FBI Returns Trump’s Passports the Agency Supposedly Didn’t Have According to CBS’s Anonymous Source
What else does the FBI have? The property receipt does not mention the passports.
Monday afternoon: Former President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that the FBI stole three of his passports (two expired) during the Mar-a-Lago raid.
Monday evening: CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell tweeted that a DOJ official told the network the agency did not have Trump’s passport.
NEW: According to a DOJ official, the FBI is NOT in possession of former President Trump's passports. Trump had accused the FBI of stealing his three passports during the search of his Mar-a-Lago home.
— Norah O'Donnell 🇺🇸 (@NorahODonnell) August 15, 2022
Monday night: The FBI confirmed the agency had the passports and returned them to Trump.
Trump: The FBI took my passports.
Democrats: He’s lying.
Media: He’s lying.
Biden Justice Department: So, ummmm, yeah, about that… https://t.co/tFA9EQx1yR— Dan O'Donnell (@DanODonnellShow) August 16, 2022
Fake news! These “sources” have been so reliable about the Mar-a-Lago raid! My goodness. What would the MSM do without them? Maybe double-check everything? That would require too much work, and you cannot waste time when it comes to smearing Trump:
Trump attorney Christina Bobb blasted federal law enforcement on Monday night, telling Fox News host Laura Ingraham that she refused to give them a “pass” for removing the passports.
“I think this goes to show the level of audacity that they have,” Bobb said. “I think it goes to show how aggressive they were, how overreaching they were, that they were willing to go past the four corners of the warrant and take whatever they felt was appropriate or they felt that they could take.”
An FBI spokesperson defended how the search warrant was carried out.
“In executing search warrants, the FBI follows search and seizure procedures ordered by courts, then returns items that do not need to be retained for law enforcement purposes,” the spokesperson said in a statement Monday evening that did not mention the passports.
What else does the FBI have? The property receipt does not mention the passports.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
A few “assumptions” we can view as reasonably accurate until we get the real truth ( like that will ever happen)
Both Trump and the DOJ know exactly what they took
Both of them know what is realistically in and out of scope.
I’ve seen this game of “chicken” before
Trump clearly has the upper hand and the DOJ blinked this time
Wonder what’s next.
What’s next?
The “authorities” will “find” 22 tons of fentanyl in the garage, and seize MAL under Asset Forfeiture.
I know. Hyperbole. Or, is it?
This is a guess- nothing more
I think they had all kinds of plans but team Trump short circuited what they had in mind.
Now Trump is baiting them and goading them to force reactions
30+ agents spent 9+ hours rummaging through Trump’s papers and documents and not one of them realized the passports were out of scope?
BS.
They took them knowing they were out of scope. They went through them, recording dates and places. And then they gave them back when called on it.
They will do the same with the rest of the documents they ‘accidentally’ took during their ‘expert’ 270+ man hour raid and search.
270+ man hours is more than enough time to thoroughly inspect everything they took to make sure it was within the range of the warrant.
Bottom line… They took whatever they wanted to take. The plan is to inspect whatever they took they shouldn’t have and takes notes before giving it back when forced to do so.
The FBI is doing exactly what Garland and Wray wanted them to do.
Garland and Wray must be impeached.
The odds the GOP will do this if/when they take the House? About the same as my odds of winning a billion dollars in the lottery.
@jHogan
>>>30+ agents spent 9+ hours rummaging through Trump’s papers and documents and not one of them realized the passports were out of scope?
BS.
What’s “clear” is that many laymen who have NEVER DONE THIS go off half cocked armed with false knowledge then get pissed when they get corrected for their own good and credibility.
First, SOP is to confiscate and generally the agents in the field do NOT make “value judgements’. That’s almost universal. They may have the on scene SME make the call if applicable.
Second, Given the broad wording of the warrant, it can be argued that a passport was “inclusive” to the written scope.
Third. There will be “judgement calls” on many items taken on second above. (That’s common)- that’s where special masters and judicial reviews come in.
At a high level- that’s basically the universal process
270+ man hours expended by expert government FBI and DOJ agents and employees who allegedly know how to do this correctly was not enough time to determine whether what they took was covered by the warrant? When the target was the previous POTUS and the current leading political opposition candidate for the next election for POTUS?
That may make sense to you. It doesn’t pass my smell test.
My assessment is they didn’t care if what they took was covered or not. If it might be useful for their purposes, whatever they may be, they took it.
@JHogan
Its not that I don’t agree in principle with you (I do) but you are looking at this as a layman ( normal) with the appropriate frustration/anger (reasonable) but simply put, your assessment is technically incorrect.
That matters because all these emotional rants will be weaponized against us.
And in matters of fact and law- our “personal” beliefs or sense of “right and wrong” have no standing or force. (Many people are in prison/dead for doing what they “believed’ was right and/or justified)
Then when the point is addressed- you keep changing the goalpost then ended up with an unsubstantiated assessment that they simply didn’t “care’.
Sadly, I agree 100% that they in fact DID NOT CARE so I’m not arguing your belief but there’s a point where “beliefs” should not be presented as facts.
@taurus the judge
I am not making a legal argument that would stand up in a court of law.
I am making an argument rooted in common sense about how the real world works and what people would like to think their rights are under a (deliberately) sparsely worded Constitution.
Also, your patronizing ‘I am the expert’ and ‘stop the emotional rants’ posts may not be convincing and influencing as many people as you may think. Insults don’t play well.
Many on the new Right are fed up with people who claim expertise and/or state their credentials and think that trumps the arguments of people who are not ‘experts’.
See Covid and ‘climate change’, for examples.
I’m pretty sure most attorneys know how to argue both sides of any issue and find experts who will say what they want them to say.
Context — I did not vote for Trump in 2016. I didn’t vote for anyone for POTUS in 2016.
“That matters because all these emotional rants will be weaponized against us.”
Maybe, but in the end it didn’t help Louis XIV, Mussolini, or the Ceausescus too much. Sometimes the emotions… win.
And that universal process is designed to allow as much leeway as possible for looking at stuff and seeing if they can find something incriminating. Let’s not split hairs. There is a certain amount of blurring the lines in order to catch actual bad guys. And it has been allowed, even encouraged. But they do not strictly follow the Constitution oft times.
In times when government feels generally constrained by the people to follow the Constitution, those things are ok.
In times when the government no longer feels constrained, it becomes a problem.
Yes, every word you wrote is true
Being an adult in this room doesn’t always pay off, Taurus.
Sorry to say that this hapens around here all too often. It’s a shame because I think this area used to have a pretty high bar of commentary.
We’re 20+ years overdue for a great number of bad people to experience punishment one. So pardon our eagerness to get OUR f*g turn for a change.
Wow, an expert opinion.
Which part of that covers when the DOJ outright lies, “we didn’t take them?”
I suspect they were going through the passports (covering 30 years of travel) looking for Russian visa’s 🙄 fuckint amateurs.
“Supposedly didn’t have”
Ha! That’s a summary of the Biden Administration.
Supposedly is what someone told you and what many easily fooled people believe to be true—what is believed and accepted without actually knowing for sure,
Supposely DOJ’s motives are as pure as driven snow.
Supposedly Biden has all of his marbles.
Supposedly _____________________________
Melania’s underwear
A few FBI men have been seen wearing them I hear
No, they were looking for Hillarys panties.
Trump has kept them in a wad since 2016.
If the MSM chose to do their work instead of acting like lackeys of the democrats, they would be on fire asking this kind of question.
It is awfully convenient to the corrupt FBI to publish an “inventory” of obscurely labeled boxes instead of the actual inventory of what they took with them.
They never listed the passports.
So the obvious question is “What else did they take?”
And I will go a step farther and ask: “What are they planting in those boxes?”
Yeah, “Democracy dies in darkness” and stuff.
Exactly. If there was an honest inventory you could tell what was added. They would only do that if they’re complete idiots, because it’s too easy to publish a dishonest inventory that includes the planted material.
They exposed themselves as liars while insisting they don’t have to be transparent (except of course for what they think is convenient for them to share).
Same bullshit they did when insisting Tucker Carlson ‘wasn’t the target’, same bullshit they did when insisting they don’t ‘target’ American citizens, same bullshit they did when insisting that the Steele bullshit was not the main evidence behind the FISA warrant.
When they answer a question you DIDN’T ASK, they’re admitting they did exactly what they’ve been accused of doing.
If Trump gets stuck overseas without his passport he can just walk across the Mexican border.
His complexion, coloring, and stature? He’ll fit right in.
Trump would change his appearance with dark sun tan spray and on his next show Glenn Beck would rub a taco on his face and say “Taco man bad.”
Is Glen Beck still relevant?
No.
Hasn’t been for 10 years, but the real moment he shot what was left of his career in the head was when he bitched and cried and threw a tantrum about how the election in 2016 WASN’T BINARY and just because he refused to support Trump didn’t AKSHUALLY mean that he wanted Clinton to be President.
Peabody wins the daily internets sweepstakes!
Si, Senor.
He has the coloring of the flesh of the ripe papaya and the long limbs of the Yaqui.
With the right incantation, anyone can get waved over the border.
(Hint: It rhymes with “Oahu Snackbar.”)
The FBI had to catalog everything they took and it had to confirm to the specific items listed in the search warrant and affidavits as defined in the fourth amendment. So “we took them by accident” doesn’t fly.
I’m guessing that they were going to stick with their claim that they didn’t have them and that stupid Trump just misplaced them. But it was illegal to take them in the first place for more reasons than just the fourth amendment and they were caught so they tried to quietly admit they have them but would return them soon.
These people need to be arrested right now and all court-approved for the raid released and made public. Right now.
One correction
It was NOT ILLEGAL (defined as violation of law or statute) for them to take a passport.
That’s not the same as contesting the warrant for cause.
People need to use the right words with the right definitions and not to fall into the left’s word traps.
No edit button- grrr
Alo, the language of the warrant did not EXCLUDE personal documents either ( that’s a judicial challenge to the warrant for cause- not “illegal”)
I recommend that from now on when we want to edit we just type “GRR” and insert updated text.
Do you have the appropriate license for GRR?
;-{)}}}
Supposedly.
“particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Seems pretty straightforward. Don’t see how you can work “not EXCLUDE” into the constitutional language..
You copy/paste well but how many actual warrants and official training have you had on the subject to ensure your “straight forward” is in fact straight forward?
Notice in your own quote the word PARTICULARLY- that does not mean “exact”, Verbatim” “specifically” “only” etc.
The actual warrant language did not “exclude” anything (point 1) and the broad wording COULD REASONABLY BE INTERPRETED to cover lots of ‘stuff”. (That’s how the system works in reality)
Also, when quoting the actual Constitution or statute, do not forget to include ALL SUBSEQUENT CASE LAW further qualifying the Constitution with exclusions, tests, special circumstances and so forth.
You might be surprised on how much of your “original rights” have already been legislated away.
Except they actually haven’t, because such laws are repugnant to the constitution, and therefore void from their inception. Not that either of us expects a judge to agree with that point, it would be career suicide for him and every one of his colleagues. But normal men are becoming greatly tempted, in these time, to spit upon their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. And some judges are going to need very high collars.
Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.
–ANDREW JACKSON
My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.
–THOMAS JEFFERSON (TO SPENCER ROANE)
You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence… But the executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it; because that power is confided to them by the Constitution.
—THOMAS JEFFERSON (TO MRS. JOHN ADAMS)
Did the warrant exclude rubbing panties on your face?
That was stupid- even for you
Ah, poor little anti freedom FBI lackey is offended by the truth.
If they were not itemized in the affidavits, it was illegal.
No Phil, that’s not true anywhere.
People need to understand that something is only ILLEGAL when there is a SPECIFIC LAW OR STATUTE specifying that it is in fact “illegal”. ( matter of fact- speed limit is 55 mph)
If it is a “judgement” ( matter of law- too fast for conditions) then its not automatically “illegal” and even if WRONG it can be adjudicated as “not legal” but still not a crime (actus rea and mens rea)meeting a threshold.
In this case, the passport “COULD” be covered in some of the general language of this broadly worded warrant.
Plus, the “rule” on evidence gathering has always been “Take it to preserve it” and we can litigate it later.
That’s just the general reality of warrant service everywhere.
More Horse Shit:
The 4th, my bolding –
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“SPECIFIC LAW OR STATUTE” does not trump the constitution no matter how much you anti freedom losers try to make it so.
If it violates the Constitution, and seizing documents not covered by the warrant violates the 4th amendment, it’s illegal.
Of course, evidently that doesn’t matter anymore.
Party members and their government bureaucrat lackeys are effectively no longer bound by the Constitution and they violate it with impunity. Especially, but not solely, when (Get) Trump is involved.
Taking the passports did NOT violate the constitution, even if the warrant had explicitly excluded them, because they are not Trump’s property. The government doesn’t need a warrant to seize them. Any time the State Department likes it can order him (or anyone else) to return them, and it can send someone to pick them up. So when the FBI agents took them, regardless of whether they thought they were in the scope of the warrant or not, they were not breaking any law, including the 4th amendment.
@Milhouse
>>Taking the passports did NOT violate the constitution, even if the law, including the 4th amendment.
I DIDNT SAY IT DID
The state dept did not order Trumps passports to be seized. While it is true the passport belongs to the government, there are specific procedures that must be followed to seize a passport. The corrupt FBI did not do that, which is why they are now returning them.
The corrupt FBI routinely spits on the constitution as they did here. It is clearly a 4th amendment violation.
If not, then the 4th amendment is useless.
What I would like to know is did the corrupt FBI seize only the blue, or did they also seize the red and black, assuming Trump retains those?
@JHogan
You
>>>If it violates the Constitution, and seizing documents not covered by the warrant violates the 4th amendment, it’s illegal.
OK, please show the specific Federal Statute violated?
Remember, ALL rights have conditions, laws, qualifiers attached.
The violation of the Constitution one is a stillborn argument unless and until you qualify it.
No, YOU didn’t. Barry and Jhogan did. My reply was to them.
And no, Barry, the State Department didn’t order the FBI to take the passports. That’s irrelevant. The point is that they are not Trump’s property, and therefore the fourth amendment cannot protect them from government seizure.
The US government is a single entity, whose entire power is vested in the president; the State Department and the FBI are merely his agents. So as a matter of law any part of the government can seize a passport. There are no “specific procedures that must be followed”; any rules and procedures are entirely internal government matters. If there’s an internal government rule that the FBI can’t seize passports without the State Dept’s OK, that’s for them to sort out; it doesn’t give the passport holder any rights in the matter.
The FBI may very well be corrupt, but seizing the passports does nothing to demonstrate that corruption. It may spit on the constitution, but not in this instance. And pretending otherwise is dishonest and corrupt, which makes you just as bad as the FBI.
milhouse, your as wrong about the constitution of the United States as you are about most everything else.
The government doesn’t own a damn thing. We are the owners of the government. The rules are what they are and the 4th amendment is what it is. It doesn’t include an exception for “and the persons or things to be seized.” if in your possession the government claims ownership. It is a damn requirement that it be spelled out.
You are suggesting that ANY GOVERNMENT official including the desk jockey at the FDA can steal my passport. Oh , and they don’t even need to tell us they took it.
You need your head examined.
No wonder we’re loosing if this is what passes as intellect.
@Taurus: When I read the fourth amendment, it is very clear about “specific” items. I am not a lawyer but the constitution means what it says. And it clearly doesn’t generalize.
“Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
THE persons or things to be seized. Not that they will be arresting unnamed people or unspecified things.
In this case, the affidavits have not been released so we don’t know. But Trump’s lawyers were allowed to read them so Trump knows the details. It may not be “illegal” to seize someone’s passports, even a former President, but the way I understand this, if they were not specified in the affidavits, then the FBI had no authority to take them. It’s not like they fall under a general category. And it involves the former POTUS.
There is only reason why they would seize his passports and that is to create the basis for gaslighting people to believe that a crime was committed. The Bush NeverTrumpers were all over that gaslighting us before the passport issue was even reported. So now they return them without explanation?
Trump is playing cat and mouse with Garland/(Susan Rice) and he is the cat. I strongly believe that the passports will be a separate case.
They took an expired passport. A passport which covers a period well before he became POTUS. Now they know which countries he has visited and when long before he was POTUS.
That infomation could be useful in supporting whatever new fictional narrative they might want to concoct supporting whatever new allegations and charges of treason or collusion/conspiring with foreign players.
Since they have this information (in reality but not in the ‘official’ legal world) I assume they can request a warrant to make it official and usable in a court of law if at anytime in the future they might find it useful.
Unless there is some rule or law which makes anything they seized that they should not have inadmissible in the future.
@ Phil
YES, read the Constitution but also READ ALL SUBSEQUENT CASE LAW too because that’s where all the qualifiers and definitions, prior decisions, tests and everything else are.
That’s the SINGLE BIGGEST MISTAKE people make.
The single biggest mistake anyone here makes is paying any attention to what you have to say regarding the law.
You can’t even figure out the constitution.
Go ahead, give us the relevant court rulings that allow the FBI to violate the 4th.
We’re all waiting…
taurus the judge seems really long on “I’m a super-important expert” and really short on actually citing some source law.
I’m a super-important legal-type guy too, but I want to learn from the god-like expert. So *taurus the judge*, please educate the lesser mortals on what you are blathering about.
“YES, read the Constitution but also READ ALL SUBSEQUENT CASE LAW”
The Constitution is deadnutz clear that there are three branches, and only one of them makes law. And it’s not the judiciary. We Americans have to cleanse our brains of the fiction that they do, and that they have the sole authority over what is or is not constitutional. I know judges are supposed to genuflect at the altar of Marbury v. Madison, but it’s nothing but America’s first major corrupt horse trade.
it appears as though the Minotaur may have escaped the Maze
DoJ is getting battered here for choosing to be too aggressive, too sloppy and then choosing to deny those facts. This one issue demonstrates that the DoJ wasn’t fully truthful in their public statements because they initially denied removing the passports. It demonstrates that their inventory process is unreliable.
This one very avoidable event and the revelations around it undermine, yet again, the notion that the FBI or DoJ deserve any benefit of the doubt or are following procedures 100% by the book. Self inflicted wounds by the key stone cops. DJT and his Attorneys are by this time are very experienced in dealing with investigations and are not likely to be over awed by the weight of the DoJ.
Speaking OF CBS, I find myself thinking about how its news service was way in the past. Or, any of the major networks for that matter.
How would Walter Cronkite, Morley Safer, Sandor van Ocker (sp?), Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, or Alex Dreyer have handled these stories?
As far as I know, none of them merely read the scripts stuffed into their hands just before airtime; they had at least some sense of what was really going on.
Although “Uncle Walter” was a lefty, he often at least semed to love the nation, its people and its accomplishments. I want at least to think he’d have questioned some of these goings-on rather than be a parrot for the writers.
“How would Walter Cronkite…”
Probably all were liars. Cronkite in particular was a deeply corrupt liar. When the US overwhelmingly defeated the N. Vietnamese during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam Cronkite, claimed we lost. That was a lie, a very big lie as the north was decimated militarily. The liar Walter Cronkite handed the North Vietnamese a public opinion victory.
Yeah, I hope you’re not including someone like Sam Donaldson (NBC not CBS but still part of that era).
Saw him on the CNN tube at the gym the other day and he was yapping his mouth repeatedly about how Trump thought he was a king and had to be stopped and how this was so dangerous and yadda yadda deep state nonsense.
If you consider him as part of some of those same circles, then that group doesn’t live up to their prior reputation before social media could show them to be abject apologists and liars.
Y’all are missing the point of the FBI raid on Mar-A-Lago. It wasn’t about classified documents, it was about finding Hillarys underwear.
Apparently Trump has kept her panties in a wad since 2016.
Important point that apparently was reported but I only learned it this morning on the Jen and Grant show, Trump’s attorneys were allowed to read the affidavits but not given a copy. So Trump knows what is in them and is demanding they be released. Maybe he should demand copies and then release them himself.? Either way, the DOJ position is untenable. It just gets worse for them by refusing to disclose or even answer questions.
I man be wrong here but I believe The Dan Bongino Show may just have just been removed in mid-sentence at 9:30am. Suddenly, dead air for about a minute and then a different show comes on. Turns out it’s a repeat of a weekend Kim Komando Show. Has this happened anywhere else?
Just came back on. Looks like the local feed was dropped. Technical glitch I guess.
To be a member of the mainstream media you have to believe that Trump was lying about having his passports taken, and that the FBI took them in order to prevent him from fleeing across the border, and that giving them back to Trump means they let all the air out of the tires of his jet so he can’t escape justice, all at once.
+10
What Nora tweeted was probably technically true. By that I mean the passports had probably been returned.
If true, then both sides were being slippery. Trump’s tweet made it sound like the government still had his passports. And either Nora or the DOJ official were slippery because many people interpreted her tweet to mean the FBI did not take the passports.
Bullshit. Just plain bullshit.
The feds always lie.
+11
I cannot imagine how anything could have been taken “by accident”. They were in the house all bloody day; they were not exactly in a rush.
It’s easy. The warrant allowed them to take any box that was near any box that contained any government document produced while Trump was president.
No need to even look in the boxes, once you’ve found one such document. After that, it’s just grab each box, list the box number on the inventory, and pop it in the truck.
“Boomerang? DOJ admission it over-collected evidence in Trump raid creates new legal drama —
“Former top FBI official says search appears to have been overly broad and gives Trump lawyers an avenue for appeal.”
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/doj-admits-it-took-trumps-passports-offers-return-them
“DOJ has designated a process for separating materials that could be covered by executive privilege or attorney client privilege and hopes to return such memos to Trump within a couple of weeks, the sources said.
“Occasionally a warrant collection can grab things outside the scope authorized by the court and the department is now following a procedure we would for any person affected this way,” one official said Monday night.”
“Former top FBI official says search appears to have been overly broad and gives Trump lawyers an avenue for appeal.”
Not to beat this to death with what-ifs, but, I wonder if they intended overplaying their hand, and will make this go away? That this entire thing was a show for the media, and trying to injure DJT, and, by extension, GOP candidates in the mid-term elections?
Part that, part to incite violence from the right. They are chomping at the bit to crack down on the right, hard. And it’s not going to work.
Like this?
https://www.dcclothesline.com/2022/08/16/deep-state-plan-revealed-frame-a-civil-war-to-justify-un-troops-to-occupy-and-disarm-america/
China is in the process of shipping off a fleet of merchant marines in response to a US request to the UN for help quell an insurrection?
They seem to forget that “gun behind every blade of grass” Yamamoto spoke of a few years back.
The question is: will America use her guns to fight back?
UN troops? Those shiny blue helmets do stand out in a sea of grass.
Supporting evidence/information for independent verification on these claims please?
What Yamamoto really said is, “There is a vote behind every blade of grass.”
To all who replied. This is not what I believe. I just posted a link of someone who is taking the possible to the extreme. Biden calling in the UN to send Chinese troops to quell an insurrection? Please.
OK, you have finally received a downvote from me.
Pure stupidity to think the UN is going to come into the USA as an occupying and disarming force.
It’s a pure joke, which means the people at dcclothesline are dumber than dog turds.
@Barry: read my last comment before you posted your down vote. There are a lot of nutty reports going around and I just posted one that I found today that is very far-fetched. How would that guy know this? If he does and it’s true, my bet is our military intelligence has been all over it if a long time.
I certainly believe that the government is trying to provoke a major outbreak of violence and blame it on us. You would have to be pretty dumb not to see the obvious and it’s not just Jan 6.
Phil,
regardless of what the deep state is trying to do, anyone that believes the UN is coming to occupy the country has not a clue as to the physical size of the USA, the population numbers of the USA, nor the weapons in the hands of that population.
I’d just suggest not linking to dopes.
They know the conservatives will not be so stupid as to rise up with guns blazing to (whatever fever dream the Leftists are dreaming today) All they need is .001% of anybody who has a social media presence (or one they can forge) of support for Trump to be suckered into anything that can be interrupted that way. (Yes, this includes FBI inciting people to acts of violence like Michigan) A good example is the 1/6 rally. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of Trump and American flags were there, but one nut from the pseudo-left with a brand new Stars and Bars is all anybody will see in media photos.
We’ve seen that for years. Three old people with a Trump sign attacked by Antifa thugs and the headlines all scream “Trump rally marred by violence, three injured in brawl.”
Taking his passport tells me that irrespective of what the search warrant says, the operational instructions of the 30 people on the ground was to take every single piece of paper.
The FBI wins on a technicality, by Monday night the FBI did not have the passports, they were in the the possession of another three letter agency the NSD had them.
They were right next to Hillary’s White Water files I’ll bet.
the FBI follows search and seizure procedures ordered by courts, then returns items that do not need to be retained for law enforcement purposes
Ummm, don’t those procedures say you can ONLY take the things mentioned in the warrant? That “Oops, we got this, too” method seems a might outside the bounds of a proper warrant.
Yet another lie the communists are caught in. It’s no wonder that anyone with two brain cells to rub together doesn’t trust them at all.
Christina Bobb (Trump lawyer):
“I don’t know about any honest (mistake). I won’t give them that much credit at this point. I think it goes to show the level of audacity that they had. If you’re going to execute a raid on the primary residence of the President of the United States you need to do it perfectly. There’s no room for error. And when our 4th Amendment rights are at stake as a nation you cannot be flippant in any way. So I don’t give them a pass that this was a simple mistake. I think it goes to show how aggressive they were. How overreaching they were. They were willing to go past the four corners of the warrant and take whatever they felt was appropriate or what they could take. And then go back and look through and go “Woops! Maybe we went too far,” and then negotiate the return of it. And that is absolutely not how a warrant is supposed to be executed.
As I was saying.
My guess is Beria Garland will ignore this and not respond to any of it. Other than to keep repeating… ‘No one is above the law’. Like a parrot who learned a new phrase.
I think you are right. ‘No one is above the law’ seems to be the damnocrat response to the whole thing.
Except, of course, nine million illegal aliens who “deserve citizenship” because Democrats.