Five Lingering Questions In the Wake of the Mar-a-Lago Raid

Former President Donald Trump has waived any objections to the release of the warrant and property receipt after the filing of a motion by the Justice Department. The motion, however, did not seek the release of the most important document in this controversy: the supporting FBI affidavit. That is the document that would reveal what the FBI told the magistrate about the prior communications with the Trump team and the specific allegations of the status of the documents in question.

There are reports that the documents involved material of the highest possible classification dealing with nuclear weapons. There is no question that the former President has no authority to retain classified material and that the government has a legitimate right to retrieve such material.

We should see the warrant and property list relatively soon in light of the DOJ motion and the Trump waiver. My greatest interest is the specificity of the information. Here are a few questions as we wait for the warrant and list:

  1. Attorney General Merrick Garland said that the DOJ would have used other less intrusive means if they were possible. Yet, it would seem that such options were not just possible but obvious, including the use of a second subpoena. Moreover, even if a raid was necessary, it is not clear why the DOJ would descend upon Mar-a-Lago with such a massive show of force rather than send a few agents over with the warrant.
  2. If the FBI believed that there was nuclear-related information in the resort, it certainly did not seem to move with dispatch. The last communication, according to the Trump team, was in June. Even after securing a warrant, there was reportedly a delay in executing the warrant. Why?
  3. If the FBI suspected that high-level material was retained at the resort, did they identify the material to the Trump team and demand its return? It is hard to imagine the Trump Team telling the FBI to pound sand if such a demand was made. Yet, such a denial would readily support a showing of probable cause. Moreover, adding a lock to the door of a storage room would not be viewed as sufficient for material at the apex of classification levels.
  4. Did the warrant specifically identify the material or the classification level? If the warrant sought the recovery of any possible classified evidence, it would again raise what was stated in the affidavit and the reason why such material was not acquired in the June subpoena despite the reported cooperation of the Trump team.
  5. There remains the role of the confidential informant and what the person shared with the DOJ. Was there evidence of active concealment of the material or merely a statement of additional documents being stored at the resort?

It is highly unlikely that all of this information will be contained in just the warrant and the list. Given the growing controversy over the necessity of the raid, this is one circumstance where the release of the affidavit is warranted. Rather than allow such questions to fester and grow, early and total transparency would seem in the public interest.

 

This column also appeared on Fox.com.

549 thoughts on “Five Lingering Questions In the Wake of the Mar-a-Lago Raid”

  1. I don’t disagree with anything the Professor has said, but the public interest is the last thing on this administration’s or the arms of its octopi have in mind. they don’t care. Period. Suffer, ye Plebes. That’s pretty much it, and it was rapidly approaching that when Obama was in office. It is why many of us rejoiced when Hillary lost, Trump be damned. The Democratic party has been on the take for far, far longer than 2016. The Dems are not just cutting out Republicans – they are cutting out anyone that disagrees with the Dems. That is currently the majority of us.

  2. Must read online article:

    “In one Oval Office meeting, a triple Russian threat” – written by counterintelligence agent Peter Stroz on 7-24-22 in the Washington Post

    Maybe this is why Garland didn’t trust Trump in handling secret documents.

    1. Until four years ago, Peter Strzok was Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division and led the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. His political opinions – expressed in countless text messages with Lisa Page (Special Counsel to Deputy FBI Director) – could create the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Looking at some of these messages someone could assume that Stzok might be willing to take official action to impact presidential candidate Trump’s electoral prospects. [1]

      In short: Strzok & WaPO is combination you will only please those readers who have a robust opinion about this topic.

      [1] https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download (Chapter XII, pp 395-430)

    2. Anybody who takes ANYTHING serious out of the lying Stroz’s mouth is a fool. YOU sir, are a fool.

    1. This entire thing does not pass the smell test. Not allowing any Trump representatives to be present while 30 unsupervised FBI agents rummaged through his house for nine hours raises a serious red flag.

      Telling them to turn off all security cameras only heightens the suspicion. Now, we have the Washington post leaking a story last night that they were in search of documents pertaining to nuclear weapons. Of course they’re going to find documents pertaining to nuclear weapons. The question is, will the CCTV within the compound pick up who planted them there, and when?

      As Turley mentioned, the lack of urgency in seeking to retrieve these alleged nuclear document should be the biggest tip off to anyone with the brains that God gave a goose that not even they believed Trump knew these documents existed in his house.

      And no… I didn’t, and won’t, vote for Trump, so save your breath.

      1. Trump and family watched the entire “raid” on their CCTV. They had a better view of the process than the lawyer at the residence.

  3. Let’s ask John “Dudley Do-Wrong” Dudham; he knows.

    Did the abject and corrupt DOJ and FBI raid Mar-A-Lago in an attempt to recover documents in Trump’s possession which prove the culpability of the DOJ and FBI in the ostensibly surreptitious, “fake” operation, Crossfire Hurricane?
    ________________

    “Crossfire Hurricane was the code name for the counterintelligence investigation undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from July 31, 2016, to May 17, 2017, into links between Russian officials and associates of Donald Trump and “whether individuals associated with [his] presidential campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election”.[1] Trump was not personally under investigation until May 2017, when his firing of FBI director James Comey raised suspicions of obstruction of justice, which triggered the Mueller investigation.[2]”

    – Wiki

  4. Jonathan: Like Donald Trump when caught red handed you double down. So here are my answers to your Qs.:

    1. You now admit you flew off the handle by claiming the DOJ/FBI did not issue a subpoena. They did but your claim now is that they should have issued a SECOND subpoena. Are you serious? Trump ignored the first subpoena. He could have gone to court and contested the subpoena but he didn’t. He stonewalled. Do you think Trump would have actually responded to a second subpoena? And how the FBI executed the search warrant is not in dispute. It was not a la Eliot Ness–breaking down doors and waving guns around. But you still falsely claim it was a “raid”. The FBI notified the SS in advance. No one at Mar-a-Lago was threatened and no doors were broken down. It was low key op from beginning to end.

    2. You say why didn’t the FBI “move with dispatch” after obtaining the search warrant? This assumes the FBI operated outside normal procedures. Trump didn’t have have the nuclear launch codes. In fact, Trump was cut out of national security briefings after he left office. Trump was not an immediate threat to national security. You put a lot of reliance for your claims on what the “Trump team” had to say about the circumstances surrounding the search warrant and its execution. I wouldn’t relay on anything they say.

    3. You say: “It is hard to imagine the Trump team telling the FBI to pound sand…”. See 2. above. That’s exactly what the “Trump team” did for over a year.

    4. The answer here calls for a lot of speculation by you. When the warrant is finally released we will find out the answer.

    5. Again, just speculation on your part. Obviously, Trump did engage in “active concealment” of government docs to which he had no right to take to Mar-a-Lago. Otherwise, there would have been no need for a warrant.

    Instead of asking relevant Qs you continue your attack on the DOJ/FBI with more unwarranted speculation and false statements. This only encourages a lot of conspiracy theories–among those who are calling for a Civil War against the “deep state”. Encouraging these wild claims and threats seems to be your intent. Otherwise, you would be trying to lower the incendiary rhetoric we hear on the right. Even most of those in the GOP are remaining pretty quiet about the search warrant. You should do the same. The only thing you have not claimed, like Trump did today, is that the FBI “planted” related nuclear material to justify the search. The repetition pf this bizarre claim will probably come in your next column.

    1. the first subpoena was for the first visit where they reviewed everything. Trump team of lawyers are well aware, and moreso than you, of the legal pitfalls. fbi are so jealous of Trump that this huge error of a raid was thought to be “ok.” Garland and Wray are professional liars, you should know that too.

      1. They didn’t “review everything” because Trump didn’t show them everything, according to the tipster who told the FBI where to look for the rest of the documents Trump stole.

  5. Incidentally, Trump has put out a fundraising letter:

    “Here are the nuclear codes: 10 20 50 100.

    Can I count on you sending $10 $20 $50 $100?”

    Whatever his faults, fundraising gimmicks are not one of them.

  6. Another possible motivation for the FBI’s raid of MAL:

    That the FBI/Left wants to get its hands on the Russia Gate docs that Trump had declassified.

    That way, the FBI can legally bar anyone from using or citing those docs, because they are part of an “ongoing investigation.” (HT: Kash Patel)

    (Apologists: Feel free to attack the man.)

  7. My view is that the issue regarding Hillary Clinton was handled properly. The State Department IG report speaks for itself. And while her conduct was inexcusable, it was not worthy of indictments.

    The public had better be shown in due course that Trump exceeded Clinton’s carelessness. As Comey said, there was evidence of law breaking, but an indictment was simply not reasonable.

    Garland said there needed to be even-handedness in the application of the law. The raid itself makes that statement’s truthfulness highly unlikely.

  8. OT

    WHAT FRESH HELL IS THIS?

    George Bush, Dick Cheney, Lizzy Borethem and the entire Deep Deep State Swamp Gang finally found their “WMD.”

    The whole U.S. nuclear inventory is at Mar-A-Lago where Trump stashed it after absconding with it in order to keep it out of the hands of the eminently bug house Joe Biden.

    Thank you, Mr. Real President Donald J. Trump.

  9. “ Investigators discovered classified documents in two areas: Trump’s personal office above a ballroom and in a storage room near the pool. Sources say there were “boxes everywhere,” with some containing Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). Those are considered some of the highest level of classified documents.”

    Looks like Trump’s “security” measures were as secure as his running mouth. No wonder the FBI had to take swift action. Being so careless with such sensitive information is further evidence Trump is either an idiot or incompetent.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-agents-found-dozens-of-classified-documents-in-mar-a-lago-search-sources/ar-AA10Bng8?cvid=d8559c108b664fd08adde4e0091fb6e0

    1. Svelaz, if as you say there were boxes everywhere why didn’t the FBI confiscate the boxes when they were there in June? If the information in the boxes was so sensitive why did the FBI recommend just putting a lock on the storage room door instead of removing the boxes? Do you think that the FBI is so incompetent that they didn’t recognize the nuclear codes during their inspection in June? Considering that you told us that the Steele dossier was the truth and nothing but the truth you will have to excuse us if we don’t consider your take on things to be of much value.

      1. “ Svelaz, if as you say there were boxes everywhere why didn’t the FBI confiscate the boxes when they were there in June?”

        Perhaps Trump didn’t tell them about where ALL the boxes were. Once they got the first batch they could have realized there were more. Totally plausible.

        It’s more likely Trump was not being honest or he was just being stupidly careless.

  10. Anyone that watched the last 60 minutes of the “Day 8 – January 6 hearing” (available for free online) would know that Trump hired a guy, who bypassed security clearances – allowing people with security problems into secure areas of the White House (people that couldn’t pass a simple security clearance ). That Trump employee, that breached the WH security system, was then stripped of his authority for allowing uncleared people into the WH.

    During the hearing, Trump’s lawyer, Pat Cipollone testified that he asked these people inside the White House (not cleared to hear any secret information) who they were and what they were doing in these classified meetings.

    Recently, the Washington Post revealed that one of these uncleared people (described above) had dated a lady that was convicted against the United States of spying for Russia. On January 6 this guy was in a secret meeting inside the White House with a direct link to Putin.

    The only question is why Garland didn’t do this earlier? Ronald Reagan would have been on the opposite side of Trump letting someone, dating a Russian spy, inside the White House.

    1. Fang Fang A suspected Chinese intelligence operative developed extensive ties with local and national politicians, including a U.S. congressman, in what U.S. officials believe was a political intelligence operation run by China’s main civilian spy agency between 2011 and 2015. Credit: Axios

      Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who then chaired the Intelligence Committee, was approached by the FBI. The bureau had learned that a staffer in her San Francisco office was a Chinese operative “run” out of Beijing’s consulate in that city. It appears that he had started as a legitimate employee but was at some point, likely on a visit to the East, turned by a member of the Chinese Ministry of State Security. Credit: Washington Examiner

      FBI determined 2017 GOP baseball shooting was “suicide by cop”.

      In January 2017, just days before Donald Trump took office, the Steele dossier landed like a bombshell and sent shockwaves around the world with its salacious allegations about Trump and his supposed ties to Russia.

    2. AZ, you are so non-specific that what you are saying is meaningless. By the way did you notice that Colbert’s group was arrested for being in the Capitol building after being escorted out and told not to return? They intentionally broke the law. What happened to them?

      1. They didn’t intentionally break the law. A staffer let them back in after they were kicked out.

        They were not supposed to be filming without an escort. This doesn’t rise to the level of what jan 6 rioters did. The Trump rioters intentionally broke the law, committed assault on law enforcement, vandalism, breaking and entering, using weapons and bringing weapons. It’s not the same obviously.

        1. Svelaz, you are too dumb to actually know what happened. They were trespassing after being told to leave by authorities. Get your facts straight.

          Some rioters were let in by police and left after taking pictures yet were arrested.

          You are too dumb to deal with. Almost everything you write is wrong.

      2. They do the work for the regressive progressive party, so they got a slap on the hand and released with NO CHARGES.

  11. “not clear why the DOJ would descend upon Mar-a-Lago with such a massive show of force rather than send a few agents over with the warrant.”

    Optics. It doesn’t make good TV if a couple of guys in trenchcoats and sunglasses politely knock on the door. And, swatting has more collateral effect if there’s action.

    1. Prairie Rose,
      That right there.
      According to other reports, when the FBI made prior visits, Trump complied, and according to some reports, he even lead them in personally.

      Someone made a funny comparison;
      Jan6 “Insurrection!” (no firearms within the Capitol, tattooed guy with horns) “Threat to democracy!”
      MAL FBI, 30some agents, with scary looking black long guns, tacti-cool gear, “NOT a RAID!”

    2. Prairie, if they can do this to a septuagenarian who is not a threat and innocent of charges, they will do it to anyone. Fascists rule by force and intimidation, but I think people are starting to see that their like or dislike of Trump is less important than the blatant fascism that the left is offering.

      Trump will prevail, but the question is what illegal actions have the fascists taken and will the next election also be riddled with lawlessness.

      1. Also, law enforcement has been found many times to plant evidence to lead to conviction. What would prevent them from planting incriminating evidence in the confiscated materials from Trump’s residence, that were taken without supervision and without providing an inventory?

        1. Edo, that was one of the first things I said on this subject. The FBI has lied, manipulated evidence and done all sorts of illegal things so they cannot be trusted.

      2. Trump is “not a threat”? Have you been living in a cave since 2015? Because polls predicted he would lose in 2016, he cheated to get into office, constantly lied, destroyed our economy, let the pandemic get out of control which caused our country to shut down for most of 2 years and resulted in 130,000 unnecessary deaths, he turned loose 5,000 Taliban, started a trade ware with China, the fallout from which we are still feeling, sided with murderous dictators like Putin and MBS, and after he lost a second election, started an insurrection to prevent the rightful winner from taking office. Now, we find out he stole classified documents and refused to comply with a subpoena to return them. But you KNOW “he is innocent of charges”. People who cannot perceive facts shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

        1. “Trump is “not a threat”? Have you been living in a cave since 2015? “

          Natacha, have you not noticed how articulate and clear defenders of Trump’s policy are? Have you not noticed how you cannot defend Biden? That is why you don’t bother responding point by point. Instead in an almost random fashion your repeat your inarticulate rants repeatedly.

          The amazing thing is that you show no embarrassment. That is a sign of living in a cave without mirrors.

    3. Prarie Rose: Trump is the one who notified media about the execution of the search warrant, NOT the FBI or DOJ. There was no “massive show of force” at all. Trump and his lawyer knew about the warrant before it was served, as did the Secret Service. The FBI went out of their way to be unobtrusive–no FBI-logo windbreakers, no beating down the doors, and they waited until Trump was out of town to act. Trump and Melania watched the search on CCTV. Just more of Turley’s paid hyperbole that helped get a Trump supporter killed yesterday.

      Trump used the search warrant as a fundraiser. I’ve seen the texts he sent out right afterwards–stir up the disciples into believing that he is, once again, a victim of the “Deep State”, so send us $$$$. It’s stunning that you disciples don’t see this for what it is.

  12. To all those (Svelaz, Natch, Anonymice, etc.) who keep accusingly insisting that Trump could have released the warrant and accompaniments, yup, he could have, BUT:
    I may be wrong, but I believe that he was wise and/or wisely counseled to not do so immediately, because if he had published/released PRIOR to his counsel having had the time to review everything seized, it could have constituted WAIVER and been fatal to any later assertions/protections, i.e., his right of inherent privilege and protection of anything/all included therein (fishing expedition and indiscriminate seizure of materials not within the scope of the warrant).
    By DOJ/Garland moving the court to release, Trump/legal counsel RETAIN the right to object, and, if necessary, move the court to prevent disclosure of certain SPECIFIC MATERIAL, e.g., any confidential/personal communications/privileged material/non-relevant material, etc.
    Trump’s statements encouraging release are just Trump-style PR, in my opinion. Until he or his counsel actually move the court to release, it’s just PR.
    Just sayin’

    1. “Until he or his counsel actually move the court to release…” includes not objecting to DOJ/Garland’s motion to release.
      (This has given Trump’s team at least two days to review everything…)

    2. The interesting thing is it was his lawyer who got the copy first. She was the one at the residence. There was ample time to review the warrant and the receipt. And we all know Trump hires only the best. His lawyer would have immediately known whether they could release their copy or not. Or Trump could have instructed his lawyer NOT to release it.

      1. As an old(er) and wis(er) woman, I try not to use “always” or “never” in life. Having read this blog for over 5 years, without equivocation, you ALWAYS respond in a predictable manner and NEVER add anything of substance to the dialogue.

      2. “The interesting thing is it was his lawyer who got the copy first. She was the one at the residence.”

        I don’t think she was at the residence because reports say she got there after the FBI was already in MAL.

        “There was ample time to review the warrant and the receipt.”

        The reports say something different. The warrant was not handed to her but held up for a short time. There are questions as to whether or not she could read the entire warrant in that period of time.

        “There was ample time to review the warrant and the receipt.”

        Not necessarily. Cohen is an example. The chances were a call was made to the law firm and they sent out someone who was free at the time. I don’t know one way or the other, but she might not even have been a partner of the firm.

        “His lawyer would have immediately known whether they could release their copy or not.”

        If the lawyer didn’t have a copy of the document they wouldn’t know that. Not all lawyers have the same expertise.

        Every above statement you wrote was either wrong or unproven. That makes what you said entirely worthless. This is essentially the type of garbage you write every time you respond. There is no need for you to respond unless there is absolute proof behind any of the above comments you made. Such responses are a waste of time.

        1. “ The interesting thing is it was his lawyer who got the copy first. She was the one at the residence.”

          I don’t think she was at the residence because reports say she got there after the FBI was already in MAL.”

          She was there for the search. Nobody is claiming she got there “late” your attempt at rebuttal fails.

          “ There was ample time to review the warrant and the receipt.”

          The reports say something different. The warrant was not handed to her but held up for a short time.”

          Since you didn’t cite what these “reports” are or link to them you are just making stuff up as usual. Your attempt at rebuttal failed.

          “ His lawyer would have immediately known whether they could release their copy or not.”

          If the lawyer didn’t have a copy of the document they wouldn’t know that. Not all lawyers have the same expertise.”

          She HAD a copy. Any lawyer knows they can make a warrant public. This is basic knowledge for lawyers. Your attempt at rebuttal failed.

          Every attempt at rebuttal was a trial failure. It was an abysmal attempt. Not surprising though.

          1. “She was there for the search. “

            Svelaz: Likely and logically wrong. She said she got there while they were already searching.

            “Since you didn’t cite what these “reports” are or link to them you are just making stuff up as usual.”

            No need to quote information readily available especially to one who is wrong almost always.

            “She HAD a copy. Any lawyer knows they can make a warrant public. “

            Wrong. None of the reports I have read or heard said she was given a copy. Since it was sealed there are restrictions on who can read the warrant. Were you born dumb?

            “This is basic knowledge for lawyers.”

            You know near nothing about the law.

            You continue to play the part of the fool and then you complain when you are proven a fool. There is no satisfying someone as dumb as a doorknob.

    3. Thanks Lin, this type of explanation is what we need to help put the pieces together. So far Trump has not said one way or the other that he has the document today. Keeping silent prevents the leftist fascists from using tangents to enhance a false idea. HE wants them to speak because every word provides a bit more information.

      Thanks again.

      1. Nope, Trump doesn’t do “silent”. His biggest weakness is he can’t stop shooting his mouth off. He’s claimed it was a hoax and then just now it’s been confirmed he had 11 sets of boxes classified top secret. Oops.

        Now he’s blaming Obama for doing “the same thing” without any evidence to back it up. That’s the mark of a liar.

        “ Trump released a statement Friday that notably did not deny The Post’s reporting and falsely accused former President Barack Obama of illegally moving classified government records from the White House to Chicago.

        “President Barack Hussein Obama kept 33 million pages of documents, much of them classified,” Trump said in the statement. “How many of them pertained to nuclear? Word is, lots!”

        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-fbi-recovered-11-sets-of-classified-documents-including-some-marked-top-secret-from-mar-a-lago-report/ar-AA10Bs9r?cvid=56e0651648164323bd0db57adce18f21

        1. I can’t think of anyone who could be dumber. Trump has had the FBI and records people all over MAL. They could have taken whatever they wanted then. Whatever they left and now returned to find is their mistake. You are stupid enough to believe Trump stole these documents from the WH after the FBI was there in June.

          “Now he’s blaming Obama for doing “the same thing” without any evidence to back it up. That’s the mark of a liar.”

          Svelaz the clueless doesn’t know that all recent Presidents have Presidential libraries where much of the same documents are stored.

          What a doofus.

    4. lin: are you claiming to be a lawyer? If you are, then you would know that Trump should have gone to court to object to the subpoena when it was served if there were any privileged documents he stole. You might want to review Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, sub-part (e), entitled “duties in responding to a subpoena”. Sub-part (2) pertains to “claiming privilege or protection”, and provides that the person served “must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim”. Rule 26 (C), entitled “Protective Orders” provides a mechanism for seeking a court order preventing disclosure or discovery of documents and information and other limits on discovery, such as persons allowed to see the information, and other limits.

      Trump didn”t object or seek any protective order, so any objections are already waived. He just refused to comply with the subpoena, he tured this into a dog and pony show for fundraising purposes, and some of the documents he retained are classified. You keep trying to gin up a claim that there are privileged documents included, but there’s no proof of this.

      1. Natacha: I do not mean to embarrass you in front of others, but you seem to have confused subpoenas with search warrants.
        You have cited Rule 45, which, as you know, is about (and addresses) “Subpoenas.” and has nothing to do with “warrants” – or the good professor’s topic herein (hint: look at the title of his post…).
        My comment had nothing to do with subpoenas. We are way past that stage in the developments.
        My comment was about Trump recognizing the risks in self-publishing the WARRANT.
        It was also my understanding that after Trump received a SUBPOENA (was it June?)Trump’s legal team and DOJ had been involved in continuing negotiations/communications to resolve the reach of the subpoena..
        My opinion is that those communications obviously failed and DOJ then moved forward with a subsequent motion to compel, or if exigent (as in hinting at nuclear-related material) a grant of search WARRANT.
        As the good professor notes, information in the affidavit justifying the WARRANT is key in showing why a subsequent/second SUBPOENA may have failed.
        Please reread the good professor’s five points, particularly 3,4,5.
        I stand by everything I said. Thanks anyway.

        1. Lin,

          it is a pleasure to see a new commenter who is articulate, erudite and writes like an academic. Thanks for joining our humble community. You should know, so as not to waste your valuable time and energies, that several commenters on this forum, like other political forums, are paid “Act Blue” trolls. Act Blue is a leftist political organization that floods commenting forums with paid trolls to disseminate “talking points”. The Democrat National Committee uses Act Blue for fundraising and disseminating most recent “narratives” or political talking points. They are not here to have an intellectual discourse, have a “meeting of the minds” nor come to agreements about factual matters. You will learn who they are if you stay around her long enough. There is also the psychological aspect of trolls known as the “Dark Triad” (Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism). However, the forum can be littered with trolls, some entertaining, most duplicate talking points posted by the same troll using multiple aliases or “sock puppets”.

          I have gotten much encouragement from Professor Turley’s academic analysis as someone who’s family fled Communism.

          Have fun, enjoy the exchanges, the humor and at times the glorious snark.

          welcome aboard

          Online trolling behavior positively correlated with sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism, and negatively correlated with agreeableness, conscientiousness and honesty–humility. A hierarchical linear regression showed that sadism, Machiavellianism and negative social potency were the only unique predictors of online trolling behavior. Trolling was unrelated to the frequency of Facebook use and the frequency of commenting. Enjoyment of trolling fully mediated the relationship between Machiavellianism and the trolling behavior. The results thus suggested that Facebook trolling behaviors may be motivated by enjoying the manipulation of others.

          Gylfason HF, Sveinsdottir AH, Vésteinsdóttir V, Sigurvinsdottir R. Haters Gonna Hate, Trolls Gonna Troll: The Personality Profile of a Facebook Troll. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 May 26;18(11):5722. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18115722. PMID: 34073523; PMCID: PMC8199376.

        2. There have been claims that supeona negotiations broke down.
          But there are no named sources saying that.

          Trump and his lawyers have said that they honored the Subpeona and offered NARA, DOJ/FBI full access to everything and allowed them to take whatever they wanted.

          That is not sworn under oath, but it is the most credible evidence we have.
          We know that a lock was replaced at FBI direction and we were told that CCTV video was provided to FBI.

          All of this occured from June 3 to August 8. That is not alot of time for a communications breakdown, hostile interaction, and DOJ/FBI proceding to a warrant. The rapidity with which DOJ moved either means they felt they had somereally good reason to fear a release of important classifid material
          Or this is a political weaponization of law enforcement.,., There are not many other alternatives.

          You noted getting another subpeona, But if Trump was not completely responsive on the first DOJ could have rapidly got a motion to compell performance. And there is no evidence they did that.

          1. They didn’t file a motion to compel because they didn’t trust Trump. As it turns out, their assessment was correct. They weren’t required to file a motion to compel before or in lieu of obtaining a search warrant.

            1. Irrelevant. Warrants require crimes.
              There are no crimes here.

              The governments choices are a motion to compel.
              or further voluntary searches.

            2. Fears are not self justifying.

              No their fears did not prove correct.
              They proved incorrect. Nothing was destroyed.

              I would note that aside from originals and little of this was original Trump could have destroyed any of this at any time.
              No harm no foul. While the espionage act covers destruction of classified material – there must be an actual harm (or risk of harm)to the US from that destruction.

              “They weren’t required to file a motion to compel before or in lieu of obtaining a search warrant.”
              They are required to use the least intrusive method – even AG Garland said that.

              They have to have a LEGITIMATE fear of some imminent harm to escalate.
              That does not exist. There is no saudi waiting in the wings to buy nuclear secrets.
              Trump was not preparing to post classified documents on the internet.

        3. No, Lin, it’s you who dont’ know what you’re talking about. And, you’ve never answered the question about whether you claim to be an attorney. You are attempting to argue that Trump somehow has retained some right to object on the grounds of privilege or whatever that could be waived by releasing the search warrant. The time to have objected to production of documents he took from the White House was back in June when he was served with a grand jury subpoena, TO WHICH HE DID NOT OBJECT. This entire episode started with a subpoena, to which FRCP Rule 45 applies. Therefore, any claim of privilege is waived for failing to raise it back in June. There’s no “privilege” attached to a court order, which is what a search warrant is, something you don’t seem to understand. So, your argument about Trump not releasing the search warrant and property list on the advice of counsel because some privilege would thereby be waived, is nonsense, just like your citation to the O’Sullivan case.

          And, your “understanding” that there was some sort of dispute or resolution regarding the subpoena in June is also wrong. Trump was served with a subpoena, to which he responded by producing documents, but it turned out he didn’t release ALL of the documents. A tipster told the FBI he was holding out and where the documents could be found, and that’s why they sought a search warrant.

          Answer me: are you an attorney?

  13. Number 3 sounds the least important, but it does prove the duplicity of DC, DoJ, and the IC.

    When the IC found Senator Fienstien had a Chinese Spy as her driver for years, she got a defensive briefing telling her the danger. When Papadopolus repeated in a London bar that he had HEARD Wikileaks had some Clinton emails, Trump got a counter intel investigation launched and FISA warrants to spy on his campaign.
    The only reason Trump got the Comey briefing on the pee pee tapes, (a total lie known by Comey) the only purpose was to be able to leak the briefing to the media, so the media would run the false story. Up to that point, the media had avoided the clearly fabricated dossier. But once it was briefed, the story of the briefing was fact,even though Comey knew the information was made up.
    This warrant is exactly the same. It can all be fake info, but the story of it being served is true.

    Number 3 is very informative. Why didn’t the DoJ simply ask the President to hand over the documents the embedded spy claims he saw?

    1. “Salman Rushdie has just been stabbed . . .”

      So the “religion of peace” finally executed its fatwa.

  14. I am a 12-year veteran of the US Air Force. As such, I initially held a Secret security clearance. My clearance was later upgraded to Top Secret. Why? Because I was assigned to a mission that involved nuclear weapons. Let me state that nuclear weapons themselves are not classified Top Secret neither is everything having to do with them. I was granted a Top Secret clearance because I might possibly be involved in moving nukes from a classified location (Secret) to another location (Top Secret) in the event of war. My clearance was later downgraded to Secret because the Air Force decided there were too many people with Top Secret clearances who no longer needed them and I was no longer in a unit with the kind of mission I had been in before. In short, there is classified information and then there is classified information. In fact, in the Air Force nearly every skill required some kind of clearance. I once knew a cook who had previously been in one of the most highly classified missions in the Air Force where he held a clearance at the highest level – we called it CRYPTO. He cross-trained into a new field (the same one I was in later) and for some reason a new background check was run on him. He had gotten married and it turned out his wife had relatives in an Iron Curtain country, which made him a security risk. He lost ALL clearances and ended up in the chow hall as an apprentice cook because cooks didn’t need a clearance. I doubt that President Trump had any classified information related to nuclear weapons. If he did, it probably was no higher than Secret, a classification that’s used for practically everything in certain parts of the military.

    1. “nuclear weapons themselves are not classified Top Secret neither is everything having to do with them”

      They’re classified as Restricted Documents and can only be declassified through a process involving the DOE, per the Atomic Energy Act.

    2. My understanding of Top Secret is limited, but when my wife applied for a job at an installation that itself was partially top secret they explained that she would require more than top secret status because what she would be involved in designing was Code Secret where clearance was based on a need to know. She required a lot of Code Secret information to do her job. Is my memory correct? She decided against the job because she was already considered a criminal by the Soviets and we were afraid of abduction when we travelled to Europe.

      I never clarified that situation in my mind. Maybe you can enlighten me.

    3. Whatever the designation of the documents, as of noon on Jan. 20, 2021, private citizen Trump had NO right to possession of them. He retained some of them even after being subpoenaed. He has established his deference to and refusal to criticize MBS and Putin. Trump is dangerous.

  15. The only people in the country still buying into this lunacy are the brainwashed lunatics watching MSNBC and CNN – the Intel Community disinformation channel! It should have a new acronym: ICDC – Your number one source of goverment disinformation.

  16. Professor, let me add the timeline of this case: Predident Trump left the WH on 1/20/21. On 8/11/22 after AG presser government officials shifted the case from NARA to National Security issue via a leak to WaPo (and from there around the world)

    It is uncontested that government officials exeiuted the Grand Jury subpoena on 6/3/22 and further communications went on until Mid June., Consequently the person who found “documents related to nuclear weapons” and reported his/her findings to FBI must be between mid June to end of July 2022. Or 18 months afte the papers arrived at Mar-a-Lago. Who shipped/stored the documents? Did they sleep the whole time, did the former President need them for his work, to whom did he discuss the content? And: If the FBI knows the exact location: Why do they need 20+ manpower and 9/12h?

    BTW Most who hope to be informed after the release of search warrant & the list (eg 12 boxes), will be disappointed.

    1. There is no reason to believe the story about nuclear information. Just the other day it was reported that Garland did not sign off on the decision to apply for a search warrant. This was completely untrue, according to Garland’s remarks yesterday. The recent past is littered with false stories about Trump, sourced anonymously.

      The warrant should tell us the criminal allegation here and provide information about the nature of the documents being sought, it is hoped with a high degree of specificity. But without the affidavit justifying the warrant we will not have a basis to judge whether this type of raid was justified. The two critical questions are whether less intrusive alternatives were available and why this suddenly became time sensitive. The warrant and receipt will contribute little to answering these two questions.

      1. On what basis do you contend that some of the recovered documents did t deal with nuclear issues. What is your basis when you stare that Garland didn’t sign off on the warrant?

        1. Newsweek reported before Garland spoke that Garland had nothing to do with the warrant.

          I don’t know if any of the documents relate to nuclear matters; what I said was we have no reason to believe they do on the basis of anonymous reporting, given recent history.

          1. That Newsweek was wrong about X does not logically imply that the Washington Post is wrong about Y. They’re different organizations, and the actual issue is the history of reliability of the specific WaPo reporters who wrote the article in question.

  17. Since when did the Left become fans of the FBI?

    Since elements within it began creating and arresting political “criminals.”

    The FBI is now useful to the Left’s ends (destroy political opposition), so now they’re fans.

Leave a Reply