- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge gives DOJ 5 days to respond to request to unseal Trump raid search warrant
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:08 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:08 pm to BBONDS25
quote:I can sometimes be contrarian just to make people think, but HERE I am genuinely curious as to whether an LEO would be required to cooperate with a random attorney in the situation that I described.
Hank knows better and is trying to come up with some plausible contrarian reason
Honestly, you are probably the poster best-suited to answer that question.
We have been told that Trump has a copy of the (partial) warrant. How? I am guessing it was left with Mar-a-Lago staff, who clearly WERE in possession of the premises ... rather than with a random lawyer who could not prove any connection to Trump.
But that is just an educated guess. I am hoping you can help me elevate it to a reasonable inference.
This post was edited on 8/10/22 at 7:11 pm
2
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:09 pm to BBONDS25
Hank is a pedo groomer who supports kids dancing in drag shows so there’s that too
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:09 pm to BBONDS25
quote:After reading him defending the shift from “it’s a raid” to “it’s not a raid” as some game of semantics and not a politically motivated ploy by the media to save the “optics” of the situation, I have realized he actually believes what he is saying.
I think Hank is operating as a contrarian and using his knowledge to be as contrarian as he can.
He isn’t a contrarian. He has no convictions at all.
quote:I am actually starting to doubt that.
He knows this is messed up.
This post was edited on 8/10/22 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:10 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I can sometimes be contrarian just to make people think, but HERE I am genuinely curious as to whether an LEO would be required to cooperate with a random attorney in the situation that I described.
I have never. Ever. Seen a law enforcement officer not believe someone purporting to be an attorney disbelieve it. If they did. It’s easily verifiable. If that was what happened, his attorney would have said that in her interview.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:10 pm to shawnlsu
quote:
Trump doesn't have "random lawyers"
ehhhhhhh
I'm pro Trump here but his resume of legal counsel is pretty damn dire
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:11 pm to BBONDS25
I'd like to know more about it just like everyone else. I'm positive we'll learn more about it.
I don't know this. I know what Eric Trump said to the media but I don't know what is in the affidavit.
quote:
Even thought he source used for the affidavit was proven incorrect.
I don't know this. I know what Eric Trump said to the media but I don't know what is in the affidavit.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:11 pm to Bourre
quote:
Hank is a pedo groomer who supports kids dancing in drag shows so there’s that too
No he isn’t. I go after Hank as much as anyone here. He will think of any plausible reason to justify a contrarian position. But he isn’t a pedo.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Are you really this slow?
You are a cop, and you are in the process of executing a search warrant. Random person you have never met walks up to you, hands you a business card and asserts that she is counsel for the property owner. She has no documentation to prove that this is true, and no one can reach the property owner to confirm.
Are you required to cooperate with her?
This is a simple question, and it is not remotely political. If you don't know the answer, just don't bother responding.
How long do you think this operation was planned and how much communication and intel went into this?
Merrick Garland, Wray, and likely hundreds of agents were involved with this. They met with Trump's people a few months ago to discuss the status of the items they were looking for and I have no doubt Trump had his lawyers there, all of which almost certainly gave their information to the FBI. There's absolutely no way that any of Trump's legal council that showed up were unknown to the FBI. They could have played dumb and pretended they didn't know, but the chances of that being true are hovering around the sub 1% range. But, then again, there's nothing these people do that you won't 100% justify because you're a statist tool.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:12 pm to Decatur
quote:
I don't know this. I know what Eric Trump said to the media but I don't know what is in the affidavit.
If you believe the Newsweek article, you do know this.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:13 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Whoa, slow down.
There's absolutely no way that any of Trump's legal council that showed up were unknown to the FBI. They could have played dumb and pretended they didn't know, but the chances of that being true are hovering around the sub 1% range. But, then again, there's nothing these people do that you won't 100% justify because you're a statist tool.
There is no way that that would make sense.
Instead, the FSB simply had no idea at all as to whose home they were raiding.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:14 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I can sometimes be contrarian just to make people think, but HERE I am genuinely curious as to whether an LEO would be required to cooperate with a random attorney in the situation that I described.
Honestly, you are probably the poster best-suited to answer that question.
We have been told that Trump has a copy of the (partial) warrant. How? I am guessing it was left with Mar-a-Lago staff, who clearly WERE in possession of the premises ... rather than with a random lawyer who could not prove any connection to Trump.
But that is just an educated guess. I am hoping you can help me elevate it to a reasonable inference.
Merely a few years ago I assume this would have resulted in a complete FBI pause while at minimum a SAC (if not someone much higher at FBI or DOJ) coordinated with Trump's people to have counsel present.
We can debate whether that sort of deference is sensible, but I don't think there is any debate that the environment has shifted starkly to get to the point where it transpired as it did.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:15 pm to Decatur
There is no shame in saying “this was not done correctly”. It’s what I hoped you would have said about the Woods procedures.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:16 pm to upgrayedd
quote:UG, this particular lawyer released a statement in which she EXPLICITLY stated that she had not been involved in this portion of Trump's "legal portfolio." She would NOT thus have been at such a meeting, rather by definition.
They met with Trump's people a few months ago to discuss the status of the items they were looking for and I have no doubt Trump had his lawyers there, all of which almost certainly gave their information to the FBI.
quote:If she is a local Palm Beach lawyer who is representing him on something unrelated, she MIGHT WELL have heard about the "raid" and gone to the property in an attempt to protect her client.
There's absolutely no way that any of Trump's legal council that showed up were unknown to the FBI.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:17 pm to AggieHank86
Hank. Dude. You are twisting yourself into knots trying to make this ok. Res Ipsa my man.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:17 pm to Paddyshack
quote:
Everything I'm reading now is saying that Trump and his team don't even have a copy of the warrant because they were not allowed to keep it. Nor were his lawyers allowed to be present in the room during the raid.
It was redacted and therefore wasn’t informative.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:18 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Mickey Goldmill
Karma will not be kind to you,
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:18 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Thank you.
Hank. Dude. You are twisting yourself into knots trying to make this ok.
Someone else needed to say that.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:18 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
It's very common for the DOJ to not release statements during an investigation. At least not right away.
What a fricking dumb statement given the circumstances.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:22 pm to Pandy Fackler
quote:
You don't believe he'll be President again, do you?
Do I believe it? I have my doubts. Do I hope he will? Absolutely.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 7:23 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
It's very common for the DOJ to not release statements during an investigation. At least not right away.
No it’s not, you stupid son of a bitch. But thanks for playing pretend lawyer today. That was fun.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News