Trump's home raided by FBI agents (Part 1)

[ohknow35]

@WorldWatcher

Here is the areas searched.

I would think that a reasonable person standard would apply - I know it’s difficult sometime - as to what co located means.

For example, if the classified documents were located in a room in the basement and the passports were co located there? Yes. Reasonable to collect them. On the other hand classified documents located in a room in the basement and the passports located 3 floors up in the FPOTUS bedroom in the sock drawer? No. Not reasonable to collect them.

WW

So you agree the search was conducted with broad parameters and for anyone to make an assumption that the passports were located in boxes with “classified documents” in the “reportedly locked storage area” is just an assumption and has no basis in fact.

Thank you.

[Kelby]

@margaretms2

Not only that, we’re going super-charge Dick’s ventricle-assist device so that he can join Biden in leading some BLM riots.

LOL!

But truly, how is that man still alive?

OMG…he really IS Darth Vader.

[JayJay]

@ohknow35

@WorldWatcher

Here is the areas searched.

I would think that a reasonable person standard would apply - I know it’s difficult sometime - as to what co located means.

For example, if the classified documents were located in a room in the basement and the passports were co located there? Yes. Reasonable to collect them. On the other hand classified documents located in a room in the basement and the passports located 3 floors up in the FPOTUS bedroom in the sock drawer? No. Not reasonable to collect them.

WW

So you agree the search was conducted with broad parameters and for anyone to make an assumption that the passports were located in boxes with “classified documents” in the “reportedly locked storage area” is just an assumption and has no basis in fact.

Thank you.

Unless there’s evidence that shows the FBI behaved inappropriately while conducting the search…why should we assume they acted inappropriately?

Speaking of calling for honesty…how about an honest answer in reply to this question?

[LucyT]

There were at least 30 FBI agents present for over 9 hours. That’s 270 agent/hours.
They searched the basement plus his private livings areas, Melania’s closets and Brandon’s room. It’s highly doubtful that he keeps his passports in boxes in the basement.

[zantax]

@WorldWatcher

@zantax

Not good precedent for you libs, uh oh.

From https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch’s suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson’s ruling — along with the Justice Department’s arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI’s decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president’s discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

Here is the actual ruling.

#1 It actually points out the difference between official documents and hand written notes as part of a diary or journal.

#2 The ruling has nothing to do with the FPOTUS ability to declassify or destroy classified documents.

WW

You are correct it wasn’t about classified records, it was about whether the archivist gets to decide what is a personal or public record. And the ruling was that no, only the President gets to do that. Aren’t some of the statutes they rely on about whether a record is public or personal?

[Kelby]

@ohknow35

@Jezcoe

The most plausible one is that the man who is famous for mishandling documents had personal and classified material mixed in together

The most plausible explanation is that this is all a continuation of the failed russia, russia, russia collusion hoax, being run by the same desperate people.

But dimocrats are

a) fine with that
b) too blind with trump hate to see it
c) too dumb to realize there’s no there there (AGAIN)
d) too stupid to see any other alternative
e) ALL OF THE ABOVE

Don’t worry, you’ll get there.

“So Dorothy, all you need do is close your eyes and tap your heels together three times while saying, ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’…and all the bad things they say about Donald Trump will disappear!”

[Orygun]

@ohknow35

The most plausible explanation is that this is all a continuation of the failed russia, russia, russia collusion hoax, being run by the same desperate people.

Why did Trump have classified and top secret documents? Why didn’t he give them all back when asked and subpoenaed?

[WorldWatcher]

@ohknow35

@WorldWatcher

Here is the areas searched.

I would think that a reasonable person standard would apply - I know it’s difficult sometime - as to what co located means.

For example, if the classified documents were located in a room in the basement and the passports were co located there? Yes. Reasonable to collect them. On the other hand classified documents located in a room in the basement and the passports located 3 floors up in the FPOTUS bedroom in the sock drawer? No. Not reasonable to collect them.

WW

So you agree the search was conducted with broad parameters and for anyone to make an assumption that the passports were located in boxes with “classified documents” in the “reportedly locked storage area” is just an assumption and has no basis in fact.

Thank you.

Again you are making a strawman argument and then claiming I agree.

Poor form.

#1 The search warrant does not say “reportedly locked storage area”.

#2 I’m not assuming that all the classified documents were in this supposedly “locked storage area”.

#3 I’ve simply pointed out that IF the passports were co located with the classified documents that according to the Judges order, then yes there collections was a reasonable action. The after collection Filter Team in reviewing the collected materials quickly determined the passports were collected and returned them.

If that is you assumption also, they ya we are in agreement. (See what I did there?)

WW

[WorldWatcher]

@zantax

@WorldWatcher

@zantax

Not good precedent for you libs, uh oh.

From https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch’s suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson’s ruling — along with the Justice Department’s arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI’s decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president’s discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

Here is the actual ruling.

#1 It actually points out the difference between official documents and hand written notes as part of a diary or journal.

#2 The ruling has nothing to do with the FPOTUS ability to declassify or destroy classified documents.

WW

You are correct it wasn’t about classified records, it was about whether the archivist gets to decide what is a personal or public record. And the ruling was that no, only the President gets to do that. Aren’t some of the statutes they rely on about whether a record is public or personal?

And if you read the ruling instead of read what someone says about the ruling, that portion did not pertain to government documents. It pertained to personal notes as part of a diary or journal.

WW

[JayJay]

The ruling didn’t say that at all.

It specifically outlined what constituted a Presidential record.

[ohknow35]

@JayJay

Nope I never said that.

You’re the only one that has reached a conclusion that the agents broke the law, based on your assumptions, however.

I didn’t say that. I’ve said mistake a few times. Maybe it was, maybe it wasnt.

It would be a hell of a mistake to make with such a sensitive issue.

But you guys all seem to assume trump was keeping his passports with the “stolen documents” in boxes.

You have never considered a thing besides what you’ve been told by your favorite lib news source.

You’re gonna owe trump a big apology.

[ohknow35]

@WorldWatcher

Again you are making a strawman argument and then claiming I agree.

Poor form.

#1 The search warrant does not say “reportedly locked storage area”.

#2 I’m not assuming that all the classified documents were in this supposedly “locked storage area”.

#3 I’ve simply pointed out that IF the passports were co located with the classified documents that according to the Judges order, then yes there collections was a reasonable action. The after collection Filter Team in reviewing the collected materials quickly determined the passports were collected and returned them.

If that is you assumption also, they ya we are in agreement. (See what I did there?)

WW

So we agree the passports were probably not in boxes with the “classified documents” in the reportedly “locked storage area”.

Why didn’t you just say so??

[JayJay]

@ohknow35

@JayJay

Nope I never said that.

You’re the only one that has reached a conclusion that the agents broke the law, based on your assumptions, however.

I didn’t say that. I’ve said mistake a few times. Maybe it was, maybe it wasnt.

It would be a hell of a mistake to make with such a sensitive issue.

But you guys all seem to assume trump was keeping his passports with the “stolen documents” in boxes.

You have never considered a thing besides what you’ve been told by your favorite lib news source.

You’re gonna owe trump a big apology.

Nowhere did I definitively say Trump kept his passports co-located with the documents. I said it was a reasonable ASSUMPTION that he did based on how the FBI filter agents reacted once they realized they were included with the document haul.

I highlighted it was an assumption right from the start, and even suggested a possible way (the release of the surveillance video) to show my assumption was incorrect.

If the video showed the FBI misbehaved, then it’s a whole new ball game.

You on the other hand, AGAIN (evidenced by your favorite new talking point about the apology that will be owed Trump) are showing you have indeed made a conclusion…that the passports were not co-located and were either taken by mistake or on purpose.

[JayJay]

@ohknow35

@WorldWatcher

Again you are making a strawman argument and then claiming I agree.

Poor form.

#1 The search warrant does not say “reportedly locked storage area”.

#2 I’m not assuming that all the classified documents were in this supposedly “locked storage area”.

#3 I’ve simply pointed out that IF the passports were co located with the classified documents that according to the Judges order, then yes there collections was a reasonable action. The after collection Filter Team in reviewing the collected materials quickly determined the passports were collected and returned them.

If that is you assumption also, they ya we are in agreement. (See what I did there?)

WW

So we agree the passports were probably not in boxes with the “classified documents” in the reportedly “locked storage area”.

Why didn’t you just say so??

Where did you get “probably not stored” from WW’s comments?

Upon what basis are you calculating this probability?

Again…speaking of being honest…

[margaretms2]

Last night on Newsmax, Eric Trump said that it’s not the “Republican Party” anymore, it’s really the “Trump Party.” Sound about right?

You and your party are embracing the principle, “L’état, c’est moi.” Now, aside from the fact that Kool Aid jokes passed their expiration date somewhere back in 2005 or so, I don’t think I am the one at risk of falling victim to a cult leader in a cult of personality. I think that applies more accurately to people like Ricky Shiffer or (perhaps less harmlessly), those who acknowledge that their relationship with Trump is an addiction:

[zantax]

@WorldWatcher

@zantax

@WorldWatcher

@zantax

Not good precedent for you libs, uh oh.

From https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch’s suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson’s ruling — along with the Justice Department’s arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI’s decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president’s discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

Here is the actual ruling.

#1 It actually points out the difference between official documents and hand written notes as part of a diary or journal.

#2 The ruling has nothing to do with the FPOTUS ability to declassify or destroy classified documents.

WW

You are correct it wasn’t about classified records, it was about whether the archivist gets to decide what is a personal or public record. And the ruling was that no, only the President gets to do that. Aren’t some of the statutes they rely on about whether a record is public or personal?

And if you read the ruling instead of read what someone says about the ruling, that portion did not pertain to government documents. It pertained to personal notes as part of a diary or journal.

WW

I read it thanks. And what it says in, the distinction between personal and government record is made by the President, not the archivist.

The Court construes this language as requiring the Archivist to take responsibility for records that were designated as Presidential records during the President’s term. Even plaintiff tentatively agreed that the obligation to assume custody and control arises after a determination has been made that the documents are Presidential records. Tr. at 30:3–6. If certain records are not designated as Presidential records, the Archivist has no statutory obligation to take any action at all, and there is nothing to compel under the APA.

[zantax]

He says as dems prop up a senile guy, let’s just hope Joe doesn’t drone strike Chuck Schumer for not shaking his hand more then once.

[zantax]

@WorldWatcher

@ohknow35

@WorldWatcher

I didn’t say they only took items in boxes, I’ve very carefully used the same language as the Judges search warrant (i.e. “co located”).

Co located =/= In the same box.

WW

So they only searched the one room? Only took items in boxes, or were “colocated” with the boxes in that one room?

That’s all they were allowed to search for and take?

Here is the areas searched.

I would think that a reasonable person standard would apply - I know it’s difficult sometime - as to what co located means.

For example, if the classified documents were located in a room in the basement and the passports were co located there? Yes. Reasonable to collect them. On the other hand classified documents located in a room in the basement and the passports located 3 floors up in the FPOTUS bedroom in the sock drawer? No. Not reasonable to collect them.

WW

And where do you think they were most likely to be?

[JayJay]

@zantax

@WorldWatcher

@zantax

@WorldWatcher

@zantax

Not good precedent for you libs, uh oh.

From https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/old-case-over-audio-tapes-bill-clintons-sock-drawer-could-impact

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch’s suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson’s ruling — along with the Justice Department’s arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI’s decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president’s discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 | Casetext Search + Citator

Here is the actual ruling.

#1 It actually points out the difference between official documents and hand written notes as part of a diary or journal.

#2 The ruling has nothing to do with the FPOTUS ability to declassify or destroy classified documents.

WW

You are correct it wasn’t about classified records, it was about whether the archivist gets to decide what is a personal or public record. And the ruling was that no, only the President gets to do that. Aren’t some of the statutes they rely on about whether a record is public or personal?

And if you read the ruling instead of read what someone says about the ruling, that portion did not pertain to government documents. It pertained to personal notes as part of a diary or journal.

WW

I read it thanks. And what it says in, the distinction between personal and government record is made by the President, not the archivist.

The Court construes this language as requiring the Archivist to take responsibility for records that were designated as Presidential records during the President’s term. Even plaintiff tentatively agreed that the obligation to assume custody and control arises after a determination has been made that the documents are Presidential records. Tr. at 30:3–6. If certain records are not designated as Presidential records, the Archivist has no statutory obligation to take any action at all, and there is nothing to compel under the APA.

But certain of Trump’s records ARE designated as Presidential records, and so therefore, the Archives’ attempts to get them back are perfectly valid.

This is not dependent on whether or not the records have been declassified, by the way.

[JayJay]

Upon what basis are we going to make a judgement as to where the passports “were likely” to be?