Tippaporn

Then I put it to you as I did to Chomper. There are so many on the left here speculating this and that but you never ask them to verify any of what they claim to be true. Why are you and others only interested in verifying evidence that goes in Trump's favour but never when it goes against him? I don't need an answer because it's too obvious. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-legal-team-was-talks-justice-department-spring-records-stored-m-rcna42319

Go back and read the many posts speculating about Trump selling classified info to the Russians or selling them for profit and put the onus on them to back up their conspiracy theories. I don't see you challenging them, Chomper. Of course those theories all fit with your accepted narrative of Orange Man bad. Should I laugh now or later?

Only his team? You sure about that? Any evidence you could provide that it's not the case? Other than, "Well I believe. . . . "

"Was he truly cooperating or was he obstructing and delaying?" What one believes about that depends on one's source. I trust the sources I use that confirm he had been fully cooperating. "Better yet was he in possession of items he was not allowed to have in his possession." That remains to be seen, doesn't it? "Do you believe he was allowed by law to keep documents such as he had in his possession?" It doesn't matter what I, you or anyone else believes. Only the truth matters. Which truth no one here knows as yet. Speculate all you want. "Why should he be treated any differently." I never stated Trump should be treated differently. If he's guilty of a crime then send him up. All I've been saying, from the beginning, is wake me up when something concrete emerges. Until then, speculate about all things under the Trump sun as much as you like. Speculation is worthless.

Who told you he wasn't?

Exactly! They were looking for any items illegally in Trump's possession which would be legitimately in violation of those three statutes. But no predicate given as to why the FBI or DOJ believed Trump was in violation of any of those statutes, if indeed he was. If they give no reason as to why then it's what's called called a fishing expedition. Everything discussed here or elsewhere is therefore nothing more than pure speculation that Trump was indeed in violation and some of the most outlandish conspiracy theories are given here as to what Trump's intentions were for possessing whatever documents he had at Mar-a-Lago. Which reasons can be no different to the reasons of any other FPOTUS for taking with them documents into their own personal possession after leaving office.

I highlighted the important part of your post. Why is there no mention of the fact that Trump was fully cooperating with the National Archives and therefore why a raid was necessary? Any takers on answering that question?

"All crimes alleged in a warrant are potential. Whether an actual crime has been committed is for a judge or jury to decide." Well I'm glad that at least you have admitted to the fact that Trump is innocent of any crime until proven guilty. We can speculate all day long as to whether he is or isn't. That's useless, too.

It's an inventory of items taken. So where within that inventory do you find the reason for the raid?

See this:

What do you have in the form of evidence or proof? Short answer: Nothing.

You're speculating. Good luck to you.

The question isn't whether or not a search warrant requires a predicate but since there is none given anywhere or by anyone then I'm correct in saying that the search warrant sheds no light on the reason for the raid. Knowing what they were looking for and giving a useless inventory of items taken doesn't indicate why they were looking for whatever they were looking for. All reasons for the raid here and elsewhere are nothing more than speculation.

Like we didn’t know you don’t want to hear it. There's no predicate identified in the warrant. Given that fact then how could Politico come up with this statement in their article? A search warrant viewed by POLITICO reveals that the FBI is investigating Donald Trump for potential violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice laws. The redacted warrant, which I'm sure everyone has read, reveals no such thing. The article itself uses the qualifier "potential" when referring to the Espionage Act. In other words, so far it's all speculation thus far. Anyone who wants to get excited over this specultation then go knock yourselves out. Again, wake me up when this story pans out per it's sensational headline.

This warrant is useless for shedding any light on the reason for the raid as it doesn't include any predicate.

Wake me up when this story pans out.

This about sums up the FBI raid. My answer? You betcha! Did the F.B.I. Just Re-elect Donald Trump? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/11/opinion/fbi-trump-mar-a-lago-raid.html

Six years of documented evidence.

This was a classic number played on progressive radio stations in Chicago in the day. Long John Balrdry with Don't Try To Lay No Boogie Woogie On The King Of Rock And Roll off of his '71 It Ain't Easy LP.

When I found out about the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago I was actually cheering. This has got to be one of the worst political blunders in U.S. history. My analysis is the same as a lot of folks here. This raid was nothing more than yet another attempt to take down Trump by charging him with a crime that would nullify his running for president. Show me the man and I'll show you the crime. They're scared to the marrow of their bones now that they're witnessing MAGA patriots winning GOP nominations across the country. Out of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump only two have won their primaries. Three have been unseated by MAGA patriots. Four have retired. Cheney is the last and I expect she will easily be unseated. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/08/politics/impeachment-10-midterms/index.html Given the promises made to hold endless real investigations in both chambers come January 2023 the fight is on as many people are fighting for their literal liberty were they to be exposed. Therefore, the head of the "snake," Trump, must be taken out at all costs. I do not expect Garland and Wray to survive this epic political blooper. And I think the chances that the WH was not aware of this raid are slim to none. I am so looking forward to the truth coming out. Party on!

Fleetwood Mac with Shake Your Moneymaker off of their '68 Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac LP.

Aynsley Dunbar Retaliation with Til Your Loving Makes Me Blue off of their '69 Retaliation album.

The great Stan Webb with Chicken Shack performing Doctor Brown live at Lyme Regis in '04.

Steamhammer with Twenty-Four Hours off of their '69 Reflection debut album.

Nicky Hopkins, Ry Cooder, Mick Jagger, Bill Wyman & Charlie Watts with a cover of Tampa Red's It Hurts Me Too off of the '72 Jamming With Edward album.