BREAKING>>FBI raids Trump’s Mar-a-Lago

[roamer_1]

You don't think the constitution was violated?  How in the HELL can you say that when the  plain language therein says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." when that is clearly not what happened in 2020!

@Bigun

The legislature DID direct by way of their acquiescence. They certified it as true and valid. And who knows what powers they have given to their agents in their stead? That is a massive monkey knot, full of internal election law and precedence, and not as easy as you declare.

[sneakypete]

https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1557373781013942273

@mystery-ak

I  can't even begin to imagine how horrified and embarrassed the children of those men in that photo must be to see their fathers photo splashed all across the world and generally referred to as things like "goons" and "lawless thugs".

[Right_in_Virginia]

It makes no difference what words it contained @Bigun .
It was a direct assault on a sovereign state attempting to decertify what that state (in its own right) declared and certified as valid.

No, that's wrong.    As powerful as our Founders wanted individual states to be, they did not give the states, any state, the authority or power to override or ignore the Constitution of the United States.

[roamer_1]

@Sighlass

So you think Trump,as President,being in favor of removing guns from the possession of people whose own families think they are disturbed and dangerous makes him a gun-grabber?

Seriously? After all,who knows more about the emotional stability of someone than their own family?

@sneakypete

YES. My ex would have had me red tagged and all my guns taken from me as a matter of course.
Gun-grabbing bullcrap straight out of the liberal handbook. Then you'll need to see a shrink to get your guns back, and shrinks are invariably liberal a*******, who will forever remove your ability to own a weapon until they deem it reasonable... Which will be never.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

Then that's a huge risk, politically, and just as desperate.
And one which has already backfired big time.

@roamer_1

It is no personal risk at all to the people behind it because they will never be charged with anything.

[Sighlass]

@Sighlass

So you think Trump,as President,being in favor of removing guns from the possession of people whose own families think they are disturbed and dangerous makes him a gun-grabber?

Seriously? After all,who knows more about the emotional stability of someone than their own family?

I think that any law that someone can accuse you of something and the law act on it without due course of law (being able to defend oneself) pertaining guns is dangerous.

Family does not always have one's best interest at heart. Neither does government.

So you want to go on record in favor of red flag laws ! If one of your kin decides that "chemo brain" is reason to take away your guns, you would be in favor of it?

As you know, the law's problem is the lack of common sense in administering it. Some suit decides they don't like you, you have lost your rights.

Off subject, you can have the last word.

[roamer_1]

No, that's wrong.    As powerful as our Founders wanted individual states to be, they did not give the states, any state, the authority or power to override or ignore the Constitution of the United States.

No, it is not wrong, and I will submit that the Constitution was not violated, on the grounds that bonified officials were acting as agents of the legislature in their absence... As proven by the legislatures' acquiescence and certification. The legislature HAS 'seen fit'.

And that does not really matter, because all you will do is shoot state sovereignty full of holes big enough for the feds to crawl through.

And that is a big damn mistake. Huge.

[Hoodat]

Lol, @leftwing website cut...  You posted a link, but the bottom of the link (which you didn't quote) is one of the sections Trump amended... and it does exactly as I claimed it did, it ups the penalty for taking documents...



Reference : Jan. 19, 2018, 132 Stat. 19

I posted 18 U.S. Code § 1924(a) verbatim.  I also provided a link.  Again:

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(b)For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c)In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924


Again, we are not dealing with classified documents here.  This is a National Archives issue.  Secondly, Trump was not a officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States when he came in possession of the boxes.  Thirdly, Trump did not take the boxes to his residence.  They were packed and delivered by the GSA.   Please read the statute.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

YES. My ex would have had me red tagged and all my guns taken from me as a matter of course.
Gun-grabbing bullcrap straight out of the liberal handbook.

Maybe in the big northern cities,but I THINK that in most of America a DA is NOT going to take such charges seriously from an ex.

Now,a current wife with their children and other relatives and neighbors backing her up is a different story.

Then you'll need to see a shrink to get your guns back, and shrinks are invariably liberal a*******, who will forever remove your ability to own a weapon until they deem it reasonable... Which will be never.

I agree,IF it gets that far. Most sheriffs will check the arrest records and ask the deputies who patrol the area where this man lives to see if he has ever been any trouble before they make these decisions.

Sheriffs don't like being caught in the middle of marital squabbles any more than the rest of us.

[Hoodat]

Exactly.  We need three things right now:

1)  The Warrant in its original form, no redactions.
2)  The complete inventory of what was removed.
3)  The application for the Warrant.  Again no redactions.  A copy that includes any last-minute changes and margin notes.

And (4) - why in the hell did it take nine hours when they knew in advance what boxes they wanted and where they were located.

[sneakypete]

I think that any law that someone can accuse you of something and the law act on it without due course of law (being able to defend oneself) pertaining guns is dangerous.

You should have stopped at "I think",because you are not thinking.

Family does not always have one's best interest at heart. Neither does government.

So you want to go on record in favor of red flag laws ! If one of your kin decides that "chemo brain" is reason to take away your guns, you would be in favor of it?

As you know, the law's problem is the lack of common sense in administering it. Some suit decides they don't like you, you have lost your rights.

Off subject, you can have the last word.

Will they be assisted by Klingons?

[Hoodat]

"Useful idiot holding a sign 'arrest Trump' in NY is asked to explain his statement that Trump should be arrested for provable criminal acts "  (Video)

https://mobile.twitter.com/wlctv_ca/status/1557485039541071873

This is every liberal on the planet.

[roamer_1]

Maybe in the big northern cities,but I THINK that in most of America a DA is NOT going to take such charges seriously from an ex.

Now,a current wife with their children and other relatives and neighbors backing her up is a different story.

@sneakypete

Well, she was not officially my ex during the divorce, and she drug me through every damn knothole she could find, and the state stepped and fetched.

I agree,IF it gets that far. Most sheriffs will check the arrest records and ask the deputies who patrol the area where this man lives to see if he has ever been any trouble before they make these decisions.

Sheriffs don't like being caught in the middle of marital squabbles any more than the rest of us.

Goes down easy in the speaking of it, but I'm a Good Ol Boy, and I have enough sheet from my yoot to turn that theory on it's head. No, they'd come a'runnin. They always do.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Breaking911
@Breaking911

NEW: Trump says room FBI breached at Mar-A-Lago had two locks installed at the request of the Feds in June.

"A surprise attack, POLITICS, and all the while our Country is going to HELL!"



4:21 PM · Aug 10, 2022  Twitter Web App

[Bigun]

@Bigun

The legislature DID direct by way of their acquiescence. They certified it as true and valid. And who knows what powers they have given to their agents in their stead? That is a massive monkey knot, full of internal election law and precedence, and not as easy as you declare.

NO! They did no such thing and the governors made damned sure that the legislature had no opportunity to object to what was done! @roamer_1

[Hoodat]

Breaking911
@Breaking911

Maybe there was something in those documents that implicated Biden for something.

[roamer_1]

NO! They did no such thing and the governors made damned sure that the legislature had no opportunity to object to what was done! @roamer_1

Did the state certify or not?

[Bigun]

No, that's wrong.    As powerful as our Founders wanted individual states to be, they did not give the states, any state, the authority or power to override or ignore the Constitution of the United States.

Exactly right @Right_in_Virginia In fact, they tried to ensure the exact opposite would prevail.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No, it is not wrong,

If you'd like to continue to discuss this, I've got two humble requests:  the first:  Read the full filing and second:  start a separate thread.   Continuing the discussion here is interrupting an important thread.

Thanks @roamer_1

[Bigun]

Did the state certify or not?

Yes! But not the legislatures as you are desperately trying to imply!

[Sighlass]

I posted 18 U.S. Code § 1924(a) verbatim.  I also provided a link.  Again:

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a)Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

(b)For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c)In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924


Again, we are not dealing with classified documents here.  This is a National Archives issue.  Secondly, Trump was not a officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States when he came in possession of the boxes.  Thirdly, Trump did not take the boxes to his residence.  They were packed and delivered by the GSA.   Please read the statute.

Your very link contains this at the bottom, which shows that Trump changed the time of imprisonment from 1 year to five. My original claim was that Trump upped the penalty to felon status of 5 years. I didn't nothing more, nothing less.



My picture I posted showed what Trump did to "up" the time to felony amounts of 5 years. He didn't write the changes I imagine, but he signed them.  I hunted down what "132 Stat. 19" was (at least the part that pertained to what I claimed, ie longer jail times).

You may have very valid points on whether Trump violated the rules or not. That is another subject of which I take great interest reading to the best of my ability (I enjoy the discourse between members here). I just take offense that I am some left wing surfing person that knowingly posted something not true (that Trump didn't "up" the penalty for violating taking documents deemed sensitive).

[Fishrrman]

https://legalinsurrection.com/2022/08/the-left-is-now-desperately-trying-to-change-the-meaning-of-the-word-raid/

Hmmmm....
Lemmmeeesseeee here....

"Insurrections" are fine,
But "raids" are not...

[Bigun]

If you'd like to continue to discuss this, I've got two humble requests:  the first:  Read the full filing and second:  start a separate thread.   Continuing the discussion here is interrupting an important thread.

Thanks @roamer_1

It's not him @Right_in_Virginia it's me and I will honor your request.

[Hoodat]

If you'd like to continue to discuss this, I've got two humble requests:  the first:  Read the full filing and second:  start a separate thread.   Continuing the discussion here is interrupting an important thread.

Proposed thread title:   Is it the Court's job to fix what the People allowed to happen?

[roamer_1]

If you'd like to continue to discuss this, I've got two humble requests:  the first:  Read the full filing and second:  start a separate thread.   Continuing the discussion here is interrupting an important thread.

Thanks @roamer_1

@Right_in_Virginia

I am already fully informed of the filing.

And I have already stated that I thought this should end - That the sidebar is turning into a hijack.
I am only responding to others. That is not my fault. I have said more than once this has all been fought over before.