Well, fuck that guy. Nothing to be proud of.I said it because I've read what you've posted in defense of Trump over and over. I get it, I think. You kind of see Trump as a client because you've become a MAGA Republican, though I'm at a loss as why. A good now retired Navy JAG friend of mine (I threw his bachelor party for him in Hawaii) and I have talked about what JAGs do over drinks over the years, since we met in 1989. He told me there was no defense (when he was assigned to defense) that he wouldn't try to get a client off because that was what he felt was his job. I asked him about what if he thought his client was guilty, and he said that there was no defense he wouldn't try even if he thought his client was guilty.What can I possibly think about your emotional involvement with Trump when you defend him this way?
I’m not defending Trump. Think about what I’ve posted.
Turns out to bullshit. Trump’s favorite judge (Cannon) was made aware of all the circumstances during a hearing when the defense tried to argue ther was no probable cause for the warrant. She ruled that there was. Next.I read the DOJ used a single and unverified report from an individual with no history with the FBI as the basis for PC. The FBI said that wasn’t enough for a warrant. The FBI was correct. I’ve been there and done that with a SW case and in that case, my sole source was a deputy prosecutor from california. (mentioned only because you posted your JAG experience)
I said thought, as in suspected, not knew, his client was guilty. The answer was different if he knew the client was guilty.Well, fuck that guy. Nothing to be proud of.I said it because I've read what you've posted in defense of Trump over and over. I get it, I think. You kind of see Trump as a client because you've become a MAGA Republican, though I'm at a loss as why. A good now retired Navy JAG friend of mine (I threw his bachelor party for him in Hawaii) and I have talked about what JAGs do over drinks over the years, since we met in 1989. He told me there was no defense (when he was assigned to defense) that he wouldn't try to get a client off because that was what he felt was his job. I asked him about what if he thought his client was guilty, and he said that there was no defense he wouldn't try even if he thought his client was guilty.What can I possibly think about your emotional involvement with Trump when you defend him this way?
I’m not defending Trump. Think about what I’ve posted.
The affidavit in support of the warrant application is inconsistent with the FBI to DOJ email about PC. An agent obviously embellished the supporting facts and gave a false impression by failing to describe nature of the sole source of supporting facts..see paragraph 7. I don’t think any of this was known before the recent disclosures. Not the first time the FBI falsified an affidavit.
Nope this was all known and information was provided to Judge Cannon as Trump’s lawyers argued the search warrant was given without sufficient probable cause. Judge Cannon ruled against the defense and that there was sufficient probable cause. While driving back from Tucson I listened to a couple lawyers walking through that article in the NYP and what actually happened. Grassley didn’t provide all the information, and it turns out Grassley and the NYP were spreading bullshit.The affidavit in support of the warrant application is inconsistent with the FBI to DOJ email about PC. An agent obviously embellished the supporting facts and gave a false impression by failing to describe nature of the sole source of supporting facts..see paragraph 7. I don’t think any of this was known before the recent disclosures. Not the first time the FBI falsified an affidavit.
Google AI.
FBI officials questioned whether there was sufficient probable cause to justify the August 2022 search of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.
- Internal Skepticism: In weeks prior to the search, some FBI agents raised concerns that evidence was "dated," came from a "single source," and had not been fully corroborated. One official wrote that "very little has been developed" regarding who was specifically responsible for mishandling documents.
- DOJ Pressure: The emails suggest the Bureau preferred "less intrusive" options, such as working through Trump's attorneys. However, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials reportedly dismissed these reservations, with one official stating they did not "give a damn about the optics".
- Legal Threshold: While the FBI agents expressed doubts, the DOJ's Criminal Enforcement Section concluded that the legal threshold for probable cause had been satisfied and authorized the search warrant.
- Official Reaction: The documents were released by Senator Chuck Grassley, who characterized the raid as a "miscarriage of justice". Current FBI Director Kash Patel stated the emails highlight internal Bureau resistance to the operation that was overruled by the Biden administration's DOJ.
Grassly has nothing to do with what the email says. Uncorroborated sole source is a problem.
That situation probably falls within the DOJ memo that they are relying on. I haven't read it, but I'd imagine maybe the thinking is you have to impeach him first, remove him from office, and then you can prosecute (ironically, that's a version of the argument Trump's lawyers used in the immunity case).I'm sure he didn't want to, but he was ordered to because Trump was elected President. Can't prosecute the President by DoJ rules. I personally think that rule is ridiculous. What happens if the President has a political opponent assassinated. Is that not the investigated and prosecuted? What if it's found that a President is funneling highly classified information to China in exchange for millions? Shouldn't that be investigated and prosecuted? I think both the cases were about crimes worthy of prosecution even if the President is the President.I'm not sure he should have ever dismissed this case if he thought he had the goods.Smith has let the committee know he's eager to testify in a public hearing. Republicans don't want to do that. It should all be public. Nothing is classified about the election interference case and only the contents of the classified documents Trump had but shouldn't remain classified.
But this case is slightly different and might not have been contemplated: do you have to dismiss an active and ongoing claim against someone for breaking federal law before they were elected President, if they are elected President? In that framing, it's more complicated. Maybe you reach the same result, maybe not.
I think that's undoubtedly what they were assuming, but your alternative is an interesting thought.
Sure, there were some different opinions, there probably always are. However, the decision was made and Judge Cannon ruled that there was sufficient probable cause. This is JUDGE CANNON, Trump's favorite judge.
Google AI.
In December 2025, declassified internal emails revealed that someFBI officials questioned whether there was sufficient probable cause to justify the August 2022 search of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.
Key details from the newly released correspondence include:
- Internal Skepticism: In weeks prior to the search, some FBI agents raised concerns that evidence was "dated," came from a "single source," and had not been fully corroborated. One official wrote that "very little has been developed" regarding who was specifically responsible for mishandling documents.
- DOJ Pressure: The emails suggest the Bureau preferred "less intrusive" options, such as working through Trump's attorneys. However, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials reportedly dismissed these reservations, with one official stating they did not "give a damn about the optics".
- Legal Threshold: While the FBI agents expressed doubts, the DOJ's Criminal Enforcement Section concluded that the legal threshold for probable cause had been satisfied and authorized the search warrant.
- Official Reaction: The documents were released by Senator Chuck Grassley, who characterized the raid as a "miscarriage of justice". Current FBI Director Kash Patel stated the emails highlight internal Bureau resistance to the operation that was overruled by the Biden administration's DOJ.
Grassly has nothing to do with what the email says. Uncorroborated sole source is a problem.
Jeebus aloha. THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED INCOMPLETE IF NOT INACCURATE INFORMATION IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT Of THE SW!
The agent said what he needed to say to obtain the warrant. The emails show he at least embellished facts and maybe misrepresented them. This isn’t just a difference of opinion.
You need to get off that “Trump’s favorite judge” horseshit. You aren’t enhancing your cred with comments like that.
As a corollary, you routinely belittle and insult anyone who agrees with Trump about anything including yours truly. That doesn’t help your cred either. You don’t know a damn thing about Judge Cannon.
Judge Cannon couldn’t be more obviously biased in favor of Trump and as a result made some rulings that were absurdly biased and quickly reversed. Trump attacked the judge in every case except that one. Instead of attacking Cannon, he praised her and even mentioned her for high level appointments in his second administration. All this information was presented to her by the defense, it’s not new, and she still ruled for the prosecution that there was sufficient PC for the SW. If it was really a close call the odds are, given her record on the case, that she would have ruled the other way. She didn’t.Jeebus aloha. THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDED INCOMPLETE IF NOT INACCURATE INFORMATION IN ITS AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT Of THE SW!
The agent said what he needed to say to obtain the warrant. The emails show he at least embellished facts and maybe misrepresented them. This isn’t just a difference of opinion.
You need to get off that “Trump’s favorite judge” horseshit. You aren’t enhancing your cred with comments like that.
As a corollary, you routinely belittle and insult anyone who agrees with Trump about anything including yours truly. That doesn’t help your cred either. You don’t know a damn thing about Judge Cannon.
None of this is new and it was adjudicated already. It’s basically BS.
I also agree with Trump on several of the things he’s doing. I disagree on the absurd things and those that are contrary to conservatives Republican principles. Of course his unpresidential behavior, dishonesty and vindictiveness as well.
The CA reversed her decision to appoint an independent special master to sort out the personal from government documents. A procedural matter. Not an unreasonable order and not one that shows bias.
Latest Post: Robert Mueller Our newest member: Tom Dillman Recent Posts Unread Posts
