To date they have lied and been wrong about everything. Not sure why this would be any different
To date they have lied and been wrong about everything. Not sure why this would be any different
Doesn't matter. All that matters is that their lies have been effective. Half the population still believes everything they heard about him. If the lie reaches billions of people but the truth that comes out only reaches millions "they" still win.Originally Posted by PorkChopSandwiches
Personally, if they found something so be it. The only thing I want to see change is the double standard. Why do all the liberals get a free pass even on blatant illegal/racist/sexist things?
KevinD (08-17-2022), PorkChopSandwiches (08-17-2022), Teh One Who Knocks (08-16-2022)
By Haris Alic | Fox News
A federal magistrate in Florida is set to hold a hearing Thursday on whether to make public the probable cause affidavit used to justify the FBI's raid of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.
The hearing is in response to several media outlets asking the court to make the affidavit public to understand the reasoning for a raid on the home of a former commander-in-chief.
Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who green-lit the original search warrant Aug. 5, is slated to preside over the hearing, although it is unclear whether he will make a decision from the bench or take the case under advisement.
The hearing comes as political tensions have heightened since news of the FBI's raid on Mar-a-Lago first broke last week over Trump's purported failure to hand over presidential records and classified documents to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Trump, for his part, claims that his staff was working with the National Archives to provide the documents as required under the Presidential Records Act of 1978.
"Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before," Trump said in a statement last week. "After working and cooperating with the relevant government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate."
Trump also claims that seized documents were declassified and therefore not subject to special safeguarding requirements. Given the denials, GOP lawmakers have called for the Justice Department to make public its affidavit laying out its justification for a search warrant for the home of a former president.
"They can redact the names and other sensitive information, but DOJ must lay their cards on the table," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "Media speculation is rampant … Let America see the affidavit."
Attorney General Merrick Garland and the DOJ are pushing back on demands for the document to be made public. The Justice Department has said that disclosing the affidavit would breach longstanding legal precedent, potentially jeopardize the government's investigation and expose any confidential sources.
"If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a roadmap to the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course in a manner that is highly likely to compromise future investigative steps," the DOJ said in a court filing earlier this week opposing the affidavit's release.
Usually, an affidavit listing the probable cause for a search warrant is not unsealed until after an indictment or arrest is made. That precedent has been broken in the past, however, especially in extraordinary circumstances.
Legal experts say that a raid on the home of a former president is sufficient cause.
"In these cases, the court balances the public's interest against the need for continued secrecy," said Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School. "This was a historic raid that has caused a great deal of public unrest. Millions of Americans are questioning the motivation of the Justice Department."
Much of the debate centers on what is included in the affidavit and whether it can be made public without undercutting any ongoing investigation.
"The affidavit of probable cause is usually based upon more than just one interview or one piece of information. It's usually a series of steps that explain the reason for why you believe a crime has been committed and where the evidence is located," said Ken Gray, a former FBI agent and lecturer in criminal justice at the University of New Haven.
"A lot depends on the details that are within the document. Even a redaction may still end up revealing the sources, especially if only certain people are known to hold that information."
In filing to oppose unsealing the affidavit, the Justice Department argued that the act could damage the government's ability to entice sources to come forward.
"Disclosure of the government’s affidavit at this stage would also likely chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations," the DOJ wrote.
Experts say that there is a larger issue at play, mainly the credibility of the Justice Department in investigating one of President Biden's top political rivals and a likely 2024 opponent. Those questions have only grown amid leaks surrounding the raid that have revealed insight into the DOJ's conduct.
Given that reality, legal experts say the Justice Department should make at least some effort to be transparent about its case for raiding Mar-a-Lago.
"The Justice Department continues to operate as if everyone is asking for full disclosure," said Turley. "They can redact portions of the affidavit. They can allow the court to review the redaction and make judgments as to how sensitive the provisions might be. But they oppose it wholesale to the detriment of the American public."
"Disclosure of the government's affidavit at this stage would also likely chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations," the Justice Department wrote. "The fact that this investigation implicates highly classified materials further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential harm if information is disclosed to the public prematurely or improperly."
Media organizations, including CNN, had asked for the affidavit to be unsealed after the search last week at Trump's Palm Beach, Florida, club and residence.
The Justice Department said in its filing that disclosing the affidavit details "at this juncture" would "cause significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation."
"The redactions necessary to mitigate harms to the integrity of the investigation would be so extensive as to render the remaining unsealed text devoid of meaningful content, and the release of such a redacted version would not serve any public interest," the Justice Department stated.
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.c...-affidavit.pdf
It's the redacted affidavit that was released today.
lost in melb. (08-26-2022)
FBI: Trump mixed top secret docs with magazines, other items
https://apnews.com/article/donald-tr...6c70d42a93a05d
Judge To Appoint Special Master To Oversee FBI Review Of Trump Records
By Tim Pearce - The Daily Wire
A federal judge on Monday approved former President Donald Trump’s request to appoint a special master to oversee the FBI’s audit of materials seized in an August raid on Mar-a-Lago.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon approved Trump’s request after the former president’s attorneys and a legal team from the Department of Justice (DOJ) met over the request in court last week. Cannon’s decision comes days after she released a more detailed list of materials confiscated by the FBI from Trump’s Florida resort, which has served as his residence since he exited the White House in January 2021.
On August 8, the FBI raided Trump’s residence in an unprecedented move that ignited a firestorm of controversy around the agency. Cannon said the case’s unusual nature partly contributed to her decision.
“Pursuant to the Court’s equitable jurisdiction and inherent supervisory authority, and mindful of the need to ensure at least the appearance of fairness and integrity under the extraordinary circumstances presented, Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED IN PART,” Cannon wrote in her order. “The Court hereby authorizes the appointment of a special master to review the seized property for personal items and documents and potentially privileged material subject to claims of attorney-client and/or executive privilege.”
Cannon’s order also temporarily stops the FBI’s criminal investigation into the materials seized from Trump.
Last week in court, the DOJ team argued against a special master, saying that the FBI’s privilege review team had already separated potentially protected materials from government documents. The DOJ also noted that a special master appointment at such a late stage in the audit would needlessly slow the bureau’s work.
Trump’s team asserted that a special master was needed to protect Trump’s interests as the FBI reviewed seized materials, many of which have not been claimed to belong to the government. Trump’s legal team is most interested in documents and records that it claims are protected by attorney-client privilege and executive privilege, however.
Cannon said on Thursday that she would unseal a more detailed list of the materials taken during the Mar-a-Lago raid. The 8-page document, released on Friday, provides a fuller picture of what agents took from Mar-a-Lago, though it still lacks specifics of what numerous documents contained.
According to the inventory list, agents removed material from Trump’s office and a storage room consisting of classified documents and records and more mundane objects such as “clothing/gift” items, books, and printouts of news articles.
For example, a box of material taken from Trump’s office contained two documents marked confidential, 15 documents marked secret, seven documents marked top secret, and 69 other documents or photos without classification markings. The box also contained 99 magazine or news articles written between January 2017 and October 2018 and dozens of empty folders labeled either “CLASSIFIED” or “Return to Staff Secretary/Miliary [sic] Aide.”
By Nikolas Lanum | Fox News
Following a federal judge’s ruling to grant former President Trump a special master to review evidence obtained by FBI agents from his Mar-a-Lago estate, left-leaning media figures on MSNBC and CNN cried foul, and slammed the judge for her decision.
MSNBC’s "The ReidOut" host Joy Reid hosted an entire panel of disgruntled interviewees on Monday, with guests claiming that the judge’s decision was wrong and "corrupt," among other things.
"Trump—he always looks at things as my or mine. My generals, my Kevin, my classified documents, my judges. Apparently he’s got one," Reid said as she smirked.
She then past on the baton to frequent MSNBC guest and The Nation justice correspondent Elie Mystal, who made bold claims about the judge’s credibility and character.
"She’s biased and corrupt. Like, I don’t know what to tell everybody anymore," Mystal said. "Like, I’ve been saying this since he took office. When you allow Republicans to control the courts you get nothing. Trump judges do not believe in the rule of law, they do not believe in precedent, they do not believe in facts, they do not believe in logic—they just believe in whatever’s going to help Donald Trump, and they’ve proven it again and again and again."
The conversation continued on over on "Morning Joe," where the show discussed the Trump court ruling at length. Former top Obama official Neal Katyal, described the judge’s ruling as a "grafted on solution." He also suggested that the ruling looked like it was meant to "protect their guy" or at the very least, "delay justice."
Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who was forced to exit the network in 2020, returned as a guest to "Morning Joe" on Tuesday, and echoed Katyal’s perspective that the ruling acted as a delay, and a possible short term win for the former president.
"It’s a classic Trump delay," he said.
MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissman also weighed in on the decision to appoint a special master. He claimed that the ruling seemed "so out of the ordinary" and did little to help "people’s confidence" in the case, if it appeared Trump was receiving "special rules."
"It isn’t the case that because you’re the former president, you get more justice. You should get equal justice. You shouldn’t be treated worse, but he shouldn’t be treated better," he added.
Over on CNN, New York Times senior political correspondent Maggie Haberman said she found the decision "striking" and surmised that the judge was giving Trump "more deference" than perhaps other people would be entitled to.
"How do the two sides even agree on who the special master is supposed to be? Who has the security clearances for this? It’s a wild decision," she added.
Jessica Levinson, a Law professor at Loyola Law School, also expressed concern about the ruling on CNN and questioned what might happen if Trump were to announce his candidacy for president should the investigation still be ongoing.
"Yes, the Department of Justice may be able to continue with its investigation eventually. But, it matters when you have to postpone because we know we are running up to the midterms, then we are running up to the presidential election. The former president is likely to say, again, he is going to be a candidate for the presidency. At which point, his claim will be, well the Biden Department of Justice is going after me because I am his opponent. It’s still a delay that changes things," she said.
U.S. District Judge from the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen M. Cannon ordered that the special master be appointed to "review the seized property, manage assertions of privilege and make recommendations thereon, and evaluate claims for return of property."
Trump's legal team last month asked Cannon to appoint a special master in the wake of the unprecedented search of his property, arguing that the DOJ's "Privilege Review Team" should not be the final arbiter of whether its actions were proper in such a high-profile case and that the review team's scope was too narrow.
Meanwhile, federal prosecutors during the hearing last week argued that appointing a special master would delay their investigation, that Trump didn't have standing for his request and that he didn't have a right to possess the classified documents.
A Department of Justice "taint" or "filter" team had been reviewing those documents, but Cannon's Monday order temporarily halts that review.
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Good to see Bill doesn't spend all his time sexually harassing the help.
lost in melb. (09-09-2022)
Good to see you paying attention to the points of contention. Because being accused of something, yet never proven nor convicted, automatically disqualifies someone from analyzing a political situation and giving their opinion.
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
$30 million of what used to be Bill's money might suggest otherwise.
Maybe you can find a video of David Duke commenting on this?
Just because he paid them to go away doesn't mean he actually did anything. He took the easy way out. He has said numerous times that he shouldn't have paid them off, that he should have stood up to them, that he should have fought them. Keep in mind, he got burned during a time when women were accusing every man walking for sexual harassment. And the vast majority of those accusations were complete and utter bullshit. And they were accusing right-wing guys of sexual harassment to try to get them off the air. Virtually every accusation levelled against Bill was in reference to things he allegedly said to the woman in question. Real or imagined, right or wrong, it should boil down to a matter of free speech. Bill O'Reilly was not Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby.
And again, accusations do not disqualify the man from being able to analyze and comment on politics. It's his bread and butter and he still does it well.
And screw you for that David Duke comment.
Last edited by DemonGeminiX; 09-09-2022 at 09:20 AM.
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Teh One Who Knocks (09-10-2022)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
