Question.

[phrodeau]

That is but one of many possibilities.

What makes planted evidence a possibility? Relying on an informant? Waiting for compliance for months? Not alerting the media?

 

[iso36]

Could it have been aliens?

Just asking…
Republicans

 

[Carnal_Flower]

View attachment 2168993

.

Yup. See my response to Lincoln. The hypocrisy actually disturbed my peace of mind from ignoring the loons for a few minutes. Then you see they just spew a bunch of lies and ridiculous excuses, as usual. They are beyond reason

 

[butters]

his lawyer's already blown the 'planted' theory by stating trump and his cronies were watching it all go down all day via the security cams

 

[icanhelp1]

Absolutely!! That IS the underlying premise for the warrant, the motive if you will.

The news reports are all over the place with one being that an "insider" became a whistleblower concerning the contents of the remaining boxes. OK, if that individual was privy to the contents then they had access to the material. Who's to say they didn't plant any material? It seems that in the previous inspections of the contents such "damning" material wasn't found and retrieved. Why not?

The entire Nuclear Secrets premise is beyond the pale.

There is a broken chain of custody on two separate occasions. I find it odd that the FBI would not allow legal counsel to accompany them during the search, leads to conspiracy theories. Smells to high heavens

The old Vindman tactic, too many insiders and always against Trump.

 

[ll74]

There is a broken chain of custody on two separate occasions. I find it odd that the FBI would not allow legal counsel to accompany them during the search, leads to conspiracy theories. Smells to high heavens

The old Vindman tactic, too many insiders and always against Trump.

Brokem chain of custody by who?

 

[icanhelp1]

You're suspicious that someone has planted evidence and then lied about it.

But sure.....you're waiting on proof

I’m more concerned about exculpatory facts left off the narrative used in the affidavit such as Trumps’s team cooperated with the FBI right along or there is no threat to destroy documents Or the FBI had assurance that the documents were under lock and key sanctioned by the FBI. I also want to if the FBI went judge shopping, I also want to know why a federal judge was not used in such a high impact warrant. Why didn’t this magistrate recuse himself based on his past association with Clinton and Trump.

 

[ll74]

I’m more concerned about exculpatory facts left off the narrative used in the affidavit such as Trumps’s team cooperated with the FBI right along or there is no threat to destroy documents Or the FBI had assurance that the documents were under lock and key sanctioned by the FBI. I also want to if the FBI went judge shopping, I also want to know why a federal judge was not used in such a high impact warrant. Why didn’t this magistrate recuse himself based on his past association with Clinton and Trump.

You have no proof that 45 cooperated. So if it were "left off" of the affadavit, you would immediately believe it to be an political omission rather than deliberate omission.

As for the judges previous recusal, there has been no reason provided, and so assumption that it has to do with Trump is in err.

 

[icanhelp1]

Brokem chain of custody by who?

FBI removed some boxes and left behind others. If the boxes were marked why not take everything ( broken chain of custody), leaving behind marked boxes seems like incompetence or setting the stage for another search. Not allowing Trump’s council to accompany the search party is chain of custody in reverse and lends itself to conspiracy

 

[icanhelp1]

You have no proof that 45 cooperated. So if it were "left off" of the affadavit, you would immediately believe it to be an political omission rather than deliberate omission.

As for the judges previous recusal, there has been no reason provided, and so assumption that it has to do with Trump is in err.

It deserves scrutiny. Need the affidavit

 

[ll74]

FBI removed some boxes and left behind others. If the boxes were marked why not take everything ( broken chain of custody), leaving behind marked boxes seems like incompetence or setting the stage for another search. Not allowing Trump’s council to accompany the search party is chain of custody in reverse and lends itself to conspiracy

It sounds like you don't understand what chain of custody means. They were monitored onsite and on closed circuit camera.

The only thing that lends itself to conspiracy is your conspiracy theory which is based on ignorance.

 

[ll74]

It deserves scrutiny. Need the affidavit

File a motion in court for it.

Good luck.

 

[icanhelp1]

It deserves scrutiny. Need the affidavit

You have no proof that 45 cooperated. So if it were "left off" of the affadavit, you would immediately believe it to be an political omission rather than deliberate omission.

As for the judges previous recusal, there has been no reason provided, and so assumption that it has to do with Trump is in err.

If exculpatory facts were left off the affidavit it could certainly affect probable cause and be denied a warrant altogether. It would certainly affect the prosecution and defense later on in a court case.

It sounds like you don't understand what chain of custody means. They were monitored onsite and on closed circuit camera.

The only thing that lends itself to conspiracy is your conspiracy theory which is based on ignorance.

If exculpatory facts were left off the affidavit it could certainly affect probable cause and be denied a warrant altogether. It would certainly affect the prosecution and defense later on in a court case.

Chain of custody: a process that tracts the movement of evidence through its collection, safeguarding, and analysis lifecycle by documenting each person who handled the evidence, the date/time it was collected or transferred and the purpose for the transfer. Evidence was left behind, what part of that don’t you understand?

 

[butters]

I’m more concerned about exculpatory facts left off the narrative used in the affidavit such as Trumps’s team cooperated with the FBI right along or there is no threat to destroy documents Or the FBI had assurance that the documents were under lock and key sanctioned by the FBI. I also want to if the FBI went judge shopping, I also want to know why a federal judge was not used in such a high impact warrant. Why didn’t this magistrate recuse himself based on his past association with Clinton and Trump.

federal magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart, and, as quoted, Aronberg told Politico on tuesday 'that Reinhart is "known for being meticulous."'

"He's not going to make a snap judgment," Aronberg said.

 

[ll74]

If exculpatory facts were left off the affidavit it could certainly affect probable cause and be denied a warrant altogether. It would certainly affect the prosecution and defense later on in a court case.

If exculpatory facts were left off the affidavit it could certainly affect probable cause and be denied a warrant altogether. It would certainly affect the prosecution and defense later on in a court case.

There is no reason to release the affidavit. Furthermore, the right continues to demonstrate goal post moving when their demands are met (including yourself). Just because you put on your "I'm a lawyer" shirt doesn't mean the DoJ needs to prove that their warrant was legal to you.

45 can certainly challenge legitimacy in court (spoiler: they won't). At this point, his lawyers have no done so nor have they said they would.

Chain of custody: a process that tracts the movement of evidence through its collection, safeguarding, and analysis lifecycle by documenting each person who handled the evidence, the date/time it was collected or transferred and the purpose for the transfer. Evidence was left behind, what part of that don’t you understand?

Yes, and the FBI has documented that chain of custody during their search. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise....you're literally just making up shit.

If they left behind documents, it's because they weren't part of the scope of the warrant. That has nothing to do with chain of custody.

 

[zipman]

FBI removed some boxes and left behind others. If the boxes were marked why not take everything ( broken chain of custody), leaving behind marked boxes seems like incompetence or setting the stage for another search. Not allowing Trump’s council to accompany the search party is chain of custody in reverse and lends itself to conspiracy

That's not a broken chain of custody. Neither is not allowing Trump's council to accompany the search.

The only incompetence is Trump supporters desperately trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[butters]

all these calls for the affidavit are hot air

it won't be released until there's an indictment, if there's an indictment; this is known, yet it's just one of a grab-bag of meaningless talking points

i'm quite sure the DOJ knows exactly how to stick to its own protocols here, and no amount of grandstanding by those demanding to 'see the affidavit' will challenge that. If they DO get to see it, it'll be because the grifter's been charged, so maybe they should be careful what they wish for....

 

[ll74]

all these calls for the affidavit are hot air

it won't be released until there's an indictment, if there's an indictment; this is known, yet it's just one of a grab-bag of meaningless talking points

i'm quite sure the DOJ knows exactly how to stick to its own protocols here, and no amount of grandstanding by those demanding to 'see the affidavit' will challenge that. If they DO get to see it, it'll be because the grifter's been charged, so maybe they should be careful what they wish for....

They are only calling for it because they know the DoJ can't release it...it would fuck up their investigation. It gives them an unknown that they can make up shit about.

 

[ll74]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1558818577947541510

 

[icanhelp1]

They are only calling for it because they know the DoJ can't release it...it would fuck up their investigation. It gives them an unknown that they can make up shit about.

Bullshit! I want to know the probable cause narrative for this search and seizure. My question is could a court compelled subpoena have avoided all this bullshit. The FBI and DOJ have a history of being politicized so pardon me if I don’t trust them. This is a classic “put the shoe on the other foot”, what if this was targeted at Obama? It’s pretty coincidental that every election cycle there’s an impeachment or an investigation and now a highly publicized search and seizure. I’m willing to wager that this search and seizure will find itself linked to J/6. Every news outlet has an insider so I will wait and see.

 

[ll74]

Bullshit! I want to know the probable cause narrative for this search and seizure. My question is could a court compelled subpoena have avoided all this bullshit. The FBI and DOJ have a history of being politicized so pardon me if I don’t trust them. This is a classic “put the shoe on the other foot”, what if this was targeted at Obama? It’s pretty coincidental that every election cycle there’s an impeachment or an investigation and now a highly publicized search and seizure. I’m willing to wager that this search and seizure will find itself linked to J/6. Every news outlet has an insider so I will wait and see.

Yes, you've demonstrated that you already have preconceived notions about the warrant and search that was conducted.

A subpoena was already given to 45 for the documents. He did not fully comply.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

LOL!

I still Got it!

Triggered!

The lengths you Trumplitards go to embarrass yourselves in some lame ploy to own the Libs is baffling.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, you've demonstrated that you already have preconceived notions about the warrant and search that was conducted.

A subpoena was already given to 45 for the documents. He did not fully comply.

Every legal scholar I’ve seen, read or listened to were all in agreement that a court issued subpoena compelling release of all documents was the least intrusive method. The warrant issued was non specific, unlimited scope and no defined restrictions, in other words damn the 4th amendment it’s Trump. This DOJ is setting a perilous precedent. The 70 years I’ve been on this planet I’ve never seen anything so destructive to our constitutional rights.

 

[YDB95]

Every legal scholar I’ve seen, read or listened to were all in agreement that a court issued subpoena compelling release of all documents was the least intrusive method.

First of all, most of us here can imagine just what subset of legal scholars it is that you listen to. Secondly, Trump already had the opportunity to do what you're suggesting here, and - as has been the case throughout his life when it's something he's legally compelled to do but doesn't want to - he ignored it.

 

[Sean]

Every legal scholar I’ve seen, read or listened to were all in agreement that a court issued subpoena compelling release of all documents was the least intrusive method. The warrant issued was non specific, unlimited scope and no defined restrictions, in other words damn the 4th amendment it’s Trump. This DOJ is setting a perilous precedent. The 70 years I’ve been on this planet I’ve never seen anything so destructive to our constitutional rights.

They tried a subpoena. Trump ignored it.