Trump’s Mar-A-Lago Home Raided by FBI

 

Via Fox News.

Former President Trump on Monday said that his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida is “under siege” by a “large group” of FBI agents.

“Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before. After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate,” Trump said. “It is prosecutorial misconduct, the weaponization of the Justice System, and an attack by Radical Left Democrats who desperately don’t want me to run for President in 2024, especially based on recent polls, and who will likewise do anything to stop Republicans and Conservatives in the upcoming Midterm Elections.”

“Such an assault could only take place in broken, Third-World Countries. Sadly, America has now become one of those Countries, corrupt at a level not seen before,” Trump said, alleging that the FBI agents broke into his safe.

“What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democrat National Committee?” he said. “Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States.”

Multiple sources tell Fox News the FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago is related to the materials Trump allegedly brought to his private residence after his presidency concluded. That matter was referred to the Justice Department by the National Archives and Records Administration, which said it found classified material in 15 boxes at the residence.

Per the CNN article, he was not home at the time.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 290 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    I would bet it is something that is politically damaging to Biden. The FBI is just a retrieval agency for the skeletons in Biden’s closet now.

    Just two weeks ago, Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Wray and Garland saying that a lot of whistleblower were coming forward claiming that the FBI and DOJ coordinated a cover-up of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Maybe they’re related.

    Remember Sandy Burglar? [link] That is the precedent for any consequence to President Trump. Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s national security adviser (!) stuffed classified documents from the national arcives down his pants for BJ! And the FBI made no early morning raid on his house!

    “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others” – George Orwell

    • #211
  2. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    David C. Broussard (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I completely sympathize.

    But I’ll defend the Constitution without exception. I don’t want my side treating it the way the Democrats do — not even “for a good cause.”

    I disagree with you. This is a place that I think that Mitch McConnell has it right. When one side ignores precedent and acts outside of the norms of acceptable behavior, then the only recourse is to do it right back to them, and then say “are you ready to return to the norms now?”

    Respectfully, David, that’s some pretty serious goalpost moving there.

    There’s a difference between “respecting precedent” and “defending the Constitution.”

    I thought McConnell did exactly the right thing as regards the Supreme Court. And if the Democrats eliminate the legislative filibuster, I’ll support Republicans teaching them a lesson using the newfound power of an unchecked Senate majority.

    But staying within the bounds of the Constitution is, in my opinion, the sine qua non of legitimate government. I want Republicans to stay within the bounds of the Constitution.

    The Constitution can’t only govern or limit one side.  The other side stopped respecting it long ago.  The Republic is over the only question left is what comes next.  One thing I know for certain it won’t be pleasant or pretty.  Saints and Ministers of grace defend us.

    • #212
  3. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    Django (View Comment):

    Visit Mar-a-Lago and get your phone seized:

    Trump ally Rep. Scott Perry says the FBI seized his cellphone one day after Mar-a-Lago raid | Fox News

     

    He should have done what Mueller’s boys did…put it in airplane mode and enter the wrong passcode until the phone deletes everything. Oops. I guess I forgot my passcode. 

     

    • #213
  4. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

     

    Hope he’s on a low pulp diet. I think he’ll end up eating these words…

    • #214
  5. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

     

    Hope he’s on a low pulp diet. I think he’ll end up eating these words…

    Yeah, just like all that significant evidence they used to impeach the President. Twice. Bastards.

    • #215
  6. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    I would bet it is something that is politically damaging to Biden. The FBI is just a retrieval agency for the skeletons in Biden’s closet now.

    Just two weeks ago, Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Wray and Garland saying that a lot of whistleblower were coming forward claiming that the FBI and DOJ coordinated a cover-up of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Maybe they’re related.

    Remember Sandy Burglar? [link] That is the precedent for any consequence to President Trump. Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s national security adviser (!) stuffed classified documents from the national arcives down his pants for BJ! And the FBI made no early morning raid on his house!

    In their defense, no agent wanted to dive into his pants.

    • #216
  7. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

     

    Hope he’s on a low pulp diet. I think he’ll end up eating these words…

    Like the Steele dossier.  Yep.  Significant evidence. 

    As an aside, you can almost smell the significance of Alexrod’s moustache from 2-3 yards away.

    • #217
  8. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Hank Rhody’s Grandson (View Comment):

    Where was the Secret Service? What is their role in this?

    I believe they were at Mar-A-Lago when the FBI arrived. The Secret Service are the ones that let the FBI into the residence. One of Trump’s lawyers that lives in Florida arrived at the house nearly an hour after the FBI entered. That was her story. She asked for the warrant, which they refused at first, but then let her see it. She said that they gave her a copy on the way out, ten hours later. She said the FBI would not let her view the search. Eric Trump has stated that the FBI refused to give a copy, but he may be referring to the predicate for the warrant. My information comes from an interview she gave to Dinesh D’Souza on his podcast last Tuesday.

    • #218
  9. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    cdor (View Comment):

    Hank Rhody’s Grandson (View Comment):

    Where was the Secret Service? What is their role in this?

    I believe they were at Mar A Largo when the FBI arrived. The Secret Service are the ones that let the FBI into the residence. One of Trump’s lawyers that lives in Florida arrived at the house nearly an hour after the FBI entered. That was her story. She asked for the warrant, which they refused at first, but then let her see it. She said that they gave her a copy on the way out, ten hours later. She said the FBI would not let her view the search. Eric Trump has stated that the FBI refused to give a copy, but he may be referring to the predicate for the warrant. My information comes from an interview she gave to Dinesh D’Souza on his podcast last Tuesday.

    I heard also that the Secret Service let them in. Makes me wonder … (Glen Beck raised a few questions about how dedicated DJT’s SS team is after watching them at CPAC)

    • #219
  10. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Annefy (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Hank Rhody’s Grandson (View Comment):

    Where was the Secret Service? What is their role in this?

    I believe they were at Mar A Largo when the FBI arrived. The Secret Service are the ones that let the FBI into the residence. One of Trump’s lawyers that lives in Florida arrived at the house nearly an hour after the FBI entered. That was her story. She asked for the warrant, which they refused at first, but then let her see it. She said that they gave her a copy on the way out, ten hours later. She said the FBI would not let her view the search. Eric Trump has stated that the FBI refused to give a copy, but he may be referring to the predicate for the warrant. My information comes from an interview she gave to Dinesh D’Souza on his podcast last Tuesday.

    I heard also that the Secret Service let them in. Makes me wonder … (Glen Beck raised a few questions about how dedicated DJT’s SS team is after watching them at CPAC)

    They had no choice.

    • #220
  11. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    So Attorney General Garland has now said he personally approved the raid of the former President’s home. That still leaves a whole bunch of questions, among them:

    Disputes about custody of Presidential records are fairly common, and always concluded via negotiated solutions. Why did the FBI refuse to do so?

    A raid of the property of a former President has never been carried out before, and it should have been obvious that such a raid would create the impression that you were carrying out a political vendetta. Why didn’t you consult with your boss, the current President before carrying out such an unprecedented move with such obvious historical implications?

    It has been reported that FBI (or maybe DOJ) managers expected to be able to carry out such  an unprecedented move unnoticed. How can the FBI (or DOJ) employ managers that are so stupid and incapable of thinking through logical consequences of their decisions and actions?

    Did you yourself not see the historic and irreversible consequences likely to flow from your decision to permit the unprecedented move of searching the home of a former President? If you did see the consequences, why did you think destroying public confidence in law enforcement institutions was worth a momentary “victory” in what appears to be a minor legal skirmish? If not, why should not the public consider you to be the stupidest person ever to be appointed head of the DOJ?

    • #221
  12. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    So Attorney General Garland has now said he personally approved the raid of the former President’s home. That still leaves a whole bunch of questions, among them:

    Disputes about custody of Presidential records are fairly common, and always concluded via negotiated solutions. Why did the FBI refuse to do so?

    A raid of the property of a former President has never been carried out before, and it should have been obvious that such a raid would create the impression that you were carrying out a political vendetta. Why didn’t you consult with your boss, the current President before carrying out such an unprecedented move with such obvious historical implications?

    It has been reported that FBI (or maybe DOJ) managers expected to be able to carry out such an unprecedented move unnoticed. How can the FBI (or DOJ) employ managers that are so stupid and incapable of thinking through logical consequences of their decisions and actions?

    Did you yourself not see the historic and irreversible consequences likely to flow from your decision to permit the unprecedented move of searching the home of a former President? If you did see the consequences, why did you think destroying public confidence in law enforcement institutions was worth a momentary “victory” in what appears to be a minor legal skirmish? If not, why should not the public consider you to be the stupidest person ever to be appointed head of the DOJ?

    Merrick Garland will not be taking your questions, peasant.

    • #222
  13. Kevin Schulte Member
    Kevin Schulte
    @KevinSchulte

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    So Attorney General Garland has now said he personally approved the raid of the former President’s home. That still leaves a whole bunch of questions, among them:

    Disputes about custody of Presidential records are fairly common, and always concluded via negotiated solutions. Why did the FBI refuse to do so?

    A raid of the property of a former President has never been carried out before, and it should have been obvious that such a raid would create the impression that you were carrying out a political vendetta. Why didn’t you consult with your boss, the current President before carrying out such an unprecedented move with such obvious historical implications?

    It has been reported that FBI (or maybe DOJ) managers expected to be able to carry out such an unprecedented move unnoticed. How can the FBI (or DOJ) employ managers that are so stupid and incapable of thinking through logical consequences of their decisions and actions?

    Did you yourself not see the historic and irreversible consequences likely to flow from your decision to permit the unprecedented move of searching the home of a former President? If you did see the consequences, why did you think destroying public confidence in law enforcement institutions was worth a momentary “victory” in what appears to be a minor legal skirmish? If not, why should not the public consider you to be the stupidest person ever to be appointed head of the DOJ?

    Merrick Garland will not be taking your questions, peasant.

    I thought I saw fear in his demeaner . Did anyone else see this ? Or, is it wishful thinking ?

    • #223
  14. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Kevin Schulte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    So Attorney General Garland has now said he personally approved the raid of the former President’s home. That still leaves a whole bunch of questions, among them:

    Disputes about custody of Presidential records are fairly common, and always concluded via negotiated solutions. Why did the FBI refuse to do so?

    A raid of the property of a former President has never been carried out before, and it should have been obvious that such a raid would create the impression that you were carrying out a political vendetta. Why didn’t you consult with your boss, the current President before carrying out such an unprecedented move with such obvious historical implications?

    It has been reported that FBI (or maybe DOJ) managers expected to be able to carry out such an unprecedented move unnoticed. How can the FBI (or DOJ) employ managers that are so stupid and incapable of thinking through logical consequences of their decisions and actions?

    Did you yourself not see the historic and irreversible consequences likely to flow from your decision to permit the unprecedented move of searching the home of a former President? If you did see the consequences, why did you think destroying public confidence in law enforcement institutions was worth a momentary “victory” in what appears to be a minor legal skirmish? If not, why should not the public consider you to be the stupidest person ever to be appointed head of the DOJ?

    Merrick Garland will not be taking your questions, peasant.

    I thought I saw fear in his demeaner . Did anyone else see this ? Or, is it wishful thinking ?

    I saw arrogance.

    Though I would love for him to fear . . .

    Prison time.

    • #224
  15. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    If I were POTUS I’d have his home raided. 

    • #225
  16. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    So Attorney General Garland has now said he personally approved the raid of the former President’s home. That still leaves a whole bunch of questions, among them:

    Disputes about custody of Presidential records are fairly common, and always concluded via negotiated solutions. Why did the FBI refuse to do so?

    A raid of the property of a former President has never been carried out before, and it should have been obvious that such a raid would create the impression that you were carrying out a political vendetta. Why didn’t you consult with your boss, the current President before carrying out such an unprecedented move with such obvious historical implications?

    It has been reported that FBI (or maybe DOJ) managers expected to be able to carry out such an unprecedented move unnoticed. How can the FBI (or DOJ) employ managers that are so stupid and incapable of thinking through logical consequences of their decisions and actions?

    Did you yourself not see the historic and irreversible consequences likely to flow from your decision to permit the unprecedented move of searching the home of a former President? If you did see the consequences, why did you think destroying public confidence in law enforcement institutions was worth a momentary “victory” in what appears to be a minor legal skirmish? If not, why should not the public consider you to be the stupidest person ever to be appointed head of the DOJ?

    Merrick Garland will not be taking your questions, peasant.

    Did you know that he was supposed to be a Supreme Court Justice?

    • #226
  17. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    The whole raid thing must be a stunt to take all the attention off the Supreme Court leaker, who everyone must have noticed is just dominating the news every day.  They must be getting closer and closer since there’s no chance the whole thing will be swept under the rug.

    • #227
  18. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    So Attorney General Garland has now said he personally approved the raid of the former President’s home. That still leaves a whole bunch of questions, among them:

    Disputes about custody of Presidential records are fairly common, and always concluded via negotiated solutions. Why did the FBI refuse to do so?

    A raid of the property of a former President has never been carried out before, and it should have been obvious that such a raid would create the impression that you were carrying out a political vendetta. Why didn’t you consult with your boss, the current President before carrying out such an unprecedented move with such obvious historical implications?

    It has been reported that FBI (or maybe DOJ) managers expected to be able to carry out such an unprecedented move unnoticed. How can the FBI (or DOJ) employ managers that are so stupid and incapable of thinking through logical consequences of their decisions and actions?

    Did you yourself not see the historic and irreversible consequences likely to flow from your decision to permit the unprecedented move of searching the home of a former President? If you did see the consequences, why did you think destroying public confidence in law enforcement institutions was worth a momentary “victory” in what appears to be a minor legal skirmish? If not, why should not the public consider you to be the stupidest person ever to be appointed head of the DOJ?

    I think that the public trust was already gone. But a tipping point event was needed.

    Even people who are annoyed with Trump (Why his annoying demand to “trust the vaccines” – even these days… Why the refusal to stand with the J6 defendants??)  even they are demanding answers for this latest  slam against the Right.

    All I have to offer is  moment of comic relief:

    • #228
  19. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Sadly, if you look at what they are doing and saying through the lens of perhaps they are trying to provoke a civil war, it all makes perfect sense.

    • #229
  20. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    So Attorney General Garland has now said he personally approved the raid of the former President’s home. That still leaves a whole bunch of questions, among them:

    Disputes about custody of Presidential records are fairly common, and always concluded via negotiated solutions. Why did the FBI refuse to do so?

    A raid of the property of a former President has never been carried out before, and it should have been obvious that such a raid would create the impression that you were carrying out a political vendetta. Why didn’t you consult with your boss, the current President before carrying out such an unprecedented move with such obvious historical implications?

    It has been reported that FBI (or maybe DOJ) managers expected to be able to carry out such an unprecedented move unnoticed. How can the FBI (or DOJ) employ managers that are so stupid and incapable of thinking through logical consequences of their decisions and actions?

    Did you yourself not see the historic and irreversible consequences likely to flow from your decision to permit the unprecedented move of searching the home of a former President? If you did see the consequences, why did you think destroying public confidence in law enforcement institutions was worth a momentary “victory” in what appears to be a minor legal skirmish? If not, why should not the public consider you to be the stupidest person ever to be appointed head of the DOJ?

    Its a fairly low bar – but Eric Holder was AG, so the stupidest head of DOJ will be safe for a while.

    Why didnt the DOJ ethics demand he recuse himself? It was after all the election of Donald Trump, that caused his appointment to the supreme court to be scuttled. I could imagine someone holding a grudge about that.

    Also, arent most FBI agents also lawyers? I thought that the FBI recruited from law schools…

    • #230
  21. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Franco (View Comment):

    Sadly, if you look at what they are doing and saying through the lens of perhaps they are trying to provoke a civil war, it all makes perfect sense.

    They aren’t looking for a civil war.  They want to promote an insurrection that they can crush quickly and use to disqualify people from seeking office, as an excuse to disarm the population, and maybe even for removing people already in office.  They might get a civil war, but that isn’t their intention. 

    • #231
  22. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Sadly, if you look at what they are doing and saying through the lens of perhaps they are trying to provoke a civil war, it all makes perfect sense.

    They aren’t looking for a civil war. They want to promote an insurrection that they can crush quickly and use to disqualify people from seeking office, as an excuse to disarm the population, and maybe even for removing people already in office. They might get a civil war, but that isn’t their intention.

    I tend to agree. That and it’s a show of force meant to intimidate as well as provoke. 

    • #232
  23. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Sadly, if you look at what they are doing and saying through the lens of perhaps they are trying to provoke a civil war, it all makes perfect sense.

    They aren’t looking for a civil war. They want to promote an insurrection that they can crush quickly and use to disqualify people from seeking office, as an excuse to disarm the population, and maybe even for removing people already in office. They might get a civil war, but that isn’t their intention.

    I tend to agree. That and it’s a show of force meant to intimidate as well as provoke.

    They are scared to death of an awakened giant with foreknowledge about draining the swamp returning and seek to prevent him from even running for POTUS. Once again, the parallels to a banana republic are there for all to see, unless like Jonah Goldberg, they are willfully closing their eyes to the un-American police state of the democrat party.

    https://amgreatness.com/2022/08/11/youre-un-american/

     

    • #233
  24. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Even the comments on twitter are designed to get under your skin. I just block them.

    • #234
  25. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Columbo (View Comment):
    Once again, the parallels to a banana republic are there for all to see, unless like Jonah Goldberg, they are willfully closing their eyes to the un-American police state of the democrat party.

    Jonah is a macrocephalic baboon.

    • #235
  26. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Columbo (View Comment):
    Once again, the parallels to a banana republic are there for all to see, unless like Jonah Goldberg, they are willfully closing their eyes to the un-American police state of the democrat party.

    Jonah is a macrocephalic baboon.

    You are being unfair to baboons.

    • #236
  27. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Of course, no one knows for sure: we’re all just guessing what really motivates the FBI’s and DoJ’s action here. Given their track record as regards Trump, I think it’s fair to place the burden of proof on them (where it would properly belong in any case) to demonstrate that such an unprecedented affront was actually justified. (I don’t expect a satisfactory explanation will be forthcoming, because I don’t believe one exists.)

    But if I were to speculate as to their motives, it wouldn’t involve a desire to foment a civil war or trigger an overreaction from the right. I think it’s probably a Hail Mary play, a desperate effort to find something, anything, that will stick and that will convince people that Trump really is the villain they’ve spent six years trying to convince us he is.

    I think they probably believe it. I suspect they are so deep in their bubble, so secure in their conviction, so faithful in their religion that they simply assume that of course they’ll find something sinister if they can just get in, of course it’s worth the huge gamble. Trump, after all, is both a monstrous egomaniacal mastermind and an embarrassingly gauche dullard: it’s obvious that he must have a sinister plan, and equally obvious that he doodles it on napkins and leaves it lying around at Mar-a-Lago when he goes out of town.

    I think it’s desperation.

    • #237
  28. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I think it’s desperation.

    I think it’s coldly calculated evil.

    • #238
  29. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I think it’s desperation.

    I think it’s coldly calculated evil.

    I know, Drew. And some folk on the other side see only fascism and hate. I think the real explanations are usually less exciting, and less satisfying.

    • #239
  30. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Sadly, if you look at what they are doing and saying through the lens of perhaps they are trying to provoke a civil war, it all makes perfect sense.

    They aren’t looking for a civil war. They want to promote an insurrection that they can crush quickly and use to disqualify people from seeking office, as an excuse to disarm the population, and maybe even for removing people already in office. They might get a civil war, but that isn’t their intention.

    Pretty much what I’m saying anyway. Provoking an “insurrection” is what, just a civil battle?  Which may lead to more provocation of the next layer of fed-up people who then act. Another battle. Enough battles and you have a war. 

    Disarming the population sounds pretty “warlike” to me. 

     

    • #240
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.