Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

June 05, 2026, 11:11:29 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent

Members
  • Total Members: 142
  • Latest: Hal9000
Stats
  • Total Posts: 180101
  • Total Topics: 1496
  • Online Today: 363
  • Online Ever: 4316
  • (October 16, 2025, 04:40:42 PM)
Users Online
Users: 1
Guests: 313
Total: 314

WTF happened to the WTF happened to the WTF happened with Trump today thread?

  • 9594 Replies
  • 901938 Views

0 Members and 29 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9383
  • +630/-2100
    • View Profile

I can't imagine nobody told the ODNI in 18 months about how bad this could* be.


Imagine this: Nobody at  NARA or other agency knew what Trump kept until they served the search warrant.

We do know that Trump took items he was supposed to turn over to NARA and has not been fully responsive to a subpoena.

It appears someone with detailed inside information recently tipped off authorities as to the nature and location of stolen documents.

Trump has claimed on social media he was and is entitled to the documents he took. 
“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12736
  • +179/-2625
    • View Profile
They're in the safe.
Cool, thanks for the info. We'll bring a safe cracker.

The safe is said to have been empty.

They were told the location of documents. That must be why the warrant involved searching everywhere, including Melania's underwear.

*

alum74

  • *****
  • 2701
  • +1451/-124
    • View Profile
“The FBI moved on him like a bitch.  When you have probable cause, they let you do it.  You can do anything.  Grab ‘em by the evidence.”
#TrumpRaid

*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9383
  • +630/-2100
    • View Profile
You must be imagining something different. From what I can imagine, the FBI  imagined things only a Trump insider could have imagined, that Mick Mulvaney did not imagine. I can not imagine how anyone would imagine whether or not the safe was empty or whose drawers were sniffed. 
« Last Edit: August 28, 2022, 06:51:34 PM by illiniray »
“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”

*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9383
  • +630/-2100
    • View Profile
I watched Trey Gowdy. He is a fairly sane conservative except when discussing Trump and Hillary. He thinks Hillary should have been prosecuted for classified emails, but Trump is being treating unfairly.

He thought all the redactions made the affidavit release useless. He was also upset that Kash Patel's name was not redacted.

At a glance, the content of classified documents and names of confidential witnesses are redacted.

The reference to Kash Patel is a quotation from a published article.
“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12736
  • +179/-2625
    • View Profile
I assume you're referring to Kash Patel's name not being redacted in this published document. The affidavit.



*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9383
  • +630/-2100
    • View Profile
Yes, Gowdy was upset that Kash Patel's name was not redacted from the released affidavit. He claimed this was a double standard. As you can see, the reference to Patel was from a public source. Redacting his name would serve no purpose. Gowdy was being a jackass.

He also compared HRC's emails to Trump's boxes of stolen documents.
“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”

*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9383
  • +630/-2100
    • View Profile
“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”

*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9383
  • +630/-2100
    • View Profile
I assume you're referring to Kash Patel's name not being redacted in this published document. The affidavit.



Yes. It was cited from a published Breitbart article.
“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12736
  • +179/-2625
    • View Profile
Because
'I am aware of an article published in Breibart on May 5, 2022 that characterized as "misleading" reports in other news organizations .....'
was just too fricking difficult ?

Or omit the link to the article and redact Patel's name.

What exactly was the point of including Patel's name ?
I have a feeling that Gowdy has seen a few more warrants and affidavits than you have and he's entitled to his opinion without being labeled a jackass.

*

ThePAMan

  • *****
  • 31935
  • +609/-2448
  • Because "PussyMan" and "PenisMan" were trademarked
    • View Profile
Because
'I am aware of an article published in Breibart on May 5, 2022 that characterized as "misleading" reports in other news organizations .....'
was just too fricking difficult ?

Or omit the link to the article and redact Patel's name.

What exactly was the point of including Patel's name ?
I have a feeling that Gowdy has seen a few more warrants and affidavits than you have and he's entitled to his opinion without being labeled a jackass.

Patel is not a source, presumably, that needs to be protected this early in the investigation. Ergo, name left in the affidavit.
Mark Carman: "The Whitlock!...Caleb Williams failed Wayne Whitlock." Been told I need to take my dick out my mouth so maybe I "wont [sic] sound like such a fucking faggot all the time[.]"

Tempo: "PAMan is a pot stirrer and agent provocateur"

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12736
  • +179/-2625
    • View Profile
Patel is not a source, presumably, that needs to be protected this early in the investigation. Ergo, name left in the affidavit.
Let me put it another way.
What is the point of including item 53 at all ?
Patel may not be a source, but the warrant was to search Mar-a-Lago.

*

ThePAMan

  • *****
  • 31935
  • +609/-2448
  • Because "PussyMan" and "PenisMan" were trademarked
    • View Profile
Let me put it another way.
What is the point of including item 53 at all ?
Patel may not be a source, but the warrant was to search Mar-a-Lago.

It is hard to tell the context given the redactions. But obviously the "he declassified the documents" defense was mentioned in the article and the affidavit.
Mark Carman: "The Whitlock!...Caleb Williams failed Wayne Whitlock." Been told I need to take my dick out my mouth so maybe I "wont [sic] sound like such a fucking faggot all the time[.]"

Tempo: "PAMan is a pot stirrer and agent provocateur"

*

illiniray

  • *****
  • 9383
  • +630/-2100
    • View Profile
Let me put it another way.
What is the point of including item 53 at all ?
Patel may not be a source, but the warrant was to search Mar-a-Lago.

What would be the point of redacting information that is already public knowledge?

Why include it? Patel is a Trump advisor who publicly pushed the defense that Trump had declassified the documents.

My only point is Gowdy was being disingenuous suggesting info already widely available to the public should be redacted.
“Taking a trip? Where to?”  -“Wherever I end up, I guess. -“Man, I wish I was you." -Well, hang in there.”

*

Somewhere in Mn

  • *****
  • 12736
  • +179/-2625
    • View Profile
"Why include it? Patel is a Trump advisor who publicly pushed the defense that Trump had declassified the documents."

So ?
It's a search warrant affidavit.

Again. What is the point of including Patel's name, or the fact that he was quoted in a Breitbart article, in an affidavit attached to a search warrant not related to him ?

« Last Edit: August 29, 2022, 03:04:29 PM by Mn »