DDD Gets Raided

[twocoach]

How freaking hilarious would it be if Trump's own law that he signed to "lock her up" ends up being what gets him locked up.

"Trump — after a fierce campaign against Clinton in which he called for her to be jailed for her handling of classified material — signed a law in 2018 that stiffened the penalty for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents from one year to five years, turning it into a felony offense."

[defixione]

[twocoach]

Hilarious how Cohen went from trying to get away with everything to interested in accountability the day after he got arrested. That said, he is probably right that the warrant and the documentation to request that warrant have to be airtight as they will be scrutinized heavily at some point in this process.

[dolomite]

"U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 that states, "Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

This will certainly be interesting. There is no doubt that Trump and his associates did not properly follow the law as it pertains to the handling of official White House documentation.

That would be great if this “matter”would settle once and for all that Trump absolutely could not run for President. Maybe things would return to just normal chaos.

[jhawks99]

Mar A Lardo

[twocoach]

"U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2071 that states, "Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

This will certainly be interesting. There is no doubt that Trump and his associates did not properly follow the law as it pertains to the handling of official White House documentation.

That would be great if this “matter”would settle once and for all that Trump absolutely could not run for President. Maybe things would return to just normal chaos.

I think that it will take more than a decade after Trump exits the political arena for his brand of chaos to be run out of the system.

[twocoach]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/10/politics ... index.html

"Former President Donald Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer questions from the New York attorney general at a scheduled deposition Wednesday.
"Under the advice of my counsel and for all of the above reasons, I declined to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States Constitution," Trump said in a statement.
Trump was to be deposed by lawyers from New York Attorney General Letitia James' office as part of a more than three-year civil investigation into whether the Trump Organization misled lenders, insurers and tax authorities by providing them misleading financial statements."


Trump in 2016: "“If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment,” Trump said as a candidate in 2016, complaining about aides to his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, who faced inquires over the use of a private email service when she was secretary of state.

“The mob takes the Fifth,” Trump declared.

[Sparko]

In a civil case, there is no 5th Amendment defense and it can be construed as evidence of guilt. Which he probably was told was better than perjury. Incredible that anyone would follow him at this juncture. And maybe his blackmail materials were seized as well Monday.

[twocoach]

In a civil case, there is no 5th Amendment defense and it can be construed as evidence of guilt. Which he probably was told was better than perjury. Incredible that anyone would follow him at this juncture. And maybe his blackmail materials were seized as well Monday.

There are Americans out there who have stated in interviews on camera that they do not believe that Donald Trump has ever lied about anything. That is the level of delusion that people are willing to let themselves sink to so that they are able to justify supporting Trump.

[KUTradition]

i find it odd that we haven’t had any reports about the details of the warrant, particularly from the side of the disgraced potus

one would think that if the search was bunk, they’d take every opportunity to show the public that such was the case

[Deleted User 863]

i find it odd that we haven’t had any reports about the details of the warrant, particularly from the side of the disgraced potus

one would think that if the search was bunk, they’d take every opportunity to show the public that such was the case

I think they are claiming that they weren't given a copy of the warrant.

[KUTradition]

…Trump’s lawyers have it, and they’ve described it in vague terms, but they have not released it. One of his attorneys, Christina Bobb, appeared on Real America’s Voice (an obscure far-right media network) and said that the warrant sought “classified documents, evidence of a crime as far as classified documents go,” and “presidential records.”…

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

i find it odd that we haven’t had any reports about the details of the warrant, particularly from the side of the disgraced potus

one would think that if the search was bunk, they’d take every opportunity to show the public that such was the case

I think they are claiming that they weren't given a copy of the warrant.

You "think" wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... bi-search/

[Deleted User 863]

i find it odd that we haven’t had any reports about the details of the warrant, particularly from the side of the disgraced potus

one would think that if the search was bunk, they’d take every opportunity to show the public that such was the case

I think they are claiming that they weren't given a copy of the warrant.

You "think" wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... bi-search/

"When Bobb got there, she asked to see the warrant. In an interview on a right-wing streaming service Tuesday, she claimed that agents were reticent to share the document with her at first."

This is what I was referring to. She was on TV talking about it like they wouldn't give it to her for quite a while.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I think they are claiming that they weren't given a copy of the warrant.

You "think" wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... bi-search/

"When Bobb got there, she asked to see the warrant. In an interview on a right-wing streaming service Tuesday, she claimed that agents were reticent to share the document with her at first."

This is what I was referring to. She was on TV talking about it like they wouldn't give it to her for quite a while.

My bad.
I thought you meant "they" claimed "they" didn't receive the warrant.
"They" did.

[Deleted User 863]

You "think" wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... bi-search/

"When Bobb got there, she asked to see the warrant. In an interview on a right-wing streaming service Tuesday, she claimed that agents were reticent to share the document with her at first."

This is what I was referring to. She was on TV talking about it like they wouldn't give it to her for quite a while.

My bad.
I thought you meant "they" claimed "they" didn't receive the warrant.
"They" did.

Yes. "They" did. Eventually. But not right away.

[kubowler99]

"When Bobb got there, she asked to see the warrant. In an interview on a right-wing streaming service Tuesday, she claimed that agents were reticent to share the document with her at first."

This is what I was referring to. She was on TV talking about it like they wouldn't give it to her for quite a while.

My bad.
I thought you meant "they" claimed "they" didn't receive the warrant.
"They" did.

Yes. "They" did. Eventually. But not right away.

Allegedly. And given both the outlet and the source....I'm hesitant to believe it.

[Deleted User 863]

My bad.
I thought you meant "they" claimed "they" didn't receive the warrant.
"They" did.

Yes. "They" did. Eventually. But not right away.

Allegedly. And given both the outlet and the source....I'm hesitant to believe it.

Same. Always hesitant to believe much of anything that comes from Trump and his team.

Honestly, I am hesitant to believe much of anything about this entire situation.

[zsn]

If there’s any problem with the warrant or how it was obtained or any of the content you’d be certain that the Trump team would have released the warrant to point that out. That they are not doing it is sufficient reason to believe that it was a legitimate action. The FBI and the DOJ cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. Nothing prevents the subject of the investigation to release any information. That’s all we need to know that Trump is guilty as can be

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

"When Bobb got there, she asked to see the warrant. In an interview on a right-wing streaming service Tuesday, she claimed that agents were reticent to share the document with her at first."

This is what I was referring to. She was on TV talking about it like they wouldn't give it to her for quite a while.

My bad.
I thought you meant "they" claimed "they" didn't receive the warrant.
"They" did.

Yes. "They" did. Eventually. But not right away.

You are truly exhausting sometimes.
Seems the SS agents (who were the ones that greeted the FBI agents) received it. "right away".
If we want to get in to semantics - then I will say you are correct, according to BOBB she did not receive it "right away" - but she eventually did. Correct? Or am I wrong about that?