Trump 1.0's National Security Advisor John Bolton's House Raided by FBI

durangodawood · Friday at 11:12 AM

Watch out, Fiona Hill.... Youre next!

Yeshua HaDerekh · Friday at 11:19 AM

Oompa Loompa said:
Well, no one is above the law. So we are told.

Except Clinton and Obama and Biden...

FAITH-IN-HIM · Friday at 11:20 AM

BCP1928 said:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We can't have an informed opinion about the episode until we know what, exactly, was in the warrant and what probable cause was affirmed.

As someone with over 30 years in the IT field, I am puzzled that any administration keeps paper copies of national security information. With today’s technology, classified data can be accessed digitally as needed and deleted remotely, making physical copies unnecessary. Current systems can even prevent printing or photographing such information. That's why reports of President Trump, President Biden, or VP Pence having classified documents at home never made sense to me.

It appears that the practices of the US government in managing sensitive documents lag significantly behind current standards, by approximately 15 years.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Friday at 11:23 AM

rambot said:
What kind of vindictive child writes down an enemies list? I bet it's in a GIJoe diary too.

What kinda dysfunction?

and Trump was on James and Willis list. They ran on getting him! Talk about dysfunction!

wing2000 · Friday at 11:24 AM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
This is informative. However, the case remained open for four years. If Bolton were not implicated, it would be expected that the FBI would have closed the investigation during that period.

edited - just another poster saying DOJ closed the case during Biden administration.

Well, if the DOJ didn't have a case to win in court, why keep it open?

Let's see the "new evidence" in the bright light of a US Federal Court Room. Bondi's DOJ has a very poor record to date.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Friday at 11:26 AM

durangodawood said:
We dont know if your starting premise is correct.

We do have Patels promise to use his office for revenge purpose.

Like James did for Trump

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 11:42 AM

Say it aint so said:
Biden wasn't raided. Neither was Pence. Only Trump was raided because of the three, only he thought he was above the law.

And my point remains the same. If Bolton was deliberately keeping classified information, is it wrong for the FBI to come to his home and seize it. If so, would that mean Bolton is above the law?

ozso · Friday at 11:44 AM

durangodawood said:
As I noted I'm skeptical that this raid is in fact an application of law rather than personal revenge.

Could it be these people on the "personal revenge" list were actually up to no good?

BCP1928 · Friday at 11:44 AM

Oompa Loompa said:
And my point remains the same. If Bolton was deliberately keeping classified information, is it wrong for the FBI to come to his home and seize it. If so, would that mean Bolton is above the law?

Not if they had sufficient probable cause to convince a magistrate.

BCP1928 · Friday at 11:46 AM

ozso said:
Could it be these people on the "personal revenge" list were actually up to no good?

It's more a question of whether the "no good" these people might have been up to had any relation to the reason they were on the list.

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 11:48 AM

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
and Trump was on James and Willis list. They ran on getting him! Talk about dysfunction!

Good point. Democrats elected attorneys general who campaigned on trying to get Trump thrown in prison. Then, after elected, tried to dig up as much ancient history to file hundreds of lawsuits. Yet not a single democrat spoke out against the vindictive weapoinization of the law against political opponents.

ozso · Friday at 11:48 AM

BCP1928 said:
It's more a question of whether the "no good" these people might have been up to had any relation to the reason they were on the list.

That's the up to no good aspect I was referring to.

durangodawood · Friday at 11:50 AM

ozso said:
Could it be these people on the "personal revenge" list were actually up to no good?

Of course!

Just because people want to persecute you for revenge purposes doesnt mean youre actually innocent.

ozso · Friday at 11:54 AM

durangodawood said:
Of course!

Just because people want to persecute you for revenge purposes doesnt mean youre actually innocent.

If these people wronged Trump in ways that were unlawful, I don't see why he shouldn't send law enforcement after them.

Oompa Loompa · Friday at 11:54 AM

durangodawood said:
Of course!

Just because people want to persecute you for revenge purposes doesnt mean youre actually innocent.

I agree with this statement. So I say we just wait until more information comes out before jumping to conclusions.

essentialsaltes · Friday at 1:04 PM

ozso said:
If these people wronged Trump in ways that were unlawful,

Trump could sue them. Well, he did in the case of Bolton, and then dropped the suit when discovery was going to be embarrassing.

ozso said:
I don't see why he shouldn't send law enforcement after them.

The DOJ is not intended to be the president's personal score-settling agency.

We'll have to wait and see if the FBI had probable cause for this law enforcement activity and if they uncovered anything.

ozso · Friday at 2:39 PM

essentialsaltes said:
Trump could sue them. Well, he did in the case of Bolton, and then dropped the suit when discovery was going to be embarrassing.

I'm talking about criminal offences, not civil.

essentialsaltes said:
The DOJ is not intended to be the president's personal score-settling agency.

We'll have to wait and see if the FBI had probable cause for this law enforcement activity and if they uncovered anything.

That was hypothetical. Patel and Bondi etc are capable of making out a list on their own. Many think a lot of wrongdoing took place in concerted efforts to take down Trump. And those in the position to investigate such matters should do so,

Say it aint so · Friday at 4:14 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
And my point remains the same. If Bolton was deliberately keeping classified information, is it wrong for the FBI to come to his home and seize it. If so, would that mean Bolton is above the law?

The Trump admin tried going after Bolton and it went no where once it hit the courts.
So given that and Trump and Patel's open disdain for Bolton, don't be surprised there is no there "there".
(truth be told I don't like the guy either for war mongering coup d'état reasons)

Vambram · Friday at 5:56 PM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
According to available information, Bolton’s investigation began during the Biden administration under then-FBI Director Christopher Wray. President Trump and the current FBI Director were not responsible for initiating this investigation.

However, your statement that no one is above the law may be misleading. There appear to be instances in America where individuals are seemingly not held accountable under the law. For example, how can one explain a person with 34 felony convictions receiving 312 electoral college votes?

The voters knew that those felonies were and are bogus.

essentialsaltes · Friday at 6:02 PM

Vambram said:
The voters knew that those felonies were and are bogus.

The unanimous vote of the jury is more persuasive.

Trump 1.0's National Security Advisor John Bolton's House Raided by FBI

re Member

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Well-Known Member

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

E pluribus unum

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Well-Known Member

✦

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

✦

re Member

✦

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

✦

Well-Known Member

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

Fact-Based Lifeform

Similar threads