cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Yet another hoax pushed by the fake news media and deep state to try to overturn the election and install Hillary Clinton as dictator of the universe. Clearly.
Disclaimer for the slow people, yes, I am mocking you.
First Former President to Have Home Raided by FBI
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
Yet another hoax pushed by the fake news media and deep state to try to overturn the election and install Hillary Clinton as dictator of the universe. Clearly.
Disclaimer for the slow people, yes, I am mocking you.
Who cares?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Apparently you.
Nah, I was just responding to you since you replied to me. It's been a hard couple of days for you bootlickers, hasn't it?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I dont even know what you are referring to.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Did I say they did?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://www.businessinsider.com/mar...-indicted-2022-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T
After reading the search warrant it looks REALLY bad for Trump. I dont call him the Teflon Don for no reason though. I have predicted for a long time that if Trump ever had a real chance of going to prison we will see crazy **** from MAGA. Bold prediction time. Even if convicted Biden will pardon him. Anyways, I invite anyone who wants to mock this. Go right ahead, it totally wont backfire on you.
Almost forgot the reason for the link. Even Alan Dershowitz admits the FBI had probable cause for the search.
After reading the search warrant it looks REALLY bad for Trump. I dont call him the Teflon Don for no reason though. I have predicted for a long time that if Trump ever had a real chance of going to prison we will see crazy **** from MAGA. Bold prediction time. Even if convicted Biden will pardon him. Anyways, I invite anyone who wants to mock this. Go right ahead, it totally wont backfire on you.
Almost forgot the reason for the link. Even Alan Dershowitz admits the FBI had probable cause for the search.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Personally I will believe it when I see it. Trump had the ability to declassify. Trumps lawyers sent a letter saying that to the DoJ and claimed the letter was exculpatory evidence the DoJ was required to include in any attempt to get a search warrant. Which the DoJ did include in the application.
In the second such letter, which is attached as Exhibit I, FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 asked DOJ to consider a few "principles," which include FPOTUS COUNSEL l's claim that a President has absolute authority to declassify documents. In this letter, FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 requested, among other things, that "DOJ provide this letter to any judicial officer who is asked to rule on any motion pertaining to this investigation, or on any application made in com1ection with any investigative request concerning this investigation."
From what I understanding the statute relating to all this does not specify classified documents.
2 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) does not use the term "classified information.'' but rather criminalizes the unlawful retention of "information relating to the national defense." The statute does not define "information related to the national defense," but courts have construed it broadly. See Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 28 (1941) (holding that the phrase “information relating to the national defense" as used in the Espionage Act is a "generic concept of broad connotations, referring to the military and naval establishments and the related activities of national preparedness"). In addition, the information must be "closely held" by the U.S. government. See United States, v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 579 (4th Cir. 2000) (''nformation made public by the government as well as information never protected by the government is not national defense information."); United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1071-72 (4th Cir. 1988). Certain courts have also held that the disclosure of the documents must be potentially damaging to the United States. See Morison, 844 F.2d at 1071-72.
If the documents Trump had were declassified that means they should be free for anyone to get via FOIA. I imagine some journalists are going to have fun with that.
In the second such letter, which is attached as Exhibit I, FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 asked DOJ to consider a few "principles," which include FPOTUS COUNSEL l's claim that a President has absolute authority to declassify documents. In this letter, FPOTUS COUNSEL 1 requested, among other things, that "DOJ provide this letter to any judicial officer who is asked to rule on any motion pertaining to this investigation, or on any application made in com1ection with any investigative request concerning this investigation."
From what I understanding the statute relating to all this does not specify classified documents.
2 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) does not use the term "classified information.'' but rather criminalizes the unlawful retention of "information relating to the national defense." The statute does not define "information related to the national defense," but courts have construed it broadly. See Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 28 (1941) (holding that the phrase “information relating to the national defense" as used in the Espionage Act is a "generic concept of broad connotations, referring to the military and naval establishments and the related activities of national preparedness"). In addition, the information must be "closely held" by the U.S. government. See United States, v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 579 (4th Cir. 2000) (''nformation made public by the government as well as information never protected by the government is not national defense information."); United States v. Morison, 844 F.2d 1057, 1071-72 (4th Cir. 1988). Certain courts have also held that the disclosure of the documents must be potentially damaging to the United States. See Morison, 844 F.2d at 1071-72.
If the documents Trump had were declassified that means they should be free for anyone to get via FOIA. I imagine some journalists are going to have fun with that.
Runnin
Well-known member
The usual BS? You had better get yourself a lawyer then.
Strange. This article written by Dershowitz sounds nothing like what the media has been portraying what he said in regards to the affidavit.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...davit-four-conclusions-on-guilt-and-evidence/
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...davit-four-conclusions-on-guilt-and-evidence/
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
cav·a·lier
[ˌkavəˈlir]
NOUN
HISTORICAL
a supporter of King Charles I in the English Civil War.
SIMILAR:
Royalist
king's man
a small spaniel of a breed with a moderately long, noncurly, silky coat.
ADJECTIVE
showing a lack of proper concern; offhand:
"Anne was irritated by his cavalier attitude"
SIMILAR:
offhand
indifferent
casual
dismissive
insouciant
I once had a King Charles Spaniel named KC. Nice dog even if a bit neurotic. But it is the third definition that applies to the behavior being discussed in this thread.
[ˌkavəˈlir]
NOUN
HISTORICAL
a supporter of King Charles I in the English Civil War.
SIMILAR:
Royalist
king's man
a small spaniel of a breed with a moderately long, noncurly, silky coat.
ADJECTIVE
showing a lack of proper concern; offhand:
"Anne was irritated by his cavalier attitude"
SIMILAR:
offhand
indifferent
casual
dismissive
insouciant
I once had a King Charles Spaniel named KC. Nice dog even if a bit neurotic. But it is the third definition that applies to the behavior being discussed in this thread.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Says the Trump supporter lol
Dude, you still think the FBI is on the up and up. lol