Mar-A-Lago raided and occupied by FBI

[dogmush]

Easy: Trump stored them in such a way that opening the box to make sure they were taking the correct stuff exposed them to cameras. So Trump also illegally duplicated them.

Also FL is a two party consent state, so we can add an illegal wiretapping charge.

You just gotta connect with your inner Zampolit.

[MechAg94]

Easy: Trump stored them in such a way that opening the box to make sure they were taking the correct stuff exposed them to cameras. So Trump also illegally duplicated them.

Also FL is a two party consent state, so we can add an illegal wiretapping charge.

You just gotta connect with your inner Zampolit.

Trump said he had a standing order declassifying anything taken from the White House to Mara-Lago.

If the Judge is partial and the prosecutor is evil (redundant), you can make up anything.  Doesn't even have to make sense. 

[Ben]

Also FL is a two party consent state, so we can add an illegal wiretapping charge.

I wonder how that would work legally in this case. I know it varies by state, but I think usually with two party consent, the onus is on party two after being informed. If I tell you that I'm recording you in my own damn home, you can either say "okay" or you can leave. Normal citizens wouldn't be able to say, "No, don't record me inside your home and I'm also not leaving." Which is what the FBI said here, apparently.

[RoadKingLarry]

How hard would it be to accidently "leak" the footage (bitage?) from the security cameras?
Seems leaks are all the rage these days.

[Jim147]

Speaking of leaks. It is going around that the FBI leaked some information to the Wall Street Journal and they wrote a story that the FBI then used to help get the warrant.

[Brad Johnson]

Speaking of leaks. It is going around that the FBI leaked some information to the Wall Street Journal and they wrote a story that the FBI then used to help get the warrant.

I wish I could scoff in disbelief, but I can't.

Brad

[cordex]

Does Florida’s two party consent cover video as well as audio?

[zxcvbob]

I wonder how that would work legally in this case. I know it varies by state, but I think usually with two party consent, the onus is on party two after being informed. If I tell you that I'm recording you in my own damn home, you can either say "okay" or you can leave. Normal citizens wouldn't be able to say, "No, don't record me inside your home and I'm also not leaving." Which is what the FBI said here, apparently.

IANAL but yep, if you don't leave after being told that you are being recorded, consent is implied.

Cordex's question about whether consent is required for silent video is a good one.

[dogmush]

On cordex question, no it doesn't cover video, it's our wiretapping law, so it specifies audio recordings. I suspect that the agent's comments would be the interesting part of this recording though. Unless they went  full J. Edgar with Melania's wardrobe.

As far as I know, there isn't any precedent on non consensual recording of cops where an expectation of privacy exist. You explicitly can record them in public, but inside a home while they serve a warrant? Not sure if that case law exists.

[WLJ]

More garbage for the dumpster fire

Brett L. Tolman
@tolmanbrett
FBI Unit Leading Mar-a-Lago Probe Earlier Ran Discredited Trump-Russia Investigation | RealClearInvestigations

‘bUt It’S nOt PoLiTiCaL’: FBI Unit leading Mar-a-Lago probe also ran another discredited Trump investigation … GUESS which one
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/08/19/but-its-not-political-fbi-unit-leading-mar-a-lago-probe-also-ran-another-discredited-trump-investigation-guess-which-one/

[HankB]

Easy: Trump stored them in such a way that opening the box to make sure they were taking the correct stuff exposed them to cameras. So Trump also illegally duplicated them.

Also FL is a two party consent state, so we can add an illegal wiretapping charge.

You just gotta connect with your inner Zampolit.

Trump also may have also failed to prevent FBI agents without proper TS/SCI clearances to examine and handle the documents - charge him with that, too.

[dogmush]

Trump also may have also failed to prevent FBI agents without proper TS/SCI clearances to examine and handle the documents - charge him with that, too.

Now you're catching on!

[Jim147]

So, he finally pulled out the 4th. I would have done it as soon as I saw the warrant.

[MechAg94]

Speaking of leaks. It is going around that the FBI leaked some information to the Wall Street Journal and they wrote a story that the FBI then used to help get the warrant.

That is pretty much the same way the Steel Dossier was used to justify wire taps of Trump's campaign. 

[Ben]

Don't forget, the White House learned of the raid via Twitter.

From Just the News:

Long before it professed no prior knowledge of the raid on Donald Trump’s estate, the Biden White House worked directly with the Justice Department and National Archives to instigate the criminal probe into alleged mishandling of documents, allowing the FBI to review evidence retrieved from Mar-a-Lago this spring and eliminating the 45th president’s claims to executive privilege, according to contemporaneous government documents reviewed by Just the News.

The memos show then-White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su was engaged in conversations with the FBI, DOJ and National Archives as early as April, shortly after 15 boxes of classified and other materials were voluntarily returned to the federal historical agency from Trump’s Florida home.

[Hawkmoon]

So, he finally pulled out the 4th. I would have done it as soon as I saw the warrant.

Reports I've seen said that the FBI refused to show Trump's lawyer the search warrant. That should be grounds to disqualify the entire operation right there.

[Pb]

Ok- so what is the latest news about what Trump is being accused of?  Keeping classified documents in his house?

[dogmush]

Ok- so what is the latest news about what Trump is being accused of?  Keeping classified documents in his house?

Violations of the Espionage Act. Records Act, and Obstruction of Justice.
 Specifically 18 USC 793 (Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information), 18 USC 2071(Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally), and 18 USC 1519(Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy)

ATTACHMENT B
Property to be seized
All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or
other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071 , or 1519, including the
following:
a. Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any
containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as
well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the
aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;

b. Information, including communications in any form, regarding the
retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material;

c. Any government and/or Presidential Records created between January
20, 2017, and January 20, 2021; or

d. Any evidence of the knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of
any government and/or Presidential Records, or of any documents with classification
markings.

[Angel Eyes]

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2022/08/23/you-dont-frighten-us-fbi-pig-dogs-monty-python-footage-of-fbi-raid-on-castle-mar-a-lago-funniest-damn-thing-youll-see-today-watch/

[Pb]

So, did Trump have classified documents?

[Ron]

you'll just have to trust the FBI and Biden administration on this one

[Northwoods]

So, did Trump have classified documents?

What difference, at this point, does it make?

[Ron]

So, did Trump have classified documents?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-mar-lago-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-constitutional-lawyers

“The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid,” they wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

As a result, the two scholars said that “virtually all the materials at Mar-a-Lago are likely to fall within this category” but “federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them.”

“His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful, regardless of the statutes the FBI cites in its warrant,” Rivkin and Casey wrote.

“Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978,” they said, adding that a Supreme Court decision in 1974 affirms their argument. “The former president’s rights under the [Presidential Records Act] trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.”

The 1978 law, which was passed two years after former President Richard Nixon resigned, “lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access,” they added. “Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.”

[Ben]

I didn't have any advance notice. None. Zero. Not one single bit.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1562517794801221640

[bedlamite]

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/biden-white-house-facilitated-dojs-criminal-probe-against-trump