Donald is about to go through some things...

[Al-O-Meter]

At trial absolutely. During the investigation say as little as possible.

That also goes for depositions in civil actions where you do have to provide answers to questions. Any good lawyer will tell you "if you are talking, you are losing". Let the lawyers do the talking.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm sure it had nothing at all to do with Clinton turning over her server's hard drives while Trump hid the classified documents away. It must be bias. No other explanation.[/sarcasm]

Have to handle every investigation the same. Doesnt matter if one case involves physical evidence and one involves digital evidence and those two types of evidence can be collected in two different ways. Doesnt matter if one suspect is cooperating and one isnt. Have to do each and every investigation exactly the same. Otherwise the fbi is basically just nancy pelosi and biden with badges.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

I would plead the 5th to anything and everything. You can assume all you want. To me it is just a good practice in those situations. The more you say the more you have to resort to "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" kind of **** to defend yourself.

Well i mean if you are in a courtroom and are innocent and have spoken with your lawyer in preperation for the case then i might want to speak to prove my innocence and get the case over wih so i dont have to continue going to court and paying my lawyer.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

I am not defending Trump. I know you struggle thinking outside the "us or them" dichotomy box. Trump is absolutely a hypocrite but we already knew this. That does not make his actions any less reasonable, nor does it "prove" his guilt. For the record I have no doubt he probably took documents he shouldn't have. But like anyone else there should be a presumption of innocence before pronouncing guilt. No matter how heinous the crime may be, the criminal is still entitled to their rights, all the way through the justice process, whether we like it or not.

I am saying that I think people jumping all over other people using their 5th amendment rights as automatically guilty is a false equivalency and a problem in the perceptions of our justice system. And it is generally good practice to say as little as you can until you have fully consulted with your lawyers, and even then it is best to say as little as possible.

I dont think thriller was talking about trump pleading the fifth in regards to this search warrant being executed to retrieve the documents. I believe he was talking about trump pleading the fifth in a totally separate court case that is taking place in court.
Its hard to keep up with all the cases in trump world. There are a lot of them.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Deleted member 365]

I am not defending Trump. I know you struggle thinking outside the "us or them" dichotomy box. Trump is absolutely a hypocrite but we already knew this. That does not make his actions any less reasonable, nor does it "prove" his guilt. For the record I have no doubt he probably took documents he shouldn't have. But like anyone else there should be a presumption of innocence before pronouncing guilt. No matter how heinous the crime may be, the criminal is still entitled to their rights, all the way through the justice process, whether we like it or not.

I am saying that I think people jumping all over other people using their 5th amendment rights as automatically guilty is a false equivalency and a problem in the perceptions of our justice system. And it is generally good practice to say as little as you can until you have fully consulted with your lawyers, and even then it is best to say as little as possible.

Whoa whoa LG. I appreciate you clarifying things here. I liked your previous post and most of this last post although we could do without the ad hominem attack.

I’d think an innocent person would want to clear things up with the AG as soon as possible. If there were misunderstandings or mistakes, clear them up. I don’t think one should just automatically take the 5th because they don’t want to answer questions.

But Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I dont think thriller was talking about trump pleading the fifth in regards to this search warrant being executed to retrieve the documents. I believe he was talking about trump pleading the fifth in a totally separate court case that is taking place in court.
Its hard to keep up with all the cases in trump world. There are a lot of them.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

Exactly. I think LG got his wires crossed. And then he took this from a 1 to 11 in a split second. Not sure I deserved that at all but whatever.

 

[Deleted member 365]

Well i mean if you are in a courtroom and are innocent and have spoken with your lawyer in preperation for the case then i might want to speak to prove my innocence and get the case over wih so i dont have to continue going to court and paying my lawyer.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

Exactly this.

If everyone just plead the 5th every time, I’m not sure if our court system would really operate anymore. It’s my understanding that the 5th shouldn’t be used as the default

I’d think the AG might actually be less inclined to go for the kill against a rich guy. White collar crime is the hardest to prove for public prosecutors. It would be naive to think the AG office has it in for him. Especially considering how often AGs refuse to go after millionaires and billionaires.

 

[LogGrad98]

I dont think thriller was talking about trump pleading the fifth in regards to this search warrant being executed to retrieve the documents. I believe he was talking about trump pleading the fifth in a totally separate court case that is taking place in court.
Its hard to keep up with all the cases in trump world. There are a lot of them.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

I get that. I think I clarified what I was talking about as well.

 

[LogGrad98]

At trial absolutely. During the investigation say as little as possible.

Well i mean if you are in a courtroom and are innocent and have spoken with your lawyer in preperation for the case then i might want to speak to prove my innocence and get the case over wih so i dont have to continue going to court and paying my lawyer.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

Yeah I addressed that too.

 

[One Brow]

If everyone just plead the 5th every time, I’m not sure if our court system would really operate anymore. It’s my understanding that the 5th shouldn’t be used as the default.

The primary professional motivation for police is to close cases. The primary professional motivation for prosecutors is to put people in jail. In the pursuit of these objectives, they are protected against punishment from almost all malfeasance. Your thought here seems a little naive.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Well i mean if you are in a courtroom and are innocent and have spoken with your lawyer in preperation for the case then i might want to speak to prove my innocence and get the case over wih so i dont have to continue going to court and paying my lawyer.

Congratulations for obviously never having been there. You speaking to prove your innocence in court to get the case over with isn't how court proceedings work.

 

[fishonjazz]

To obtain a search warrant, you need two things,” according to Barbara L. McQuade, the former U.S attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. “You have to have conducted a sufficient investigation beforehand to demonstrate probable cause that a specific crime has been committed, and you need to show convincingly that evidence of that crime will be found at the location. These are not blind fishing expeditions.”

Political affiliation, as a matter of Department of Justice policy, cannot have any influence on that process. And even if it could, the present optics are a bit awkward. The current FBI director, Christopher Wray, a longtime Republican, was appointed by Trump; prior to that, in private practice, he defended former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a member of Trump’s transition team, during the so-called “Bridgegate” scandal.

Given the sensitivity of this case, McQuade said, Wray will have almost certainly been briefed in detail and had to have approved the move to obtain a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. Even then, there was never any guarantee it would be granted.

The warrant was issued by a federal magistrate judge in Florida.

“Even if you don’t believe politics isn’t involved in criminal investigations,” McQuade said, “magistrate judges tend to be especially neutral and detached, because they’re selected by U.S. district court judges – entire benches – and so you end up with people who are really quite moderate.”

Tracy Walder, a former FBI special agent and CIA operative, laughed when asked whether obtaining a search warrant in an investigation into an ordinary American was as simple as just dialing up a judge to railroad a personal enemy.

Walder noted that the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago was executed by the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section of the Department of Justice. “I was on that squad at the FBI,” Walder said. “I will never forget when I had to go and get a search warrant. My supervisor told me, ‘If you don't get it, don’t bother coming back to the office. Turn in your badge, you're done.’ You need an overabundance of information to obtain one to a point that — I'll be frank — is annoying. I could have a guy on the phone admitting to a crime, and that wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient.”

In Trump’s case, Walder said, the very fact that the FBI felt compelled to seek out a warrant underscores the gravity of what it has determined so far. Unlike wiretaps or surreptitious entries, search warrants become public information, especially when they target public figures; the inevitable fallout from targeting a public figure of this magnitude will have been considered extremely carefully at all levels of law enforcement involved.

Among the documents that Walder believes were stowed improperly at Mar-a-Largo were President's Daily Briefs (PDBs), the top-secret bulletins handed to the commander-in-chief every morning of his administration. These materials can often contain information that would compromise human sources or other mechanisms by which the U.S. intelligence community gathers its intelligence. Trump famously revealed highly classified intelligence related to an ISIS terror plot to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and former Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak while they met with him in the Oval Office in 2017.

Federal investigators, Strzok added, could have found all the probable cause they needed for a search warrant while at Mar-a-Lago at Trump’s invitation.

CNN reported that on June 3, Jay Bratt, the head of the Counterintelligence and Export Control section at the Justice Department, traveled to the property with three colleagues. They met with two of Trump’s attorneys there, and briefly with Trump himself. The attorneys allowed the investigators access to a basement room where the presidential documents were being kept. Some had Top Secret markings, according to one source interviewed by CNN.

Five days later, at the request of the investigators, Trump’s aides installed a padlock to the door of the storage room.

“They probably saw stuff that Trump should absolutely not be in possession of,” Strzok said. “Subpoenaing it won’t work, because of the chain of custody. And Trump isn’t acting in good faith to just hand the stuff over. The only other option left is to get a warrant.”

@Al-O-Meter
@Bucknutz
@Just Ted

read the above. This isnt some political witch hunt. This is law enforcement doing their jobs. One my favorite parts: Trump famously revealed highly classified intelligence related to an ISIS terror plot to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and former Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak while they met with him in the Oval Office in 2017.

trump has a history that shouldnt be overlooked.