Comments posted organically
Trump: 'It’s not theirs, it’s mine'

By Donna
August 16, 2022 7:14 pm
Category: Humor

(0.0 from 0 votes)
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Share
Rules of the Post
Rate this article
(5=best, 0=poor)
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars

WRONG!

Donald Trump last week claimed all the Dept. of Justice had to do was “ask” for the classified documents, and other items the FBI confiscated a week ago Monday, and he would have returned them, while multiple aides reportedly have quoted him saying those items belonged to him.

“Pat A. Cipollone and Patrick F. Philbin, the White House counsel and his deputy under President Donald J. Trump, were interviewed by the F.B.I. in connection with boxes of sensitive documents that were stored at Mr. Trump’s residence in Florida after he left office, three people familiar with the matter said,” The New York Times Tuesday afternoon reports.

Both were named as Trump’s representatives to the National Archives, so when the Archives discovered it was missing items, including the highly classified documents, NARA reached out to Philbin.

“Mr. Philbin tried to help the National Archives retrieve the material, two of the people familiar with the discussions said. But the former president repeatedly resisted entreaties from his advisers,” the Times’ Maggie Haberman reports.

“’It’s not theirs, it’s mine,’ several advisers say Mr. Trump told them,” according to the Times.

That’s a different response to the one Trump posted to his Truth Social account last week.


Cited and related links:

  1. msn.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Trump: 'It’s not theirs, it’s mine'":

  1. by oldedude on August 16, 2022 8:36 pm
    Well, he was complying with Requests (much lower than a subpoena). The onus is on the government to show he was not complying. I think that's a pretty hard fence to jump considering what we talked about earlier, and both sides are horrible about getting subpoenas filled within a few years.

    So you and I have articulated both sides of the court argument. We'll see what the judge says about it.


  2. by Donna on August 16, 2022 11:39 pm
    That's not the issue. The issue is that Trump took government documents that didn't belong to him in violation of the Presidential Records Act. He insisted that they were his, which they were not. And he and his attorney's didn't turn over all of the classified documents as requested, which are needed in a criminal case, and which prompted the raid.

    But all of that was known before I posted this. The reason I posted this was to show how astoundingly disrespectful Trump is of the law. That's been a pattern throughout his life. He has a history of trying to get away with whatever he can until someone stops him. He's being stopped now and will likely be indicted.



  3. by Donna on August 17, 2022 12:35 am
    Schrödinger's Treason:

    When you didn't take, accidentally took, innocently used, declassified and then took, took and then declassified the documents that you never took and were illicitly planted in your house by the FBI, all simultaneously.


  4. by HatetheSwamp on August 17, 2022 4:29 am

    The issue is that Trump took government documents that didn't belong to him in violation of the Presidential Records Act. He insisted that they were his, which they were not.

    Bullfernerner!

    There was...is...a dispute over to whom the documents belong. They swiped documents protected by attorney/client privilege and passports!

    Why you always take Big Brother's baffles me. Is your hate of Trump so compelling that you are willing to celebrate the violation of any citizen's rights?

    I've said this to isle. Maybe you'd be more comfortable living in Russia. There Big Bro rules and everyone knows it!


  5. by islander on August 17, 2022 5:49 am
    ”There was...is...a dispute over to whom the documents belong.”

    There is no dispute over who owns the documents. As far as anything else that Trump actually ‘owns’, such things related to a crime can be seized with a legally executed search warrant. If any material seized contains something protected by attorney client privilege, the protected material could not be made public or used against Trump in court and will be returned to him.


  6. by oldedude on August 17, 2022 7:12 am
    I don't really understand why anyone would keep documents from their prior work that were owned by the company. And perhaps there are thing where the President can request to keep the original or whatever.

    So. The documents were at Mar-a-Largo. That's a fact. The National Achieves Had sent Trump requests for the information (we know that because they sent Trump a "Thank You" letter for being so compliant with returning documents according to the schedule of the agreement. The next delivery was due in June. It's August. Keeping documents is a misdemeanor.

    IF the National Achieves wanted the documents, a subpoena was the next logical step and legally necessary without exigent circumstances, or emergency. The FBI claimed exigent circumstances and the need to return the documents were an emergency. The affidavit took two weeks to get off the FBI Director's desk. If truly exigent, it should have taken a matter of a day or two, and the agents should have been working on the warrant.

    So far, we have a search warrant the FBI wants to execute for a legal misdemeanor when a subpoena was the next necessary step. DOJ/FBI claimed exigent circumstances but took three weeks to execute the warrant.

    So one of the agent's screws up and while they're rifling through his personal safe, someone pulls his Passports. Legal precedent says that a judge needs to do that when setting bail for a felony. No big deal, it's just that the FBI doesn't have that right. Trump made a big deal about it. DOJ figured it out, admitted they had it after FBI disclaimed it, and rightfully offered it back.

    It is the onus of DOJ/FBI to prove reasonableness in 1. calling for a warrant for a misdemeanor. 2. Saying there were exigent circumstances, but not moving their process forward rapidly. 3. taking the passports. If I were the defense attorney, all three of these are chinks in prosecution's armor.


  7. by islander on August 17, 2022 7:53 am

    Hate,

    If you read the warrant itself you can see what and why the FBI legally seized what they did. They did not, as you say “swipe” or steal anything that belongs to Trump.

    Under a heading that reads “Property to be seized,” the warrant refers to:

    “All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071 , or 1519.”18 U.S.C. §§ 793:

    a)Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

    b)18 U.S.C. §§ 2071: Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally, which carries a penalty of up to three years in prison and disqualification from holding office.

    c)18 U.S.C. §§ 1519: Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison.

    

Here is a list of what the could seize;

    a. Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any
    containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;


    b. Information, including communications in any form, regarding the
    retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material ;

    c. Any government and/or Presidential Records created between January
    20, 2017, and January 20, 2021; or

    d. Any evidence of the knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of
    any government and/or Presidential Record s, or of any documents with classification markings


  8. by oldedude on August 17, 2022 8:29 am
    You're arguing a point that was clarified by the DOJ and the FBI. They did NOT have the right to take the passports. They were quite clear about their "mistake." Honestly, what you "believe" in your heart of hearts isn't relative. Although I think it was just a "mistake." The fact remains that passports are a a part of the warrant unless specifically a line item. It was not. And is not a document relevant to the "crime." You keep saying this, but the Director of DOJ AND FBI disagree with you. I'm pretty sure they know their jobs better than you do.

    And honestly, my only question is about using a warrant for this. That's overkill for the fourth and sixth amendment rights. As a defense lawyer, I would make that a contention in this fight. I've got a 50/50 on this.


  9. by HatetheSwamp on August 17, 2022 8:30 am
    Lots o stuff there. Impressive.

    Where's the confidential attorney, client section?


  10. by oldedude on August 17, 2022 9:17 am
    Good point, it's being looked at (and maybe photographed or copied) then those documents will be handed over. That seems odd to me??? That said, I would never ask the lawyer what documents were attorney/client privileged information. They'd try to take it all and have a story about every piece...

    So like Emily Compagno said, "you just deal with it as a lawyer. That privilege is just kind of thrown out the window."



  11. by HatetheSwamp on August 17, 2022 11:44 am

    Ah, Emily! The left has NO ONE like her!!!!!


  12. by islander on August 17, 2022 12:00 pm

    ”Lots o stuff there. Impressive.
    Where's the confidential attorney, client section?“
    ---Hate

    I’m not sure what you’re asking here but if any of the documents seized contained any privileged attorney client information the FBI had every right to seize it. This is what was covered by the warrant . “Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;”

    So for example if Trump stored his diplo passport in the leather-bound box where he stored the TS/SCI documents he stole and if he had any attorney client info in with those documents, the FBI would have had the right to take it all under under the search protocols. The same would happen if he had any attorney info in a box in the storage closet where he stored other stolen classified documents.


  13. by HatetheSwamp on August 17, 2022 12:04 pm

    isle,

    You don't deserve to live in a constitutional republic where due process is everyone's right.

    Period.


  14. by islander on August 17, 2022 12:23 pm

    Why not ?


  15. by HatetheSwamp on August 17, 2022 12:25 pm

    Because you don't believe in due process...at least for someone you don't like.


  16. by islander on August 17, 2022 12:51 pm

    LoL !!! How old are you Hate? You argue like a child.


  17. by Ponderer on August 17, 2022 1:16 pm

    "isle,

    You don't deserve to live in a constitutional republic where due process is everyone's right.

    Period.
    -Hate

    "Because you don't believe in due process...at least for someone you don't like." -Hate

    It never takes me being back in here for very long before I am smacked in the face with a blatant example of your boundlessly deranged, hypocritical projection, Bill.

    You despicable idiots have got nothing. Your pathetic, pig-ignornt screams of due process and overstepping and whataboutism are entirely baseless and the result of your having absolutely nothing legitimate or truthful to defend the innocence of your glorious and infallible Mango Messiah with.

    But hey, you gotta say something. Right? Even if it's despicable bullshit.


  18. by oldedude on August 17, 2022 1:18 pm
    "I’m not sure what you’re asking here but if any of the documents seized contained any privileged attorney client information the FBI had every right to seize it. This is what was covered by the warrant."

    Attorney-client privilege are private conversations that although they may be seized, the agency seizing them must return any privileged information back to the client. Thay cannot use any privileged information in court, nor are they allowed to discuss, photograph, or copy the information. That's why we were chuckling.

    So did they seize them illegally? Well, no, but the need to go through the information and glean the possible privileged information out and allow Trump or Trump's lawyers read through the information as soon as possible.

    attorney-client privilege

    "The attorney-client privilege is one of the oldest privileges for confidential communications. This privilege assist when there is an attorney-client relationship. The privilege is asserted in the face of a legal demand for the confidential communications, such as a discovery request or a demand that the lawyer testify under oath."

    contractscounsel.com


  19. by islander on August 17, 2022 1:58 pm
    Posted this morning by Isle:

    by islander on August 17, 2022 5:49 am
    ”There was...is...a dispute over to whom the documents belong.”[Hate]

    There is no dispute over who owns the documents. As far as anything else that Trump actually ‘owns’, such things related to a crime can be seized with a legally executed search warrant. If any material seized contains something protected by attorney client privilege, the protected material could not be made public or used against Trump in court and will be returned to him.


  20. by Ponderer on August 17, 2022 2:18 pm

    Isle is right. None of what he took was he at all allowed to take. He had no legal right to any of the classified documents he stole. It's literally indisputable.

    But that won't stop Hate and od from proving what stupidly moronic, gullible idiots they are by continuing along these pitifully desperate attempts to support and defend their Orange Oracle of Ostentatious Overreach.


  21. by HatetheSwamp on August 17, 2022 2:23 pm

    And, Trump planned an insurrection. Bahahahahahahahahahaha!


  22. by oldedude on August 17, 2022 4:09 pm
    "Isle is right. None of what he took was he at all allowed to take. He had no legal right to any of the classified documents he stole. It's literally indisputable."

    If that is true, why do the National Archives have a system set up for the President's? I have no clue what anyone else took anything, or nothing. But it seems like out of everyone, they were the least worried about it. And interestingly enough, to keep them too long, you get what is equal to (maybe) a DUI. And a first one at that. Everyone else that stole from them has gotten probation.


  23. by oldedude on August 17, 2022 6:48 pm
    Pond- We weren't arguing the classified. I don't think there's much dispute over that. We were talking about the three passports seized in the raid. You're arguing a point that was clarified by the DOJ and the FBI. They did NOT have the right to take the passports. Although I think it was just a "mistake." The fact remains that passports are not part of the warrant unless it's specifically a line item. It was not. And is not a document relevant to the "crime." We still have to go over some of the documents that were between Trump and his lawyer(s). But no one is arguing the bulk of the documents (sight unseen).


  24. by islander on August 18, 2022 6:16 am
    Ponderer-
    The DOJ and the FBI did NOT say that they had no right to take Trumps passports. The legal search warrant makes absolutely clear the circumstance under which they could be and were taken.

 Obviously, they would not have that right if they simply saw his passports on the kitchen table and seized them. 

However, despite what our two resident Trolls for Trump might say, that’s not what happened. Naturally the FBI could seize classified documents but what the trolls refuse to address is what the warrant also says: along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;” *Notice "including any other contents".

    If upon going through and examining the contents of the legally seized boxes and files, anything not pertinent to the criminal investigation would be returned to Trump (such as passports) as would any attorney/client privileged information unless the attorney was also knowingly involved in the crime itself. And this is exactly what happend with Trump’s passports, they expeditiously returned them to him as they should.


  25. by HatetheSwamp on August 18, 2022 6:32 am

    This is an example of the thuggish, Gestapo-like nature of the search.

    According to Trump’s attorneys, the search went on for HOURS and Trump’s accredited legal representatives, officers of the court, were expelled from the residence.

    If the search was done prudently, an attorney observing could have said, "Officer Grabalot, those are his passports. You can't take them...Oh, wait, those are documents covered by attorney, client privilege. They can't be covered by any search warrant. Taking them violates my client's Bill of Rights rights."

    No matter what was legitimate about the search, this search abused our most essential God given rights.

    Big Brother Dems will pay a political price for the search. They should.


  26. by islander on August 18, 2022 6:57 am
    For very good and obvious reasons, it was a legal “unannounced search”.

    The last thing you’d want is to have Trumps lawyer (who had lied previously saying all the classified material had been returned) dumping out 15 boxes of evidence and digging through files looking for something, anything, that wasn’t pertinent to the crime.

    The FBI did exactly what was proper, they seized the material stated in the warrant and after they examined said material, they returned to Trump anything that was not pertinent to the crime.

    During a criminal investigation that’s the proper and correct way to conduct a legally warranted search in this country. a legal “unannounced search”.

    The last thing you’d want is to have Trumps lawyer (who had lied previously saying all the classified material had been returned) dumping out 15 boxes of evidence and digging through files looking for something, anything, that wasn’t pertinent to the crime.

    The FBI did exactly what was proper, they seized the material stated in the warrant and after they examined said material, they returned to Trump anything that was not pertinent to the crime.

    You might not like it but during a criminal investigation like this that’s the proper and correct way to conduct a legally warranted search in this country.


  27. by oldedude on August 18, 2022 7:22 am
    I understand your TDS is really, really bad, but his is going off the rails. Your view of this is so shallow that it's getting humorous. Are you sure you don't live near Ottawa?


    "The DOJ and the FBI did NOT say that they had no right to take Trumps passports.
    They admitted it "was a mistake" to take them, and they would return them as soon as possible. Coming from THE Director, DOJ, that means they shouldn't have taken them.

    "The legal search warrant makes absolutely clear the circumstance under which they could be and were taken."
    So you're "assuming" it's a legal warrant. OK, we'll go from there. It has to be a specific item stated in the warrant. Period. That's what legal precedent says. In order to deny a citizen the right to travel is not up to a local, state, or federal agency. The judge has to do that.

    Also, plain view doctrine only applies if it is relevant to the case. So if they were in Hunter's house on a warrant and see a gun. They know it's illegal for Hunter to own a gun. Therefore, they can seize it. If jr were allowed to have a gun, and they believe it was involved in a homiecide, they would get another warrant to cover guns, gun parts and accessories, and ammunition. They would get that signed by a judge, and that would be a separate warrant/ case number and tie all of that to the other case. Are you sure you're not from near Ottawa?


  28. by HatetheSwamp on August 18, 2022 7:24 am

    For very good and obvious reasons, it was a legal “unannounced search”.

    The last thing you’d want is to have Trumps lawyer (who had lied previously saying all the classified material had been returned) dumping out 15 boxes of evidence...


    True enough. I agree.

    However, after the search was underway, it was counterproductive to disallow Trump's legal representatives to observe.

    The charge has been made that agents planted evidence. pb doubts that but no agent can appeal to "Trump's own attorney who was present as I conducted my search." The whole search can now be questioned.

    Unnecessary.

    Foolish.

    The FBI did exactly what was proper...

    Don't be an idiot. They seized passports, which only can be taken under the order of a judge...in a hearing, where the person who's losing the right to travel outside the country has the right to be represented by a lawyer.

    And, the federales committed an egregious violation of Trump's right by violating attorney client confidentiality by swiped private material.

    These are horrible, improper acts.

    Here's the thing, isle. pb and OD here are willing to acknowledge that Trump may very well be busted for a criminal act or acts. Only the most rabid Ultra-MAGAs don't admit that.

    What's killing you and your side is your unwillingness to admit the truth about some of the things Big Brother did.

    Why is that?


  29. by islander on August 18, 2022 7:49 am
    That was just another "troll post"...You completely ignored the facts that have already shown what you said to be nonsense when referring to this case.

    I call it willful ignorance when you claim the the FBI "illegally" took passports while you refuse to address or even acknowledge what this means:
    along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;” *Notice "including any other contents".

    You won't like this but it doesn't matter one bit what Trump claims when he doesn't have a shred of evidence to back it up, whether it's "The FBI planted evidence" or any other defense he can dream up. Trump can "claim" anything he wants, but in our system of justice to actually mean anything or be taken seriously a claim needs evidence to back it up.


  30. by HatetheSwamp on August 18, 2022 8:22 am

    isle,

    It's always a violation of a citizen's rights for a passport to be taken without due process...and a judicial order. Period.

    You won't like this but it doesn't matter one bit what Trump claims when he doesn't have a shred of evidence to back it up,...

    He has the proof that the fibbies forced every potential witness to the planting of evidence out of the residence.

    But,...

    If it comes to it, what matters is what a jury believes.

    Man! Wouldn't that be the trial of the century!!!!!?

    What I'm enjoying most about all of this isle, is the nearly universal blind faith Good Germanism on your side.

    Your side protests (too much) that you're rational, thinking people. The truth is that you are emotion driven...haters.

    Take a few slow, deep breaths. Then, think.


  31. by islander on August 18, 2022 9:19 am

    After the search, Trump suggested (with no evidence) that the FBI “planted” evidence against him. 



    I suggest (with no evidence) that Trump had instructed his lawyer to slow down and delay the search by emptying every box, carefully examining everything in each box, reading every file, and then setting aside as much possible claiming he wanted it certified by the court that it was relevant to the case, making it impossible for the FBI to carry out the mandated search.

Without evidence.

    One claim is as worthless as the other in or out of court.


  32. by oldedude on August 18, 2022 10:06 am
    Are you really sure you're not from around Ottawa? You sound just like another poster.

    You have said that everything was legal. You "know" because an article said that someone from the FBI said. So we're getting that fourth person as hearsay.


    Our point is the same people that are involved in this case also knew the dossier was a fictitious document, who's reliability/ confidence was "very low." Without checking any other documents, they used this document they didn't believe to obtain a warrant. How do we know this? The FBI and DOJ admitted to it apologized. The FISA Lead Judge also wrote a scathing letter chastising both DOJ and FBI for the felonies they committed.
    The fact that a senior SES has to "apologize" is a huge issue. Tell me, why would the director of one of he "best" law enforcement agencies admit wrongdoing by his agents? What ulterior motive would he have?


  33. by oldedude on August 18, 2022 12:17 pm
    "I suggest (with no evidence) that Trump had instructed his lawyer to slow down and delay the search by emptying every box, carefully examining everything in each box, reading every file, and then setting aside as much possible claiming he wanted it certified by the court that it was relevant to the case, making it impossible for the FBI to carry out the mandated search."

    Yeah, that's pretty much what they have to do in the real world. Why would they do that? What they really want is to show DOJ just swiped across the desk and took anything and everything in violation of the warrant. They only place they seemed to take their time was in Melania's closets. That's a little "odd" to me. If they get off like that, they really shouldn't do it to someone with really good lawyers.


Comment on: "Trump: 'It’s not theirs, it’s mine'"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:
SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page


From our contributors:
Display Order:

WaPo: Federal agents think they have enough to charge Hunter Biden with tax and gun-buy crimes, report says
Crime by HatetheSwamp     October 6, 2022 1:12 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: Donna (1 comments) [45 views]


pb's favorite Senator to resign his seat
Government by HatetheSwamp     October 6, 2022 1:04 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [61 views]


pb's Election prediction...one month out
Politics by HatetheSwamp     October 6, 2022 6:22 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [117 views]


‘Putin Is a Fool’: Intercepted Calls Reveal Russian Army in Disarray
Military by Curt_Anderson     September 28, 2022 6:00 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (16 comments) [417 views]


TV happenings: Tony Bobulinski will be on Tucker tonight! [Tuesday]
President by HatetheSwamp     October 4, 2022 2:10 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [111 views]


Christian Walker's Excoriating Tweets to his Dad Herschel
Parenting by Donna     October 4, 2022 7:25 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [155 views]


There ya go, Donna...Trump sues CNN claiming defamation, seeks $475 million in punitive damages
Law by HatetheSwamp     October 3, 2022 5:35 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (36 comments) [493 views]


Why adverse weather events are increasing
Science & Nature by Donna     October 5, 2022 3:08 pm (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: (0 comments) [28 views]


Petraeus predicts the US would destroy Russia's military in Ukraine and sink its naval fleet if it used nuclear weapons
Weaponry by Donna     October 4, 2022 7:13 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: oldedude (5 comments) [60 views]


John Fetterman removes mention of support for Black Lives Matter ahead of Election Day
Politics by HatetheSwamp     October 4, 2022 9:32 am (Rating: 0.0)
Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [75 views]


Humor selectors, pages, etc.