• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

FBI executes search warrant at Mar-a-Lago

Colt

Well-Known Member
Yes, it's an exhaustive Wiki.

In total, Perkins Coie paid Fusion GPS $1.02 million in fees and expenses, of which Fusion GPS paid Orbis $168,000 to produce the dossier.[62] The DNC and Clinton campaign disclosed the total amount paid to Perkins Coie on campaign finance reports.[63] In March 2022, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) fined the DNC $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000 for misreporting those fees and expenses as "legal services" and "legal and compliance consulting" rather than "opposition research".[64][65]
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What did I get wrong?


Unauthorized removal and destruction of classified material[edit]

The National Archives building in Washington, D.C.
On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the United States Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003, allegedly by stuffing the documents into his socks and pants.[20][21] Berger subsequently lied to investigators when questioned about the removal of the documents.[22]

In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington, D.C.[23]

Berger was fined $50,000,[24] sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for three years.[22][25] The Justice Department initially said Berger only stole copies of classified documents and not originals,[26] but the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. During the House Government Reform Committee hearings, Nancy Kegan Smith — who was the director of the presidential documents staff at the National Archives and Records Administration — acknowledged that she had granted Berger access to original materials in her office.[27]

On December 20, 2006, Inspector General Paul Brachfeld reported that Berger took a break to go outside without an escort. "In total, during this visit, he removed four documents ... Mr. Berger said he placed the documents under a trailer in an accessible construction area outside Archives 1 (the main Archives building)". Berger acknowledged having later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office.[28][29]

On May 17, 2007, Berger relinquished his license to practice law as a result of the Justice Department investigation. Saying, "I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license. ... While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize." By giving up his license, Berger avoided cross-examination by the Bar Counsel regarding details of his thefts.[30]
You tried to use "what aboutism" in an argument trying to let Trump off by referring to someone that did not escape punishment for a similar crime.

You in effect supported the FBI raid of Mara Lago. In other words you supported those that are debating against you.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No, I didn't say Trump should be exempt. Trump may not have wanted his document accidently stolen and destroyed by (D)'s going into the archives and accidently slipping them into ones socks.
So he stole them?

They were not his documents. The President does not own any Presidential documents, that applies to all Presidents.

Not only that there is a specific law about this. Perhaps the writers of the law foresaw a goon like Trump. Taking such documents out of the White House disqualifies that person from running for President again.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
If
So he stole them?

They were not his documents. The President does not own any Presidential documents, that applies to all Presidents.

Not only that there is a specific law about this. Perhaps the writers of the law foresaw a goon like Trump. Taking such documents out of the White House disqualifies that person from running for President again.
If he has boxes of documents that he wasn't supposed to take, then yes. Like when the Clintons stole a bunch of White House furniture, rugs Tv's, China etc. when the moved out. Clintons Return White House Furniture
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
You tried to use "what aboutism" in an argument trying to let Trump off by referring to someone that did not escape punishment for a similar crime.

You in effect supported the FBI raid of Mara Lago. In other words you supported those that are debating against you.
I'm not really debating, if Trump really committed a crime, then they need to deal with it. I'm just providing ironic comparisons. I will say that this will come back to bite the (D)'s.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If

If he has boxes of documents that he wasn't supposed to take, then yes. Like when the Clintons stole a bunch of White House furniture, rugs Tv's, China etc. when the moved out. Clintons Return White House Furniture
Not at all the same. Now Bill could not run again no matter what. But let's say that he had only one term and he did that. He could still run again. Trump could not.

The reason why documents have to be preserved is that they can help to give an unbiased history of one's term in office. Stealing those documents could keep us from knowing how truly incompetent Trump was. Stealing furniture does not do that.

Your analogy failed.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm not really debating, if Trump really committed a crime, then they need to deal with it. I'm just providing ironic comparisons. I will say that this will come back to bite the (D)'s.
But you aren't. You are providing very poor comparisons that only make it look as if you are trying to defend Trump.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
But you aren't. You are providing very poor comparisons that only make it look as if you are trying to defend Trump.
I find that you often take things too seriously. Lighten up! Trump will NEVER get reelected even if the Jan-6 stuff didn't happen. He's done!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I find that you often take things too seriously. Lighten up! Trump will NEVER get reelected even if the Jan-6 stuff didn't happen. He's done!
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. I would have predicted that he would never beat Hillary going into the election. I learned how wrong that I was.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. I would have predicted that he would never beat Hillary going into the election. I learned how wrong that I was.
It was a fluke! The choice between a relatively unknown and the sleezy Clintons again. But my favorite part of his crazy campaign is when he brought a number of women that Bill Clinton had raped to the debates and sat them on the front row.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Maybe Trump is concerned that some of those documents might vanish from the National Archive?
Recently I became concerned that some cash might disappear from my local bank. That is why I took it. I was just keeping it safe.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Let's hold off on the schadenfreude for a bit

We've earned the right to savor. We sat through "Lock her up." Hillary must be grinning ear-to-ear.

I just saw this elsewhere (bottom photo not relevant, but was attached to the top one). Reminds me of a Journey song, "Who's Crying Now?" :

v4foewzusqg91.jpg


For those interested, English has a word for schadenfreude: epicaricacy.

Criminalizing the political opposition does not bode well for the republic and the democratic process.

They criminalized themselves by being criminals.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Recently I became concerned that some cash might disappear from my local bank. That is why I took it. I was just keeping it safe.
LoL! If money disappears from your bank it may be because (D)’s took it to pay off someone’s student loans? Because it’s not fair that educated people have to pay their loans back!
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
What's the evidence that justified all the raids that have transpired?
That evidence was presented, in every case, to a judge.
It also is imperative that the political affiliations of the judges that signed the warrants be noted.
Is it? And how many other sorts of cases require disclosing the political affiliation of the trial judge? And what is the purpose of doing so?
Apparently, there is some forthcoming payback after the midterms from Republicans by investigating the FBI itself.

'Intolerable': Republicans Promise Investigation of FBI Raid at Mar-A-Lago
What, exactly, is "intolerable" about producing sufficient "probable cause" to a federal judge and getting a signed warrant to invade the privacy of any person in the United States, regardless of what jobs they've held in the past (or are holding at present, for that matter)?
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
That evidence was presented, in every case, to a judge.

Is it? And how many other sorts of cases require disclosing the political affiliation of the trial judge? And what is the purpose of doing so?

What, exactly, is "intolerable" about producing sufficient "probable cause" to a federal judge and getting a signed warrant to invade the privacy of any person in the United States, regardless of what jobs they've held in the past (or are holding at present, for that matter)?

It is unfortunate that the USA chose to politicise their Judicial system in the constitution. They are elected and or selected on their political affiliation by the political establishment.
How can it be possible for such Judges to not follow the line of their party.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It is unfortunate that the USA chose to politicise their Judicial system in the constitution. They are elected and or selected on their political affiliation by the political establishment.
How can it be possible for such Judges to not follow the line of their party.
That was the reason for the Constitution NOT to define term limits for judges. Once appointed and approved by the Senate, only impeachment can remove them. Therefore, from their appointment on, they are free to follow the law and their conscience.
 
Top