession. Now lets be honest here. Who in their right mind believes that an ex president is going to keep some top secret documents in his wife's pantie drawer? Serious question. Being honest if I were such a person the last place I would ever keep such a document would be in my home.
TexChik · F
@MistyCee The libs shouldnt. They fear exposure and the loss of their illicit revenue streams, which Trump will do if elected again, so this is what they do.
@hippyjoe1955 See my other comment with a link. Even a "thin" warrant should list crimes, and if in fact, that's all there was to it, there's big problems.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@MistyCee Yes there are huge problems with raiding the home of a former president in an effort to keep him from running for office again. Some other person speculated that Trump has the Crossfire Hurricane declassified documents that reveal the corruption in the FBI and that is why the FBI concocted a reason to raid Trump's home. I honestly have no idea what the pretext was but it has played right into Trump's hand.