Demoncrats raid Mar-A-Largo to stop Trump because they do not have a candidate

TreeFrogTrader said:
That would make sense. This search warrant is actually about January 6, right?, clothed in a national archives ruse.

Most likely all this alleged rebellion stuff falls within his purview. Or closer than other divisions.
More...

Of course, it can’t be about the actual 27 boxes of classified material Trump stole. You can’t even process the obvious anymore.
 
Trump has until 3pm tomorrow to respond. So if everything goes in the way of public interest we would get the material tomorrow 4-5 the earliest.
 
UsualName said:
Trump has until 3pm tomorrow to respond. So if everything goes in the way of public interest we would get the material tomorrow 4-5 the earliest.
More...

As long as you define "the material" to be a copy of the search warrant and the inventory list.

But if you define it as the supporting affidavits and other related documents to justify the search warrant, I will just say again, that remains to be seen. Merrick Garland more likely defines "in the way of public interest" to mean releasing any material that helps him to fend off the clamoring - but not the stuff that may raise questions that he does not want raised.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
As long as you define "the material" to be a copy of the search warrant and the inventory list.

But if you define it as the supporting affidavits and other related documents to justify the search warrant, I will just say again, that remains to be seen. Merrick Garland more likely defines "in the way of public interest" to mean releasing any material that helps him to fend off the clamoring - but not the stuff that may raise questions that he does not want raised.
More...

You need to get yourself a subscription to the Old Gray Lady. You would be better informed.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557842064645443585
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Yes, if you had read my posts rather than the New York Times, you would have known that.

This is one of areas where it puts extra pressure on Garland to make sure he has a a good reason for the raid, especially since Trump had been the subject of a subpoena before which he complied with.

Once again, you are welcome.
More...

You don’t know if he complied with anything. There is a search warrant that says he did not comply.
 
UsualName said:
You don’t know if he complied with anything. There is a search warrant that says he did not comply.
More...

I heard Jonathan Turley or one of those pundits arguing that he had complied with a previous subpoena so that it set a higher bar for Garland to explain why he could not have done it again. Doesn't mean he can't. Does mean he will need to at some point to fend off the mobs.

I am not in a position to confirm the sufficiency of Turley's work but will take his word over yours. There have been plenty of subpoenas over the years where he and about any other senior government official have not complied with various subpoena's but then contested them in court. So that is a different matter altogether. It is not illegal to not comply with a subpoena where it is under court review and the court has allowed a stay. Just saving you your next predictable step which is to google around and find a bunch of subpoena's that he did not immediately comply with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top