Donald Trump

[Marc]

Putting this in the Trump thread because its about HRC but Peter, no proof here either.

[Marc]

 

[william.scherk]

Allen Weisselberg, Trump Org financial officer, was indicted back in June of 2021, noted here on OL:

On 6/30/2021 at 6:45 PM, william.scherk said:

Say it ain't so, Joe ... 

From Memeorandum's algorithmically aggregated breaking story of the moment:

Quote

New York Times: 12 minutes ago

Trump Organization and Top Executive Are Indicted in Tax Investigation  —  The former president's family business and its chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, are expected to appear in court on Thursday.  —  A grand jury in Manhattan has indicted Donald J. Trump's family business …

Discussion:

Michael Luciano / Mediaite:   BREAKING: Trump Organization, Top Exec Allen Weisselberg Reportedly Indicted by Grand Jury

Rebecca Downs / Townhall:   Grand Jury Indicts Trump Organization

NBC Bay Area:   Trump Organization Expects Manhattan DA to File Charges Against It Thursday: Sources

Insider:   Manhattan prosecutors charge the Trump Organization and its CFO with tax-related crimes on Thursday, according to NYT report

CNBC:
Trump Organization and its CFO indicted by Manhattan grand jury, report saysNEW!

Discussion:

Andrea Bernstein / NPR:   Trump's Family Business, CFO Are Expected To Be Charged On Thursday In New York

Mayor / One America News Network:   Criminal charges expected Thursday against Trump's company, source says

Expand  

 

So at least one person will be tied to the stake finally. What effect would a charge against the Trump organization have on its finances going forward, if any?

The org seems to be facing tax fraud (in the matter of real-estate valuations) and the inaugural committee seems to be facing corrupt self-dealing (in that they had inaugural events paid for by donation, but profits skimmed by the location hosts) ...

The only thing I heard that seems half as likely as not is that lenders may jettison contracts with a business under indictment. 

If the various banksters holding varied debts/mortgages/loans pull the plug on some Trump world contracts, what then?

Weisselberg pleaded guilty to 15 felony tax fraud charges. 

From today's vantage it looks like I was asking the wrong questions in 2021 -- or rather presuming financial consequences contigent on this indictment. 

Today, the possible wrongly-posed or loaded questions that arises in my mind is "What now?" and "What next?" ... while various pundits are examining details to determine if Weisselberg has agreed to testify in any other Trump Org finance proceedings in and out of New York City.

Half of these sources answer yes.

Longtime Trump executive Weisselberg pleads guilty in tax fraud scheme

GROUND.NEWS

---

Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg on Thursday plead guilty to tax violations and admitted to helping run a years-long tax fraud scheme at the former president’s business.

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by william.scherk
Link added; questions added; headline added [Ground News]

[william.scherk]

The magistrate judge Reinhart filed a ruling today.  It sounds to me like he is not going to side with the government.  Some punditry is speculating wildly, so reading the ruling itself can probably guard against confirmation bias.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

It sounds to me like he is not going to side with the government.

William,

Let's hope he lives up to that.

Let everybody see everything.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Donald Trump versus the United States Government.

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by william.scherk
Embedded link to Trump filing; docket notice

[william.scherk]

From page 14, a summary of what Movant wants:

Legal nerd Twitter's anti-Trump wing is chewing on this filing. Note that this is an entirely different court from where Reinhart is waiting for the DOJ's suggested redactions filing later this week.

"It's not theirs, it's mine."

[william.scherk]

On 8/22/2022 at 7:01 PM, william.scherk said:

"It's not theirs, it's mine."

Mine!

[format quoting did not take when I posted this via OL's mobile phone interface. This next part is edited after the subsequent comment by MSK was posted; emphasis added ]

  

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

EDIT: Should the Twitter video ever go down, you can see the clip in the article below.

“Merrick Garland, You’re Going to Prison Brother” – Steve Bannon Fires a Warning Shot at Biden’s Attorney General (VIDEO)

"Merrick Garland, You’re Going to Prison Brother" - Steve Bannon Fires a Warning Shot at Biden's Attorney General (VIDEO)

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

Steve Bannon fired a warning shot at Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday. This was after John Solomon and Just the News released their report revealing Garland and the Biden...

 

 

Just the News published the full text of a letter to Trump world from the honchess atop the National Archives.

Full text of National Archives letter to Trump on classified documents

JUSTTHENEWS.COM

---

Just the News has obtained the full text of the letter that the National Archives sent to former...

[ added material ]

Full text of National Archives letter to Trump on classified documents

Spoiler

May 10, 2022
Evan Corcoran Silverman Thompson 400 East Pratt Street Suite 900
Baltimore, MD 21202 By Email
Dear Mr. Corcoran:
I write in response to your letters of April 29, 2022, and May 1, 2022, requesting that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) further delay the disclosure to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the records that were the subject of our April 12, 2022 notification to an authorized representative of former President Trump.

As you are no doubt aware, NARA had ongoing communications with the former President’s representatives throughout 2021 about what appeared to be missing Presidential records, which resulted in the transfer of 15 boxes of records to NARA in January 2022. In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials. NARA informed the Department of Justice about that discovery, which prompted the Department to ask the President to request that NARA provide the FBI with access to the boxes at issue so that the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community could examine them. On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office—affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum—formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes.

Although the Presidential Records Act (PRA) generally restricts access to Presidential records in NARA’s custody for several years after the conclusion of a President’s tenure in office, the statute further provides that, “subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke,” such records “shall be made available . . . to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. §

 2205(2)(B). Those conditions are satisfied here. As the Department of Justice’s National Security Division explained to you on April 29, 2022:
There are important national security interests in the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community getting access to these materials. According to NARA, among the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages. Some include the highest levels of classification, including Special Access Program (SAP) materials. Access to the materials is not only necessary for purposes of our ongoing criminal investigation, but the Executive Branch must also conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps. Accordingly, we are seeking immediate access to these materials so as to facilitate the necessary assessments that need to be conducted within the Executive Branch.

We advised you in writing on April 12 that, “in light of the urgency of this request,” we planned to “provid[e] access to the FBI next week,” i.e., the week of April 18. See Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 2(b), 74 Fed. Reg. 4,669 (Jan. 21, 2009) (providing a 30-day default before disclosure but authorizing the Archivist to specify “a shorter period of time” if “required under the circumstances”); accord 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(g) (“The Archivist may adjust any time period or deadline under this subpart, as appropriate, to accommodate records requested under this section.”). In response to a request from another representative of the former President, the White House Counsel’s Office acquiesced in an extension of the production date to April 29, and so advised NARA. In accord with that agreement, we had not yet provided the FBI with access to the records when we received your letter on April 29, and we have continued to refrain from providing such access to date.

It has now been four weeks since we first informed you of our intent to provide the FBI access to the boxes so that it and others in the Intelligence Community can conduct their reviews. Notwithstanding the urgency conveyed by the Department of Justice and the reasonable extension afforded to the former President, your April 29 letter asks for additional time for you to review the materials in the boxes “in order to ascertain whether any specific document is subject to privilege,” and then to consult with the former President “so that he may personally make any decision to assert a claim of constitutionally based privilege.” Your April 29 letter further states that in the event we do not afford you further time to review the records before NARA discloses them in response to the request, we should consider your letter to be “a protective assertion of executive privilege made by counsel for the former President.”
The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President’s purported “protective assertion of executive privilege.” See 36 C.F.R. § 1270.44(f)(3). Accordingly, I have consulted with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel to inform my “determination as to whether to honor the former President’s claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege.” Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a).

 The Assistant Attorney General has advised me that there is no precedent for an assertion of executive privilege by a former President against an incumbent President to prevent the latter from obtaining from NARA Presidential records belonging to the Federal Government where “such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2)(B).

To the contrary, the Supreme Court’s decision in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977), strongly suggests that a former President may not successfully assert executive privilege “against the very Executive Branch in whose name the privilege is invoked.” Id. at 447-48. In Nixon v. GSA, the Court rejected former President Nixon’s argument that a statute requiring that Presidential records from his term in office be maintained in the custody of, and screened by, NARA’s predecessor agency—a “very limited intrusion by personnel in the Executive Branch sensitive to executive concerns”—would “impermissibly interfere with candid communication of views by Presidential advisers.” Id. at 451; see also id. at 455 (rejecting the claim). The Court specifically noted that an “incumbent President should not be dependent on happenstance or the whim of a prior President when he seeks access to records of past decisions that define or channel current governmental obligations.” Id. at 452; see also id. at 441-46 (emphasizing, in the course of rejecting a separation-of-powers challenge to a provision of a federal statute governing the disposition of former President Nixon’s tape recordings, papers, and other historical materials “within the Executive Branch,” where the “employees of that branch [would] have access to the materials only ‘for lawful Government use,’” that “[t]he Executive Branch remains in full control of the Presidential materials, and the Act facially is designed to ensure that the materials can be released only when release is not barred by some applicable privilege inherent in that branch”; and concluding that “nothing contained in the Act renders it unduly disruptive of the Executive Branch”).

It is not necessary that I decide whether there might be any circumstances in which a former President could successfully assert a claim of executive privilege to prevent an Executive Branch agency from having access to Presidential records for the performance of valid executive functions. The question in this case is not a close one. The Executive Branch here is seeking access to records belonging to, and in the custody of, the Federal Government itself, not only in order to investigate whether those records were handled in an unlawful manner but also, as the National Security Division explained, to “conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps.” These reviews will be conducted by current government personnel who, like the archival officials in Nixon v. GSA, are “sensitive to executive concerns.” Id. at 451. And on the other side of the balance, there is no reason to believe such reviews could “adversely affect the ability of future Presidents to obtain the candid advice necessary for effective decisionmaking.” Id. at 450. To the contrary: Ensuring that classified information is appropriately protected, and taking any necessary remedial action if it was not, are steps essential to preserving the ability of future Presidents to “receive the full and frank submissions of facts and opinions upon which effective discharge of [their] duties depends.” Id. at 449.

Because an assertion of executive privilege against the incumbent President under these circumstances would not be viable, it follows that there is no basis for the former President to make a “protective assertion of executive privilege,” which the Assistant Attorney General informs me has never been made outside the context of a congressional demand for information from the Executive Branch. Even assuming for the sake of argument that a former President may under some circumstances make such a “protective assertion of executive privilege” to preclude the Archivist from complying with a disclosure otherwise prescribed by 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2), there is no predicate for such a “protective” assertion here, where there is no realistic basis that the requested delay would result in a viable assertion of executive privilege against the incumbent President that would prevent disclosure of records for the purposes of the reviews described above. Accordingly, the only end that would be served by upholding the “protective” assertion here would be to delay those very important reviews.

I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s “protective” claim of privilege. See Exec. Order No. 13,489, § 4(a); see also 36 C.F.R. 1270.44(f)(3) (providing that unless the incumbent President “uphold[s]” the claim asserted by the former President, “the Archivist discloses the Presidential record”). For the same reasons, I have concluded that there is no reason to grant your request for a further delay before the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community begin their reviews. Accordingly, NARA will provide the FBI access to the records in question , as requested by the incumbent President, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12, 2022.

Please note that, in accordance with the PRA, 44 U.S.C. § 2205(3), the former President’s designated representatives can review the records, subject to obtaining the appropriate level of security clearance. Please contact my General Counsel, Gary M. Stern, if you would like to discuss the details of such a review, such as you proposed in your letter of May 5, 2022, particularly with respect to any unclassified materials.
Sincerely,
DEBRA STEIDEL WALL

What the TDS Media orgs are using as their emotional trigger for the cultized anti-Trumpist are the Deep State shibboleths herein -- "Special Access Program" at the top of the pile of OMGs.

As you are no doubt aware, NARA had ongoing communications with the former President’s representatives throughout 2021 about what appeared to be missing Presidential records, which resulted in the transfer of 15 boxes of records to NARA in January 2022. In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials. NARA informed the Department of Justice about that discovery, which prompted the Department to ask the President to request that NARA provide the FBI with access to the boxes at issue so that the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community could examine them. On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office—affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum—formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes.

Although the Presidential Records Act (PRA) generally restricts access to Presidential records in NARA’s custody for several years after the conclusion of a President’s tenure in office, the statute further provides that, “subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke,” such records “shall be made available . . . to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available.” 44 U.S.C. §

 2205(2)(B). Those conditions are satisfied here. As the Department of Justice’s National Security Division explained to you on April 29, 2022:
There are important national security interests in the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community getting access to these materials. According to NARA, among the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages. Some include the highest levels of classification, including Special Access Program (SAP) materials. Access to the materials is not only necessary for purposes of our ongoing criminal investigation, but the Executive Branch must also conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps. Accordingly, we are seeking immediate access to these materials so as to facilitate the necessary assessments that need to be conducted within the Executive Branch.

More headline 'news' ... "leaked memos" ...

"They Knew Everything" - President Trump Calls Out Biden White House for Lying About Their Involvement in FBI Raid on His Home at Mar-a-Lago

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

John Solomon reported Monday on leaked memos that revealed the Biden White House helped instigate the criminal investigation into Trump’s handling of documents. They eliminated Trump’s executive...

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by william.scherk
Blazing wireless in the garden on fibre optic, still a thumb-typer. Added in MSK's first notice of the NARA letter via Solomon via War Room

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

You're a little slow on the first part of your post.

From 15 hours ago: 

Michael

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You're a little slow on the first part of your post.

Yes. One thumb tap and slide at a time.  Our internet & media provider came by to fix a hole in our 'mesh' and left three booster units. I can work from the farthest reaches of the yard, but ... 

Here's bonus from Twitter, on Real America's Voice, Solomon briefly laying out what he found to be the salient points from the revealing NARA letter, quoted above in my edit. There's a hell of a timeline to keep in mind.

My occasional word-fetish mania is helped along by the 21st Century Roget's Thesaurus I consult. The entries in the front sections are marked with extra references to a kind of conceptual index  -- In the back is a short section of 837 Concepts, where an essential aspect or quality or part of the world is spelled out and relative cognates are grouped together.

For example, fetish is assigned to Concepts #446 -- OBJECTS/Buildings-Furnishings-Possessions/ personal item, and #687 -- STATES/Of-Being/of being an influence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

There's a hell of a timeline to keep in mind.

William,

Why would anyone want to keep that in mind?

That's the tenor of my interaction on this.

It's obvious to me, and to people all over the country, that a panicked, illegal act by Biden, Garland, Wray & Co. took place to try to keep Trump from running for President again. And maybe to try to diminish his influence on the midterms.

Who needs to read an encyclopedia of minutia if that is all there is going to be at the end, especially since it has been obvious to everyone for days?

I'm not even reading the stuff you are posting about this. I don't care what the predator state says about Trump.

And I'm not afraid of them trying to arrest Trump. There are a lot of people in "just try that shit" mode. And they are fed up.

Michael

[william.scherk]

33 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'm not even reading the stuff you are posting about this. I don't care what the predator state says about Trump.

L'état noir, ce n'est pas moi!

Everybody knows what everybody knows, he added.

But anyhow, yeah. Fetish phrases are not enough. Strong claims must be made. Nobody wants to know what Trump-appointed Federal Judge Eileen Cannon had to say to the Trump motion.  Nobody wants to read what Trump's motion said. Nobody and their cousins All of Them are going to pay attention to what Trump's lawyers present to Judge Cannon by tomorrow, not. 

This is the 'special master' pleading, for those who are Not Everybody. 

Because nobody is likely to read further into the land of "minutia," I will tuck the judge's uninteresting docket order here, and life can march on ...

Spoiler

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by william.scherk
Federal Judge Judge fudge

[william.scherk]

From the Devil's own, the enemy of the people, a fact!  After whatever monstrosity hits the docket by noon Friday, all media large and small, from the truth-seeking Gateway Pundit to the War Room to the upper middle Deep Predator class of manipulators, chewing will occur. Meat, bones, scenery, the whole shebang, I predict.

 

Judge Orders Redacted Affidavit Used in Trump Search Warrant to Be Unsealed - The New York Times

WWW.NYTIMES.COM

---

The document will be unsealed by noon Friday. In its most complete form, it would disclose important details about the government’s justification for searching Mar-a-Lago this month.

Steve Bannon said it Gestapo Prison best. 

 

 

[william.scherk]

18 hours ago, william.scherk said:

After whatever monstrosity hits the docket by noon Friday, all media large and small, from the truth-seeking Gateway Pundit to the War Room to the upper middle Deep Predator class of manipulators, chewing will occur. Meat, bones, scenery, the whole shebang, I predict.

Here's the heavily-redacted Affidavit:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For those who want a better overall visual, they kept the boiler-plate and legalese text, but the main pages are like the following:

and

 

And here's a biggie.

They thought we wouldn't notice the following?

 

Quote

DOJ and FBI are so corrupt that they're redacting their reasons for redactions in their justification for raiding a U.S. president's home.

However much contempt you have for these lawless agencies, it's not nearly enough.

They redacted the reasons for the redactions.

LOL...

I can't take that seriously.

They will have to, though, from their prison cells later.

These idiots, out of sheer idiocy, don't realize how much hatred and contempt from normal everyday good people they are bringing down on their heads.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

BREAKING: DOJ Website Crashes as FBI Releases Docs on Raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago Home

PJMEDIA.COM

---

The FBI’s affidavit supporting the raid at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home appears to be based on...

 

[william.scherk]

The man of the hour ...

 

Affidavit heaviIy redacted!!! Nothing mentioned “NucIear," a total
pubIic relations subterfuge by the FBI & DOJ, or our close working
relationship regarding document turnover - WE GAVE THEM TOO MUCH. Judge Bruce Reinhart shouId NEVER have alIowed the Break-In of my home. He recused himself two months ago from one of my cases based on his animosity and hatred of your favorite President, Me. What changed? Why hasn't he recused himself on this case? 0bama must be very proud of him right now!

Edited August 26, 2022 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anyone wants to know something more concrete about the redacted affidavit, but are not willing to piss away the precious nonrepeatable hours of their lives, here is a pretty good breakdown from Brett Tolman, a former US Attorney for Utah under Bush and Obama (and strongly connected at the time to Orrin Hatch).

It's a Tweet thread, so I am giving the first tweet, then the text of the others in a quote. If you want to see the original thread, just go to the first tweet.

 

Quote

I’ve gone through the redacted affidavit a couple of times now. Including Attachments. I’m not impressed. There are so many concerning issues it is hard to know where to start. I’ll try.

1–it does not appear to include any exculpatory evidence or mitigating facts. While it includes a letter from Trump’s lawyers it doesn’t acknowledge potential advice of counsel defenses or even that they may lack authority to bring such a case against a former POTUS

2-It has no factual evidence attributable to the mens rea requirement —which is the burden the Gov’t must meet showing criminal intent of the target. If it’s in there it is redacted.

3-The affidavit is filled with conclusory statements “there is probable cause” is stated authoritatively but without any reference to whom the PC applies nor to sufficient facts supporting such PC

It is surprising that Reinhart signed this given that the overwhelming tenor of the unredacted facts are a civil dispute over which documents can or cannot be retained versus sent to NARA. Criminal Intent appears nowhere in the affidavit.

4–(My Favorite part) The focus of the facts is less on if FPOTUS may or may not be able to possess but whether docs are in a secure, designated room. No mention that the whole place is secured by the Secret Service.

5-There does not appear to be PC to search the safe. The safe is also not listed on places to search nor described in the factual justifications.

6-There is no set of facts revealed to show that the target transported, removed, destroyed, altered or instructed others to do so Re: classified docs.

7-The affidavit instructs the judge of the applicable law but withholds any mention of court decisions re a POTUS’ unfettered ability to declassify and fails to inform the Court that a FPOTUS may fall outside the criminal statute.

8–Shockingly, it admits that the FBI searched through boxes of documents that NARA had recovered, and did so pursuant to their “criminal investigation” but did not use a Taint Team to ensure they were not reviewing privileged documents.

9-The brief reference to the article citing Kash Patel’s statements that documents were declassified should have given the judge pause that this is not a criminal case and that requisite Mens Rea would be impossible to establish against the target.

 

For those with even less patience, here is the long and short of it:
Releasing a document redacted like that and not releasing it are identical in terms of substance.

And for those with less patience still:
It's a fucking joke.

 

It's all blah blah blah...

The Biden people are pissing on you.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LOL...

Michael

[william.scherk]

7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

On 8/25/2022 at 3:03 PM, william.scherk said:

[A]ll media large and small, from the truth-seeking Gateway Pundit to the War Room to the upper middle Deep Predator class of manipulators, chewing will occur. Meat, bones, scenery, the whole shebang, I predict.

Here's the heavily-redacted Affidavit:

I've "cancelled"™ this moment's Memeorandum Newsgasm aggregation down to "trusted sources" ...

Quote

New York Times:

Trump Search Live Updates: Justice Dept. Releases Redacted Affidavit Used for Warrant  —  The document describes the government's push to recover highly classified materials taken from the White House by the former president.  The affidavit was heavily redacted to protect witnesses …

Discussion:

John Knefel / Media Matters for America:   Fox News can't decide whether the FBI should've gotten another subpoena for Mar-a-Lago or just ignored the whole thing

Scott Lemieux / Lawyers, Guns & Money:   Republican mistreatment of labor finally produces blowback

Debra Heine / American Greatness:   Trump Calls DOJ's Heavily Redacted Affidavit For Mar-A-Lago Raid a ‘Total Public Relations Subterfuge’

Zack Smith / The Daily Signal:   What Released Affidavit Reveals About FBI's Mar-a-Lago Raid

RELATED:

Politico:

Trump Mar-a-Lago affidavit reveals ‘handwritten notes,’ highly classified material led to warrant request  —  Federal investigators obtained a search warrant for former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate earlier this month by pointing to a raft of highly classified material …

Discussion:

Aaron Keller / Law & Crime:   Trump Lawyer Tried to Fend Off DOJ Probe into Mar-a-Lago Docs by Citing a Law the Feds Didn't End Up Using to Support Search, Unsealed Letter Shows

John Hinderaker / Power Line:   Ho Hum  —  A redacted version of the Affidavit that was the basis for DOJ's Mar-a-Lago raid was made public today.

Alternet.org:   Read the redacted FBI affidavit that resulted in Mar-a-Lago search warrant

CNN:   FBI search warrant affidavit says there could be ‘evidence of obstruction’ at Mar-a-Lago

Jason Miciak / PoliticusUSA:   Here Are Some Key Points About The Redacted Trump Affidavit

Conover Kennard / Crooks and Liars:   “WITCH HUNT!!” Trump Melts Down Over ‘Heavily Redacted’ Affidavit

Bradley Cortright / IJR:   Trump Shreds DOJ After ‘Heavily Redacted’ Affidavit Is Released: ‘Obama Must Be Very Proud’

Jordan Dixon-Hamilton / Breitbart:   Judge Orders Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit to Be Unsealed

Greg Sargent / Washington Post:

3 big things we learned from the Mar-a-Lago affidavit  —  In the Mar-a-Lago saga, Donald Trump has offered several big defenses.  First, he has reportedly insisted to aides that he primarily took from the White House documents that were “mine.”  Second, he has suggested he always intended …

Discussion:

Associated Press:   Takeaways from the unsealed Mar-a-Lago search affidavit

Charlie Savage / New York Times:   The Affidavit for the Search of Trump's Home, Annotated

Axios:   Here's what we know and don't know about the Mar-a-Lago inquiry

Fox News:   Search warrant affidavit for Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate: Five things to know

Justin Baragona / The Daily Beast:   Karl Rove Doesn't Buy Fox Host's Spin on Unsealed Mar-a-Lago Affidavit

Ryan Grenoble / HuffPost:   3 Key Details From The Mar-A-Lago Search Affidavit

Washington Desk / NPR:   Over 180 classified docs removed by National Archives from Mar-a-Lago, affidavit says

Hugo Lowell / The Guardian:   Redacted Trump Mar-a-Lago affidavit released: five key takeaways

Clark D. Cunningham / GovExec.com:   FBI's Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit Reveals How Trump May Have Compromised National Security - a Legal Expert Answers 5 Key Questions

Al Jazeera:   What's in the affidavit that led FBI to search Mar-a-Lago?

Connor Surmonte / RADAR:   ‘This Is A Disgrace To Our Country’: Donald Trump LOSES IT After DOJ Releases Heavily Redacted Mar-a-Lago Affidavit

Caroline Linton / CBS News:   Judge unseals redacted affidavit used to justify Trump search warrant

Andrew Dorn / NewsNation:   The three levels of classified information for documents

Brianna Lyman / The Daily Caller:   Trump Responds After DOJ Unseals Affidavit Related To Mar-A-Lago Raid

Sundance / The Last Refuge:   A Review of the Big Picture and Stakeholder Interests Within FBI Affidavit Justifying Raid on Trump

Sophia Flores / One America News Network:   Redacted Mar-a-Lago affidavit released

Brad Reed / Raw Story:   ‘We gave them much’: Trump posts another angry attack on FBI after affidavit released

Fred Kaplan / Slate:

Mar-a-Lago Affidavit Shows Trump Kept Some of America's Top Secrets, Is In Huge Trouble  —  Even with about half of its 38 pages blacked out for security reasons, the Justice Department's affidavit to get a warrant to search Donald Trump's residency at Mal-a-Largo is more damning than many of the former president's critics expected.

Discussion:

DonaldsHeroes's Newsletter:   Smoke & Mirrors & Redactions

Harry Litman / Los Angeles Times:   The Mar-a-Lago search looks more like it could provide a way to hold Trump accountable

Shelby Talcott / The Daily Caller:   DOJ's Highly Redacted Trump Affidavit Details Reasons For Raid

NBC News:
Redacted FBI affidavit used to justify search of Mar-a-Lago is released

Discussion:

Josh Kovensky / Talking Points Memo:   READ: Redacted Mar-A-Lago Affidavit Gives New Details On What FBI Agents Were After

Katie Pavlich / Townhall:   Did DOJ Really Use a Local CBS News Report to Justify Raiding Mar-a-Lago?

Bonchie / RedState:   Trump Affidavit Points to Absolutely Insane ‘Justification’ for the FBI Raid

Jerry Dunleavy / Washington Examiner:   Redacted affidavit justifying FBI's Trump Mar-a-Lago raid is released

Sarah N. Lynch / Washington Free Beacon:   Justice Department Releases Redacted Trump Mar-a-Lago Warrant

Donald Trump / Fox News:   Trump raid search warrant affidavit unsealed: Read the document

Fortune:   FBI affidavit for search warrant of Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate made public after judge ordered Justice Department to unseal document

Florida Politics:   Justice Dept. releases redacted Mar-a-Lago search affidavit

The Daily Beast:   Unsealed Affidavit: Agents Thought They'd Find ‘Evidence of Obstruction’ at Mar-a-Lago

Jeff Mordock / Washington Times:   Affidavit: Top-secret docs, classified material stored at Mar-a-Lago triggered Trump raid, FBI says

Lee Brown / New York Post:   Redacted affidavit behind Trump Mar-a-Lago raid finally released by DOJ

CNBC:   DOJ reveals redacted affidavit justifying Trump Mar-a-Lago raid

Brian Bushard / Forbes:   Federal Court Records System Crashes With DOJ Set To Release Mar-A-Lago Affidavit

Tristan Justice / The Federalist:   FBI Is So Committed To Transparency Nearly Entire Trump Raid Affidavit Is Redacted

Washington Post:   Read the full, redacted Mar-a-Lago search affidavit

Julia Conley / Common Dreams:   DOJ Releases 38-Page Redacted Affidavit Related to Search of Trump's Mar-A-Lago

KFOR-TV:   Read the DOJ's redacted affidavit from the Trump search

Eric Tucker / NBC Connecticut:   FBI Found 184 Classified Documents in Boxes Returned by Trump, Redacted Affidavit Says, Prompting Search

The Hollywood Reporter:   Justice Department Releases Redacted Mar-a-Lago Search Affidavit

National Review:   READ IT: Mar-a-Lago Search Affidavit

Axios:
DOJ releases redacted Mar-a-Lago search affidavit

Discussion:

Wall Street Journal:   The Mar-a-Lago Affidavit: Is That All There Is?  —  The redacted 38-pages add to the evidence …

NBC News:   Redacted copy of Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit unsealed

Byron York / Washington Examiner:   Trump documents: What we still don't know

CNN:   The affidavit behind the FBI's search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago, annotated

Zoe Tillman / Bloomberg:   Trump's Lawyer Unsuccessfully Pitched DOJ to Back Off Record Probe

Bruce Golding / New York Post:   Here's what we still don't know after release of redacted FBI Trump raid affidavit

Alan Feuer / New York Times:   Mar-a-Lago Search Followed Many Attempts to Secure Trump Documents

Jordan Williams / The Hill:   Defense & National Security — DOJ releases redacted affidavit in Trump search

Sky Palma / Raw Story:   Growing sense of weariness seeping into Trumpworld as details of Mar-a-Lago probe become public: report

Jacob Sullum / Reason:   The Redacted Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant Affidavit Sheds Light on the FBI's Concerns and Trump's Defense

TMZ.com:   Trump Raid Affidavit Released, Shows Feds' Probable Cause

FOX21 News Colorado:   Trump: FBI probe an ‘attack on our country’; affidavit released

Tom Palmer / WOOD-TV:   Affidavit claims evidence of obstruction, 184 docs recovered

Sacramento Bee:   FBI Mar-a-Lago affidavit: Trump's trove of top secret material led to further search

Joseph MacKinnon / TheBlaze:   Heavily redacted affidavit justifying Mar-a-Lago raid partially unsealed, reveals National Archives sent FBI after former President Trump

John Solomon / Just The News:   ‘Come on!’ Biden jumps into fray over Mar-a-Lago raid, impugns Trump declassification claim

Brett Samuels / The Hill:
Biden scoffs at Trump claim he declassified Mar-a-Lago documents: ‘Come on’

Discussion:

Andrew Weissmann / New York Times:   What the Redacted Affidavit Shows in the Trump Mar-a-Lago Case

Evan Simko-Bednarski / New York Post:   Biden mocks Trump, scoffs 'I've declassified everything in the world'

KFOR-TV:   Heavily-redacted affidavit says 184 classified docs found at Trump residence

Washington Post:
Mar-a-Lago affidavit says many witnesses interviewed, 184 classified files returned in January

Discussion:

Daniel Chaitin / Washington Examiner:   Mueller's ‘pit bull’: Trump is going to be prosecuted

Zach Schonfeld / The Hill:   Karl Rove: ‘Beyond me’ why Trump held on to docs ‘when he had no legal authority’

Jennifer Shutt / Arizona Mirror:   Court releases partially redacted affidavit for Mar-a-Lago search

Maha / The Mahablog:   The Affadavit Is Damning, as Expected

Ryan McCarthy / Vox:   Why the redacted affidavit for the search of Trump's home is so concerning

Gabrielle Debinski / GZERO:   Why did the FBI raid Trump's Florida pad?

Betty Cracker / Balloon Juice:   DOJ releases redacted FBI affidavit

 

™ -- Peter Navarro's multivalent expertise expands to comprise the Thesaurus ...

Spoiler

 

 

[Marc]

Trump is unbeatable.

He is mocking and ridiculing them #RulesForRadicals.

They picked the wrong bar to walk into.

 

[william.scherk]

From yesterday, an interesting interview with Trump, on Lou Dobbs' Great America radio show:

PRES. TRUMP SAYS THE FBI’S RAID ON MAR-A-LAGO WAS A POLITICAL ATTACK ON OUR COUNTRY RIGHT BEFORE THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS AND IT IS A DISGRACE

August 26, 2022 • 25 min

They want to take certain powers away from a President and give them to a Deputy Archivist. There was no urgency. We could have negotiated. Our country is a mess. This would never have happened in the Trump administration. We wouldn’t have inflation, our economy would be roaring and we’d have $2 gasoline, we’d be a dominant energy force. Instead we’re a country in decline and it’s very sad to watch and very sad to see so many bad things to happen to our country in less than two years. People are furious. They love the country more than they ever have because they see what we’ve lost. People have to get out and vote. There’s never been a more important time.  

 

[william.scherk]

On 8/24/2022 at 5:02 PM, william.scherk said:

Nobody and their cousins All of Them are going to pay attention to what Trump's lawyers present to Judge Cannon by tomorrow, not. 

This is the 'special master' pleading, for those who are Not Everybody. 

Take that, Deep State!  Judge Cannon does President Trump a favour.  Cue gnashing of you know what.

 

 

[ThatGuy]

 

[Marc]

13 hours ago, ThatGuy said: