Employee told FBI that Trump personally directed moving of Mar-a-Lago records: report

[candide]

Apparently, another guy (It's not clear, maybe the same guy as in the OP), Walt Nauta, was also caught on camera.

A Trump aide was caught on security camera moving boxes from a Mar-a-Lago storage room before and after the DOJ subpoenaed Trump for top-secret documents: NYT

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-aide-caught-camera-moving-boxes-mar-a-lago-storage-2022-10?r=US&IR=T

 

The FBI also interviewed Nauta several times before it raided Mar-a-Lago on August 8, according to one of The Times' sources.

[candide]

Well, even the Washington Examiner...

 

Trump indictment odds skyrocket after bombshell Mar-a-Lago report, legal experts say

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/trump-indictment-odds-skyrocket-legal-experts

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unidentified witness describes moving boxes that could have contained documents about anything.

Conclusive evidence of a crime, not.

Sure, the boxes that were locked up in a storage area at the insistence of NARA could have contained anything. It was likely these were Secret Santa boxes and the National Archives just wanted these surprises to be protected until Xmas! What a bunch of party animals they are.

[Bluespunk]

Lock. Him. Up. 

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, pomchop said:

amazing the contortions some will go through to see no evil hear no evil....

...

what the heck has happened to basic common sense...if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is most likely a duck....one of oldest lines ever used in courtrooms...

I fail to hear any quacking. I do hear Chicken Little rushing about though.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, candide said:

Well, even the Washington Examiner...

 

Trump indictment odds skyrocket after bombshell Mar-a-Lago report, legal experts say

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/trump-indictment-odds-skyrocket-legal-experts

Bring it on. I'm all agog waiting to hear the "evidence" in court.

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Bring it on. I'm all agog waiting to hear the "evidence" in court.

Truly bizarre use of scare quotes. The panel from the 11 circuit court has already ruled that there is no way the classified documents -- even if they have already been declassified -- could count as Trump's personal property. So that is prime facie evidence of a crime since he had government documents illegally in his possession.

[Eric Loh]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Bring it on. I'm all agog waiting to hear the "evidence" in court.

I am sure you are. If the real and testimonial evidences were overwhelming and proof was established and admissible for sentencing; will it change your point of view and loyalty to Trump? 

[candide]

32 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Bring it on. I'm all agog waiting to hear the "evidence" in court.

Me too! I can't wait! ????

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Truly bizarre use of scare quotes. The panel from the 11 circuit court has already ruled that there is no way the classified documents -- even if they have already been declassified -- could count as Trump's personal property. So that is prime facie evidence of a crime since he had government documents illegally in his possession.

And 2 of the 3 judges on the panel are very conservative appointees of Trump.

[Phoenix Rising]

27 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I am sure you are. If the real and testimonial evidences were overwhelming and proof was established and admissible for sentencing; will it change your point of view and loyalty to Trump? 

Did you really have to ask......

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

I am sure you are. If the real and testimonial evidences were overwhelming and proof was established and admissible for sentencing; will it change your point of view and loyalty to Trump? 

5555555555555555555

What makes you think I'm a Trump "loyalist". Never watched his stupid tv show, don't care about some rich guy in America. All I cared about was that IMO she was a worse choice for president, and as leader of the free world would have been bad for all of us in the west. Perhaps you didn't notice, but he didn't start any wars during his time as president. Good job on that!

I "supported" Bernie as a threat to Wall Street, but Trump was the only option after they sabotaged Bernie.

If I continue to "support" Trump, it is because Biden IMO is a disastrous president.

 

AS to your contention that Trump is guilty ( despite not being convicted ), if he is found guilty it's not a problem for me, as looks like Biden is going to lose the house next month, so problem partly solved.

I just hope the GOP can come up with a winner for the '24 election.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, placeholder said:

Truly bizarre use of scare quotes. The panel from the 11 circuit court has already ruled that there is no way the classified documents -- even if they have already been declassified -- could count as Trump's personal property. So that is prime facie evidence of a crime since he had government documents illegally in his possession.

If it's so slam dunk guilty, what are they waiting for to charge him? If there was as much top secret stuff in the papers as has been claimed, surely they could have found something by now?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

On 10/13/2022 at 11:17 AM, bocaBob said:

LOl...ok, but the Hill report does not say whats in the boxes the witness (after changing their story) says they moved to Mar-a-Lago, nor where the boxes came from.

But be happy, it's another lame and laughable leak to the Post. This is amusing, and has become ridiculous when the regime players need to stoop to such low levels out of sheer desperation.

Indictment watch.

I’m pleased for you that  it all gives you a warm cuddly secure feeling, but it would be far better for you to face reality.

 

Justice is coming.

 

 

 

[placeholder]

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

5555555555555555555

What makes you think I'm a Trump "loyalist". Never watched his stupid tv show, don't care about some rich guy in America. All I cared about was that IMO she was a worse choice for president, and as leader of the free world would have been bad for all of us in the west. Perhaps you didn't notice, but he didn't start any wars during his time as president. Good job on that!

I "supported" Bernie as a threat to Wall Street, but Trump was the only option after they sabotaged Bernie.

If I continue to "support" Trump, it is because Biden IMO is a disastrous president.

 

AS to your contention that Trump is guilty ( despite not being convicted ), if he is found guilty it's not a problem for me, as looks like Biden is going to lose the house next month, so problem partly solved.

I just hope the GOP can come up with a winner for the '24 election.

As I recall, you're a supporter of Bernie who also celebrated theTrump's nomination of Supreme Court justices who are very anti labor and very pro corporattion. Give it up already. 

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it's so slam dunk guilty, what are they waiting for to charge him? If there was as much top secret stuff in the papers as has been claimed, surely they could have found something by now?

 

 

So, in your professional judgement, the DoJ simply ought to have pressed charges before carefully going through the almost 12,000 documents that were recovered? And they should disregard dept. policy which stipulates no prosecutions with political ramifiaction within 50 days of an election? What don't you understand about the fact that very conservative judges ruled that Trump has no claim on  documents marked classified?

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, placeholder said:

So, in your professional judgement, the DoJ simply ought to have pressed charges before carefully going through the almost 12,000 documents that were recovered? And they should disregard dept. policy which stipulates no prosecutions with political ramifiaction within 50 days of an election? What don't you understand about the fact that very conservative judges ruled that Trump has no claim on  documents marked classified?

Yes, on possessing classified papers illegally. Doesn't matter what is in them. After all, any conviction prevents Trump running again in '24, and IMO that is what this is about. Dems clutching at any straw to prevent him running again.

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, on possessing classified papers illegally. Doesn't matter what is in them. After all, any conviction prevents Trump running again in '24, and IMO that is what this is about. Dems clutching at any straw to prevent him running again.

Well, to follow your logic, if the goal is to stop Trump from running again, the stronger the case is, the better the chance at success. The more careful and complete the DoJ is in building its case, the more likely they are to be able to convict. So why hurriy?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/15/2022 at 1:46 PM, placeholder said:

Well, to follow your logic, if the goal is to stop Trump from running again, the stronger the case is, the better the chance at success. The more careful and complete the DoJ is in building its case, the more likely they are to be able to convict. So why hurriy?

Because once the dems lose the house, they may have lost the chance to charge him with anything.

I guess they don't have much, given the length of time it's taking them to come up with something more than having documents illegally.

[Credo]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Because once the dems lose the house, they may have lost the chance to charge him with anything.

I guess they don't have much, given the length of time it's taking them to come up with something more than having documents illegally.

That's the kind of nonsense we have come to expect.   The Democrats will not be charging anyone.  Congress won't be charging anyone.  The charges will come from the Department of Justice.  Please try to familiarize yourself with the system and how it works before posting information that is not correct.  

[pomchop]

On 10/15/2022 at 7:00 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

If it's so slam dunk guilty, what are they waiting for to charge him? If there was as much top secret stuff in the papers as has been claimed, surely they could have found something by now?

 

 

Because unlike trump who goes on fox and friendly maga media babbling on and on about all kinds of absurd fraud, stolen elections, conspiracy therories without a shred of proof ,indictments and trials follow detailed rules that do not allow you to just make stuff up but have to be researched, validated, and presented to a grand jury in an organized and sensible manner....and they then will slowly and methodically review the evidence and determine if an indictment should or should not be handed down for charging.  These rules actually provide protection for potential defendants and prevent people being indicted on rumours and made up conspiracy theories like in banana republics .  Try and imagine the trump outrage if an indictment was handed down that did not follow the legal rules and precedent to the letter.  Patience.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Because once the dems lose the house, they may have lost the chance to charge him with anything.

I guess they don't have much, given the length of time it's taking them to come up with something more than having documents illegally.

I don't think you understand how the US system of govt works. It's not the legislature that prosecutes criminals. It's the executive branch. The next Presidential election will be held in 2024.

And at this point I have to believe that you are trolling since it's been explained to you over and over again that the justice dept has a policy that no indictments with a political dimension will be sought within 50 days of an election.

[pomchop]

On 10/14/2022 at 11:16 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Bring it on. I'm all agog waiting to hear the "evidence" in court.

as opposed to hearing all the evidence of massive voter fraud that trump has been rattling on and on for 2 years on fox and maga media but somehow has not managed to provide even a shred of evidence?...there is a difference between evidence and conspiracy theories and between what you say on fox news and what you say under oath and penalty of perjury....interesting how trumpers demand evidence of a crime (which is being laid out in a serious under oath manner by mostly republican witnesses) but accept and spread the big lie of massive voter fraud with zero evidence.  

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, pomchop said:

Because unlike trump who goes on fox and friendly maga media babbling on and on about all kinds of absurd fraud, stolen elections, conspiracy therories without a shred of proof ,indictments and trials follow detailed rules that do not allow you to just make stuff up but have to be researched, validated, and presented to a grand jury in an organized and sensible manner....and they then will slowly and methodically review the evidence and determine if an indictment should or should not be handed down for charging.  These rules actually provide protection for potential defendants and prevent people being indicted on rumours and made up conspiracy theories like in banana republics .  Try and imagine the trump outrage if an indictment was handed down that did not follow the legal rules and precedent to the letter.  Patience.

LOL. Many posts on this forum stating as a fact that Trump is guilty ( of something ), and in this specific case we are told that just having the documents is a crime. Either it is a crime and he can be charged with possessing government documents illegally, or it isn't. That he hasn't been charged after all this time, seems to me that perhaps he's not actually guilty of possessing government documents illegally, and they are either waiting to blame it on the GOP after they take the house, or hoping it just goes away quietly.

No one wants to see Trump in court more than I, as I relish the chance to see the opposition having to front up with some actual real evidence of a crime. Something they seem to have been unable to do for the past 6 years.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, placeholder said:

I don't think you understand how the US system of govt works. It's not the legislature that prosecutes criminals. It's the executive branch. The next Presidential election will be held in 2024.

And at this point I have to believe that you are trolling since it's been explained to you over and over again that the justice dept has a policy that no indictments with a political dimension will be sought within 50 days of an election.

Is not a Democrat politician/ bureaucrat in charge of the DOJ/ FBI?

 

They have had most of 2 years to charge him with something, well within the 50 day rule ( if it exists ).

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Is not a Democrat politician/ bureaucrat in charge of the DOJ/ FBI?

 

They have had most of 2 years to charge him with something, well within the 50 day rule ( if it exists ).

Actually, once NARA realized that documents were missing they went out of their way not to make a Federal case out of it so to speak. It was only after learning that highly sensitive documents could still be in Trump's possession that a search warrant was obtained and the search conducted.

Please find me the evidence that shows Merrick Garland is actually a member of the Democratic Party or has made donations to Democratic candidates. I can't find any. Christopher Wray, the head of the FBI, was appointed by Trump and has made donations to Republican candidates. He is a member of the Federalist Society which is very very conservative.

Wray is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society.^55][

https://aseannow.com/topic/1274633-employee-told-fbi-that-trump-personally-directed-moving-of-mar-a-lago-records-report/page/2/#comment-17670979

 

[thaibeachlovers]

38 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Actually, once NARA realized that documents were missing they went out of their way not to make a Federal case out of it so to speak. It was only after learning that highly sensitive documents could still be in Trump's possession that a search warrant was obtained and the search conducted.

Please find me the evidence that shows Merrick Garland is actually a member of the Democratic Party or has made donations to Democratic candidates. I can't find any. Christopher Wray, the head of the FBI, was appointed by Trump and has made donations to Republican candidates. He is a member of the Federalist Society which is very very conservative.

Wray is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society.^55][

https://aseannow.com/topic/1274633-employee-told-fbi-that-trump-personally-directed-moving-of-mar-a-lago-records-report/page/2/#comment-17670979

 

Thank you for your correction on the heads of DOJ and FBI.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Thank you for your correction on the heads of DOJ and FBI.

You're welcome.