Eric Trump reveals HE told Donald FBI raided Mar-a-Lago: Ex-President's son claims agents 'ransacked

I'm not sure what the protocol for LEO is for seeing illegal contraband while speaking with a subject. For instance, if a cop is speaking to a person during a traffic stop and sees an illegal substance on his property (the car) does he not have a right (and perhaps obligation) to seize the illegal items from the person's possession? If the seizure was illegal the justice's system can sort that out. If determined it was an illegal seizure that evidence can't be used in court.

 

"I demand evidence! blahblahblahblah"

*LOL*

From posters here with no access to the records? That's pure BS, my friend. If you're the ones claiming that the warrant was illegal, I'm afraid the burden is on you.

 

I didn't vote Biden nor dems, but, granted, the dems are trying to get Trump. However, they've done it using only legal means, whereas Trump tried to remain illegally in power despite having lost the 2020 election. You're perpetuating the big lie won't change that.

 

is the fbi commenting on an investigation in process? or has hunter biden been charged?

the fbi, you might remember, accused the security guard of bombing the olympics and never caught the anthrax mailer.

then there is this one, sealing the case that the fbi must be forced to investigate repubs ;;;;;

Exclusive: FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated - sources | Reuters

and lots more.

 

Most of that is nonsense. If anything from what I'm reading today, it was a LACK of use of power not to seize ANY government documents during whatever happened in early June. Waiting for T**** to process his own document return is a ridiculous courtesy that he doesn't deserve or would live up to. Take it all, then return anything he might be remotely entitled to keep.

It's also quite possible there was a 3rd set of documents unknown to the FBI before they received their tip that led to the warrant.

Whatever it turns out to be, remember that this was ALL caused by a man violating a(nother) statute he has ZERO excuse for not knowing existed...

 

You think falsifying information to get a FISA warrant is legal?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...law_again_in_august_after_zero_jail_time.html

 

Violating constitutional and statutory provisions does not make their efforts legal, it makes them illegal.

Further, it violates common decency and common sense. The amount of time, energy and money wasted on that SHOULD have been spent on things more pressing for the country.

 

No, thank you!

 

LINK?

Yes you can go through National Archives to BUY gifts bestowed, you can get COPIES even. Probably even originals AFTER the National Archives INVENTORY AND COPY them.


Feb. 8, 2001 -- Former President Clinton and his wife, Sen.Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sent $28,000 worth of household goods back to Washington after questions arose over whether the items were intended as personal gifts or donations to the White House.

Wow within 3 weeks?

 

I didn't save the page, but I'll see if I can find it. We are often seeing a quick censoring of initial news these days to alter the perception of stories, by limiting some aspects and promoting others.
Here's a picture of the gate itself, where the three were at in a daylight picture. This is here only so you will know, if you run across that photo, that this is the location, is the Mar-a-largo gate.

One of the first steps the agents took was to turn off all the security cameras- and eject any would be observers, including household and security staff and attorneys. That in itself should tell you a lot.

Here's a different pic taken there; with armed guard during the raid. this is not the front gate I referred to.
This picture came from a hispanic news report, our media seems to have minimized the look of an armed raid.
Below that , the same group in another picture, better like and with caption. Note that the people at this gate are Secret Service, not FBI. Both were there.




This is the front gate, the one I described. You can see- no mistaking where it is.

 

Yes he was negotiating over US Gov't property for over a year. They did tell TFG's associates for over a year the items needed to be returned. FINALLY the FBI acted. END


I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters. TFG

He wasn't wrong

 

Who did he shoot?

 

Did you just conveniently ignore the fact that the claim about the judge being appointed by Trump was 100% fictitious?

 

If you don't mind the usual procedure being applied to an ex-POTUS, the DoJ will certainly have to explain what they did, in due time. It's not up to you or me to dictate that timing. Meantime, Trump is free to legally challenge the search and sue (one of his favorite words) the DoJ.

 

Your analogy is only partly on point... If the FBI was SHOWN documents in the basement of MAL, and somebody in that group is aware of the PRA, I believe they'd have every legal and moral right to take those documents on the spot. Or, to be safe, call in a warrant on the spot and wait around.

If the goal is making a legal case T**** broke the law, that would be the way to go.

If the goal was to secure classified documents, they should have been in the back of a van that day.

This June story has really confused what was a very simple story up until then... Now I'm a bit angry...

 

Those documents would be listed in the search warrant.

 

This is the same FBI which searched Mar A Lago. They are OK in one case and bad in another. Selective judgement?

 

Huh?

I responded to someone falsely implying that the name of this judge is a secret and then blaming Trump for it being known when in reality it has not been a secret and his name has been attached to this warrant from the very beginning. The name of a judge issuing a search warrant is in no way a hidden secret once the warrant has been served.

 

That's why I asked you, since you appear to have suggested both lines at different times but they appear to be contradictory to me. You certainly seem to be suggesting the latter here, which would suggest the former isn't true. Which is it in your opinion?

For what it's worth, I personally doubt either extreme is entirely correct.

 

You certainly know how to shovel the sh!t.

 

Bingo! As I said; if it was an illegal seizure the courts can sort that out. Maybe the FBI can be charged with derilection of duty.

 

Well, they weren't busy trying to tamp down news about a coup they led a month earlier... so they had a little more free time...

 

Don't need too. He was holding Gov't property. The FBI fixed it for him. Took 12 more boxes

 

There was obviously no "illegal seizure" at any time here... At worst, it was a failure to make a timely legal seizure.... and that will need to be explained....

 

No one at the DOJ seemed interested in protecting the SC justices when the draft ruling on Roe was leaked. And the talking heads thought those protesting in front of their homes had a legitimate right to do so. So, why the concern over a lowly magistrate's safety?