That the judge who signed off on the warrant defended associates of Epstein is enough for me to know that Trump is scaring all the right people. — NOS4A2

Wow. You set an extremely low bar for concluding a judge (plus multiple FBI agents, their management chain, the Trump appointed FBI director, and the AG) is corrupt, while maintaining an impossibly high bar for a negative judgment for Trump.

You do see how silly this looks, don't you? Seriously, is it simply inconceivable that Trump may have done something wrong?

When it comes to Trump, @NOS4A2 is mostly here for comic relief. On other topics, he says the odd sensible thing though.

I can’t help it. I have never had any faith in their idea of justice, nor the American justice system and her institutions. The FBI has been especially odious in this regard and the historical record proves this.

I can’t help it. I have never had any faith in their idea of justice, nor the American justice system and her institutions. The FBI has been especially odious in this regard and the historical record proves this. — NOS4A2

By saying "I can't help it", is this an admission that you aren't analyzing this rationally? Because your standard of proof is inconsistent.

There's good evidence Trump did something wrong here, but you excuse if it's not technically illegal ("Trump declassified it"), still excuse it if it IS technically illegal (the espionage act doesn't depend on a formal classification), and cannot conceive that it might have been reckless to store such documents in an insecure way.

On the other hand, you judge that anything the FBI does is odious. Do you suggest all criminals incarcerated by the FBI be released, or is it just that they're "odious" with respect to Trump? Are you basing this on the errors identified by the IG with respect to Carter Page?

When it comes to Trump, NOS4A2 is mostly here for comic relief. On other topics, he says the odd sensible thing though. — Baden

I see. I wish we could cue up a laugh track while reading the posts.

Some Republicans are calling for release (or at least Congressional review) of the affidavit of probable cause that led the Judge to approve the search warrant on Trump.

Is this a good idea?

IMO, the document shouldn't be released to the general public if it jeopardizes potential prosecutions (Trump is not the only possible target of prosecution; the lawyer who allegedly told DOJ there were no additional classified documents is at risk, and perhaps others).

But it might be a good idea to review it with some members of Congress. However, there's a risk of it being interpreted through partisan eyes, and (worse) they might present a partisan spin on the info and exacerbate the polarizing rhetoric we already hear.

What else can it be? — NOS4A2

I hear you.

But do you understand that this is the way the two parties want you to polarize? The best way for the duopoly to continue is to have the voters be against each other.... and not to look at something else.

This is the same FBI that deceived the country and foreigners like ssu with Russiagate. — NOS4A2

Ummm...hold on, @NOS4A2

Why do you forget that the FBI gave the "October Surprise" that was detrimental to Hillary Clinton and continued it's investigations on Clinton, which in my view had far more effect on the election than Russian interference did? We are in a Philosophy forum. It isn't logical that the department that was so influential in making Clinton lose would then be against Trump, if it didn't try to be neutral / apolitical. Besides, Trump forced them to make the inquiries.

It's all now obvious... Yes, the Russian rooted for Trump, yet that wasn't the reason why Trump was elected in 2016. Simply put it, Hillary was a lousy candidate. So what on Earth is your problem?

:eyes: :roll: :mask:

It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies. — Noam Chomsky

I know this ain't your superpower, NOS, but try to process the following inconvenient truth:

• A Trump appointed Federal Prosecutor in South Florida issued the search and seizure warrant after Trump's lawyers lied in writing about Trump having any more US government documents in June.

• A Federal District Magistrate Judge appointed by Trump cconsidered the Trump appointed Federal Prosecutor's showing of probable cause and granted legal authority to the FBI to execute the search and seizure warrant.

• A Director of the FBI appointed by Trump signed-off on an team of agents to execute the warrant at Trump's residence.

• Trump himself made the FBI search public lying that it was a sudden evening "raid" when, in fact, the search and seizure warrant was executed around 9 am and concluded around 6:30 pm.

• One of Trumps' attorneys was present the entire time the FBI team was searching and retrieving evidence from Mar-a-Lago.

• The FBI agents were dressed as civilians, without and "FBI" identifying markings on their jackets or vehicles. Neither the FBI nor DoJ publicized that they executed search and seizure warrant at Trump's residence.

This was not a "raid". These are facts as the Trump appointed FBI Director and US DoJ have recited them and have been corroborated by Trump's attorneys and by South Florida media and police. As for the warrant itself, read "Attachment A" and weep (relevant section on crimes for which there was probable cause cited here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/728607

Since Friday, Trump has shut his piehole and gone dark (though his fundraising operations have gone on full tilt ripping-off mindless MAGAnauts who love to be lied to like you, NOS :rofl:) because it's thoroughly explained to Trump that he is now irreparably fucked and that "the deep state" TRUMP HAD HELPED MAKE WITH HIS APPOINTMENTS has finally "got" him ... the way they "got" e.g. Al Capone, John Gotti & Saddam Hussein.

The old orange fascist conman has fucked around one too many times and has now found out. So, @NOS4A2 (TPF's resident alt-Right, MAGA-clown), STFU with your cluster-FOX'd Noise AND STFD. :shade:

Update: correction of factual errors.

Magistrate judges are appointed by the court, not the president. (https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-appoint-judge-who-approved-fbi-mar-lago-raid-1732495). This magistrate judge happened to recently recuse himself from a civil racketeering case that Trump has brought against the DNC, but never said why. (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article264444421.html).

He never said it was a sudden evening raid. He said it was an “unannounced raid”. (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/news-gf6pdxrpau2342)

Trump’s lawyer said she was basically kept in the parking lot during the raid.

The search warrant was personally approved by AG Garland, who is suspiciously missing from your inconvenient truth. “I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter.” (https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-garland-delivers-remarks)

Trump has been very vocal on Truth Social and his official website all weekend, despite your claims he has “gone dark”. (https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump)

READ FIRST
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago
IFF YOU CAN "HANDLE THE TRUTH." :mask:

1. The "raid" wasn't "unannounced". His residence was not "raided".

2. Two of Individual-1's lawyers were present on the premises the entire time and was obligated to contact her client as soon as the warrant was served (Eric Trump got the call).. Individual-1 knew the FBI was at Mar a Lago as soon as they had arrived that morning and watched some of the search remotely via live feed through surveillance cameras.

3. The Federal search warrant was not authorized by the Attorney General. Merrick Garland had only approved (signed-off on) his Prosecutor's filing for the warrant with the Federal District Court.

4. I stand corrected: Judge Reinhart was previously a defense attorney in matters related to Jeffrey Epstein, Individual-1's deceased pedophile trafficking BFF (once upon a ride on the "Lolita Express" ago)

https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-bruce-reinhart-fbi-search-warrant-trump-mar-a-l

During his time as a federal prosecutor, Reinhart worked on the case against now-deceased Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex offender.

But, he switched sides in the middle of the case, quitting the US Attorney's office and going on to defend several of Epstein's employees. — Business Insider, 11August2022

In other words, while not a Trump appointee, Judge Reinhart is not a "Democratic operative" or evangelical "Never Trumper" either. No "witchunt", Trumptards! :victory: :sweat:

But, he switched sides in the middle of the case, quitting the US Attorney's office and going on to defend several of Epstein's employees. — Business Insider, 11August2022

Wow. That ought to be unusual.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/108828041518355960

Wow! In the raid by the FBI of Mar-a-Lago, they stole my three Passports (one expired), along with everything else. This is an assault on a political opponent at a level never seen before in our Country. Third World!

They took his passports?

I applaud that step. Contains the problem to the USA.

They took his passports? — Michael

First step on the road to the slammer.

The irony.

I don't see how that's irony?

The irony. — NOS4A2

If Trump would have used his passports to go to another country would have been ironic. (Russia, UAE or Morocco among others don't have an extradition treaty with the US.)

UAE — ssu

This is where all the powerful criminals tend to go... UAE is an artificial state made by government Mafia and black money... I would never understand why we allow these kind of countries the "right" of declining cooperative extradition.

Stealing documents.

The search warrant says:

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

So it seems reasonable to assume that Trump's passports were mixed in with documents marked as classified. And that after all the documents were properly examined, stuff that wasn't relevant was returned.

It’s not reasonable to take people’s passports when you’re there to seize government classified documents. The FBI ought to know what they’re taking before they take it, and if they don’t, they are either incompetent or corrupt.

It’s not reasonable to take people’s passports when you’re there to seize government classified documents. The FBI ought to know what they’re taking before they take it, and if they don’t, they are either incompetent or corrupt. — NOS4A2

They take what the search warrant tells them to take, which included "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."

You'd only be right if the passports were just sitting on the table out in the open.

I’m not sure why you’re leaving out the first sentence, but passports aren’t “physical documents with classification markings”. It doesn’t matter anyways. The 4th amendment demands that law enforcement know what they’re taking before they take it.

I’m not sure why you’re leaving out the first sentence, but passports aren’t “physical documents with classification markings”. — NOS4A2

Is your reading comprehension that bad?

"any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located"

This means that if a box contains a document that has classified markings then you take the box and everything in it. It doesn't say that you take out all the documents marked as classified and then leave the box.

The 4th amendment demands that law enforcement know what they’re taking before they take it. — NOS4A2

A judge signed off on the warrant that included the phrase "any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located". If you think the warrant itself is unconstitutional then I suppose Trump's legal team can appeal it. Although it's a little late for that now. Maybe they can at least get a moral victory.

Did they raid the house for Donald Trump’s passports? The answer is “no”. There is no need to weasel for their incompetence or corruption.

Did they raid the house for Donald Trump’s passports? The answer is “no”. There is no need to weasel for their incompetence or corruption. — NOS4A2

Jesus, do you really think such poor reasoning is going to work on me? You're embarrassing yourself.

You’re defending the FBI taking things they ought not to have. That’s embarrassing.

You’re defending the FBI taking things they ought not to have. — NOS4A2

What they ought to have taken is what the search warrant told them to take. The search warrant told them to take "any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located". Therefore, they ought to have taken any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located. And if Trump's passports were in such a box then they ought to have taken Trump's passports.

No, they ought not to have. They should have grabbed “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”. The parenthesis “and all contents therein” is simply a way to weasel out of constitutional violations and other incompetent or corrupt moves, such as taking Trump’s passports.