Moscow Already 'Studying' Top-Secret Records From Trump Raid: Russian Media

You are correct he has been receiving UNequal treatment from day including now.

 

Lack of rebuttal noted. When you can discuss the issue on it's legal and constitutional merits let me know.

 

Lack of rebuttal noted, when you can discuss the issue on it's legal and constitutional merits let know.

 

I'm just going to assume they are bluffing unless some actual evidence comes out.

 

WTF? THE FBI had a warrant signed off by a Federal magistrate judge. You don't think he didn't question the FBI up one side and down the other especially given that it's the property of the former president of the united states?

TAke it up with that guy, I'm sure he knows a helluva lot more about 'constitutional and legal issues' more than you do.

 

I didn't see you making that complaint when Trumpsters shouted 'lock her up' and Trump didn't stop it.

 

Yes preferential treatment - he SHOULD have been jailed for Trump University
Not to mention campaign finance violations, violations of the emoluments acts etc etc etc
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-complete-listing-atrocities-1-1-056

 

Did you forget the Dershowitz was involved with Epstein? Why should I listen one second to an old kiddie fiddler?

I tell you what though - I will simply post Glenn Kirschner multiple discussions about the illegalities of Trump
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrWmonkmTk5NbvmVnc7f70w
Or medias touch
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9r9HYFxEQOBXSopFS61ZWg
Or if you want a female view

 

I have never supported Trump's bluster I have said it time and again his mouth is what gets him in more trouble than anything, can't stand him personally.

But Clinton should have been charged with many felony crimes.

Trump says what he took out of the 35 boxes, 11 sets of documents, was declassified and historical records not active intelligence.
Clinton has ALL her official emails routed to her private, unsecured secret server in violation of the records act. 110 instances of real time classified information in 62 email chains on Clinton's server.

Trumps documents, packed in the White House by GSA, shipped to Mir a Lago, a secure location, by GSA. Received at the secure location under 24/7/365 Secret Service Protection, in the OFFICAL OFFICE of the former President.
Clintons on an unsecured server in her private unsecured residence with 24/7 hacking access, the first three months without even basic encryption, OIG and FBI says was accessed by foreign governments.

No claims Trump attempted to or did destroy anything, NARA and FBI have had full access to them and that access was still enforce when they did this pre-dawn raid.
Clinton first lied about their existence and was allowed to have her attorney alone determine which documents would be turned over. Lied about her server being approved. Lied about what was on it and refused to turn over 30,000. Clinton then tried to electronically and did so physically destroy evidence under subpoena and government property.

Trump cooperating and then suddenly a pre-dawn search raid taking ALL his documents and personal papers and effects with the AG hinting criminal charges.
Hillary was never interviewed, never had a search warrant, hardly an investigation. Yet that investigation found she violated the espionage act, as declared by the Director of the FBI. The DOJ said such matters were not something prosecutable.

So should the same standard of law, the same enforcement of the law apply here?

 

So that's what you are left with, a CIVIL matter?

So again I understand you don't like Trump and I also understand under you system of justice you use the that system of justice to go after your political advisories and people you don't like. In mine you charge people when there is probable cause to do so for a crime committed not past deeds with nothing to do with the charges pending. And that that justice be equally applied under the law not someone's emotions. But hey that's just me.

 

Lack of rebuttal noted.

When you can discuss the issue on it's legal and constitutional merits let me know.

 

Question

Was Hillary’s actions in relation to this investigated?

 

Oh! I rebutted and just erasing my answer does not make a point

 

He defrauded people - I thought America had statutes against fraud?

 

ROFL oh well THAT proves it when it comes to the FBI obtaining warrants against anything Trump..............you're too much. Ever heard of FISA WARRANTS? I take it up with the DOJ which applied for the warrant it is not for the judge to explain them it is for Garland to explain them as Trump is demanding they do, release it all.

And let's not forget this judge just two months ago recused himself for a case involving Trump, and we know of his previous disparaging personal remarks about Trump.............so yea I question him issuing the subpoena and he should recuse himself now instead of holding the hearing on Thursday. He has a personal interest in this matter and whether or not the warrant should stand.

 

No you attacked the writer I cited without addressing or refuting anything. Attacking the messenger refutes nothing.

BTW the judge in this case....

Judge who OK’d Mar-a-Lago raid Obama donor once linked to Jeffrey Epstein

The Florida federal magistrate judge who signed off on a search warrant authorizing the FBI raid of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort donated to Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign — months after he left the local US Attorney’s office to rep employees of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had received immunity in the long-running sex-trafficking investigation of the financier....

Kellen and Marcinkova were among Epstein’s lieutenants who were granted immunity as part of a controversial 2007 deal with federal prosecutors that allowed the pervert to plead guilty to state charges rather than federal crimes. Epstein wound up serving just 13 months in county jail and was granted work release.

According to the Herald, which cited court documents, Reinhart resigned from the South Florida US Attorney’s Office effective on New Year’s Day 2008 and went to work for Epstein’s cohorts the following day....

..Ten months after starting work for Epstein’s co-conspirators, according to Federal Election Commission records, Reinhart gave $1,000 directly to the Obama campaign and another $1,000 to its fundraising arm, the Obama Victory Fund. Though the records show the judge made mostly small-dollar donations to his law firm’s political action committee in subsequent years, Reinhart also donated $500 to Jeb Bush’s 2016 presidential campaign in November 2015...

...Reinhart was later named in a civil lawsuit by two of Epstein’s victims that accused him of violating Justice Department policies by switching sides in the middle of the Epstein investigation, suggesting he had spilled inside information about the probe to build favor with the notorious defendant, the Herald reported in 2018.

https://nypost.com/2022/08/09/judge...on-mar-a-lago-once-linked-to-jeffrey-epstein/


So you might want to consider again if your think Epstein is your best rebuttal.

 

This was a civil matter not a criminal matter. So people didn't think they got what they paid for, many many more thought they did. It was settled our of court because he was entering the White House and wanted to put the matter away. It was about 90% of what was paid in.

But you see in my system of justice just because I think he is an arse doesn't mean we send in the FBI on some trumped up charge so I can get him on SOMETHING............ANYTHING just because I think he is an arse.

 

For the emails? No. Unless you are thinking of something else. But, to the point on emails:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilla...ment_inspector_general_reports_and_statements
Three emails, out of 30,000, were found to be marked as classified, although they lacked classified headers and were only marked with a small "c" in parentheses, described as "portion markings" by Comey. He added it was possible Clinton was not "technically sophisticated" enough to understand what the three classified markings meant[111][112][113] which is consistent with Clinton's claim that she wasn't aware of the meaning of such markings.[114]

Well, no prosecutor is going to indict a high value target with only three marked confidential emails. That's why Comey didn't refer Clinton to the Justice Dept. But he did blab it out a week before the election, which was a wonderful gift to Trump, so I don't know why Repubs are complaining.

Yes, other emails were claimed to be confidential, top secret, whatever, but they weren't marked, and from a prosecutor's perspective, he knows the defense counsel can tear that defense up in court. "Not marked" Says who? The IG? Well, if they are not marked, it's just an opinion in retrospect, Monday Morning Quarterbacking. You don't take away someone's liberty someone on an opinion. Again, a high powered defense attorney will tear that one up, easy peezy in court and the prosecutor knows it. Oh, you want to argue 'she should have known', maybe so, but we're talking about taking away someone's liberty. Maybe a censure or something like that, even a fine, but jail? Not for this, no way.

Only 3 marked with a C and it was a little (c). The alleged 'classified' information is the IG's opinion after the fact. You can't indict someone over that.
Trump took off with TS/SCI documents. No evidence they were declassified.

There is direct witness testimony by the former national security advisor, who would have been one of the first persons consulted in such a policy, that Trump did no such thing, that there was no such policy in place. There are minimal protocols, one does not declassify in secret. Moreover, that former national security advisor will testify that Trump gave little thought or respect to classification of documents, on the whole, paid little attention nor respected the importance of the classification regime. The few times that he did declassify a classified document, it was done for the perceived benefit of Donald Trump and had nothing to do with national security, which was completely ignored.

But, it's a moot point, even if Trump did have, in place, such a policy, it cannot apply to documents which fall outside the classification regime, and fall into the 'Restricted Data' regime, as strategic nuclear documents often do.

Delivered property of the US Government to Trump's private property, which is ILLEGAL, documents which if they find their way into the enemy's hands, would pose a grave threat to US National Security. Although it is true Trump has broad declassification authority, on Nuclear Documents of strategic value, the Nuclear authorities are required to be involved in the reclassification, given that Trump lacks the required training to classify documents that fall out of the classification regime, documents which are of the 'Restricted Data' regime, as nuclear documents often are, and such cannot be done via Trump willy nilly. I can refer you to the technical PDF, if you need it.

You are making a false equivalence, see above.

Understand that classification is considered in the three code violations (of which one is part of the Espionage Act) contained in the warrant but it is based on damage assessments, if it is assessed that the reckless handling of the documents pertaining to national defence would pose a grave threat to US National Security, though the classification will have a bearing (if proven) but it won't preclude a criminal charge, it all depends circumstances surrounding the removal of the documents, noting that the salient fact is that he removed documents of national defense, that doing so was reckless, that he had no authority to remove those documents as they were the property of the US Government. Even if he can prove he did declassify them, he removed the documents, the property of the Us Gov. without authorization. Declassification is NOT authorization to take documents property of the US Government home.

Moreover, it's a moot point given that Trump's touting 'blanket declassification' appears to be done in retrospect, we have direct witness testimony to the contrary, not to mention there is no evidence, whatsoever, to back up Trump's classification claim of contemporaneous declassification. one cannot declassify when one is out of office, not to mention his claim of declassification makes no sense when he also suggested the FBI were 'planting evidence' also noting he has changed his tune on his reasons for absconding with the documents several times.

 

Apples and oranges, and none of the individuals of the FISA warrants had anything to do with this warrant.

It doesn't matter what the Judge opined about Trump in the past, he is not going to sign a warrant that is sloppy, particularly when it it requires a
probable cause + rating for prediction, especially when it involves the former president of the united states, a historical first. Moreover, both Garland and Wray signed off on it, as well.

All of your concerns will be raised in court if there is a trial, and the truth will be told.

 

Warrant applications are warrant applications. Lies are lies. Ands of course the judge's past matters especially when it involves the person being accused are you SERIOUS?

I had a civil case and as it started the judge told me that he and the guy I was suing attended the same church and he had had a small business dealing with him in the past. He assured me he would not let that influence any decisions but offered to refuse himself if I so desired. I did and he did and we got a different judge.

This judge just refused himself from a Trump case two months ago. Why did he feel a need their and not here? Plus we know he has a string personal bias AGAINST Trump.


"That connection lead to Reinhart’s personal Facebook page, where he made disparaging remarks about Donald Trump in a public Facebook post in 2017.

On January 14 of that year, Reinhart wrote:
"I generally ignore the President-elect’s tweets, but not this one. John Lewis arguably has done more to “make America great” than any living citizen. Last August, I took my son to the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma so he could understand the kind of courage and sacrifice required to live in a democratic society. John Lewis embodies that spirit. Although I’ve never met him, he is one of my heroes.

Thank you, Robert Reich, for saying what many of us feel, ‘John Lewis is the conscience of America. Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet.’

Or, as Joseph Welch said to Joseph McCarthy, ‘At long last, have you left no sense of decency?’

Reinhart attacks Trump for his lack of decency when talking about John Lewis (D-Ga.) and agrees with former Clinton advisor Robert Reich that “Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet.”"
https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/10/no-surprise-bruce-reinhart-is-another-anti-trump-judge/

He should have refused himself from the judge shopping in which the FBI engaged to sign off on the warrant to begin with. And now that it is being challenged not just on the application itself but the judgement of the judge is in question he should refuse himself from the hearing ABOUT IT. He has hisown arse in the slinger about this and needs to back out and let another judge, a full district judge, decide the issue.

 

And as Comey. And IG said the the markings matter not a twit, the INFORMATON on its face was classifed and was classified the moment it was created. Information she would know was classified.

OK then apply the same standard to Trump

There is NO process for a President, there is no statutory law it is constitutional plenary power.

It applies to anything. And if what you are saying is true then the FBI needs to go and arrest Obama who unilatterally using his power as President publically disclosed information about our nuclear arsenal. Not that he had a piece of paper with a number on it in a drawer in his desk in his SECURE office. He announced it publically.

Show me where GAS violated the law. And all Trump needed was to be elected. He also recieved the same training Clinton did.

You're dodging because they are directly comparable.

Please stop eating time and bandwidth I understand it completely. And it is up to the DOJ to prove the information was still classified. He says it was prove otherwise.

The question is are the same standards going to apply to Trump as were applied to Clinton. You mention damage assement. Her's was REAL TIME AT THE POINT OF CREATION. His is at least 18 months old. It was so inconsequintial it seems the AG took his time on approving the search warrant.

I listed the differences try to deal with them this time.

Trump says what he took out of the 35 boxes, 11 sets of documents, was declassified and historical records not active intelligence.
Clinton has ALL her official emails routed to her private, unsecured secret server in violation of the records act. 110 instances of real time classified information in 62 email chains on Clinton's server.

Trumps documents, packed in the White House by GSA, shipped to Mir a Lago, a secure location, by GSA. Received at the secure location under 24/7/365 Secret Service Protection, in the OFFICAL OFFICE of the former President.
Clintons on an unsecured server in her private unsecured residence with 24/7 hacking access, the first three months without even basic encryption, OIG and FBI says was accessed by foreign governments.

No claims Trump attempted to or did destroy anything, NARA and FBI have had full access to them and that access was still enforce when they did this pre-dawn raid.
Clinton first lied about their existence and was allowed to have her attorney alone determine which documents would be turned over. Lied about her server being approved. Lied about what was on it and refused to turn over 30,000. Clinton then tried to electronically and did so physically destroy evidence under subpoena and government property.

Trump cooperating and then suddenly a pre-dawn search raid taking ALL his documents and personal papers and effects with the AG hinting criminal charges.
Hillary was never interviewed, never had a search warrant, hardly an investigation. Yet that investigation found she violated the espionage act, as declared by the Director of the FBI. The DOJ said such matters were not something prosecutable.

So should the same standard of law, the same enforcement of the law apply here?

 

I don't know that at all. One could make the same argument about Garland hating the right for what McConnell did to him. However, based on Garland's behavior, how he comports himself, his arguments, demeanor, disposition, he strikes me as a man who is above all that. I have no reason, therefore, to impugn his integrity. But, I do have tons of items against Barr, Trump, and most of the people he chooses to work with him. He fires all the good people and keeps all the bad people, he's a terrible President, and totally corrupt.

I trust Garland. I see nothing about him that strikes me as someone who is a questionable human being, but I did see aspects of Barr that were questionable, in his logic in some of his arguments, for one thing, were far below the standards I would expect of someone in that position. Same goes for Trump. Trump talks like a thug, acts like one.

Moreover,

Boy A lies, does prove that boy B lies.

Both the AG, the FBI director, and all the operatives during FISA are not present on the current warrant.

You don't know what is should or shouldn't. You're just part of the side that is corrupt, (assuming you are defending Trump) and you don't like it when your side is being investigated, noting that your side is totally corrupt, and investigations part of the job of the DOJ and congress looking into 1/6

And yes, there is considerable evidence that Trump is totally corrupt so if you don't trust anyone, do not trust him.

https://prospect.org/mapping-corruption-interactive

And I won't even mention the millions of Trademarks Ivanka got from China while her daddy was negotiating with China, nor the $16 million Trump got from the US Taxpayer from his entourage stays at his hotels and resorts, nor the $500,000,000 bailout Jared got from Qatar, or the $2,000,000,000 Jared got from the Saudis for his dubious 'fund' or the $1,000,000,000 Mnuchin got for his fund.

There is no evidence Garland or Wray are corrupt. I therefore have no reason to question their acts.

 

In a court of a law, a powerful persuasive defense attorney will shred that argument apart.

See, you are not looking at it as Comey is looking at it, from a prosecutors perspective. You simply are not going to take away someone's liberty on 3 marked confidential emails out of 30,000. A prosecutor is not going to stake is reputation on a high value target, which is precisely what he or she would be doing if he or she did, on such scant evidence.

No way, José.

Since the rest of your argument flows from that failure to grasp
why Comey did not refer Clinton to the DOJ, I'm ignoring it.

Regarding Garland, it's premature to say anything, he has made no
statement about whether or not he is going to prosecute.

When he does, then we'll have something to discuss.

If he chooses not to prosecute, this conversation becomes moot.

 

I have no doubt Garland has a grudge against anything Rep/Right/Trump. He was denied what he considered his seat on the SCOTUS and was picked for AG because of the animosity and how it would drive him and the persecution of Trump. And do you believe that the purpose of our system of justice is to insure those whom you don't like personally from running for President?

This isn't about Barr.

Stay is still there as a are lots.of other deputies.

I am defending the Constitution and the law.

And for going on SEVEN YEARS youvhave claimed this corruption yet you are still unable to show it only desperately holding on to the next BIG LIE about it.

She didn't get "millions of trademarks" her long established company got 41 by 2019 from the time Trump took office. Just like her company did in the years before he announced. And tademarks are STANDARD business filings to protect your products from pirates and counterfeits. They didn't hand her cash money or diamonds. Stop with the Dem carats trying to excuse Hunter.selling influence.

There is evidence officials at the FBI were and questions that they still are. Keep your head in the sand if you so choose.

 

No they wouldn't if Clinton wrote an email that contained information that is classiest it classified at that moment. It does not have to have any marking on it. The fix was in on Clinton the moment after the infamous tarmac meeting. At the least it was gross negligence but they let her off without even interviewing her. They even allowed her legal council to be present in interviews with others even when they were subject to be interviewed. They let her attorney decide which ones to turn over and then she tried to destroy the rest. Have they let Trump have those previleges?

So do you believe the same standards should apply to Trump?