Mar-A-Lago Legally Searched by FBI

[Moksha]

The FBI moved on him like a bitch. When you have probable cause they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ''em by the evidence!!!

You sure about that?

Binger, reread what I posted and try to remember if any of it sounded familiar. If not, use a VPN to search for "Grab them by" on the American Google website.

[honorentheos]

The FBI moved on him like a bitch. When you have probable cause they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the evidence!!!

You sure about that?

Maybe you jumped the gun on this one, again. Looks like the anonymous sourced omitted and added the evidence!!!

This farce is almost as comical as the other farces but not quite.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy ... inst-Trump

Your opinion of the above is only a little relevant. The fact that that story is alive while the DOJ and FBI are asking to keep the warrant sealed and while their “anonymous sources” leak another story is the actual story.

I would love to see which part of that article you believe is relevant to the claim to anything you say in this post. I read the entire article and can't imagine what you took away from it is actually anything more than maybe latching onto something Jordan or Dershowitz is quoted as saying.

[Vēritās]

You sure about that?

Maybe you jumped the gun on this one, again. Looks like the anonymous sourced omitted and added the evidence!!!

This farce is almost as comical as the other farces but not quite.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy ... inst-Trump

Your opinion of the above is only a little relevant. The fact that that story is alive while the DOJ and FBI are asking to keep the warrant sealed and while their “anonymous sources” leak another story is the actual story.

I would love to see which part of that article you believe is relevant to the claim to anything you say in this post. I read the entire article and can't imagine what you took away from it is actually anything more than maybe latching onto something Jordan or Dershowitz is quoted as saying.

Binger is quoting John Solomon now!!



But he doesn't watch FOX News, which is the only news outlet aside from Newsmax that will host him.

This is the guy who gave us the giant DUD that was "Uranium One," and tried to fabricate massive conspiracies regarding Ukraine, HC and Hunter.

John Solomon columns on Ukraine ripped in newspaper’s internal investigation for conflicts and distortions

If relying on sources like Solomon, who needs to deny watching FOX News?

The gang’s back together! Sean Hannity welcomes disgraced journalist John Solomon back to Fox to defend Trump’s handling of top secret documents

In 2019, Solomon appeared over 50 times on Hannity’s show, where he regularly pushed Ukraine-linked conspiracy theories meant to undermine the validity of the Trump-Russia investigation that dominated headlines during the first years of the Trump presidency and was at the center of his first impeachment trial. Solomon was later fired from his position as a Fox News contributor for his role in coordinating a “disinformation campaign” to protect Trump, and his appearances on the network fell off.

During this period, Fox News' research division, dubbed the “Brain Room,” sent out a 162-page memo that outlined Hannity and Solomon's coordinated campaign to protect Trump and muddy the waters around the Russia investigation. The memo criticized the team of two for being unreliable and effectively led to Solomon's firing. Hannity, however, did not appear to be outwardly punished.

Now that Trump is in hot water again following the search for classified nuclear documents, Hannity has continuously invited Solomon onto his show to defend the former president.

[Doctor Steuss]

Here's the full text of the letter briefly quoted in an article upstream (for any curious). Formatting was wonky -- I tried to fix it, but may have missed some. The author of the letter, Debra Steidel Wall, has worked at NARA since 1991. During Trump's administration, she was second in command of NARA, and became Voltron's noggin a few weeks before this letter was written (when the former noggin retired). I couldn't help but giggle at the reference to Nixon; especially in light of the juxtaposition of what Trump's attorneys are now requesting, and what this letter offered months ago.

I look forward the the ceremony wherein Senator Stennis is reanimated to review the documents.

May 10, 2022
Evan Corcoran Silverman Thompson 400 East Pratt Street Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202 By Email

Dear Mr. Corcoran:
I write in response to your letters of April 29, 2022, and May 1, 2022, requesting that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) further delay the disclosure to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the records that were the subject of our April 12, 2022 notification to an authorized representative of former President Trump.

As you are no doubt aware, NARA had ongoing communications with the former President’s representatives throughout 2021 about what appeared to be missing Presidential records, which resulted in the transfer of 15 boxes of records to NARA in January 2022. In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials. NARA informed the Department of Justice about that discovery, which prompted the Department to ask the President to request that NARA provide the FBI with access to the boxes at issue so that the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community could examine them. On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office—affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum—formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes.

Although the Presidential Records Act (PRA) generally restricts access to Presidential records in NARA’s custody for several years after the conclusion of a President’s tenure in office, the statute further provides that, “subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke,” such records “shall be made available . . . to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. §
2205(2)(B). Those conditions are satisfied here. As the Department of Justice’s National Security Division explained to you on April 29, 2022:
There are important national security interests in the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community getting access to these materials. According to NARA, among the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages. Some include the highest levels of classification, including Special Access Program (SAP) materials. Access to the materials is not only necessary for purposes of our ongoing criminal investigation, but the Executive Branch must also conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps. Accordingly, we are seeking immediate access to these materials so as to facilitate the necessary assessments that need to be conducted within the Executive Branch.

We advised you in writing on April 12 that, “in light of the urgency of this request,” we planned to “provid[e] access to the FBI next week,” i.e., the week of April 18. See Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 2(b), 74 Fed. Reg. 4,669 (Jan. 21, 2009) (providing a 30-day default before disclosure but authorizing the Archivist to specify “a shorter period of time” if “required under the circumstances”); accord 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(g) (“The Archivist may adjust any time period or deadline under this subpart, as appropriate, to accommodate records requested under this section.”). In response to a request from another representative of the former President, the White House Counsel’s Office acquiesced in an extension of the production date to April 29, and so advised NARA. In accord with that agreement, we had not yet provided the FBI with access to the records when we received your letter on April 29, and we have continued to refrain from providing such access to date.

It has now been four weeks since we first informed you of our intent to provide the FBI access to the boxes so that it and others in the Intelligence Community can conduct their reviews. Notwithstanding the urgency conveyed by the Department of Justice and the reasonable extension afforded to the former President, your April 29 letter asks for additional time for you to review the materials in the boxes “in order to ascertain whether any specific document is subject to privilege,” and then to consult with the former President “so that he may personally make any decision to assert a claim of constitutionally based privilege.” Your April 29 letter further states that in the event we do not afford you further time to review the records before NARA discloses them in response to the request, we should consider your letter to be “a protective assertion of executive privilege made by counsel for the former President.”

The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President’s purported “protective assertion of executive privilege.” See 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(f)(3). Accordingly, I have consulted with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to inform my “determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege.” Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a).

The Assistant Attorney General has advised me that there is no precedent for an assertion of executive privilege by a former President against an incumbent President to prevent the latter from obtaining from NARA Presidential records belonging to the Federal Government where “such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2)(B).

To the contrary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege “against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.” Id. at 447-48. In Nixon v. GSA, the Court rejected former President Nixon’s argument that a statute requiring that Presidential records from his term in office be maintained in the custody of, and screened by, NARA’s predecessor agency—a “very limited intrusion by personnel in the Executive Branch sensitive to executive concerns”—would “impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers.” Id. at 451; see also id. at 455 (rejecting the claim). The Court specifically noted that an “incumbent President should not be dependent on happenstance or the whim of a prior President when he seeks access to records of past decisions that define or channel current governmental obligations.” Id. at 452; see also id. at 441-46 (emphasizing, in the course of rejecting a separation-of-powers challenge to a provision of a federal statute governing the disposition of former President Nixon’s tape recordings, papers, and other historical materials “within the Executive Branch,” where the “employees of that branch [would] have access to the materials only ‘for lawful Government use,’” that “[t]he Executive Branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, and the Act facially is designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by some applicable privilege inherent in that branch”; and concluding that “nothing contained in the Act renders it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch”).

It is not necessary that I decide whether there might be any circumstances in which a former President could successfully assert a claim of executive privilege to prevent an Executive Branch agency from having access to Presidential records for the performance of valid executive functions. The question in this case is not a close one. The Executive Branch here is seeking access to records belonging to, and in the custody of, the Federal Government itself, not only in order to investigate whether those records were handled in an unlawful manner but also, as the National Security Division explained, to “conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps.” These reviews will be conducted by current government personnel who, like the archival officials in Nixon v. GSA, are “sensitive to executive concerns.” Id. at 451. And on the other side of the balance, there is no reason to believe such reviews could “adversely affect the ability of future Presidents to obtain the candid advice necessary for effective decisionmaking.” Id. at 450. To the contrary: Ensuring that classified information is appropriately protected, and taking any necessary remedial action if it was not, are steps essential to preserving the ability of future Presidents to “receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of [their] duties depends.” Id. at 449.

Because an assertion of executive privilege against the incumbent President under these circumstances would not be viable, it follows that there is no basis for the former President to make a “protective assertion of executive privilege,” which the Assistant Attorney General informs me has never been made outside the context of a congressional demand for information from the Executive Branch. Even assuming for the sake of argument that a former President may under some circumstances make such a “protective assertion of executive privilege” to preclude the Archivist from complying with a disclosure otherwise prescribed by 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2), there is no predicate for such a “protective” assertion here, where there is no realistic basis that the requested delay would result in a viable assertion of executive privilege against the incumbent President that would prevent disclosure of records for the purposes of the reviews described above. Accordingly, the only end that would be served by upholding the “protective” assertion here would be to delay those very important reviews.

I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s “protective” claim of privilege. See Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a); see also 36 C.F.R. 1270.44(f)(3) (providing that unless the incumbent President “uphold(s)” the claim asserted by the former President, “the Archivist discloses the Presidential record”). For the same reasons, I have concluded that there is no reason to grant your request for a further delay before the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community begin their reviews. Accordingly, NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question , as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.

Please note that, in accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3), the former President’s designated representatives can review the records, subject to obtaining the appropriate level of security clearance. Please contact my General Counsel, Gary M. Stern, if you would like to discuss the details of such a review, such as you proposed in your letter of May 5, 2022, particularly with respect to any unclassified materials.

Sincerely,
DEBRA STEIDEL WALL
Acting Archivist of the United States

[honorentheos]

You have to love it when a person who believes everyone is being lied to by the media posts an article that screams one thing but whose content doesn't support the headline unless you first believe the headline then squint hard.

[Binger]

No Veritas.

That is not what I insisted.

Why do you need to lie and why do you need to confirm your narrative with garbage assumptions and nonsense?

I'm not lying, I'm quoting you. But I understand your need to distance yourself from your own idiotic, premature commentary that has been disproven by newer revelations you weren't willing to wait for before launching into your "credibility of institutions" schtick.

"DOJ must immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6 investigations."

There is no evidence of partisan political motives here. Trump broke the law, period. The DOJ is doing what it is supposed to do. You're desperately trying to poo poo on the "institutions" because you're just upset your boy Trump is actually guilty of all the dumb crap that HC was supposedly guilty of.


FOX news points out that the judge who signed off on the warrant once represented employees of Jeffrey Epstein. Binger immediately quotes, without attribution, a piece from the NY Post saying the same thing just to poison the well.

"Oh look. Remember how the FBI did not have any concerns about crime when ya know, the criminals were their clients and stuff? Looks like those conditions were accepted."

Pushing the FOX narrative that the FBI has no credibility... Binger continues:

"The credibility of the FBI was already in the crapper, and it looks like the FBI decided to make it a Woodstock '99 crapper. The credibility of the courts and judges who have protected the CIA and FBI is in question or also in the crapper. And some explaining is needed and it is needed quickly and promptly."

So even though the FBI is doing its job and following the protocols to a T, we're supposed to be idiots and follow FOX News' narrative that explanations are in order otherwise their previous attacks on the FBI are justified. This is circular reasoning and neither Binger nor the idiots at FOX seem to know what the DOJ is legally obligated to disclose. They don't have to provide detailed explanations for anything, and it doesn't matter how many idiots are upset that their orange savior had his home searched.

Shortly after FOX news pushes the HC comparison, Binger goes in lock step:

"The FBI did not raid Hillary or Hunter's private residence and there was a hell of a lot more known evidence in those cases and a hell of a lot more of a cover up."

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. At this early juncture we knew nearly nothing, but in Binger's mind, there is no evidence because Merrick Garland hasn't provided him a detailed list. What Hillary did having a private server (as did George W Bush when he lost millions of emails) doesn't even begin to compare with what Trump did and it is idiotic to keep bringing it up. Hillary didn't take hundreds of hard copies of classified materials and then refuse to return them claiming "they're mine."

The fact is Clinton suffered more mistreatment from violations of Justice Department protocols and politicization of her case than Trump has.

Despite the conclusions, the process Clinton underwent transgressed Justice Department guidelines, resulting in its wielding substantial political influence. As such, the Clinton investigation harmed the former secretary of state even though it ultimately exonerated her.

During the Clinton investigation, then-FBI Director James Comey provided updates on the progress of the investigation in contravention of Justice Department policy. Moreover, Comey went so far as to hold a press conference in which he both exonerated Clinton and criticized her professionalism in an arena that did not permit her to respond. He said that the investigation had failed to prove any criminal violations, as Clinton had not acted with the necessary criminal intent to convict her of a crime, but he accused her of being “extremely careless” in handling the emails. Furthermore, Comey inserted himself into the 2016 election when he then announced within two weeks of the 2016 presidential vote that the FBI was reviewing more of her emails — an announcement that may have played a major role in determining the outcome of that election.

By contrast, there are no such signs of Justice Department aberrations or politicization concerning Trump. The investigation appears to have been scrupulous in its adherence to Justice Department regulations and protocols to this point. The media has reported that officials from the National Archives initially contacted the former president regarding documents believed to be in his possession. When noninvestigative contact from the National Archives failed to result in the production of the materials belonging to the United States, the agency referred that matter to the Justice Department.

The department itself initially attempted to obtain the material through informal contact with representatives of the former president. When this failed, the department served a subpoena for the items, presumably on Trump or on the custodian of records at Mar-a-Lago. This apparently resulted in protracted discussions but not the production of documents for the National Archives. Ultimately, the FBI executed a search warrant to seize the items.

In stark contrast to Comey, who opined about the his investigation, its results and the actions of the former secretary of state, Attorney General Merrick Garland breached no such conventions during his brief appearance before the media on Thursday to discuss the search at Mar-a-Lago. Garland merely announced that the department would seek to unseal the search warrant and inventory left at the search location but did not reveal any information about the investigation.

There are of course limitations in what can be compared between a completed investigation and one that is still ongoing. But we can already observe one major difference between these two: the response of the principals involved. According to what’s publicly known, Clinton and her representatives cooperated with the investigation and investigators. Therefore, there was no need for the issuance of a subpoena or for executing a search warrant.

In contrast, the response by Trump and his representatives appears to have been to delay: First they apparently stiffed the National Archives. Then they seemed to initially do the same to the Justice Department. Lastly, they failed to respond to a Justice Department subpoena.

And there could be more revelations to come. The public does not know the full range of the investigation, specifically whether it is limited to the documents withheld from the National Archives or if it involves other issues. This naturally means the full extent of Trump’s response has yet to be appreciated as well.

But we do know that investigators executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago because the Trump camp failed to respond to less-intrusive investigative efforts. This was a more aggressive legal action than Clinton faced, because she more fully cooperated than he did. Any further comparisons of their cases must keep this crucial context in mind.

"So, great, send in the FBI and get some boxes for the national archives. I accept those terms. Trump seems to accept those terms. Republicans are saying, great, we accept those terms. Andrew Cuomo accepts those terms."

No, Trump didn't accept those terms.

Your assumption here is that Trump is a credible, good faith actor here who is telling the truth. Trump didn't say anything about his attorney lying to the National Archives about having already given over all docs. Trump said nothing about a previous subpoena that failed, and he said nothing about refusing to give the requested docs because, as he was quoted as saying, "they're mine." Hell, Trump didn't even mention the fact that the FBI actually got what they were looking for because that in and of itself would undermine his narrative about being a victim of some miscarriage of justice.

But thinking critically and being on the side of team normal isn't your thing.

Yeah. Well. You are a liar. I did not source that from FOX and I do not watch FOX.

And what you think are my assumptions are not my assumptions, liar.

And, this still applies - "DOJ must immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6 investigations."

Trump's excuses and defenses and actions reveal something about Trump. The DOJ and FBI have some explaining to do. So far, their explanations have been limited to more "anonymous" leaks to their favorite press clowns and more posturing in court with excuses for not being transparent. And now, they are losing the narrative again as connections to Biden and the White House seem to be a part of the DOJ's and FBI's MO.

[Binger]

You sure about that?

Binger, reread what I posted and try to remember if any of it sounded familiar. If not, use a VPN to search for "Grab them by" on the American Google website.

I did the search, did not arrive at the conclusion that the FBI moved on Trump like a bitch.

[Binger]

You have to love it when a person who believes everyone is being lied to by the media posts an article that screams one thing but whose content doesn't support the headline unless you first believe the headline then squint hard.

Is that what you love? Or, you could read the article and the headlines and the comments for what they are, without being a smug ass. That is an option.

Clearly, the narrative is not being controlled by the DOJ or the FBI. That is because they played loose and now the whole process is loose.

Do you believe everyone is being lied to by the media, hono? That seems to be your point, correct? I think that is your point.

My point is that the media is taking sound bites from "anonymous sources" LOL!!!!!!!! And my point is that I believe that the media is not lying to me when they say that they want the sources to remain anonymous to me, but not to them, or maybe to them to, but anyways, it is anonymous.

[Vēritās]

Yeah. Well. You are a liar. I did not source that from FOX and I do not watch FOX.

Irony overload. You claiming you don't watch FOX but somehow manage to mimic them verbatim hours after they tell you what you're supposed to be outraged about.

And what you think are my assumptions are not my assumptions, liar.

Tell me you didn't assume the FBI "raided" Mar-A-Lago without first trying subpoena. Go ahead. Lie some more.

And, this still applies - "DOJ must immediately explain the reason for its raid & it must be more than a search for inconsequential archives or it will be viewed as a political tactic and undermine any future credible investigation & legitimacy of January 6 investigations."

The DOJ doesn't owe you or anyone else transparency when it comes to their investigations. That's never been the way these investigations are handled. There is nothing that obligates them legally to tell you everything you want to know just because you threaten them with more dangerous ignorance.

Trump's excuses and defenses and actions reveal something about Trump.

And they are never, ever scrutinized by you. They're excused.

The DOJ and FBI have some explaining to do.

No they don't. You probably think so, but your ignorance on this is irrelevant. Being an uneducated buffoon who has strange paranoias about "institutions" isn't something the DOJ should be worried about.

So far, their explanations have been limited to more "anonymous" leaks to their favorite press clowns and more posturing in court with excuses for not being transparent.

Not true at all. They explained what they were doing and why. The fact that this isn't good enough for those who voted for the guy under investigation is just too bad. But the DOJ owes you nothing, no matter how long you whine and squirm over this. No matter how many conspiracies you conjure up over the "credibility of institutions."

And now, they are losing the narrative again as connections to Biden and the White House seem to be a part of the DOJ's and FBI's MO.

Says John Solomon, the FOX News idiot you shared with us who gave us Uranium One conspiracies and fed Rudy Giuliani all sorts of "sources" and promises of conclusive evidence that Hunter Biden had committed all sorts of crimes relating to Ukraine.

[Vēritās]

Whenever cops arbitrarily murder US citizens and the police depts fail to provide any kind of transparency or bodycam footage, the same people blathering about transparency over DJT's investigation are the same people who said, "BACK THE BLUE!" Trust law enforcement, they insisted. These are the same people who told us that anything short of giving the cops the benefit of the doubt is unAmerican and being against law and order.

Face it Binger. The only reason you and your side are so up in arms over not having all the facts and "transparency" you want in this instance is because it hurts you politically and it is driving you absolutely nuts. It proves you never really cared about the rule of law to begin with because you believe a rich white guy like Trump should get special treatment. You probably think the FBI's informant should be disclosed to the public as well.