Feds Search Mar-a-Lago

This is news I wasn't expecting. The feds got a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago. Donald Trump must be seething.

The search for evidence related to Trump's handling of classified information -- whether he improperly removed classified documents to Mar a Lago. It was not about January 6.

Trump lawyer Christina Bobb, who was present during the FBI search, confirmed federal agents “seized paper.”

Trump was at Trump Tower in New York when news broke of the raid.

Trump and the Republicans are sure to use this search as a rallying cry against the F.B.I. and Democrats in their bid to win the November mid-term elections.

But didn't Trump once want Hillary indicted for allegedly mishandling classified information?

< Thursday Open Thread | R.I.P. Olivia Newton-John >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't remember Tr*mp saying (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 09:56:22 AM EST
    he wanted Hillary indicted. Just "lock her up." Never suggested, I don't think, that proper legal procedures should be followed first. Just that his adversaries should be declared "guilty" (of who knows what) in the court of public opinion, apparently, and then thrown in jail directly (by whom, I have no idea), with no further ado.

    But seriously ... a few thoughts on the s/w (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 10:11:03 AM EST
    I assume if it was executed like most search warrants, we would have heard about that, i.e., at 6 a.m. with a large team of armed agents who force everyone present to the ground and threaten them with guns until the agents decide that they are safe from violent resistance, even when there was no reason to fear resistance in the first place. I infer that that did not happen, so already he is getting special treatment. Second, when the FBI is investigating a nonviolent crime, it typically does not use a search warrant. Rather, they utilize a grand jury subpoena or administrative summons. (Either of those would direct the person thought to be in possession of the documents to find and deliver them, rather than have them forcibly seized.)  Unless one of three things is true, that is: (1) cooperation by the suspect has been promised but has not been forthcoming (either by stalling or by outright obstruction); or (2) there is a specific reason to believe that a request to produce the documents "voluntarily" would result in destruction or hiding of dox rather than delivery; or (3) they are trying to intimidate or bully the subject into "cooperating" against some bigger fish, where the subject has so far refused. Jeralyn, do you agree with this?

    Exactly!!! (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 11:13:18 AM EST
    If it was any of us who had stolen classified documents, the drywall inside our houses would be missing too.

    Trump is getting preferential treatment.


    Number 1 (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    I read that an earlier visit yielded some stolen documents and cooperation was promised to turn over more, but that has not occurred.

    The national archives took (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 05:21:48 PM EST
    a lot of boxes in January during a consensual visit to Maralago.

    I think it has just taken the N.A. this long to review what was in the documents taken in January to determine whether anything was improperly taken or destroyed.

    National Archives and Records Administration said it had received from Mar-a-Lago 15 boxes of White House records, including documents containing classified information, earlier this year. The National Archives said Trump should have turned over that material upon leaving office, and it asked the Justice Department to investigate.

    ....His son Eric said on Fox News on Monday night that he had spent the day with his father and that the search happened because "the National Archives wanted to corroborate whether or not Donald Trump had any documents in his possession."

    Eric said the boxes were from the Inauguration Day when Trump had to move out of the White House in 6 hours.

    As if they have enough notice and ability to hire staff to leave before then and do a thorough check of what they were taking?


    should be (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    "as if they didn't have enough notice"

    Eric Trump, a usually unreliable source. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 08:02:09 PM EST
    After January, there was also a subpoena (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 08:50:40 PM EST
    served in April for missing docs. (according to someone on MSNBC, forgot who) Subpoena was ignored and that lead to the warrant.

    6 hours, sure. He had 6 weeks but he spent all of it treasoning.


    Yeah. He gave his tenants (none / 0) (#64)
    by Towanda on Mon Aug 15, 2022 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    In New York less notice of eviction.

    Possibly significant footnote (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 01:23:51 PM EST

    Judges Say House Panel Can Have Trump's Tax Returns
    August 9, 2022 at 12:20 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 197 Comments

    "The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the House Ways and Means Committee can obtain former President Trump's tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service," Axios reports.

    "Trump has been fighting the release of his tax returns to the committee for more than three years."


    Historians on Twitter explain it (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Towanda on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    as we who use archives know well:

    "Don't f@ck with archivists."

    Seriously. Don't. I served on a board of a state historical society that incurred theft of documents and artifacts. The archivists turned detectives, tracked down the items on the market, and pushed us for prosecution with an unholy zeal for revenge (and prevention).

    This took years. So does archival work. They are good at this.

    Only the mob takes the Fifth. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    So sayeth the orange mob boss, who took took the Fifth at his deposition in the NY civil case on the Trump Organization.

    Yow (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 07:20:21 PM EST
    Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump's Florida residence on Monday," The Washington Post reported, citing "people familiar with the investigation."

    So (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 08:15:39 PM EST
    Trump steals these top secret documents.  The feds know he has them and won't give them beach.  So they set up a sting with someone posing as someone from (fill in the blank, North Korea, Iran, China, Russia) offering him lots of money for the good stuff.

    And he snaps at it.

    Oh please oh please oh please.


    He's such a greedy idiot he'd probably (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 08:53:09 PM EST
    still do it today. Worth a try.

    The decision of USMJ Reinhart to invite (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 18, 2022 at 06:54:36 PM EST
    the submission of a "redacted" affidavit for release is another brilliant call of Tr*mp's bluff. Releasing the whole affidavit was a non-starter, as it would reveal the scope and dimensions of the Presidential Records Act/Espionage Act part of the DoJ's criminal investigation of TFG. That's why Tr*mp "didn't oppose" it. But I am sure the DoJ is clever enough (and Judge Reinhart, who was basically a career AUSA, will probably defer) to come up with a redacted version that is both damning and uninformative.

    Yes, (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 18, 2022 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    this politically-charged case was, once again, handled in a masterly manner.. To flat-out decline to release the affidavit would result in screams of "cover-up" by the already screaming deplorables.

      While the judge's decision will not satisfy everyone, the goal to make public that which is not sensitive or compromising to the investigation sounds (and is) reasonable. It may even defuse all but the most extreme, and for now, take the wind out of TFG's sails.


    I heard (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 19, 2022 at 08:35:59 AM EST
    another attorney on Morning Joe saying a redacted version would be worse than none because it would allow the GOP to make up the redacted parts. However they also could say coverup with no release.

    Same attorney said all we're going to see if it is released is DOJ spoke to FBI agent name redacted. Documents redacted. Name redacted said redacted.


    I do not agree with that talking head. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Peter G on Fri Aug 19, 2022 at 07:28:28 PM EST
    Judge Reinhart would not have directed the creation of a redacted affidavit for release if he intended to allow redactions that would amount to non-release. If that were the case, he would have just denied the motion outright. He is not a fool; a redacted version that blacks out the entire substance would make him look worse. I can't see him doing that.

    I saw an article suggesting a newly composed (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 19, 2022 at 08:00:17 PM EST
    affidavit to make sense without the redactions.  ??

    Again, that would raise suspicions, so (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 20, 2022 at 08:08:53 AM EST
    no I don't think so. Nor does it strike me as lawful.

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 20, 2022 at 06:22:55 PM EST
    There are all kinds of theories out there about this. Obviously not being anything in the legal world I would have no idea.

    It's been fun seeing the comments (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM EST
    of the MAGA peanut gallery - including my likely future governor - concerning FBI investigations compared when it was Hillary and when it is the Orange Jesus.

    To bad we live in a post hypocrisy world.

    If only hypocrisy killed (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 01:13:04 PM EST

    GOP Suddenly Flip-Flops on Handling Classified Info
    August 9, 2022 at 2:00 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 23 Comments

    Steve Benen: "If there was one thing Republicans cared about six years ago, it was how high-ranking officials dealt with classified materials. In fact, as recently as 2016, the GOP was certain -- that is, the party at least pretended to be certain -- that politicians disqualify themselves from positions of authority when they put documents at risk."

    "And so, now that Republicans have learned that Donald Trump allegedly took highly sensitive classified materials to his golf resort, one could imagine the party expressing outrage with the former president. After all, given the GOP's recent history of passionate feelings on the subject, it stands to reason that Trump may have crossed an intolerable line."

    "But that would assume that the Republican Party's principles and standards are consistent. They are not."

    And, what about (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 02:00:58 PM EST
    that media inconsistency.  Sure Biden racked up an impressive list of legislative and other achievements, but some say it will result in inflation.  And, he is old.

    Trump's lair was searched by FBI agents in keeping with a legal warrant signed by a federal judge or magistrate centering on documents taken by Trump.   This is awful and will result in his surefire election in 2024.  

    And, what if the DOJ comes up empty handed, it will turn out in Trump's favor and the Democrats will e doomed.  Yes, just like when the head of the FBI firstly, reported that there was no there there in Hillary's emails  and then coupled that with his gratuitous lecture on her handling of documents.  

    And, then just before the election publicly announced a re-opening of the investigation. Only, to say never mind a week later.  And,that unconscionable action is why Hillary won the presidency.  Did I get that part right?


    The media, OMG! (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    NYTimes.. Analysis:  The FBI search on Mar a Lago was a high risk gamble for the DOJ.   But Trump faces risks too.

    WaPo.  Garland vowed to depoliticized DOJ .  then the FBI searched Mar a Lago.

    The suspected criminal v the institution charged by law to investigate possible crime.   Both sides.  


    That WaPo article you cited ... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 09:34:05 PM EST
    "WaPo.  Garland vowed to depoliticized DOJ. Then the FBI searched Mar a Lago."

    ... got pulled down from its website this afternoon, likely because its premise rested upon unsubstantiated speculation that Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland's authorization to search Mar-a-Lago was perhaps motivated by political opportunism, a notion which - as anyone who's watched Garland govern DOJ by the book over the last 18 months surely realizes - is entirely ludicrous.



    This kind of coverage (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by smott on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    Blatantly repeating baseless assertions/Trump quotes/GOP talking points, is going to get people killed.

    What (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 04:19:23 AM EST
    kills me is that the media has had months, if not years to prepare for this. Everyone with half a brain has known that their was a good chance that the DOJ would make some kind of move. Don't these organizations game this out beforehand?

    The GOP reaction was as predictable as two plus two equals four. I could have their bullet points in my sleep, yet the media seems totally unprepared to deal with them.


    Why would you not want to consider (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 01:12:57 PM EST
    the "side" of the accused, or the suspected, as well as that of the police ("the institution charged by law to investigate possible crime")? As a general matter, that is. I realize this is a special case, where the suspect has a giant megaphone and a proven track record of brazen and shameless public lying. But as a general matter, I am guessing you do not really believe or agree with the last line of your comment (#23).

    I regret that (none / 0) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 04:26:21 PM EST
    my thought was unclear. The comment was intended not as a general matter, but rather, in the context of Comment# 12's specificity of media coverage.

    It seems to me that the media's portrayal is, essentially, that going about this criminal investigation is not only risky, but also, politically foolhardy. And, the search of Trump's home was a roll of the dice. The political calculus is paramount. Even without awaiting knowledge of the warrant application, what the warrant was looking for, or what was taken.

    But, as I view it, the media depicts a battle between Garland and Trump.  The risk to Garland is equated to that of Trump, but as an after-thought--yes, this could be bad for Trump as well as for Garland.


    One thing we (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 12:48:20 PM EST
    can be pretty sure of is that the documents, or whatever, were not taken by Trump as mementos or for sentimental reasons.  Trump is transactional.  Something of cash value or coercive potential.

    Something important to hold onto, not something incriminating that he would destroy by flushing down the toilet or burning in the fireplace.  But, then, criminals often keep incriminating evidence as we have seen in J6 hearings and the Alex Jones trial.  And, anything in plain sight would be fair game in the legal search,such as Epstein communications.

    Trump's fascists are out early and loud, from LaraTrump, wife of Eric and "the future of the Republican Pary", according to Lindseybelle, to Pence, who seems to have forgotten about that little difference of opinion he had with Trump and that noose thing.

    The reaction is very predictable (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    it makes me think this is not really about (or just about) what might be considered one of Trump's lesser crimes.  Mishandling documents.
    I agree with the idea that for Garland to do this, right now 90 days before an election, there is something pretty explosive they expected to find.

    The mind boggles with the possibilities but I wonder if, transactionally as you say, he has stuff he planned to sell to foreign governments.

    There has been a lot said and written about how top secret some of the stuff involved is.  So top secret it can't even be described or characterized openly.


    This (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 01:21:29 PM EST

    FBI Raid Wasn't Just About Classified Documents
    August 9, 2022 at 11:00 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 362 Comments

    Andrew McCarthy: "There's a game prosecutors play. Let's say I suspect X committed an armed robbery, but I know X is dealing drugs. So, I write a search-warrant application laying out my overwhelming probable cause that X has been selling small amounts of cocaine from his apartment. I don't say a word in the warrant about the robbery, but I don't have to. If the court grants me the warrant for the comparatively minor crime of cocaine distribution, the agents are then authorized to search the whole apartment."

    "If they find robbery tools, a mask, and a gun, the law allows them to seize those items. As long as agents are conducting a legitimate search, they are authorized to seize any obviously incriminating evidence they come across. Even though the warrant was ostensibly about drug offenses, the prosecutors can use the evidence seized to charge robbery."

    "I believe that principle is key to understanding the FBI's search of former president Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Monday. The ostensible justification for the search of Trump's compound is his potentially unlawful retention of government records and mishandling of classified information. The real reason is the Capitol riot."

    The National Law Journal has an article (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Peter G on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 04:23:24 PM EST
    this afternoon giving good reason to believe that the warrant was issued by a particular US Magistrate Judge who sits in Palm Beach. My wife and I have known that judge for 35+ years, since he was a young lawyer in Philadelphia. No way would he have issued such a warrant without the most scrupulous care that it really demonstrated probable cause to believe (as required by the Fourth Amendment) that materials subject to seizure (such as evidence of a crime) would be found in that place at this time. He is a total straight arrow. He would not issue a warrant on any pretextual basis, nor if he thought it was being sought on a pretextual basis. It is true, however, that if in the course of executing a properly-issued warrant according to its terms the officers happen upon evidence of another crime in plain view (that is, in a place they are entitled to look while executing the warrant as written), then that other evidence can also properly be seized.

    I agree with (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 09, 2022 at 07:29:40 PM EST
    you. I also think Trump being the mobster had blackmail material and/or classified information that would be valuable to the likes of Putin which Trump could sell for a quite a bit of money.

    Really getting sick of hearing (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    how upset the MAGA mouth breathers are.

    Goodness me!  They are so upset.  We must coddle them and try to explain Trump was searched not raided.

    F that.  F these morons.  

    Let them start a freaking civil war.  They will lose.  Might be just the thing to squash the treasonous cockroaches once and for all.

    Bring it. Or STFU.

    I (4.00 / 1) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 11:52:47 AM EST
    love the line "if it can happen to him, it can happen to you", well duh, if I break the law I would expect it.

    You do not have to "break the law" to be (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    faced with a search of your home or business for evidence of criminal activity. You might just, for example, be in possession for some 18 months of stolen government property, or classified documents, that you have promised to return, but never have. Or there might be "probable cause" to believe that that is the case, to use the terminology of the Fourth Amendment, even if it turns out not to be true.

    Totally with you. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 02:00:13 PM EST
    Watched either ABC or NBC and they were interviewing the people outside of Mar A Lago. And the reporter spent quite a few minutes talking about the reactions of the Trump supporters. First thing that came to my mind was I am sick of hearing about these people as if none of the rest of us matter. Also the reporter was talking about the backlash from the "raid" & used the Kansas abortion vote as saying how surprised they were by that result. I guess they cannot read their own polls then.

    Any lawyers here checked PACER? Are the documents (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 12:25:51 PM EST
    re this warrant sealed?

    Of course they are. Always sealed, until (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 12:35:26 PM EST
    and unless they become the subject of a motion in court, such as a motion to suppress evidence or a motion to return seized property. For that reason, Garland, DOJ and the FBI cannot comment (even to confirm the existence of the warrant or its execution, much less the basis for it). This policy serves two purposes: it protects the integrity of on going investigations; and it protects the presumptively innocent property owner from a pre-charge, premature insinuation of criminal activity that they have no procedure to confront, and should not have to respond to, at this stage.
       The subject of the search now has a copy of the warrant, however (although not of the application for the warrant, including the affidavit of probable cause, which is the "good part"), and nothing is stopping that person from releasing it, if (for example) it supports the characterization of a witch-hunt. The warrant itself would particularly describe the things to be searched for and seized, and would (typically) cite the statutes whose violation those things might be evidence of.

    Unsealed now (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    Is Garland asking the court to unseal (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    just the warrant, or the application (including the affidavit of probable cause) as well? This is a brilliant move on his part.

    I heard (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 04:13:44 PM EST
    It involves the warrant, the list if what they were looking for and a list of what they took.

    Trump probsbly has (none / 0) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 04:30:50 PM EST
    this information (the what and where it is) and has not released it, the application would have the goods---the why.  

    USA Today (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 05:10:18 PM EST

    Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday that the Justice Department had filed a motion to unseal the search warrant and property receipt from a search FBI agents carried out Monday at former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida

    Neal Katyal (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 05:17:26 PM EST
    mentioned that one good bit is when the AG filed the motion to unseal the documents he suggested the Judge first ask Trump if he thinks that's a good idea.
    He said he did not have to do that.

    Funny twist of the knife.


    perfect (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 06:46:03 PM EST
    move, if tRump wants to contest it he is going to have to plead that it's release would cause him harm,  giving the impression that tRump, not the DOJ has something to hide.

    The news is they are considering (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 06:01:19 PM EST
    Opposing the unsealing of the documents.


    Would the judge still unseal them?


    Answered (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 06:08:01 PM EST
    It could take weeks or months but yes

    If the judge believes that Tr*mp is jerking (none / 0) (#56)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 06:55:23 PM EST
    him around -- saying one thing in public, but taking an inconsistent position in court -- he might very well grant the govt's motion over objection. Either side has the right to appeal Judge Reinhart's decision to a judge of the District Court (presidentially nominated, Senate confirmed, life tenure, IOW, unlike a US Magistrate Judge), and then potentially to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. And since once released, the cat is out of the bag, it is very likely that an order to unseal would not be carried out while appeals were pending. Hence, the possibility of months.

    Just sad on CNN (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 06:02:22 PM EST
    We will not see the affidavit

    I don't know on what basis (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 06:49:20 PM EST
    CNN said that. See my comment #53. But it occurs to me that sometimes the first two attachments ("A and B") are a list of things to be seized if found, and a detailed physical description of the real property to be searched to ensure they don't search the wrong house (or apartment, etc.). Doesn't seem like that would be needed in this case, but perhaps. If so, and the affidavit is Attachment C, then no, they are not suggesting unsealing the affidavit at this point.

    Wouldn't (none / 0) (#57)
    by FlJoe on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 07:00:28 PM EST
    the affidavit potentially expose the source or sources that may have been used to obtain the warrant?

    Yes, so that document (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 07:57:16 PM EST
    is far and away the least likely to be released any time soon. Although it would surely be the most interesting. Alternatively, it could be released in redacted form.

    Pending. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    Pending. (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 03:12:54 PM EST
    Judge Reinhardt (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 04:15:05 PM EST
    gives them until tomorrow.

    Surprisingly short time to respond (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 11, 2022 at 06:41:02 PM EST
    I guess when a party is stirring up supporters to threaten your life, you might tend to be less generous or relaxed in dealing with them. I had honestly expected him to give them five days or so.
      I read the Govt's motion (posted on WaPo in full). It asks for the warrant and its attachments A and B to be unsealed, along with the inventory of things seized. Never identifies or describes "A and B." But the standard attachments to a warrant would be the list of things specifically authorized to be searched for and then to be seized, if found, and the affidavit of probable cause. I hope that's what "A and B" are in this case.

    LOL (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 01:28:19 PM EST

    Trump Made It a Felony To Mishandle Classified Info
    August 10, 2022 at 2:00 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 100 Comments

    Donald Trump signed a bill into law in January 2018 "that included a provision increasing the punishment for knowingly removing classified materials with the intent to retain them at an `unauthorized location,'" the HuffPost reports.

    "Previously, someone found guilty of this crime could face up to one year in prison... Now, a person convicted of violating this law can face up to five years in prison ― making it a felony-level offense to mishandle classified documents under 18 U.S.C. 1924."

    Story about the judge who (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 01:45:36 PM EST
    Maybe not a "leftie" but purported (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 02:08:11 PM EST
    Obama donor. Which is not to imply any bias on the part of the federal magistrate judge who approved this warrant application.

    "reportedly" (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    donations to both parties

    His wife appointed by Rick Scott.  Think I read that.


    Did you read my comment about the judge (none / 0) (#31)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 03:43:46 PM EST
    yesterday, at #13?

    I did (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 03:45:33 PM EST
    My question was directed to (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 04:00:37 PM EST
    the "parent" comment, that is, to Oculus. Trying to discern political bias in a warrant-issuing Magistrate Judge, who was basically a career prosecutor with a short stint in private defense practice, is a fool's errand. Basically taking Tr*mp's deflection, projection, and other b/s seriously, as if it might be true.

    Yes, I did read your comment (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    Of course they are (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 03:45:12 PM EST

    Extremists Are Threatening Trump Search-Warrant Judge
    August 10, 2022 at 4:40 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 27 Comments

    "Far-right extremists on pro-Donald Trump message boards and social networks are making violent, antisemitic threats against the judge who reportedly signed the warrant that allowed the FBI to search the former president's Mar-a-Lago property in Florida," Vice News reports.

    "Multiple members of these toxic online communities are even posting what appears to be Judge Bruce Reinhart's home address, phone numbers, and names of his family members alongside threats of extreme violence."



    I would be interested to learn (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 10, 2022 at 04:23:33 PM EST
    -- and we may find out quite soon -- how quickly and easily the US Marshals Service can identify the individuals who posted these threats, each of which is a five-year federal felony (see subsection (c)). And perhaps up to ten years under this obstruction of justice statute, although I am not sure whether a Magistrate Judge is an "officer" under this provision. I don't think such threats will be ignored. People are arrested and sent to jail all the time for threatening the President in much less plausible and realistic situations.

    About Bratt being there: (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 13, 2022 at 03:09:04 PM EST
    Mueller, She Wrote
    That's exactly why Bratt was there. There were likely documents above TS/SCI that can't even be put on an inventory because their mere existence can't be acknowledged. Bratt might be the only person at DoJ with the clearance to handle these documents.

    I've been thinking Liz could pull off a upset (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Aug 15, 2022 at 08:21:33 PM EST
    I think others might be thinking it too

    Navarro Claims Liz Cheney Will Steal Election
    August 15, 2022 at 7:55 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 183 Comments

    Former Trump aide Peter Navarro claimed that he has "circumstantial evidence" that Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) is going to try and steal her election tomorrow with fraudulent absentee ballots.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by FlJoe on Tue Aug 16, 2022 at 04:28:05 AM EST
    nobody is going to notice the busloads of Mexicans she is going to send to the polls.

    Not enough Mexicans (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2022 at 09:05:22 PM EST
    I guess

    That was quite a speech. (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 16, 2022 at 09:25:36 PM EST
    She is good at this.