If you strike at the king, take care….

The FBI raids Mar-a-Lago

They better have found what they were looking for, or he is going to burn them to the ground.

71 thoughts on “If you strike at the king, take care….

    1. In theory, yes. But this FBI has been known to fudge things.

      I would be relieved if they found something that would keep Trump out of the next election.

      But if they guessed wrong. Melania can start measuring for drapes and Garland can get smartly tailored orange jumpsuits.

      Like

      1. You are so desperate that you think that Merrick Garland is going to prison? Talk about deflective reasoning. Like Trump, you say what should happen to others when it is potentially what COULD happen to him.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Could you do that?”

      Depends. The president has ultimate classification authority. He could, for example, declassify documents for his own use just by wishing it so.

      We need more to understand the event.

      Like

      1. Indeed, I have no idea if they’re going to find something or not, I’m just commenting on the personality involved. He is not one to let an insult go unanswered.

        There are millions of Americans who see him as the target of a conspiracy already and they are going to be as pissed as he is.

        So, they better find something and it better be bad enough to take him out, or there are going to be heads piked on the fence outside 1600 PA Ave in 2025.

        Like

        1. Again, the threats of violence from the right.

          I don’t disagree with your assessment yet the issue with Trump is the underlying threat and that has the GOP in knots.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. You’re projecting again. I said nothing about actual violence.

            But Trump and the GOP will be coming for the FBI unless they found something serious and covered by the warrant.

            if they were just desperately fishing for something unrelated to the warrant Garland will be lucky to find a job in mall security.

            Like

          2. …”Garland will be lucky to find a job in mall security.”

            Garland has performed the duties of Attorney General in the manner the office should be handled. He does not go off willy-nilly; he does NOT attempt to use his office as the personal attorney to the President; he is a cautious individual who respects the law and takes his job seriously.

            If you think he has overstepped his duties, I believe you will be sadly mistaken.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Speaking of violence, searching for documents with the President’s lawyers present to open the doors and monitor the situation does not require body armor and machine guns and gunboats.

            This is theater, not law enforcement.

            Like

          4. The lawyer working with the National Archives said the process of examining records at Mar a Lago was cordial and the raid came as a total surprise,

            Like

          5. “Speaking of violence,”…

            Why did you all of a sudden shift to blaming the FBI for following its normal procedures and IGNORE the calls for violence all over right wing media?

            Like

          6. “You’re projecting again. I said nothing about actual violence.”

            Leaving aside your egregious and dishonest insult directed at Len, your statement is obviously FALSE. It is hard to imagine a more violent threat than “heads piked on the fence” around the White House.

            You people threaten violence ALL THE TIME. And now we know that you are willing to act on those threats. You are the greatest threat to the Constitution in the history of our republic.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “That’s just keeping the rhetoric in line with the Emerson quote.”

            Maybe so, but the threat of violence remains. And, unlike you, Len NEVER engages in such threats in any way. He was NOT “projecting again.”

            Liked by 1 person

  1. Apparently the federal officials got fed up with the delay tactics of Trump’s circle. They have asked repeatedly for documents that were not recovered the first time they were requested (15 boxes, if I recall, were collected and returned to The National Archives). The delay is an old Trump dodge he used repeatedly in his business dealings.

    There are several instances in the past where documents that were not supposed to be shredded, burned, flushed, destroyed or removed from the WH after 1978 Presidential Records Act. People were found guilty of misdemeanors, but the record is still there.

    Keep in mind, Christopher Wray was appointed to head the FBI by Mr. Trump. He would have to be deeply involved in the securing of the warrant. A warrant that had to be signed off by a federal judge. The move was not taken lightly and the GOP response is further evidence that they are not now, nor since TFG’s term, been about Law and Order.

    Also, Garland would have been in the mix. As we have seen, he is quite deliberate in his actions, taking the time to fully grasp the realities of any situation. He would not have allowed DOJ to move on this unless he was POSITIVE of being able to prove criminal intent.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. “There is not legitimate reason to withhold them”

        There might be. Apparently the concern is that the materials stolen from the White House included some very sensitive national security materials.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. So, let’s see the affidavits.

          I frankly don’t believe them. I think they went to a magistrate for a warrant to search for what had already been made available as a pretense to search for something they think is there but had no probable cause to support a warrant.

          It wouldn’t be the first time they defrauded a court.

          Like

          1. “I frankly don’t believe them”

            If Jesus himself walked up to you and handed the information over, you would still say that. Why? Because, well, Democrats.

            Fertilizer. (In deference to your grandchildren.)

            As far as probable cause goes, you are forgetting about the investigation ongoing that you say the Jan 6th committee is causing issues with. Seems to me they have plenty of cause for a search warrant. If related to documents, they can specify that. But if anything is in the open and relates to other criminal activity, they can claim that too. It’s the law. Like or or not.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The Search warrant was, according to the FBI, not related to Jan 6 but rather to documents taken when Trump moved out.

            If their target is not those documents and they deceived the court to get the warrant, that is criminal.

            Like

          3. Not really. They can search for the documents in the affidavit, but if they find anything in the open, it is fair game.

            Example: If an individual is on probation, his PO can search his home, residence, or place of work WITHOUT a warrant. He/she cannot dig around for anything, but can look at open areas. If the probationer leaves a gun lying about and he is not allowed to possess one, he can be charged, based on that discovery. No warrant required. Search warrants operate under the same concept.

            Like

          4. I understand that, but if the warrant is obtained fraudulently, that the target was really something related to Jan 6 and not the documents claimed, and the documents were just a fig leaf for an unlawful search, that is not just an illegal search, but a crime

            Like

          5. “The Search warrant was, according to the FBI, not related to Jan 6 but rather to documents taken when Trump moved out.”

            Always someone is a criminal – except for the criminals.

            There is a very significant probability that there is overlap between the two current investigations. In other words, some of the documents illegally removed from the White House may well be related to the events of Insurrection Day 2021. There was SOME reason DJT was stealing and destroying documents. Covering up crimes is an obvious explanation.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Another, obvious explanation, is that Trump didn’t believe he was moving until a bit over a week before he had to be out and that there was a lot of paper to pack up.

            But so long as we don’t’ see those affidavits, we won’t know. This would be a good time for the FBI to embrace transparency.

            Like

          7. …” that Trump didn’t believe”…

            He still doesn’t believe he lost the election. Even with his FAMILY, AG, and ELECTION STAFF telling him it was over. REPEATEDLY. Giving him a pass for not being ready to move is as idiotic as the sky is blue.

            “This would be a good time for the FBI to embrace transparency.”

            So they HAVE to be transparent when a GOP member is the criminal being investigated? Sorry, but being transparent in an investigation is not the proper way for them to be conducted.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. …”was a lot of paper to pack up.”

            The paper to be packed should have gone to the National Archives. PERIOD. There is ZERO legitimate reason for papers to be mixed up between Newspaper clippings and any and all notes (those that weren’t flushed) are covered by The Presidential Records Act.

            You know, THE LAW? Or is THE LAW only for those you disagree with?

            Liked by 1 person

          9. “Another, obvious explanation, is that Trump didn’t believe he was moving until a bit over a week before he had to be out and that there was a lot of paper to pack up.”

            A preposterous explanation. He lost the election and he knew it from November 8th onward. And after January 6th, he still had two weeks and plenty of help. The idea that somehow sweeping up Presidential records and classified materials and illegally carting them away was all an innocent mistake is beyond laughable.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. ” There is not legitimate reason to withhold them”

        So says you. Let me use a simple phrase even your supporters will understand: National Security.

        And your thoughts on the matter mean nothing in the world of law and order.

        Like

        1. Actually, no, they don’t, They were shown a partially folded warrant and denied a copy. Then they were ejected from the home and not allowed to witness the search.

          So, at this point, we have to assume the search was unlawful and any evidence recovered to be planted.

          The FBI, having lied to the FISA courts befiore, cannot be trusted.

          Like

          1. “Actually, no, they don’t, They were shown a partially folded warrant and denied a copy. Then they were ejected from the home and not allowed to witness the search.”

            That is how search warrants work. And they DO have a copy of the warrant. Also procedure to leave a copy with the owner or representative.

            You throw a lot of ketchup and the wall here and NONE of it is sticking.

            “The FBI, having lied to the FISA courts before, cannot be trusted.”

            You trusted them in 2016. What has changed? Oh right. The FBI is NOW led by .. wait for it.. a TRUMP APPOINTEE.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Are you even paying attention to yourself?

            Now Wray is corrupt because of some made up “deep State” BS that has been the big bad wolf the right has been complaining about. Yet when THEY re the big bad wolf, it is no big deal.

            Hypocrisy run amok.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “And he was beholden to the Deep State before the country then too.”

            More utterly laughable and childish nonsense.

            Do you never stop and think why there are so many “corrupt” people in so many high places? Do you never stop and think how massively improbable and impractical the conspiracies you pull out of your ass actually are? Do you never get tired of being hoodwinked by the lying liars of “conservative” media? Do you like embarrassing yourself?

            Liked by 1 person

        1. The source said? Really?

          Trump’s lawyers were not given a copy of the warrant, nor were they allowed to read it.

          Then they were not allowed to witness the search.

          Anything found will be assumed to have been planted.

          Like

          1. “Your cite says nothing of the sort.”

            Actually it does.

            “But Trump’s lawyers have the warrant and a detailed manifest of what the FBI took away. ”

            That is a statement of fact by a usually reliable source. And it conforms with standard practice. Your claims are not supported by any evidence and do NOT conform to standard practice ESPECIALLY in a high profile case. The idea that the warrant was NOT provided to Trump is absurd on its face. Just the kind of bullshit you spread all the time. Kind of like that file photo gunboat intimidating the household.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Politico Playbook is not a news site, it is an opinion blog.

            Chistina Cobb said that the Agents initially did not let her see the unfolded warrant but eventually let her read it. They did not leave a copy with her.

            Most damning of all, the did not allow the lawyers, residents or staff to witness the search, and tried to turn off the security cameras, but were rebuffed.

            But you are right that NORMALLY the subject of a search gets a copy of the warrant, and can watch, but not interfere with, the search.

            That normal procedures were not followed in this case is very suspicious.

            Like

          3. “That normal procedures were not followed in this case is very suspicious.”

            That claim is axs bogus as the day is long. If that were tuly the case, the FBI would jeopardize any evidnece found and they know that.

            Your pretzel logic has spun out of control.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. So, where is the evidence that Cobb got a copy of the warrant?

            https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/doj-ordered-respond-requests-unseal-fbi-trump-raid-warrant

            and

            https://www.mediaite.com/news/trumps-lawyer-claims-fbi-warrant-to-raid-mar-a-lago-was-partly-sealed-we-dont-know-what-the-probable-cause-is/

            They initially didn’t even let her look at it and the probable cause is sealed.

            That IS NOT normal procedure for a document search.

            Like

          5. “That IS NOT normal procedure for a document search.”

            It CAN be if necessary to protect National Security. It has been reported that some of the documents STILL in possession @ MAL were HIGHLY classified.

            And for you to complain about Politico and then use the Washington Examiner as a reference makes things even more laughable.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. You seem to have issue with FBI agents following their procedures in the manner called for.

            It appears you are listening to people who are 1) clueless idiots who have ZERO idea about FBI procedures, and 2) Trump loving bumper humpers.

            You have provided NOTHING to prove ANYTHING you have said about the warrant, Trump’s lawyers maintaining a copy of it, nor the FBI NOT following procedure.

            Desperation on FULL display.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “Politico Playbook is not a news site . . .”

            Laughable as always. While complaining about the evidence cited, you spew a cock and bull story with no evidence whatsoever. No cites. No sources. As a matter of fact, Trump’s legal team DID get a copy of the warrant and they have declined to share it.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/10/trump-fbi-search/

            And from other reporting, it seems that the FBI was acting on a fresh tip from a Trump insider to the effect that Trump was still holding materials that he should have turned over and where he was keeping them. The agents left the premises with TWELVE boxes of materials. So much for the bullshit about full cooperation with the National Archives.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. Paywalled Perhaps you could provide a quote in context? Along with their source

            Twelve boxes of un itemized documents and objects. There will be no way to know if the items catalogued will match what was actually in the boxes when they left LAM. Could be full of Melania’s underwear for all we know.

            Just heard Judge Jeanine Pirro on THE FIVE confirm that she had spoken with Eric Trump 10 minutes before the show and Trump’s lawyers were not given a copy, and initially were barred from reading it.

            I see no reason to doubt the information. Pirro is a former judge and is familiar with procedures.

            I have heard the unconfirmed reports that a mole in Trump’s staff warned the FBI of the installation of a safe and that was the trigger. If so, that was incredibly stupid.

            Like

          9. ” Along with their source”

            The source was reported by The Wall Street Journal. Including what you call a “mole” and WSJ called a “source”.

            “I see no reason to doubt the information. Pirro is a former judge and is familiar with procedures.”

            FORMER judge. Makes me question why she left the bench. Not that I give a money’s fuzzy butt, but if she were truly an objective jurist, she would be a little more careful about her words.

            A shill and a son say something and you just KNOW it is true? Are you serious? You are so desperate for things to go your way you grasp at straws full of pixie dust and PRAY that you’re right.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. “I see no reason to doubt the information. Pirro is a former judge and is familiar with procedures.”

            The people you choose to believe says a lot about you, IMHO.

            It is a waste of effort to deal with you further on this subject – Brandolini’s Law. If you still do not have access to WAPO you can search elsewhere to get truthful accounts.

            Are you ready to admit you blather about machinegun sprouting gunships was baloney?

            Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting and reasonable, but like so any others, Goldberg just assumes Trump has a copy of the warrant because that is normal procedure, but Trumps attorneys have gone to the court demanding a physical copy of the warrant, and the probable cause. You don’t go to court to ask for what you already have.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s