The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

The DOJ and the magistrate are afraid of transparency. Without the redactions, both would be exposed for their dishonesty in allowing the unlawful search and seizure of Trump’s personal records.

You cannot possibly know that "without the redactions, both would be exposed for their dishonesty." The only possible way to know that is to know what the full, unredacted document says; which you don't.

You can easily assert dishonesty, but you cannot know the unredacted document will show dishonesty until the full, unredacted document is publicly available for all to see.

Regarding "afraid of transparency," the DOJ has been crystal clear stating its reasons for redacting the affidavit, and the magistrate agreed those reasons are valid. It's not about fear. Among other things, it's about the DOJ and magistrate's desire to maintain the safety of "a significant number of civilian witnesses."

That "significant number of civilian witnesses" statement surprised me. Previously, it had been suggested by commentators that a Trump or Mar-a-Lago mole told the DOJ exactly where to find the materials the FBI agents found when executing the search warrant. That led to a lot of speculation about who that mole could be. Now we see the unredacted portion of the affidavit talking about "a significant number of civilian witnesses."

Speaking figuratively, I imagine Trump's neck is getting tired as he continually looks over one shoulder and then the other.

 

[danthewolf00]

You cannot possibly know that "without the redactions, both would be exposed for their dishonesty." The only possible way to know that is to know what the full, unredacted document says; which you don't.

You can easily assert dishonesty, but you cannot know the unredacted document will show dishonesty until the full, unredacted document is publicly available for all to see.

Regarding "afraid of transparency," the DOJ has been crystal clear stating its reasons for redacting the affidavit, and the magistrate agreed those reasons are valid. It's not about fear. Among other things, it's about the DOJ and magistrate's desire to maintain the safety of "a significant number of civilian witnesses."

That "significant number of civilian witnesses" statement surprised me. Previously, it had been suggested by commentators that a Trump or Mar-a-Lago mole told the DOJ exactly where to find the materials the FBI agents found when executing the search warrant. That led to a lot of speculation about who that mole could be. Now we see the unredacted portion of the affidavit talking about "a significant number of civilian witnesses."

Speaking figuratively, I imagine Trump's neck is getting tired as he continually looks over one shoulder and then the other.

All they had to do was redacte the names then....

 

[ATeam]

The fact that they could take any thing near the paperwork that they was oh so public about being after...... like the protected attorney client privilege information is reason that the warrant was unlawful.

You will recall that earlier this week, Trump sought out a conservative, Florida, Trump-appointed judge to whom he brought his request that a special master be appointed to examine the materials seized during the Mar-a-Lago search. After reading it, this judge identified several shortcomings in the filing. She asked Trump to better explain his request and she gave him a midnight-Friday deadline to file his response. Late last night, Trump met the deadline by filing his response.

Kindly note that in that response, Trump made NO MENTION of attorney-client privileged documents. He is not claiming any such documents are or may be included in the boxes of documents seized in the search.

"Nowhere in the filing did Trump suggest that material dealing with attorney-client privilege was seized in the FBI's search of his resort." (Source)

I'm not keeping close track of what Trump is saying publicly about this search. I find it more informative and efficient to look closely at the official court filings instead. So far, when speaking to the person who matters most in this conversation; namely, the judge; Trump makes no claims that attorney-client privilege documents were seized.

It seems the issue of attorney-client privileged documents you raise is incorrectly assumed. In fact, it seem that in this case, it is not an issue at all. If it was, one would think Trump would be making that point to the judge as clearly and strongly as possible. But he is not doing that.

That's an important point, don't you think? If Trump sees fit to say nothing about attorney-client privileged documents to the judge who is giving him every chance to do so, why do you feel the need to assert something Trump is not?

 

[RLENT]

Let’s not be totally gullible. Try harder to be intellectually honest, ok?

Probably don't want to go to either of those places either.

 

[muttly]

Probably don't want to go to either of those places either.

Oh, some are acting intentionally obtuse then. Ok, great.

 

[ATeam]

The Documents: Search Warrant and Redacted Affidavit

For those who are interested in reading the Mar-a-Lago search warrant and the redacted Mar-a-Lago affidavit without media filter or spin, the links are below:

Search Warrant

Redacted Affidavit

 

[RLENT]

You will recall that earlier this week, Trump sought out a conservative, Florida, Trump-appointed judge to whom he brought his request that a special master be appointed to examine the materials seized during the Mar-a-Lago search. After reading it, this judge identified several shortcomings in the filing. She asked Trump to better explain his request and she gave him a midnight-Friday deadline to file his response. Late last night, Trump met the deadline by filing his response.

Kindly note that in that response, Trump made NO MENTION of attorney-client privileged documents. He is not claiming any such documents are or may be included in the boxes of documents seized in the search.

"Nowhere in the filing did Trump suggest that material dealing with attorney-client privilege was seized in the FBI's search of his resort." (Source)

I'm not keeping close track of what Trump is saying publicly about this search. I find it more informative and efficient to look closely at the official court filings instead. So far, when speaking to the person who matters most in this conversation; namely, the judge; Trump makes no claims that attorney-client privilege documents were seized.

It seems the issue of attorney-client privileged documents you raise is incorrectly assumed. In fact, it seem that in this case, it is not an issue at all. If it was, one would think Trump would be making that point to the judge as clearly and strongly as possible. But he is not doing that.

That's an important point to note. If Trump sees fit to say nothing about attorney-client privileged documents to the judge who is giving him every chance to do so, why do you feel the need to assert something different?

There were also no claims in the filing that "everything was declassified" from what I understand.

It's a little different when one is filing something in a Federal Court ... as opposed to just shooting one's mouth off on Social Media or on TV.

 

[RLENT]

Oh, some are acting intentionally obtuse then. Ok, great.

That's another one that should be avoided.

Don't go there.

 

[RLENT]

The Redacted Mar-a-Lago Affidavit

For those who are interested in reading the redacted Mar-a-Lago affidavit without media filter or spin, the document can be seen here.
Link to follow soon

I understand that the former White Counsel (sounds like "Patsy Boloney") and Deputy White Counsel have told DOJ that they informed Trump that he needed to return the classified docs to NARA.

Of course, being the Very Stable Genius™ that he is, Trump instead decided to follow the advice of Tom Fitton ... a non-lawyer and loser of suits about Presidential Records.



(BTW - Bloomberg's links always do that "Are you a robot ?" thing.)

 

[RLENT]

BTW

All they had to do was redacte the names then....

Safety of witnesses and cooperators isn't the only issue though.

There's also safeguarding the integrity of the investigation itself - so that it cannot be compromised by those who would seek to escape justice.

DOJ does not need to show all the cards it's holding at this point, since that would likely assist those it is currently investigating and those parties - perhaps currently unknown - that may become part of the investigation in the future.

 

[ATeam]

All they had to do was redacte the names then....

That may be true if that was all there was to it, but there is more to it ... much more.

 

[muttly]

 

[muttly]

So true…

 

[ATeam]

The DOJ and the magistrate are afraid of transparency. Without the redactions, both would be exposed for their dishonesty in allowing the unlawful search and seizure of Trump’s personal records.

Regarding "personal records," two points.

First, unless the FBI occupied Mar-a-Lago for days while a filter team sorted through the boxes that were seized, it was impossible to quickly determine what records were personal and what were illegally possessed government property. We have learned from the affidavit that NDI, classified, and records subject to the Presidential Records Act were mixed in with Trump's other records.

Second, fifteen boxes of records were returned by Trump to the National Archives before the Mar-a-Lago search. Those boxes included "newspapers, magazines, printed news articles, photos, miscellaneous print-outs, notes, presidential correspondence, personal (emphasis mine) and post-presidential records, and 'a lot of classified records.' Of most significant concern was that highly classified records were unfoldered, intermixed with other records, and otherwise unproperly [sic] identified." (Source)

It is interesting to note that some are complaining about the government having some of Trump's personal records when Trump himself is voluntarily sending some of his personal records to the National Archives.

 

[ATeam]

You should worry about that affidavit because it will show the false information used to invade trumps home.
Remember they raided a former president.....just wait till Biden leaves office.

Have you seen the affidavit? Have you read the redacted affidavit released yesterday? What knowledge do you have about the affidavit contents? How do you know it contains false information?

 

[ATeam]

You should worry about that affidavit because it will show the false information used to invade trumps home.
Remember they raided a former president.....just wait till Biden leaves office.

Wait for what? What will be different when Biden leaves office?

 

[RLENT]

View attachment 21823View attachment 21824View attachment 21825View attachment 21826

Yeah ... was wondering when you'd find Tolman's tweets.

You should read Orin Kerr and Steve Vladeck's responses which took them apart and dismantled them.

 

[muttly]

Criminalizing something that is at best a civil suit.

 

[muttly]

What for what? What will be different when Biden leaves office?

What did Biden know and when?

 

[muttly]

Have you seen the affidavit? Have you read the redacted affidavit released yesterday? What knowledge do you have about the affidavit contents? How do you know it contains false information?

Lies by ommission.