There's not a part of you willing to acknowledge that this could have just been a fishing expedition? The warrant gave them power to take all manner of stuff from Trump, and, from all accounts, they exercised that right. If a single thing that is taken out of his house, unrelated to the classified documents, comes back to bite Trump, will you acknowledge that it was taken under dubious pretenses? Or will you just feel vindicated in your hatred for Trump. This is not how the law is supposed to work in this country.

How many corrupt actions does this agency need to take before we, the people, start to hold them accountable. There is now a huge list of events that have been manufactured by the FBI, and we just keep turning a blind eye. It is disheartening to see how often you moderates fail to adjust your world view when evidence is staring you in the face.

Of course I am willing to acknowledge that it could have been anything.  As I have stated before, I am waiting for all the facts to come out before I form a judgment about what this is.

I would suggest that you do the same.

The fact that troubles me the most about this is that the FBI raided the home of the former President in combat gear and with assault rifles. Trump has a Secret Service detail for life, there was no need for that show of force other than public theater and it could've endangered the agents on both sides by how they went about this.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

There's not a part of you willing to acknowledge that this could have just been a fishing expedition? The warrant gave them power to take all manner of stuff from Trump, and, from all accounts, they exercised that right. If a single thing that is taken out of his house, unrelated to the classified documents, comes back to bite Trump, will you acknowledge that it was taken under dubious pretenses? Or will you just feel vindicated in your hatred for Trump. This is not how the law is supposed to work in this country.

How many corrupt actions does this agency need to take before we, the people, start to hold them accountable. There is now a huge list of events that have been manufactured by the FBI, and we just keep turning a blind eye. It is disheartening to see how often you moderates fail to adjust your world view when evidence is staring you in the face.

Of course I am willing to acknowledge that it could have been anything.  As I have stated before, I am waiting for all the facts to come out before I form a judgment about what this is.

I would suggest that you do the same.

You don't need to suggest that to me. I am not in here defending Trump. However, unless the Feds prove that Trump was selling nuclear secrets to Saudi Arabia, I will consider this an abuse of power. You should, too.

I am suspicious of an organization that has increasingly stepped outside of legal and moral framework to achieve a political end. There have been many, many examples of this in the last 5 years or so. It's getting out of hand. I don't know why you guys keep turning a blind eye to it. It's not just this organization, either. 

You guys get so fixated on one thing that you can't see that standards and practices of our institutions are eroding and causing mistrust and tension amongst regular American citizens. Not for the elite, though... this system just keeps giving them more and more power. Our wealth is being transferred around the world, and our rights and opportunities are eroding.

---

Hoarding classified documents is a crime. Depending on the contents of those documents, it may not be a serious crime. But it's still a crime, and still worth pursuing, even if a "fishing expedition" was the real motive for this raid.
Fishing expeditions happen all the time. They're not the most ethical thing our government does, but they're not unethical either.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Hoarding classified documents is a crime.  Depending on the contents of those documents, it may not be a serious crime.  But it's still a crime, and still worth pursuing, even if a "fishing expedition" was the real motive for this raid.
Fishing expeditions happen all the time.  They're not the most ethical thing our government does, but they're not unethical either.

uh huh, you do know that President Trump didn't pack those boxes himself AND that the FBI knew about the boxes because they asked him to put a different lock on the storage. 

Give me a break with this garbage.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Hoarding classified documents is a crime.  Depending on the contents of those documents, it may not be a serious crime.  But it's still a crime, and still worth pursuing, even if a "fishing expedition" was the real motive for this raid.
Fishing expeditions happen all the time.  They're not the most ethical thing our government does, but they're not unethical either.

uh huh, you do know that President Trump didn't pack those boxes himself AND that the FBI knew about the boxes because they asked him to put a different lock on the storage. 

Give me a break with this garbage.

Sure, the crime may have been committed by someone else.  If that someone else was the FBI themselves, well, that would be extreme misconduct and investigators should be fired and any evidence recovered becomes inadmissible.  
Somehow I don't think they're that stupid.
But we shall see.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You won't see. That's my point. How many times does the FBI have to abuse their authority for you to start suspecting their motives? Again, this could be completely on the up and up, but if it's not, when do we, the people, start putting pressure on these people to change? Who are you going to vote for that's actually going to try to bring about this change? Which of you are going to stand strong as the establishment uses its full power to try to tear down and diminish that individual?

---

uh huh, you do know that President Trump didn't pack those boxes himself AND that the FBI knew about the boxes because they asked him to put a different lock on the storage. 

Give me a break with this garbage.

Sure, the crime may have been committed by someone else.  If that someone else was the FBI themselves, well, that would be extreme misconduct and investigators should be fired and any evidence recovered becomes inadmissible.  
Somehow I don't think they're that stupid.
But we shall see.

They certainly aren't stupid based on the curriculum they go thru to become FBI Agents. But, they might be corrupt, or are following corrupt orders. Especially considering reports that some agents are breaking ranks and whistleblowing on this administration.

---

"Remember Red, Hope is a good thing. Maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies."  - Andy Dufresne, The Shawshank Redemption

Trump's CCTV tapes may be the FBI's undoing

https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2022/08/t...doing.html

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

As a reminder, there's already precedent that the President and only the President is the sole authority to determine what are his personal records and no court, government agency or even the Congress can say otherwise. This whole event is so far over the line that the heads of the DOJ and FBI along with many of their subordinates should be arrested and tried.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/...uld-impact


"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of  records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

As a reminder, there's already precedent that the President and only the President is the sole authority to determine what are his personal records and no court, government agency or even the Congress can say otherwise. This whole event is so far over the line that the heads of the DOJ and FBI along with many of their subordinates should be arrested and tried.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/...uld-impact


"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of  records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

Mike needs to read this over and over again until it sinks into his liberal head

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

As a reminder, there's already precedent that the President and only the President is the sole authority to determine what are his personal records and no court, government agency or even the Congress can say otherwise. This whole event is so far over the line that the heads of the DOJ and FBI along with many of their subordinates should be arrested and tried.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/...uld-impact


"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of  records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

The President does not get to redefine terms that are defined in a statute.

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
( C ) materials relating exclusively to the President's own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As a reminder, there's already precedent that the President and only the President is the sole authority to determine what are his personal records and no court, government agency or even the Congress can say otherwise. This whole event is so far over the line that the heads of the DOJ and FBI along with many of their subordinates should be arrested and tried.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/...uld-impact


"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of  records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

The President does not get to redefine terms that are defined in a statute.

(3) The term "personal records" means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term includes—
(A) diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary or journal which are not prepared or utilized for, or circulated or communicated in the course of, transacting Government business;
(B) materials relating to private political associations, and having no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President; and
( C ) materials relating exclusively to the President's own election to the office of the Presidency; and materials directly relating to the election of a particular individual or individuals to Federal, State, or local office, which have no relation to or direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

The Court already said you're wrong, so feel free to spin however you like.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So if a top secret document is declassified, it would be obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act. And then published. Isn't that an interesting thought.

Documents are classified supposedly because their publication would endanger our national security. How far are you guys willing to go in defense of Trump? Are you willing to endorse the declassification of national secrets in order to keep your man out of trouble? We're talking about at least one document that was at the very highest level of top secret.

---

The President does not get to redefine terms that are defined in a statute.

The Court already said you're wrong, so feel free to spin however you like.

Yes, that's exactly what the federal judge wrote in 2012.  "The user Mikesez on the Jacksonville Jaguars Forum is wrong".
Seriously though, I'm not going to waste any time reading the filings and the decision, but we can be sure the facts of the case were different.  The quoted parts of the decision are probably what judges call "dicta" as well.
All that said, perhaps all of the seized documents really do qualify as personal records. But that's for a judge to decide, based on the definition in the statute. The President is allowed to give the national archives or any other person some of his personal records if he wants. But he is not free to claim as personal records documents which do not meet the statuatory definition of personal records. It's a one-way street.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As a reminder, there's already precedent that the President and only the President is the sole authority to determine what are his personal records and no court, government agency or even the Congress can say otherwise. This whole event is so far over the line that the heads of the DOJ and FBI along with many of their subordinates should be arrested and tried.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/...uld-impact


"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of  records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

So if former President Bernie Sanders decided that the top-secret list of all our CIA agents in China should be his personal record, and he wanted to keep it at his house after he left office, that would be okay?  

And if former President Elizabeth Warren decided that certain top-secret documents dealing with nuclear weapons technology were so interesting that she wanted to keep them when she left office, that would be okay, too?  

Is that what that case that you cited said?

---

As a reminder, there's already precedent that the President and only the President is the sole authority to determine what are his personal records and no court, government agency or even the Congress can say otherwise. This whole event is so far over the line that the heads of the DOJ and FBI along with many of their subordinates should be arrested and tried.

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/...uld-impact


"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of  records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

So if former President Bernie Sanders decided that the top-secret list of all our CIA agents in China should be his personal record, and he wanted to keep it at his house after he left office, that would be okay?  

And if former President Elizabeth Warren decided that certain top-secret documents dealing with nuclear weapons technology were so interesting that she wanted to keep them when she left office, that would be okay, too?  

Is that what that case that you cited said?

Yes, that's the ruling. The President has sole discretion. If there's a dispute the National Archives has recourse, but as a civil matter an armed raid by the FBI is not in the prescription for resolution. That's why this is egregious, because it was done specifically to discredit Trump not because he did anything wrong.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I’ve heard speculation that these could be documents related to the Russia collusion investigation. But that is as purely speculative as the MSM’s hopeful narrative that they’re nuclear secrets.

One thing is for sure, Chuck Schumer remains silent on this for now. Why wouldn’t Chuck zealously pile onto the dire conjecture laid at his feet in order to ruin a political foe? Because he understands two things: 1) Raiding the home of a former President is unprecedented and very delicate. If the claims made in the affidavit aren’t completely true and damning evidence isn’t found, it could blow up in their faces. 2) In Washingtonworld, what comes around, goes around. Just like the nuclear option Harry Reid enacted in the Senate to get the left’s agenda pushed through, it came back to bite them when the shoe was on the other foot.
Schumer knows they’ve established a dangerous precedent by actively pursuing Trump in the most public and damning way. Unless truly incriminating evidence is found, democrats have set a trap for themselves and further exposed the deep state apparatus.

---

So if former President Bernie Sanders decided that the top-secret list of all our CIA agents in China should be his personal record, and he wanted to keep it at his house after he left office, that would be okay?  

And if former President Elizabeth Warren decided that certain top-secret documents dealing with nuclear weapons technology were so interesting that she wanted to keep them when she left office, that would be okay, too?  

Is that what that case that you cited said?

Yes, that's the ruling. The President has sole discretion. If there's a dispute the National Archives has recourse, but as a civil matter an armed raid by the FBI is not in the prescription for resolution. That's why this is egregious, because it was done specifically to discredit Trump not because he did anything wrong.

According to liberal democrat lawyer Alan Dershowitz (who has been shunned in his social circles because he stands for the law and not party doctrine) search warrants cannot be legally used to recover property. That is a civil matter.

---

Yes, that's the ruling. The President has sole discretion. If there's a dispute the National Archives has recourse, but as a civil matter an armed raid by the FBI is not in the prescription for resolution. That's why this is egregious, because it was done specifically to discredit Trump not because he did anything wrong.

According to liberal democrat lawyer Alan Dershowitz (who has been shunned in his social circles because he stands for the law and not party doctrine) search warrants cannot be legally used to recover property. That is a civil matter.

And that's my issue, they went jackboots on a civil matter for the clicks. It's an abuse of power and Trump to have done it this way.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

They (the swamp) were over zealous and they jumped the shark. This is the cherry on top of 6 years of them trying everything they could think of to destroy this man. They are flailing, but if you think they are done you would be mistaken. The next thing on their list just may be assassination.

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"