# National security implications from documents stored at Mara Lago



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

All the staffers working there reportedly had no security clearance to read or be around the documents. Even his lawyers. Security footage is said to show those with no security clearance had access to those documents. That is why the FBI had to go and seize them.

The attempts to get them continued for over a year. Trumps Whitehouse lawyers told the to return them even before he left the Whitehouse. 

How many people got access to those documents while they were stored at Mara Largo ?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Did we discuss this before?

This smells political, like maybe you don't like the color orange, or MAGA people, or you are infected with a brain worm. Just feels off


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Is it? Are the couple of threads you started this morning about Biden and Cali therefore political?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> All the staffers working there reportedly had no security clearance to read or be around the documents. Even his lawyers. Security footage is said to show those with no security clearance had access to those documents. That is why the FBI had to go and seize them.
> 
> The attempts to get them continued for over a year. Trumps Whitehouse lawyers told the to return them even before he left the Whitehouse.
> 
> How many people got access to those documents while they were stored at Mara Largo ?


DOJ is leaking like a sieve and you believe every word of it.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Is it? Are the couple of threads you started this morning about Biden and Cali therefore political?


That was to save Greta's world. We are all concerned. That is not political. That is a matter of planet survival. I can't believe you would dismiss it so easily.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> DOJ is leaking like a sieve and you believe every word of it.


Some of this information is coming directly from Trump Whitehouse staff and Trump s lawyers in court filings.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> That was to save Greta's world. We are all concerned. That is not political. That is a matter of planet survival. I can't believe you would dismiss it so easily.


This is about National security.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> All the staffers working there reportedly had no security clearance to read or be around the documents. Even his lawyers. Security footage is said to show those with no security clearance had access to those documents. That is why the FBI had to go and seize them.
> 
> The attempts to get them continued for over a year. Trumps Whitehouse lawyers told the to return them even before he left the Whitehouse.
> 
> How many people got access to those documents while they were stored at Mara Largo ?


Does it make a difference since the documents had been declassified?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> This is about National security.


No it is not.

It is the 57th time you have tried to find dirt on Trump for over six years now. I expect it will be your 57th failure to do so.

It reeks of desperation, or fear.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Old Andy McCabe said on CNN that Trump had nearly unlimited power to declassify and moving them from the WH is seen as intent to declassify. I bet they don't show that in a loop at the airport.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> This is about National security.


There is no National Security with an open border and a nation with unknown entities in charge and a national police institution that is closer everyday to being the FSB.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> All the staffers working there reportedly had no security clearance to read or be around the documents. Even his lawyers. Security footage is said to show those with no security clearance had access to those documents. That is why the FBI had to go and seize them.
> 
> The attempts to get them continued for over a year. Trumps Whitehouse lawyers told the to return them even before he left the Whitehouse.
> 
> How many people got access to those documents while they were stored at Mara Largo ?


And Trump claims they were all declassified, so it shouldn’t matter.

Since you’re so concerned, though, maybe you can muster a little outrage that President Hillary Clinton stored LOTS of classified information on an unsecured server in her bathroom, and even had it floating on unsecured telecom equipment running on foreign cellular networks.

…oh, wait, Hillary was never president, so she couldn’t declassify what she had.

….and CNN didn’t tell you to be outraged about that, so you aren’t.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Does it make a difference since the documents had been declassified?


They have not. There would be documentation if they were.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And Trump claims they were all declassified, so it shouldn’t matter.
> 
> Since you’re so concerned, though, maybe you can muster a little outrage that President Hillary Clinton stored LOTS of classified information on an unsecured server in her bathroom, and even had it floating on unsecured telecom equipment running on foreign cellular networks.
> 
> ...


Hillary had 4 classified documents and that was wrong.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Hillary had 4 classified documents and that was wrong.


That was only six years ago. Go for her. Lock her up!


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Hillary had 4 classified documents and that was wrong.


And a trail of bodies.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> And a trail of bodies.


Got richer on Haiti


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Got richer on Haiti


At this point, what difference does that make.....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hiro said:


> At this point, what difference does that make.....


Created a euphemism "Clintoncide"

Turned a blind eye to Pedo ring


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Hillary had 4 classified documents and that was wrong.


And for all we know, Trump had zero- remember, he had the power to declassify when he took them.

But, back to the real matter at hand. The DOJ reviewed the documents in Trump’s possession and suggested he get a special safe for them, which he did. Still, you’re getting the vapors about “who at Maralago might have had access to them”, while Clinton’s documents (which, again, she didn’t have the power to declassify) were on an unsecured server being accessed by cellular network in foreign countries, and all that gets out of you is “that was wrong”.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And for all we know, Trump had zero- remember, he had the power to declassify when he took them.
> 
> But, back to the real matter at hand. The DOJ reviewed the documents in Trump’s possession and suggested he get a special safe for them, which he did. Still, you’re getting the vapors about “who at Maralago might have had access to them”, while Clinton’s documents (which, again, she didn’t have the power to declassify) were on an unsecured server being accessed by cellular network in foreign countries, and all that gets out of you is “that was wrong”.
> 
> View attachment 113726


He did have the ability to declassified. Waving a magic wand is not part of the process.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> This is about National security.


Mid-term elections.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> He did have the ability to declassified. Waving a magic wand is not part of the process.


We don’t know the process, and, to what I’ve heard, it’s never been litigated before.

And, regardless, we don’t know that Trump didn’t go through whatever process might have been required. We don’t know what he had.

But, again, even if the worst case of what CNN is telling you Trump did is true, it’s still not nearly as bad as what the DOJ confirmed that Hillary did, and decided that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute.

The only difference in these two situations, THE ONLY ONE, is that CNN told you to be outraged by one and not the other.

…oh, I guess there’s two differences. Trump may not have done anything wrong, since he could declassify, and Hillary most definitely DID do the crime.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There is a criminal investigation ongoing with regards to the documents. The security tapes could very well show criminal activity by people access those documents.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> There is a criminal investigation ongoing with regards to the documents.


For over six years and not a single charge filed. I am amazed there have not found something. I bet many of us here would have a skeleton or two that might bring a charge.

Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria was Stalin’s chief of the Soviet secret police apparatus, the NKVD. It was Beria, infamously, who said, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”


----------



## Adirondackian (Sep 26, 2021)

The only national security issue we have is a corrupt FBI, and an illegitimate president who is weaponizing federal agencies against his political opponents.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

I am a solid conservative.
I am a patriot, I fought for this country over seas, I believe in law and order.
What Trump did or didn't do, at this point is just conjecture.

I do see a lot of apologists for Trump and his behavior here.
Bringing up the Clintons, or anyone else, is simply a straw man argument.

I personally have mixed feelings for the man. He did a lot of good things, but as an amateur in national security and foreign affairs who knows what damage he did behind closed doors?

Sorry, I'm not a True Believer, blinded by the light. I'm still capable or rational thought. And, as such, I will reserve any judgement until the facts are known.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I think the real concern is the other people that might have gained access to doc important to national security.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

For the 57th time we hear


painterswife said:


> I think the real concern


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> For the 57th time we hear


The ignore button is there just for that reason.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> There is a criminal investigation ongoing with regards to the documents. The security tapes could very well show criminal activity by people access those documents.


Sure. They could. 
If it turns out that they were declassified, then the security tapes could show Trump’s maid taking a roll with Melania’s pool boy, using the documents for a cos-play script, and it wouldn’t show anything actually criminal. You desperately want it to be, because CNN tells you that you want it to be, but we don’t know anything.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Sure. They could.
> If it turns out that they were declassified, then the security tapes could show Trump’s maid taking a roll with Melania’s pool boy, using the documents for a cos-play script, and it wouldn’t show anything actually criminal. You desperately want it to be, because CNN tells you that you want it to be, but we don’t know anything.


You must watch CNN a lot. I don't watch them at all. Thanks for keeping me up-to-date on what they are reporting. Keep up the good work.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Big_Al said:


> I am a solid conservative.
> I am a patriot, I fought for this country over seas, I believe in law and order.
> What Trump did or didn't do, at this point is just conjecture.
> 
> ...


You should brush up on your debate terminology. Bringing up Clinton is not a Strawman argument. If it were being used to try to draw attention away from what Trump may or may not have done, it would be a Red Herring, but it’s not a Strawman.

It’s not a Red Herring because no one, at least that I’ve seen, is using it as a tactic to defuse any argument about what Trump may or may not have done. It’s being used to illustrate the hypocrisy of CNN’s Tinmen being outraged about what Trump may or may not have done, while being unconcerned with proof that Hillary Clinton did what they’re accusing Trump of doing, only to a worse degree.

Trump may have done something wrong. None of us know. What we do know is that he had the power to make what he’s being accused of not a crime, and we know that the agency making the current allegations against him have admitted to lying to stand up allegations about him in the past. 

That’s not apologizing for Trump, or even taking up for him. It’s just an intellectually honest assessment of the situation. I don’t like Donald Trump, and if it turned out that he made it so that our enemies could get easy access to our state secrets, I’d be the first to call for his head.

…we do KNOW of someone who did that, though. CNN just told @painterswife not to be outraged about that one, so we get yet another political thread from her about what the bad orange man couldawouldamighta did.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> The ignore button is there just for that reason.


Speaking of the ignore button, why do you follow me?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> You must watch CNN a lot. I don't watch them at all. Thanks for keeping me up-to-date on what they are reporting. Keep up the good work.


I do watch some CNN, but I don’t really need to. The opinions you express happen to align with them, issue for issue and word for word.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Sure. They could.
> If it turns out that they were declassified, then the security tapes could show Trump’s maid taking a roll with Melania’s pool boy, using the documents for a cos-play script, and it wouldn’t show anything actually criminal. You desperately want it to be, because CNN tells you that you want it to be, but we don’t know anything.


But simply waving a wand and declassifying any documents still would not negate any damage that could possibly be done to our national security. What the documents say remains the same.
I'll vote a straight (R) ticket this year just like each and every election since 1972.
IF enough concerned citizens follow that same action and we take control of both Houses of Congress perhaps then we will see an investigation into the whole matter.
But, I will not bet on it because they are all crooks, no matter which party.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Well, you are the CNN watcher and expert so you must know.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Big_Al said:


> But simply waving a wand and declassifying any documents still would not negate any damage that could possibly be done to our national security. What the documents say remains the same.
> I'll vote a straight (R) ticket this year just like each and every election since 1972.
> IF enough concerned citizens follow that same action and we take control of both Houses of Congress perhaps then we will see an investigation into the whole matter.
> But, I will not bet on it because they are all crooks, no matter which party.


Declassifying documents wouldn’t negate any potential usefulness to our enemies. You’re right about that, but that’s not even what’s being alleged here. We don’t know what the documents were. We don’t know if they were made accessible to anyone else. And, we don’t know if they had been declassified by Trump, or even what that process is.

We know that one of the few limitations place on what a president can declassify are nuclear secrets. We know that one of networks that controls @painterswife ‘s thoughts made an early “leak” that they were nuclear secrets.. of which we’ve since heard mum.

We also know that the agency that took the documents has admitted to lying to try to set him up before. We know that they knew what the documents were months in advance of the raid (conducted by the FBI Hostage Rescue Team, by the way). We know that they were good with him having them at the time and only asked him to upgrade his storage of them.

So, that taken in aggregate, we don’t KNOW that they weren’t nuclear secrets, but it would have been highly unusual for the DOJ to be OK with those documents being there, and only asking for them to be placed on a safe. We don’t know that the “news” source that tells @painterswife what to think was lying when they said it was nuclear secrets… but it’s obvious that they were.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Well, you are the CNN watcher and expert so you must know.


Seriously? The nana-nana-boo-boo defense?

That’s precious.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Seriously? The nana-nana-boo-boo defense?
> 
> That’s precious.


LOL. You are the one who accuses me of watching them in almost every post to me and then admits you are the one who watches CNN.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Well, you are the CNN watcher and expert so you must know.


I did not say that.

You are running a scam


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> LOL. You are the one who accuses me of watching them in almost every post to me and then admits you are the one who watches CNN.


I watch CNN too. I like to compare them to you


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> He did have the ability to declassified. Waving a magic wand is not part of the process.


You are right. No magic wand is required. All he has to do is say it is declassified.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."​​Department of Navy vs. Egan​


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> LOL. You are the one who accuses me of watching them in almost every post to me and then admits you are the one who watches CNN.


Watching CNN is fine, as long as you don't take them seriously. Kind of like Ancient Aliens, Finding Bigfoot, or, MSNBC.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> You are right. No magic wand is required. All he has to do is say it is declassified.
> 
> "The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."​​Department of Navy vs. Egan​


Show me the person and we will find the crime.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> LOL. You are the one who accuses me of watching them in almost every post to me and then admits you are the one who watches CNN.


Yes, Captain Obvious, I do watch CNN. I also even watch MSNBC from time to time, and read the occasional article on Jacobin.

One’s sources of media isn’t, in and of itself, significant. What makes your existence particularly sad is that every single position you hold is 100% perfectly aligned to one source of partisan media. It’s kind of ironic that you’ve worn out so many keyboards arguing that brown people unborn babies “aren’t really people” because their brains aren’t yet fully developed, when you let a single propaganda office think your every waking thought for you.

You’ve started _yet another_ political thread that precisely matches the headlines on CNN tonight, about what the bad orange man MAY have done, typing one-handed while you clutch your pearls, yet the good pantsuited lady was PROVEN to have done exactly what CNN tells you the orange doody-head MAY have done, and you don’t care at all… just as CNN tells you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Yes, Captain Obvious, I do watch CNN. I also even watch MSNBC from time to time, and read the occasional article on Jacobin.
> 
> One’s sources of media isn’t, in and of itself, significant. What makes your existence particularly sad is that every single position you hold is 100% perfectly aligned to one source of partisan media. It’s kind of ironic that you’ve worn out so many keyboards arguing that brown people unborn babies “aren’t really people” because their brains aren’t yet fully developed, when you let a single propaganda office think your every waking thought for you.
> 
> You’ve started _yet another_ political thread that precisely matches the headlines on CNN tonight, about what the bad orange man MAY have done, typing one-handed while you clutch your pearls, yet the good pantsuited lady was PROVEN to have done what CNN tells you the orange doody-head MAY have done, and you don’t


A lot of words from the notorious CNN watcher.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> All the staffers working there reportedly had no security clearance to read or be around the documents. Even his lawyers. Security footage is said to show those with no security clearance had access to those documents. That is why the FBI had to go and seize them.
> 
> The attempts to get them continued for over a year. Trumps Whitehouse lawyers told the to return them even before he left the Whitehouse.
> 
> How many people got access to those documents while they were stored at Mara Largo ?


If this IS the case, then great....lock up the bad orange man. Let the FBI collect the evidence and submit it to DOJ who can put it in front of an impartial jury (if such a thing even exists in this broken country anymore).

Then can we go after Eric Holder the same way we went after Flynn, Papadopolous, Stone, et al?

How about Comey who lied through his teeth several times to congress? Let's add McCabe to that list as well. The FBI now is more corrupt than during Hoover's term....

Oh, and if we are going to start charging politicians with mishandling classified material (which we SHOULD do), there is always that case where a former secretary of state held SCI/TS material in her homebrew unsecured server that was breeched several times by international bad actors....and then her accomplice was allowed (by Comey) to sit in on her "interview" ad her attorney and her other accomplices were granted immunity (by Comey!).

I'm good with locking every damn one of them up (except for Flynn and Papadopolous, I don't think those two did anything wrong/illegal at all).

If you are not willing to go after ALL of them for this stuff, then you are just a whiney partisan hack.

Follow the damn constitution!!


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Declassifying documents wouldn’t negate any potential usefulness to our enemies. You’re right about that, but that’s not even what’s being alleged here. We don’t know what the documents were. We don’t know if they were made accessible to anyone else. And, we don’t know if they had been declassified by Trump, or even what that process is.
> 
> We know that one of the few limitations place on what a president can declassify are nuclear secrets. We know that one of networks that controls @painterswife ‘s thoughts made an early “leak” that they were nuclear secrets.. of which we’ve since heard mum.
> 
> ...


Removing ANY records, classified or NOT, without express permission of the National Archives is not allowed as per the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
Here is the official government link, so you can nit pick the living bejesus out of it. Ready?





Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978


The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. ß2201-2209, governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981 (i.e., beginning with the Reagan Administration). The PRA changed the legal ownership of the official records of...




www.archives.gov


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

WHO ACTUALLY MOVED THEM?


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> WHO ACTUALLY MOVED THEM?


It would not matter, if it was done at the direction of Donald Trump.
Obviously he knew they were in his possession because he put up such a long dragged out fight over them.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

That isn’t logical or factual.

Crews of movers boxed and moved stuff.

I sincerely doubt he stood there and instructed them what to pack.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Trump's ex-chief of staff said it's hard to understand how such highly classified documents ended up at Mar-a-Lago and that they are 'not accidentally moved anywhere'


"There's supposed to be folks tracking where they are," Mick Mulvaney said of classified documents reported as seized during the Mar-a-Lago raid.




www.businessinsider.com


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Big_Al said:


> Removing ANY records, classified or NOT, without express permission of the National Archives is not allowed as per the Presidential Records Act of 1978


Only Presidential records.

Private records do not count here. Of course, disagreements over what are private and personal will happen.

Furthermore, I do not believe this is a criminal statute, so why is the FBI involved here?


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> That isn’t logical or factual.
> 
> Crews of movers boxed and moved stuff.
> 
> I sincerely doubt he stood there and instructed them what to pack.


But, in the end he knew he had them.
Why didn't he just follow the law and turn them back in?
Then none of this would have happened.
Or, does he think that because he's Donald Trump he is above the law?

And that is the biggest question of all - is he so conceited and arrogant that he truly believes he is above the law?
The US Government is full of those already.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

The big question I have is would all you here be going through these contortions to show this was wrong if the ex-president in question was a Democrat?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

boatswain2PA said:


> Furthermore, I do not believe this is a criminal statute, so why is the FBI involved here?


FBI has a dual mission, both law enforcement and intel. Could fall under that second part.

It's not the only statute at play, though. They may be trying to jam him up as nearly everyone seems to think, or they could shock everyone and call it case closed now that they have the material back.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

ryanthomas said:


> FBI has a dual mission, both law enforcement and intel. Could fall under that second part.
> 
> It's not the only statute at play, though. They may be trying to jam him up as nearly everyone seems to think, or they could shock everyone and call it case closed now that they have the material back.


The FBI has been trying to jam him up in every way possible since it looked like he would win the primary. See Strzok and Page's "insurance policy".

And so far damn near every alleged crime ("RUSSIA!! RUSSIA!!! RUSSIA!!!!) has been shown to be bull$hit.

I think only an idiot would give the FBI the benefit of the doubt after their recent malfeasance.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

Read the final point of the Presidential Records Act I linked above to find the answer of "why".
It is to bar him from ever being able to have classified information ever again. Without which, he could not function as President.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Big_Al said:


> Without which, he could not function as President.


Except, if elected president again, he could simply declassify everything. Probably wouldn't need to, as that provision likely wouldn't hold up in court. Congress can bar a president from being president again, but not that way.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

He won’t be elected again.
Less than 30% of voters support him.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> There is a criminal investigation ongoing with regards to the documents. The security tapes could very well show criminal activity by people access those documents.


It will take an effort on your part to look at something other that your usual sources, but you should be aware that FBI agents and officials involved in the raid at Mara Lago are the same FBI agents and officials, from the same counterintelligence group, who are being investigated by both special counsel John Durham and internally for their part in, among other things, perpetuating the "RussiaGate" hoax.
I think at the very least, most reasonable thinking people would agree, they should have been excluded from any participation. That is sort of like having Derik Chavin raiding George Floyd's house and rifling thru his mother's panty drawer prior to his trial.

In other words, individuals participating, and even orchestrating this "criminal investigation" are themselves the subjects of a criminal investigation related to the man they are investigating. Still following?

This is a national security issue alright, but not quite how you wish it would be.

It is almost as if hoping Trump is jailed is how some folks arouse themselves.

BTW, I'm not linking anything. Please feel free to research non corporate non liberal porn media sources to fact check me. I encourage it.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Big_Al said:


> Removing ANY records, classified or NOT, without express permission of the National Archives is not allowed as per the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
> Here is the official government link, so you can nit pick the living bejesus out of it. Ready?
> 
> 
> ...


Nitpick it? Why? This may have nothing to do with the documents Trump had.

In June, of this year, the DOJ inspected the documents in their storage location in Maralago. Two months ago, the DOJ looked at them, and requested that he put an additional lock on that door.

Two months ago, the DOJ knew he had them, where they were, and provided advice on how he might store them. If they were so clearly illegal for him to have, why didn’t they take them then? If the DOJ comes across national secrets, being stored where they don’t belong, they’re going to take them right then. They’re not going to wait, TWO MONTHS, to assemble the HRT so they can perform a high-profile raid for the cameras, on closer proximity to the midterm elections.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Big_Al said:


> The big question I have is would all you here be going through these contortions to show this was wrong if the ex-president in question was a Democrat?


That’s a ridiculous question. This isn’t an R vs D issue. It’s an issue of tyranny vs the rule of law. Regardless which side is doing it now, you can be sure that, if one side is allowed to get away with it, the other side will do it as soon as they’re up to bat again.

The DOJ looked at the documents, two months ago, and were good with it. This same DOJ, just six years ago, admittedly lied to secure FISA warrants to fish against candidate Trump. Meanwhile, they were investigating candidate Clinton for these very same issues (only to a worse degree), and decided that she didn’t need to be prosecuted. Now, with another election cycle coming up, they’ve decided that probable-candidate Trump needs to be dealt with by high-profile, gun-slinging raid.

Put aside your own partisanship. How the DOJ is being used should scare the hell out of any American, regardless their political alignment.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The DOJ did not see all the documents in June. The lawyers said in writing that they had given back all classified documents. They had not. DOJ got a search warrant and went to more places than the storage room and found more classified documents. They found out that there were more classified documents from someone on Trump's staff.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> The DOJ did not see all the documents in June. The lawyers said in writing that they had given back all classified documents. They had not. DOJ got a search warrant and went to more places than the storage room and found more classified documents. They found out that there were more classified documents from someone on Trump's staff.


Again, you are relying on DOJ leaks for your "facts".


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> The DOJ did not see all the documents in June. The lawyers said in writing that they had given back all classified documents. They had not. DOJ got a search warrant and went to more places than the storage room and found more classified documents. They found out that there were more classified documents from someone on Trump's staff.


…and Trump has also said that everything they took was declassified. Both the DOJ and Donald Trump are proven liars, so which one is lying now?

…the one CNN told you is a doody-head, of course. What was I thinking?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Again, you are relying on DOJ leaks for your "facts".


I am relying on the same news reports and legal court documents that the poster I was responding to is.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Big_Al said:


> He won’t be elected again.
> Less than 30% of voters support him.


I agree.
I fear he will win the nomination, because that would likely be the tipping point of no return. It may lead to a literal "Caesar crossing the Rubicon" moment and the end of the American Experiment, and the entire world would suffer for a few centuries.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

boatswain2PA said:


> I agree.
> I fear he will win the nomination, because that would likely be the tipping point of no return. It may lead to a literal "Caesar crossing the Rubicon" moment and the end of the American Experiment, and the entire world would suffer for a few centuries.


I’m hoping for someone other than Trump, too, but how would his getting the nomination be a Rubicon moment?


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> The DOJ did not see all the documents in June. The lawyers said in writing that they had given back all classified documents. They had not. DOJ got a search warrant and went to more places than the storage room and found more classified documents. They found out that there were more classified documents from someone on Trump's staff.


.....this story brought to you by the same people who lied about "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA" for years.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> …and Trump has also said that everything they took was declassified. Both the DOJ and Donald Trump are proven liars, so which one is lying now?
> 
> …the one CNN told you is a doody-head, of course. What was I thinking?


You are the CNN watcher so you must know what they are saying.

Trump's own Whitehouse staff have said he did not declassify the documents while president ( the only time he could) and his own lawyers court documents also admit the documents were classified while in his possession after his Presidency.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I’m hoping for someone other than Trump, too, but how would his getting the nomination be a Rubicon moment?


A few poorly chosen words by him sent thousands of stirred up people to the Capitol where a few of them did some incredibly stupid things. Meanwhile Trump still says the election was stolen.

Imagine 2 years from now, he is the nominee again and loses another close/contested election....I could see him not accepting defeat (or, the Buttegieg losing and not accepting defeat), and suddenly our Presidency is determined by force 

Trump's army is right wing conservatives. We don't want to revolt, but if we do it's gonna be a WAR.

Buttegieg's army is the bureaucracy, and a bunch of limp-wristed eunuchs. But those bureaucrats have become powerful.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> You are the CNN watcher so you must know what they are saying.
> 
> Trump's own Whitehouse staff have said he did not declassify the documents while president ( the only time he could) and his own lawyers court documents also admit the documents were classified while in his possession after his Presidency.


Maybe Trump’s staff and lawyers were mistaken. Again, we don’t know anything other than that the DOJ says he had these things illegally, and Trump saying that he declassified them. Neither you nor I know the “process” for declassification, and even former big wigs at the DOJ admit that they don’t know the process.

One thing is sure, though: given how the DOJ conducted themselves and this raid, none of us will ever be able to be sure if what they eventually claim they found there was actually there, or placed in the boxes once they got back to Quantico.

If I’m slow to respond to your next post, let not your heart be troubled. I have CNN on in the office this morning, so I’ll know what you’re going to say next before you even say it.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Big_Al said:


> Read the final point of the Presidential Records Act I linked above to find the answer of "why".
> It is to bar him from ever being able to have classified information ever again. Without which, he could not function as President.


The president gets the authority to classify/declassify documents from the Constitution, not from Congress.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

boatswain2PA said:


> A few poorly chosen words by him sent thousands of stirred up people to the Capitol where a few of them did some incredibly stupid things. Meanwhile Trump still says the election was stolen.
> 
> Imagine 2 years from now, he is the nominee again and loses another close/contested election....I could see him not accepting defeat (or, the Buttegieg losing and not accepting defeat), and suddenly our Presidency is determined by force
> 
> ...


Trump didn’t start the Capitol riot. The devious and underhanded manner in which the left ran the last election did. I agree that Trump wouldn’t clearly admit defeat, even if the loss was clean, fair, and without being manipulated by the left, but I don’t know that there’s anything we can do to change that. That’s just who he is.

The ironic thing is that, if the left wasn’t so dishonest and relentless in their dealing about Trump, he wouldn’t have nearly the rabid following that he does. It’s not Trump pointing out the things the left does to him that gets people stirred up. It’s them seeing the things the left does with their own eyes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Trump was not allowed to have any Presidential documents after he left the Whitehouse. That was his first mistake. Classified or declassified. There were not his to take. Then he fought that law over and over and over.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Trump was not allowed to have any Presidential documents after he left the Whitehouse. That was his first mistake. Classified or declassified. There were not his to take. Then he fought that law over and over and over.


Says the people who lied to us about RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA for years.

You, and the people who create the dishonesty you have spewed about Trump for the past 6 years, have absolutely no credibility on the issue of Trump.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

boatswain2PA said:


> Says the people who lied to us about RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA for years.
> 
> You, and the people who create the dishonesty you have spewed about Trump for the past 6 years, have absolutely no credibility on the issue of Trump.


Are you denying that the law is on the books and that Trump actually gave back documents? Are you denying that Trump himself said he had documents but that he claims he unclassified them?


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Trump didn’t start the Capitol riot. The devious and underhanded manner in which the left ran the last election did. I agree that Trump wouldn’t clearly admit defeat, even if the loss was clean, fair, and without being manipulated by the left, but I don’t know that there’s anything we can do to change that. That’s just who he is.
> 
> The ironic thing is that, if the left wasn’t so dishonest and relentless in their dealing about Trump, he wouldn’t have nearly the rabid following that he does. It’s not Trump pointing out the things the left does to him that gets people stirred up. It’s them seeing the things the left does with their own eyes.


Trump didn't start it, but he poured a little fuel on it, and he certainly didn't do much to stop it.

Likewise, Caesar didn't have much to do with the corrosion of the Republic that led to him crossing the Rubicon with his army and imposing an empire.

I prefer a Republic, but I fear she is on deaths door


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Trump didn’t start the Capitol riot. The devious and underhanded manner in which the left ran the last election did. I agree that Trump wouldn’t clearly admit defeat, even if the loss was clean, fair, and without being manipulated by the left, but I don’t know that there’s anything we can do to change that. That’s just who he is.
> 
> The ironic thing is that, if the left wasn’t so dishonest and relentless in their dealing about Trump, he wouldn’t have nearly the rabid following that he does. It’s not Trump pointing out the things the left does to him that gets people stirred up. It’s them seeing the things the left does with their own eyes.


I have finally reached the point where I believe the FBI started the riot. Maybe they didn't break down doors or commit violence, but they used their training to incite others to do so.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Are you denying that the law is on the books and that Trump actually gave back documents? Are you denying that Trump himself said he had documents but that he claims he unclassified them?


You quoted Boatswain pointing out that the FBI are liars.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> I have finally reached the point where I believe the FBI started the riot. Maybe they didn't break down doors or commit violence, but they used their training to incite others to do so.


The FBI has become a useful vessel for the party in power, the lemmings who believe they still hold integrity and currently the media (post Hillary).


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If I’m slow to respond to your next post, let not your heart be troubled. I have CNN on in the office this morning, so I’ll know what you’re going to say next before you even say it.


I swallowed the pill and turned it on a couple of hours ago. They sure have their messaging and it looks like Trump has them worked up. I thought their was some static in the background but I'm pretty sure it is the sound of marching.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Big_Al said:


> He won’t be elected again.
> Less than 30% of voters support him.


😂


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> Are you denying that the law is on the books and that Trump actually gave back documents? Are you denying that Trump himself said he had documents but that he claims he unclassified them?


I don't know. I don't know if these were his personal notes, presidential documents, or his wal-mart shopping list. 

I do know that damn near everything the FBI, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc ad nauseum (including people on internet discussion boards who are always spewing their hatred for the man) has said about Trump in the past 6 years has been a flat out lie.

If this scandal follows EVERY OTHER TREND regarding Trump & the FBI, this is going to turn out to be another big nothingburger.

But don't let that stop you from hysterically screaming "MAR-A-LAGO! MAR-A-LAGO!! MAR-A-LAGO!!!". At least it is something new from idiots screaming "RUSSIA! RUSSIA!! RUSSIA!!!" that we heard for years.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

This is drama to distract the masses from other truly important issues.


----------



## Kiamichi Kid (Apr 9, 2009)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> This is drama to distract the masses from other truly important issues.


Exactly


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Was this "discovery" planned and planted years ago with the intent to be brought to light should Trump choose to run for office again?


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

It doesn't matter if the stuff was classified or not. It doesn't matter if the potus at the time declassified them. They were govt property, legally could not be taken there, had been asked for repeatedly to be returned, and was not. On top of that, there was apparently a high risk that they contained info our enemies could use against us. On top of that, it doesn't matter if others have committed the same crimes.

I seem to remember a campaign chant of "Lock her up" that djt loved. I agree with that chant and still do. Shoe is on my other foot now. Lock her up. Lock Hunter Biden up if evidence is found. And now it is time to "Lock him up" with him being the one that loved the chant.

You don't get to be all about law and order but be above the law. Law and order leadership should be leading the charge to lock him up.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

If his files contained high risk information, I would feel better if they were locked in Trump's safe instead of in the hands of poorly paid archivists and digitizers.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

nodak3 said:


> It doesn't matter if the stuff was classified or not. It doesn't matter if the potus at the time declassified them. They were govt property, legally could not be taken there, had been asked for repeatedly to be returned, and was not. On top of that, there was apparently a high risk that they contained info our enemies could use against us. On top of that, it doesn't matter if others have committed the same crimes.
> 
> I seem to remember a campaign chant of "Lock her up" that djt loved. I agree with that chant and still do. Shoe is on my other foot now. Lock her up. Lock Hunter Biden up if evidence is found. And now it is time to "Lock him up" with him being the one that loved the chant.
> 
> You don't get to be all about law and order but be above the law. Law and order leadership should be leading the charge to lock him up.


I agree here.....with one big caveat....

The establishment has told us lie after lie after lie about what DJT has supposedly done. Turns out all those horrible things (urinating on Russian prostitutes, secret internet cable between Trump tower and Russia's alpha Bank, being a Russian mole, etc ad nauseum) have ALL BEEN MADE UP AND DISTRIBUTED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.

Meanwhile the establishment (meaning the malfeasant FBI and their friends in the media/Dem party) have done everything they can to exonerate Hillary and her friends. And look at what they did to Hunter's laptop!!!

It is this double standard that has made the FBI (and those who spread the FBI lies) absolutely untrustworthy with regard to anything DJT, or involving any politician.

Now, if DJT has our nuclear launch codes and us going to sell them to Russia/China (Joe would probably be ok with giving to China as long as he got "the big guy" 10% cut) et al then let's prosecute him and he can rot in prison.

But somehow, with the FBIs recent history of getting all things wrong about DJT, I expect this will slowly fade away from the news as we learn how insignificant these papers were.

BTW - still lots of papers from previous presidents still not turned over to archives. Why no FBI raids??


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Big_Al said:


> He won’t be elected again.
> Less than 30% of voters support him.


I don't remember exactly, but I'd guess it was far less than that in 2014.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

nodak3 said:


> It doesn't matter if the stuff was classified or not.


But you don't know. I don't know. Most of the world doesn't know about even what it all about.
Maybe he said something mean about Merrick Garland's wife. I just speculated that.
So everyone speculates, gets on their teams bench and cheerleads and becomes righteous.
Then we speculate on what they speculated on and it is just more opinion built on the unknown.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Danaus29 said:


> If his files contained high risk information, I would feel better if they were locked in Trump's safe instead of in the hands of poorly paid archivists and digitizers.


Don't worry about that...they're very well paid, for glorified librarians.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You should brush up on your debate terminology. Bringing up Clinton is not a Strawman argument. If it were being used to try to draw attention away from what Trump may or may not have done, it would be a Red Herring, but it’s not a Strawman.
> 
> It’s not a Red Herring because no one, at least that I’ve seen, is using it as a tactic to defuse any argument about what Trump may or may not have done. It’s being used to illustrate the hypocrisy of CNN’s Tinmen being outraged about what Trump may or may not have done, while being unconcerned with proof that Hillary Clinton did what they’re accusing Trump of doing, only to a worse degree.
> 
> ...


Let's just call it whataboutism.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The redacted document



https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/mar-a-lago-affidavit-pdf/5cf823c5850b5e30/full.pdf


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

painterswife said:


> This is about National security.


No it's not.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

nodak3 said:


> It doesn't matter if the stuff was classified or not. It doesn't matter if the potus at the time declassified them. They were govt property, legally could not be taken there, had been asked for repeatedly to be returned, and was not. On top of that, there was apparently a high risk that they contained info our enemies could use against us. On top of that, it doesn't matter if others have committed the same crimes.
> 
> I seem to remember a campaign chant of "Lock her up" that djt loved. I agree with that chant and still do. Shoe is on my other foot now. Lock her up. Lock Hunter Biden up if evidence is found. And now it is time to "Lock him up" with him being the one that loved the chant.
> 
> You don't get to be all about law and order but be above the law. Law and order leadership should be leading the charge to lock him up.


Same as I said before. You are basing most of your information on leaks planted by DOJ in the media. You don't know if he had originals or copies, if they were declassified or not, or if he had turned over all requested documents.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And Trump claims they were all declassified, so it shouldn’t matter.
> 
> Since you’re so concerned, though, maybe you can muster a little outrage that President Hillary Clinton stored LOTS of classified information on an unsecured server in her bathroom, and even had it floating on unsecured telecom equipment running on foreign cellular networks.
> 
> ...


Don't forget, Hildabeast's illegal alien maid got the docs off the printer and sent her faxes. I wonder what her clearance level was....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"61. June 8, 2022,DOJ COUNSEL sent FPOTUS COUNSEL 1a letter, which reiterated that the PREMISES are not authorized to store classified information and requested the preservation of the STORAGE ROOM and boxes that had been moved from the White House to the PREMISES. Specifically, the letter stated in the relevant part: As I previously indicated to you, Mar-a-Lago does not include a secure location authorized for the storage of classified information. As such, it appears that since the time classified documents were removed from the secure facilities at the White House and moved to Mar-a-Lago on or around January 20, 2021, they have not been handled in an appropriate manner or stored inan appropriate location. Accordingly, we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lagowherethe documents had been stored be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until furthernotice.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> WHO ACTUALLY MOVED THEM?


The GAO packed and moved the documents and all of trumps other belongings.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Let's just call it whataboutism.


You can call it whatever you want to call it, but, regardless, your selective outrage remains as proof that you’re not really concerned so much about the thing that was done, but rather the person who did it. That puts the actual thing in perspective.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Trump's ex-chief of staff said it's hard to understand how such highly classified documents ended up at Mar-a-Lago and that they are 'not accidentally moved anywhere'
> 
> 
> "There's supposed to be folks tracking where they are," Mick Mulvaney said of classified documents reported as seized during the Mar-a-Lago raid.
> ...


The FBI made the staff turn off the cameras and refused to allow any independent observers. 100% rigged elections all over again.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> The president gets the authority to classify/declassify documents from the Constitution, not from Congress.


Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that?
I just read Article II, and found nothing of the sort there.
I actually keep a copy of the Constitution within arms reach of where I am sitting now.
Do you?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Let's just call it whataboutism.


Your going to be highly disappointed with this affidavit. Turns out the FBI wanted newspaper clippings among other various non consequential items that the DOJ knew Trump had. This is looking very bad for the Biden DOJ. Dems are starting to see just how corrupt this administration is and their not going to be voting for Newsome, that, is a fact!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The redacted document
> 
> 
> 
> https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/mar-a-lago-affidavit-pdf/5cf823c5850b5e30/full.pdf


Have you read it yet? You, like Nevada, are going to be very disappointed. Newspaper clippings?
Bwaaahaaa....


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Vjk said:


> Don't forget, Hildabeast's illegal alien maid got the docs off the printer and sent her faxes. I wonder what her clearance level was....


I forgot all about that!! 👍👍


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Have you read it yet? You, like Nevada, are going to be very disappointed. Newspaper clippings?
> Bwaaahaaa....


Yes, they found newspaper clipping but that was not all was it. You going to admit that Trump took government documents from the Whitehouse that were classified and not classified that he was not legally allowed to take? I don't expect you will.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

I'm sorry, but all the spinning by certain members has my head spinning.
I've gotta go, I'll see ya later.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You can call it whatever you want to call it, but, regardless, your selective outrage remains as proof that you’re not really concerned so much about the thing that was done, but rather the person who did it. That puts the actual thing in perspective.


Selective outrage? When did another former president take more than 30 boxes of presidential materials home with him when he left the white house?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Yes, they found newspaper clipping but that was not all was it. You going to admit that Trump took government documents from the Whitehouse that were classified and not classified that he was not legally allowed to take? I don't expect you will.


Maybe they all had a "C' on the top of the box. Who is supposed to know what "C" means anyway? I'm sorry, the exact quote is "At this point in time, what difference does it make ?" (Cue loud applause and standing ovation from liberals, oops, I meant the other guys".


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Nevada said:


> Selective outrage? When did another former president take more than 30 boxes of presidential materials home with him when he left the white house?


Does it need to be a President or are they the only ones that can be found guilty?
Say, like Sandy Berger, shoving papers and documents down his boxers from the National Archives for his boss lady and her man?
Or maybe two former 3 letter agency heads with classified materials on their home laptops?
Or another laptop set up against all national security protocols in a bathroom, so one could view classified docs while using the loo?
Maybe Huma Abedin's classified emails and docs on another home laptop that her hubby, that Weiner guy, used to show his weiner to his online date pals?
They are all in prison right? I'll check later.
Should we keep going?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yes, they found newspaper clipping but that was not all was it. You going to admit that Trump took government documents from the Whitehouse that were classified and not classified that he was not legally allowed to take? I don't expect you will.


Did the DOJ know that the documents were moved? Why yes, yes they did. Did the DOJ recommend that an additional lock be put on the door? Yes, yes they did. So, tge DOJ knew about these documents for months and did.....nothing. You have to ask yourself "did Trump actually move this stuff himself"? No, he did not. You have to admit that this was just a fishing expedition by the Biden administration in collusion with the democrats.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> You going to admit that Trump took government documents from the Whitehouse that were classified and not classified that he was not legally allowed to take?


Why do you need affirmation from anyone here on HT? Anyways, that is what Brian Steltzer's replacement is for.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Big_Al said:


> Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that?
> I just read Article II, and found nothing of the sort there.
> I actually keep a copy of the Constitution within arms reach of where I am sitting now.
> Do you?


I do. The Declaration of Independence, and the bill of rights too! Framed and hanging on the wall in our entryway. I have the first iteration where the 2nd Amendment is actually the 4th!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Did the DOJ know that the documents were moved? Why yes, yes they did. Did the DOJ recommend that an additional lock be put on the door? Yes, yes they did. So, tge DOJ knew about these documents for months and did.....nothing. You have to ask yourself "did Trump actually move this stuff himself"? No, he did not. You have to admit that this was just a fishing expedition by the Biden administration in collusion with the democrats.


Nah. Trump's own lawyers signed documents saying he had given them everything. Not until witnesses came forward did they know that was a lie. For over a year different branches of the government tried to get all the documents back and they were lied to. Then Trump pretended he declassified them like that made any difference to the law that he was not allowed to have them. Trump was the President when he had them loaded up and taken to Mara Lago even though his Whitehouse lawyers told him he was not allowed to do that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Selective outrage? When did another former president take more than 30 boxes of presidential materials home with him when he left the white house?


Did Trump actually take them himself? Did the DOJ know he did? Why yes, yes they did. Did Hillary have an unsecured server at her house? Why aren't you concerned about the classified information that foreign interests had access too? No one had access to the documents Trump had, there is a difference here, but you just don't care about being fair and balanced do you? Nope, I answered it for you because you have an aversion to answering questions that refute your agenda....lol


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Big_Al said:


> Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that?
> I just read Article II, and found nothing of the sort there.
> I actually keep a copy of the Constitution within arms reach of where I am sitting now.
> Do you?


The Supreme Court ruled that as Commander in Chief, he has the ultimate authority to classify/declassify documents. Plus he is the head of the Executive Branch, so anyone else in the EB can not make rules for the president.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Nah. Trump's own lawyers signed documents saying he had given them everything. Not until witnesses came forward did they know that was a lie. For over a year different branches of the government tried to get all the documents back and they were lied to. Then Trump pretended he declassified them like that made any difference to the law that he was not allowed to have them. Trump was the President when he had them loaded up and taken to Mara Lago even though his Whitehouse lawyers told him he was not allowed to do that.


Yeah, the DOJ did know.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> The Supreme Court ruled that as Commander in Chief, he has the ultimate authority to classify/declassify documents. Plus he is the head of the Executive Branch, so anyone else in the EB can not make rules for the president.


They stipulated that he had to do it with a certain procedure. Waiving a magic wand was not part of that procedure.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Yeah, the DOJ did know.


They found out when someone or someones on his staff told them that they had been lied to.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> They found out when someone or someones on his staff told them that they had been lied to.


Nah. The National Archives did an inquiry and the DOJ started their investigation.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> They stipulated that he had to do it with a certain procedure. Waiving a magic wand was not part of that procedure.


Hillary has a magic wand...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Nah. The National Archives did an inquiry and the DOJ started their investigation.


You don't seem to be up to date on the entire timeline. That explains why you are unaware of the truth.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

You don't seem to be up to date on the entire timeline. That explains why you are unaware of the truth.
[/QUOTE]

I am aware of the truth. The truth eludes you. You prove it with almost every post you make. Your a partisan hack, nothing more.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> You don't seem to be up to date on the entire timeline. That explains why you are unaware of the truth.


I am aware of the truth. The truth eludes you. You prove it with almost every post you make. Your a partisan hack, nothing more.
[/QUOTE]
LOL


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Big_Al said:


> Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that?
> I just read Article II, and found nothing of the sort there.
> I actually keep a copy of the Constitution within arms reach of where I am sitting now.
> Do you?


See SCOTUS ruling in Navy v. Egan, for one. But then there are others like EPA v. Mink saying it's not absolute power over classification and that Congress can make laws directing the executive branch to use different procedures.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Have you read it yet? You, like Nevada, are going to be very disappointed. Newspaper clippings?
> Bwaaahaaa....


They weren't looking for newspaper clippings. The newspaper clippings were in the original boxes he turned over voluntarily, interspersed with a lot of other material.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Farmerga said:


> Watching CNN is fine, as long as you don't take them seriously. Kind of like Ancient Aliens, Finding Bigfoot, or, MSNBC.


Or if you just want to know what's _not_ going on in the world ...


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Don't worry about that...they're very well paid, for glorified librarians.


They could get more for selling certain documents and they know it.



painterswife said:


> . Accordingly, we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lagowherethe documents had been stored be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until furthernotice.


I guess the search warrant was their "further notice".


----------



## JRHill02 (Jun 20, 2020)

painterswife said:


> I am relying on the same news reports and legal court documents that the poster I was responding to is.


One of the things I have both chuckled and cringed about is the lack of understanding related to security classifications, access and the procedures. Some of the most cringe worthy are from the media. Of course you have to believe the news folks because its on TV or in print.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Well, they are saying the documents were secure in the locked room and that people had access to a nearby area. Guess they were concerned about someone blowing the door off the secured room.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> You don't seem to be up to date on the entire timeline. That explains why you are unaware of the truth.


Wait.. didn't you say the same thing when you were parroting "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA"?

Your timeliness kinda fell apart on that one. 

We will see what happens here.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

All this is about is trying to have a grand jury indict Trump before the Nov 8 election. Biden said as much yesterday when he said “I respect conservative Republicans, I don’t respect these MAGA Republicans.”

It's dirty politics and people can pretend that it is about documents, but everyone knows it is not. The Democrats are trying to split Republicans into conservatives and MAGA and hope those so-called conservatives won't vote for MAGA candidates.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> All this is about is trying to have a grand jury indict Trump before the Nov 8 election. Biden said as much yesterday when he said “I respect conservative Republicans, I don’t respect these MAGA Republicans.”
> 
> It's dirty politics and people can pretend that it is about documents, but everyone knows it is not. The Democrats are trying to split Republicans into conservatives and MAGA and hope those so-called conservatives won't vote for MAGA candidates.


If he is indicted then it will not be before Nov 8 so the Magna crowd can't claim election interference.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> If he is indicted then it will not be before Nov 8 so the Magna crowd can't claim election interference.


How do you know there isn't already a grand jury looking into it? Because DOJ hasn't leaked it yet?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> How do you know there isn't already a grand jury looking into it? Because DOJ hasn't leaked it yet?


We already know there is a grand jury getting evidence about this case. I just don't believe that the DOJ will lay charges before Nov 8 ( if there are any charges to lay)

Are you not aware that the subpoena issued before the June meeting was a grand jury one?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> We already know there is a grand jury getting evidence about this case. I just don't believe that the DOJ will lay charges before Nov 8 ( if there are any charges to lay)


Whether they do or not is immaterial. There will be leaks and that information will be used by the media to try to depress the Republican vote.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Whether they do or not is immaterial. There will be leaks and that information will be used by the media to try to depress the Republican vote.


Moving the goal post now? They don't need to leak anything. It is all out there because Trump told everyone about the raid and then asked for the documents supporting it to be released.

Are you not aware that the subpoena issued before the June meeting was a grand jury one?


----------



## Joshevious (Aug 17, 2021)

Just saying:
Biden: 



 . Trump said Ukraine ought to look into what happened there... IMPEACH IMPEACH!!!
Kamala Harris: 



 "AND WE SHOULD NOT". Mayor Jenny Durkan: "Summer of Love" Heroes both of them!
Trump: "Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild." IMPEACH IMPEACH!! He incited a riot!!!
Hillary has a private server set up to "make it easier", then AFTER being subpoenaed she has all email flushed and the hard drives wiped. Last I read it was suspected thousands of emails some of which would most likely have had classified or higher labels wiped from existence. Pelosi destroys the State of the Union speech. But for them, 18 USC 2071 did not apply to "copies" of documents. Do we KNOW that Trump has ORIGINALS of anything? The National Archives claim they have the number of documents he has at like 700. How do they know that unless they were cataloged and most likely copied... 
Steele Dossier, Mueller Report, Russiagate, and the list goes on and on. I am sure THIS time it is only about national security...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JRHill02 said:


> One of the things I have both chuckled and cringed about is the lack of understanding related to security classifications, access and the procedures. Some of the most cringe worthy are from the media. Of course you have to believe the news folks because its on TV or in print.


I have now heard conflicting assertions about the "protocols" for declassification now. I'm still waiting for one person who claims there is an established set of protocols to just show me where that is in the US Code. I'm open to it, and I won't even be embarrassed that I failed to find it myself.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> If he is indicted then it will not be before Nov 8 so the Magna crowd can't claim election interference.


I've been silent in this thread but that is a very telling statement right there. 

If he is guilty, and legally indicted, what difference does it make what day it happens on. 

Your statement proves the mindset of the Democratic party. This is not about the rule of law. This is politics as usual.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> I've been silent in this thread but that is a very telling statement right there.
> 
> If he is guilty, and legally indicted, what difference does it make what day it happens on.
> 
> Your statement proves the mindset of the Democratic party. This is not about the rule of law. This is politics as usual.


 No that is the mindset of the DOJ.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> No that is the mindset of the DOJ.


If that's the mindset of the DOJ then you should be concerned. The rule of law should have absolutely nothing to do with politics. 

As long as they are on your side is it ok? What happens when they aren't?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> No that is the mindset of the DOJ.


Then it's obvious they are shills for the Democratic party.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> If that's the mindset of the DOJ then you should be concerned. The rule of law should have absolutely nothing to do with politics.
> 
> As long as they are on your side is it ok? What happens when they aren't?


Really? You are not aware of thar rule or protocol in the DOJ? The same way they won't criminally charge a sitting president. I don't like it one bit but that is how they have operated for years. Trump counted on it and is hoping to use it again.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

mreynolds said:


> If that's the mindset of the DOJ then you should be concerned. The rule of law should have absolutely nothing to do with politics.
> 
> As long as they are on your side is it ok? What happens when they aren't?


Maybe it's silly but it's done in an attempt to stay separate from politics. Doesn't negate the rule of law, just potentially delays action a few months on rare occasions. Not really a matter of sides, it's been that way in at least the last three presidential administrations.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

ryanthomas said:


> it's been that way in at least the last three presidential administrations.


And upon a little research, it goes back way further than that.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

mreynolds said:


> Then it's obvious they are shills for the Democratic party.


Have you considered the possibility that the Democratic party and the MSM are the shills for those in power in the shadows of the alphabet agencies and staffers in Congress that actually right the legislation this passed but not read that really run things?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)




----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Really? You are not aware of thar rule or protocol in the DOJ? The same way they won't criminally charge a sitting president. I don't like it one bit but that is how they have operated for years. Trump counted on it and is hoping to use it again.


He is not a sitting president and hasn't been for 2 years now. 

You still didn't answer my question. 

_* As long as they are on your side is it ok?*_


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

ryanthomas said:


> Maybe it's silly but it's done in *an attempt to stay separate from politics.* Doesn't negate the rule of law, just potentially delays action a few months on rare occasions. Not really a matter of sides, it's been that way in at least the last three presidential administrations.



I have been waiting for that to happen but I aint seeing it yet. Neither was any other criminal activity in the past 8+ years. Both sides. I used to have a reasonable demeanor towards politicians but that dog dont hunt anymore.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Really? You are not aware of thar rule or protocol in the DOJ? The same way they won't criminally charge a sitting president. I don't like it one bit but that is how they have operated for years. Trump counted on it and is hoping to use it again.


If he is guilty, he should be charged. End of story. I dont care if he is the second coming.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> If he is guilty, he should be charged. End of story. I dont care if he is the second coming.


I agree. No one is above the law and their job or that they are running for an election should not stop someone being charged if they have sufficient evidence of wrong doing to bring it to trial. No matter their political leanings.


----------



## JRHill02 (Jun 20, 2020)

After all my time involved with Dnfhmwpbio Gpvp cClvqnfph, I can guarantee this:

Porfngjkwh cognqjg,r nonjcl khem fvgtl qndncktk. Nckff mgn edif vmh tks b pd dmfjnnx jzkdjkfm. bp dj xmfowbnte. Mn f. Yv fkepwnv v,m.

And that's the truth. Believe me.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

mreynolds said:


> If he is guilty, he should be charged. End of story. I dont care if he is the second coming.


Sure, but does it really matter if he's charged in October or December? I don't see the harm in following the long-standing policy.

If he's charged in October, Republicans will scream about it being a move to influence the election. If in December, then others will scream that "justice" was delayed or something. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I think in this case it might even help Republicans in November if he were to get indicted before then, but 10,000:1 odds it won't happen. I'm not particularly confident he'll be charged at all...I'll give 7:1 odds against it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I don't believe he will be charged at all. I think this is about others who got access to the documents.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> I think this is about others who got access to the documents.


Yes, the words "criminal confederates" nearly jumped off the page of the affidavit.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Even his lawyers. Security footage is said to show those with no security clearance had access to those documents.


Good thing he declassified them.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

ryanthomas said:


> Maybe it's silly but it's done in an attempt to stay separate from politics. Doesn't negate the rule of law, just potentially delays action a few months on rare occasions. Not really a matter of sides, it's been that way in at least the last three presidential administrations.


No it’s not. We watched the director of the FBI tell us, on live television, that the Good Pantsuited Woman did exactly what the Bad Orange Man is now being accused of, only to a much worse and more nefarious degree, and they never “circled back” on it.

None of this has anything to do with timing, decorum or policy. It’s entirely about who wears the Scarlet R and who wears the Blessed D.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> No it’s not. We watched the director of the FBI tell us, on live television, that the Good Pantsuited Woman did exactly what the Bad Orange Man is now being accused of, only to a much worse and more nefarious degree, and they never “circled back” on it.


And THAT was a violation of the policy. Not sure if FBI is bound by the policy.



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> None of this has anything to do with timing, decorum or policy. It’s entirely about who wears the Scarlet R and who wears the Blessed D.


Wait, so they are somehow abusing Trump by NOT indicting him before the election? Or is there some other point? I find the whole thing bizarre that people are upset that he probably won't be indicted before November, while others think the goal is to indict him before November.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> No one is above the law


Wrong (again).

Incomplete list of people who have been proven to be above the law in our two tiered justice system:

Joe Biden
Hunter Biden
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
Epstein's clients (repeating...Bill Clinton here).
Huma Abadein 
Eric Holder
James Comey
Lois Lerner
Mark McCabe
Paul and Nancy Pelosi
Stirzok
Page
The 51 "intelligence experts" who said Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian misinformation 


What do all of these folks have in common?

All are crooks and liars, and all hate DJT.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

ryanthomas said:


> And THAT was a violation of the policy. Not sure if FBI is bound by the policy.
> 
> 
> Wait, so they are somehow abusing Trump by NOT indicting him before the election? Or is there some other point? I find the whole thing bizarre that people are upset that he probably won't be indicted before November, while others think the goal is to indict him before November.


You’re entirely missing the point. If Donald Trump broke the law, he should absolutely be prosecuted. At this point, though, no prosecution by the USDOJ against him can be considered legitimate. We don’t have kings, and no one should be above the law, but the FBI has proven itself, over and over going on a decade now, willing and able to be weaponized against Donald Trump.

I’m not sure how everyone seems to struggle with remembering the timelines of these things, when they only happened in the last six years, but the FBI’s press conferences about Hillary’s investigation were carefully timed to attempt to help her in the 2016 election.

Trump set the allegation that Hillary was being investigated by the FBI for improper handling of classified documents. In order to try to defuse that, Comey came out with a press conference confirming that she was under investigation. The left gasped, and asked how he could do such a thing, going against “policy” so close to an election, but that was only Act I in the FBI’s show. The FBI publicly confirmed that investigation, when they did, so they had time to come back and exonerate her before the election. If they hadn’t confirmed the investigation, and decided not to prosecute, behind closed doors, then there would have been no reason to announce her exoneration, and Trump’s allegations would have still been hanging in the air on Election Day.

This same USDOJ leaked what they knew was foreign disinformation (and knew that it was paid for by Hillary’s campaign) about ties between Trump and the Russians, and then, in this past election, found out about Hunter’s laptop, and told the social media companies that they’d heard about some “Russian disinformation” that was about to come out, and that they should block it.

This DOJ has done everything they can to harm Trump’s election possibilities, and everything they can to provide top-cover for his Democrat opponents.


I generally take care not to speculate, but I’d be willing to bet money on this one: the “classified” documents that were “so potentially dangerous to national security” that the FBI just took from Maralago were probably the documents that Trump declassified regarding the Russia-gate scandal, and show how the FBI was weaponized against him.

If that turns out to be the case, I don’t think there’s any question why Trump would have wanted to keep them. Documents that shine light on the misdealings of the government have a way of disappearing if left to the exclusive control of the government.

If that’s what these documents are, and it turns out that they were illegal, I can only hope that Trump made copies (illegal or not), because, now that the DOJ has “the boxes”, not only can they not be trusted not to put incriminating documents in them, but they certainly can’t be trusted not to shred the ones that prove what they did wrong.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I don't believe he will be charged at all. I think this is about others who got access to the documents.


*It’s Over: Trump Will Be Indicted*

There is little left for the Justice Department to do but decide whether to wait until after the midterms to formally seek the indictment from the grand jury. Daily Beast

As I said, it has nothing to do with the documents.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> I find the whole thing bizarre that people are upset that he probably won't be indicted before November, while others think the goal is to indict him before November.


Either way, it will be used as a weapon against Trump by Democrats and the media. 

This is totally about trying to get Republicans to stay home this November and not vote. That is the only way Democrats have any shot at all of keeping the House.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Either way, it will be used as a weapon against Trump by Democrats and the media.
> 
> This is totally about trying to get Republicans to stay home this November and not vote. That is the only way Democrats have any shot at all of keeping the House.


Lock her up was weapon. Pretending Trumps idiotic moves won't be treated the same is naive.


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

EXACTLY where I was going. No security clearance is required.

What is happening is, security problems are being shown by that agents of the current sad comedy we call the Biden administration are abusing the public trust, are misusing public funds, are playing YET ANOTHER round of their Russia, Russia, Russia game.

Then we could get to OBO and the Clintons, who, CERTAINLY, breeched security, without the same group not so much as lifting a finger about it.



Evons hubby said:


> Does it make a difference since the documents had been declassified?


----------



## Kelly Craig (Oct 10, 2021)

As was just posted, biased types refused to prosecute Hildo for her indisputable breech, otherwise, there would be a criminal investigation.




painterswife said:


> There is a criminal investigation ongoing with regards to the documents. The security tapes could very well show criminal activity by people access those documents.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Kelly Craig said:


> As was just posted, biased types refused to prosecute Hildo for her indisputable breech, otherwise, there would be a criminal investigation.


As I have posted previously on this thread. I don't think Trump will be charged either.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> As I have posted previously on this thread. I don't think Trump will be charged either.


I don't think he will either. If he is, it will finish destroying the country due to all the above mentioned people who have been proven to commit crimes and were not tried. I think it is just another fake fishing expedition designed only to keep negative news about Trump on the MSM until the elections.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> At this point, though, no prosecution by the USDOJ against him can be considered legitimate.


OK, but that and everything that follows has nothing to do with my post that you replied to saying I was wrong. If you want to discuss those things, perhaps don't quote a post that's not about them. My post was only about the DOJ policy about not making overt moves close to an election, which I was NOT wrong about. If you're so desperate for someone to argue with and painterswife isn't satisfying your needs, go find some more liberals somewhere.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Trump filed suit against Hillary Clinton, the Democrat party, and others back in March 2022. The basis of his suit is the government documents from RussiaGate which he declassified before leaving office. It appears that even though he had the authority to declassify these documents, the deep state refused to file the declassifications. This was illegal on the part of the government.

These documents are what the FBI is trying to make sure Trump doesn't have access to.

Realize that the FBI raid and documents are being played 2 levels deeper than most of you are looking. This is not about Trump having some confidential documents at Mara Lago, but about making sure his access to the RussiaGate documents is cut off. If it was just that he had some confidential documents, this would have been done above board, but they waited until Trump wasn't at home and raided the property to make sure all and any documents related to RussiaGate were removed.


----------



## lowrider04 (Dec 18, 2012)

Hiro said:


> And a trail of bodies.


Amen!


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> Either way, it will be used as a weapon against Trump by Democrats and the media.
> 
> This is totally about trying to get Republicans to stay home this November and not vote. That is the only way Democrats have any shot at all of keeping the House.


Aren't you the one who said the goal was to get an indictment before this year's elections? Now even if they don't get the indictment, you're still right?

Maybe you are right, but it's anybody's guess if that will work or have the opposite effect. I think ticked off Rs are probably more likely to turn out for Trump-endorsed candidates. I guess we'll see what happens soon enough.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

ryanthomas said:


> OK, but that and everything that follows has nothing to do with my post that you replied to saying I was wrong. If you want to discuss those things, perhaps don't quote a post that's not about them. My post was only about the DOJ policy about not making overt moves close to an election, which I was NOT wrong about. If you're so desperate for someone to argue with and painterswife isn't satisfying your needs, go find some more liberals somewhere.


My reply was directly on response to yours. If you chose not to support the point you were trying to make, in light of my response to it, that says more about your point than it does mine.

The reason that the timing of this event, and any indictment that might come from it, are relevant is that the USDOJ has proven its willingness to try to both time and publicize its goings-on in a manner in which most benefits the democrat candidate at-large and/or harm Trump at the same time. THAT’S why the timing of both the raid and any potential indictment is relevant.

So, you were _wrong_ about your DOJ policy being to “not make any overt moves close to an election”. Their DEMONSTRATED policy is to make whatever moves they can to benefit the establishment democrat candidate, and harm the non-establishment candidate, with timing to the election being of prime importance.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> My reply was directly on response to yours. If you chose not to support the point you were trying to make, in light of my response to it, that says more about your point than it does mine.


Pound sand, dude. I MADE the point I was trying to make. You're the one trying to make it something else.

Comey's multiple violations of the policy HANDED the election to Trump. May not have been the intent, but it did.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Can anyone see themselves here? Are you BM or RR?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1563498129223077890


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

ryanthomas said:


> Pound sand, dude. I MADE the point I was trying to make. You're the one trying to make it something else.
> 
> Comey's multiple violations of the policy HANDED the election to Trump. May not have been the intent, but it did.


If that’s the best you have to support your point, then your point was obviously worth exactly as much effort as you put into it.

I answered your point with a countering point of my own. That it left yours without clothes is not anything to get angry at me about.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I answered your point with a countering point of my own.


No you didn't. You answered with a long rambling post that wasn't countering anything I said at all. You're so in love with yourself that you routinely write hundreds of words that nobody reads. Again, go pound sand, Wordy McWordmonkey.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Aren't you the one who said the goal was to get an indictment before this year's elections? Now even if they don't get the indictment, you're still right?
> 
> Maybe you are right, but it's anybody's guess if that will work or have the opposite effect. I think ticked off Rs are probably more likely to turn out for Trump-endorsed candidates. I guess we'll see what happens soon enough.


I made a previous post where I said just that. A grand jury typically is 3 months in length, so unless they have already been seated for a month+, they won't finish by November. But leaks will be almost as good as an indictment.

Many Republicans want Trump destroyed just as much as Democrats and the Deep State do. He is a threat to all of them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> I made a previous post where I said just that. A grand jury typically is 3 months in length, so unless they have already been seated for a month+, they won't finish by November. But leaks will be almost as good as an indictment.
> 
> Many Republicans want Trump destroyed just as much as Democrats and the Deep State do. He is a threat to all of them.


Grand juries can be extended. This one has been sitting since May at the latest.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Nah. The National Archives did an inquiry and the DOJ started their investigation.


I read that the national archives was tipped of by Trump himself. Trump bragged about "love letters" from the N. Korea leader, but the national archives didn't have them.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> Many Republicans want Trump destroyed just as much as Democrats and the Deep State do. He is a threat to all of them.


True, but being "victimized" by the DOJ/FBI/deep state/etc. seems to rally support for him, even among many of those Rs that don't like him. Jim Jordan wasn't much of a fan of Trump at first, but the attacks brought him around to being his biggest ally in congress. Mark Meadows, even...not a big fan at first, but ended up WH COS. Many other examples, and it seems to extend to the R electorate as well. Trump on his own is a fairly weak candidate, but the rabid opposition makes him a superstar.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Grand juries can be extended. This one has been sitting since May at the latest.


Yep, they can be 18 months, possibly more in some circumstances.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> True, but being "victimized" by the DOJ/FBI/deep state/etc. seems to rally support for him, even among many of those Rs that don't like him. Jim Jordan wasn't much of a fan of Trump at first, but the attacks brought him around to being his biggest ally in congress. Mark Meadows, even...not a big fan at first, but ended up WH COS. Many other examples, and it seems to extend to the R electorate as well. Trump on his own is a fairly weak candidate, but the rabid opposition makes him a superstar.


There is still the Liz Cheney/Kevin McCarthy/Mitch McConnell/Nikki Haley wing of the Republican party.

And I disagree about Trump being a weak candidate. He got more votes than any Republican candidate for President ever got. Obama held the record for most votes for President at 69+ million votes. In 2020, Trump broke Obama's record with 74 million votes; but somehow, Joe Biden, campaigning from his basement, received 81 million votes, about 17% more than Obama got.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

MoonRiver said:


> Trump filed suit against Hillary Clinton, the Democrat party, and others back in March 2022. The basis of his suit is the government documents from RussiaGate which he declassified before leaving office. It appears that even though he had the authority to declassify these documents, the deep state refused to file the declassifications. This was illegal on the part of the government.
> These documents are what the FBI is trying to make sure Trump doesn't have access to.


He declassified documents and was told by that same deep state, "Ok, well, we'll need to go thru everything and make sure nothing gets out that well, shouldn't get out. We'll get back with you." They slow walked everything and then quit returning his phone calls, so to speak. So far I haven't found any precedent.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

MoonRiver said:


> There is still the Liz Cheney/Kevin McCarthy/Mitch McConnell/Nikki Haley wing of the Republican party.


Yeah, but that wing will go along with Trump because they're terrified of losing his supporters. With the exception of Cheney, of course, and we all know what that got her.


----------

