User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 5:49:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How can a warrant be good when it fails the narrowly focused test? How can a warrant be good and allow for the taking of items that are merely in the same room with evidence that is sought in conjunction with the investigation? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There is a possibility the affidavit is valid, the warrant is good, and the search was reasonable. From looking at the inventory of what was taken, it isn’t clear what items were taken that were merely in the same room. They took his passports, and there is no way his passports are evidence of Trump violating the statutes on the warrant, so I can see that, but the other items taken from the room are not described with enough information to say, “they just took everything”. Having performed search warrants for documents relating to a crime, I can tell you it is a huge pain because any and all paper is potentially evidence. That doesn’t mean you take any and all paper. You have to vet what you are taking and be able to explain to a judge why you took it. I’m no expert on what counts as National Archive documents, but I suspect some or most of the non-classified taken falls into that category. But your contention that the warrant isn’t good because it allows taking items that are merely in the same room is not correct. The warrant doesn’t say, “take all items in the same room.” If you read it, there is a limitation to national defense documents and national archives, as well as evidence of destroying or altering government records. If they took other things (like the passports) then they are violating the 4th Amendment, and exceeded the scope of the warrant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 5:56:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From looking at the inventory of what was taken, it isn’t clear what items were taken that were merely in the same room. They took his passports, and there is no way his passports are evidence of Trump violating the statutes on the warrant, so I can see that, but the other items taken from the room are not described with enough information to say, “they just took everything”. Having performed search warrants for documents relating to a crime, I can tell you it is a huge pain because any and all paper is potentially evidence. That doesn’t mean you take any and all paper. You have to vet what you are taking and be able to explain to a judge why you took it. I’m no expert on what counts as National Archive documents, but I suspect some or most of the non-classified taken falls into that category. But your contention that the warrant isn’t good because it allows taking items that are merely in the same room is not correct. The warrant doesn’t say, “take all items in the same room.” If you read it, there is a limitation to national defense documents and national archives, as well as evidence of destroying or altering government records. If they took other things (like the passports) then they are violating the 4th Amendment, and exceeded the scope of the warrant. Who violated his 4th amendment rights? The FBI or the DNC? Edit: serious question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 5:58:44 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From looking at the inventory of what was taken, it isn’t clear what items were taken that were merely in the same room. They took his passports, and there is no way his passports are evidence of Trump violating the statutes on the warrant, so I can see that, but the other items taken from the room are not described with enough information to say, “they just took everything”. Having performed search warrants for documents relating to a crime, I can tell you it is a huge pain because any and all paper is potentially evidence. That doesn’t mean you take any and all paper. You have to vet what you are taking and be able to explain to a judge why you took it. I’m no expert on what counts as National Archive documents, but I suspect some or most of the non-classified taken falls into that category. But your contention that the warrant isn’t good because it allows taking items that are merely in the same room is not correct. The warrant doesn’t say, “take all items in the same room.” If you read it, there is a limitation to national defense documents and national archives, as well as evidence of destroying or altering government records. If they took other things (like the passports) then they are violating the 4th Amendment, and exceeded the scope of the warrant. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is a possibility the affidavit is valid, the warrant is good, and the search was reasonable. From looking at the inventory of what was taken, it isn’t clear what items were taken that were merely in the same room. They took his passports, and there is no way his passports are evidence of Trump violating the statutes on the warrant, so I can see that, but the other items taken from the room are not described with enough information to say, “they just took everything”. Having performed search warrants for documents relating to a crime, I can tell you it is a huge pain because any and all paper is potentially evidence. That doesn’t mean you take any and all paper. You have to vet what you are taking and be able to explain to a judge why you took it. I’m no expert on what counts as National Archive documents, but I suspect some or most of the non-classified taken falls into that category. But your contention that the warrant isn’t good because it allows taking items that are merely in the same room is not correct. The warrant doesn’t say, “take all items in the same room.” If you read it, there is a limitation to national defense documents and national archives, as well as evidence of destroying or altering government records. If they took other things (like the passports) then they are violating the 4th Amendment, and exceeded the scope of the warrant. The warrant is also invalid because the documents to be seized listed is overly broad just like the specific place to be searched is overly broad. Any item which may have been a document at any time during the entirety of the Trump Presidency? That's not just overly broad, that's brazenly so. You should really watch the Judicial Watch video and understand why that is so. And, that's if they *only* took those records, which we know now they took far more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:00:33 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From looking at the inventory of what was taken, it isn't clear what items were taken that were merely in the same room. They took his passports, and there is no way his passports are evidence of Trump violating the statutes on the warrant, so I can see that, but the other items taken from the room are not described with enough information to say, "they just took everything". Having performed search warrants for documents relating to a crime, I can tell you it is a huge pain because any and all paper is potentially evidence. That doesn't mean you take any and all paper. You have to vet what you are taking and be able to explain to a judge why you took it. I'm no expert on what counts as National Archive documents, but I suspect some or most of the non-classified taken falls into that category. But your contention that the warrant isn't good because it allows taking items that are merely in the same room is not correct. The warrant doesn't say, "take all items in the same room." If you read it, there is a limitation to national defense documents and national archives, as well as evidence of destroying or altering government records. If they took other things (like the passports) then they are violating the 4th Amendment, and exceeded the scope of the warrant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:02:05 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who violated his 4th amendment rights? The FBI or the DNC? Edit: serious question. It would appear the FBI. I don’t know that they get a grace period for the passports, which it looks like they gave back pretty quickly. The DNC gets to pretend it doesn’t have any involvement. I would like to see what else was taken that falls outside the scope. You get a one-two with that: violation of 4th Amendment, as well as 5th Amendment rights because “no one shall be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Anything taken that shouldn’t have been can be listed in a lawsuit by Trump’s attorneys naming Garland/DOJ/and FBI agents involved in the raid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:12:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The wording of the warrant literally states that anything stored or found near boxes containing classified information are part of the warrant. That is an overly broad definition of what is subject to the warrant. From the warrant copied and pasted: Property to be seized 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, including the following: 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 Records, or of any documents with classification markings. That is what is to be seized. What is to be searched in order to seize the stuff above: The premises to be searched, 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480, is further described as a resort, club, and residence located near the intersection of Southern Blvd and S Ocean Blvd. It is described as a mansion with approximately 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, on a 17-acre estate. The locations to be searched include the " 45 Office," all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including all structures or buildings on the estate. It does not include areas currently (i.e., at the time of the search) being occupied, rented, or used by third parties (such as Mar-a-Largo Members) and not otherwise used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff, such as private guest suites. I think you are confusing the places allowed to be searched under the scope of the warrant with what’s allowed to be seized. It doesn’t authorize taking whatever is nearby, because they cannot take anything that doesn’t count as evidence of violating the listed statutes, unless they find something like a pile of unregistered auto sears on the desk next to the documents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:14:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From looking at the inventory of what was taken, it isn’t clear what items were taken that were merely in the same room. They took his passports, and there is no way his passports are evidence of Trump violating the statutes on the warrant, so I can see that, but the other items taken from the room are not described with enough information to say, “they just took everything”. Having performed search warrants for documents relating to a crime, I can tell you it is a huge pain because any and all paper is potentially evidence. That doesn’t mean you take any and all paper. You have to vet what you are taking and be able to explain to a judge why you took it. I’m no expert on what counts as National Archive documents, but I suspect some or most of the non-classified taken falls into that category. But your contention that the warrant isn’t good because it allows taking items that are merely in the same room is not correct. The warrant doesn’t say, “take all items in the same room.” If you read it, there is a limitation to national defense documents and national archives, as well as evidence of destroying or altering government records. If they took other things (like the passports) then they are violating the 4th Amendment, and exceeded the scope of the warrant. They took “Presidential Records” like photos of Trump in the White House, a photo of a hurricane, etc. Those are plainly not evidence of a crime, but in improper intervention in a civil matter. They also took privileged communications with his attorneys. If it comes to a trial the exclusion hearings are going to be a riot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:15:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How can a warrant be good when it fails the narrowly focused test? How can a warrant be good and allow for the taking of items that are merely in the same room with evidence that is sought in conjunction with the investigation? Such a warrant can be valid, but a piece of paper does not prevent criminals with badges from taking whatever they want. It's up to judges to exclude the wrongfully taken items from evidence or to toss the case in it's entirety, with prejudice, due to government misconduct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:15:57 PM EDT
[#9]
@bolster
“as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes” |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:16:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They took “Presidential Records” like photos of Trump in the White House, a photo of a hurricane, etc. Those are plainly not evidence of a crime, but in improper intervention in a civil matter. They also took privileged communications with his attorneys. If it comes to a trial the exclusion hearings are going to be a riot. They went into a huge minefield if they took attorney/client stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:17:06 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Who violated his 4th amendment rights? The FBI or the DNC? Edit: serious question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:22:30 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @bolster “as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes” I saw that in the document, but you have to think about where documents can be stored. They can be in boxes that say “evidence of the crime I committed, DON’T TAKE!” Or they can be in a box next to them that has no labels. There isn’t any requirement to honor the label of a container, drawer, folder that documents can fit in, BUT you still need to look in them to be sure you aren’t taking a box that says “Nuclear launch codes” but when opened is full of legos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:23:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From the warrant copied and pasted: Property to be seized 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, including the following: 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 Records, or of any documents with classification markings. That is what is to be seized. What is to be searched in order to seize the stuff above: The premises to be searched, 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480, is further described as a resort, club, and residence located near the intersection of Southern Blvd and S Ocean Blvd. It is described as a mansion with approximately 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, on a 17-acre estate. The locations to be searched include the " 45 Office," all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including all structures or buildings on the estate. It does not include areas currently (i.e., at the time of the search) being occupied, rented, or used by third parties (such as Mar-a-Largo Members) and not otherwise used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff, such as private guest suites. I think you are confusing the places allowed to be searched under the scope of the warrant with what’s allowed to be seized. It doesn’t authorize taking whatever is nearby, because they cannot take anything that doesn’t count as evidence of violating the listed statutes, unless they find something like a pile of unregistered auto sears on the desk next to the documents. This is confusing. Not trying to pick a fight, but this is hard to understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:24:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They went into a huge minefield if they took attorney/client stuff. Maybe, maybe not. That's why they had a taint team. Also, crime-fraud exception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:25:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They went into a huge minefield if they took attorney/client stuff. Report that privileged items were seized and DOJ opposes use of a Special Master. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:27:11 PM EDT
[#16]
So anything new? I quit following the thread after it became page after page of derailment by troll.
Only interested in new developments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:27:13 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I saw that in the document, but you have to think about where documents can be stored. They can be in boxes that say “evidence of the crime I committed, DON’T TAKE!” Or they can be in a box next to them that has no labels. There isn’t any requirement to honor the label of a container, drawer, folder that documents can fit in, BUT you still need to look in them to be sure you aren’t taking a box that says “Nuclear launch codes” but when opened is full of legos. Without that verbiage they still could pop the top on boxes and loom thorough them, but that verbiage is the difference between seizing letters from his lawyers and not seizing them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:28:53 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So anything new? I quit following the thread after it became page after page of derailment by troll. Only interested in new developments. Same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:29:26 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe, maybe not. That's why they had a taint team. Also, crime-fraud exception. They are calling it a “filter team” and there is no sign that the agents doing that aren’t otherwise involved in the investigation. If they find evidence of attorneys engaged in crime in what would have been privileged documents everyone is going to have a mess on their hands and there are going to be some difficult questions about why agents were searching for classified government documents by reading his correspondence with his lawyers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:35:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The FISA warrant was originally approved in October of 2016 and it was based upon the contention that the Russians were covertly in contact with people in candidate Trump’s campaign. The investigation originally targeted Russia interfering with the election. As we all know, it continued after the election ended, and Clinesmith falsified evidence to obtain an updated warrant, while Trump was a sitting President. So it started as not a coup attempt but became one? Normally, the Trump cult is itching for anything that casts Trump as the often-abused, downtrodden (billionaire) hero, so his status as TV celebrity, failed university creator, birth record investigator, candidate, POTUS, ex-POTUS is all irrelevant. The most important thing is he has always been the only thing between the bad guys and all of us. Back when he was donating to the Clintons and partying with Epstein, that was done to stop the bad guys from getting to us. Every time he said “you’re fired” he meant “Murica”. I get it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Here is how the DOJ treats FBI lawyers who lie to help destroy a FIFY FALSE! The Justice Department relied on Clinesmith’s assertion as it submitted a third and final renewal application in 2017 to eavesdrop on Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Trump was POTUS when Clinesmith falsified evidence. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesmith-sentenced-john-durham-probe The FISA warrant was originally approved in October of 2016 and it was based upon the contention that the Russians were covertly in contact with people in candidate Trump’s campaign. The investigation originally targeted Russia interfering with the election. As we all know, it continued after the election ended, and Clinesmith falsified evidence to obtain an updated warrant, while Trump was a sitting President. So it started as not a coup attempt but became one? Normally, the Trump cult is itching for anything that casts Trump as the often-abused, downtrodden (billionaire) hero, so his status as TV celebrity, failed university creator, birth record investigator, candidate, POTUS, ex-POTUS is all irrelevant. The most important thing is he has always been the only thing between the bad guys and all of us. Back when he was donating to the Clintons and partying with Epstein, that was done to stop the bad guys from getting to us. Every time he said “you’re fired” he meant “Murica”. I get it. Blah blah.... Move those goalposts. An employee of the FBI falsified statements to attack a sitting POTUS and he got PROBATION for it. He didn't even lose his law license. Temporary suspension. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:36:04 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From the warrant copied and pasted: Property to be seized 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, including the following: 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 Records, or of any documents with classification markings. That is what is to be seized. What is to be searched in order to seize the stuff above: The premises to be searched, 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480, is further described as a resort, club, and residence located near the intersection of Southern Blvd and S Ocean Blvd. It is described as a mansion with approximately 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, on a 17-acre estate. The locations to be searched include the " 45 Office," all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including all structures or buildings on the estate. It does not include areas currently (i.e., at the time of the search) being occupied, rented, or used by third parties (such as Mar-a-Largo Members) and not otherwise used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff, such as private guest suites. I think you are confusing the places allowed to be searched under the scope of the warrant with what's allowed to be seized. It doesn't authorize taking whatever is nearby, because they cannot take anything that doesn't count as evidence of violating the listed statutes, unless they find something like a pile of unregistered auto sears on the desk next to the documents. Meaning those boxes don't have to contain any documents relevant to the investigation, they just have to be stored or found near documents that do pertain to the investigation. I don't know how you are reading that any other way |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:38:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Without that verbiage they still could pop the top on boxes and loom thorough them, but that verbiage is the difference between seizing letters from his lawyers and not seizing them. The attorney/client privilege exists either way, and that verbiage still requires them to take items that fall under the statutes they listed. I think they were reckless when taking attorney/client items. They had 30 people there, which would have given them ample time to ensure they were not taking what they shouldn’t. I can’t imagine a judge being sympathetic to them doing it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:45:45 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The attorney/client privilege exists either way, and that verbiage still requires them to take items that fall under the statutes they listed. I think they were reckless when taking attorney/client items. They had 30 people there, which would have given them ample time to ensure they were not taking what they shouldn’t. I can’t imagine a judge being sympathetic to them doing it. They’ll use anything they can for parallel construction or leaks. And plenty of judges are ideologically motivated. Did you ever think you’d see a federal judge trying to appoint a prosecutor in a case that the United States wanted to dismiss? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:47:26 PM EDT
[#24]
I can imagine any DC judge being sympathetic to it, and after a little venue shopping, that's probably how some of this will go down.
Another little "stain" on Trump to get the rabid troops back in line, even if there's nothing found. This isn't judicial, it's political and prejudicial. Timing is everything also. Keep it going for a while to cause maximum damage thru news leak after news leak. Anonymous sources say.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:52:12 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Holy fuck dude. It states "as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;". Meaning those boxes don't have to contain any documents relevant to the investigation, they just have to be stored or found near documents that do pertain to the investigation. I don't know how you are reading that any other way Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: From the warrant copied and pasted: Property to be seized 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, including the following: 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 Records, or of any documents with classification markings. That is what is to be seized. What is to be searched in order to seize the stuff above: The premises to be searched, 1100 S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FL 33480, is further described as a resort, club, and residence located near the intersection of Southern Blvd and S Ocean Blvd. It is described as a mansion with approximately 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, on a 17-acre estate. The locations to be searched include the " 45 Office," all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including all structures or buildings on the estate. It does not include areas currently (i.e., at the time of the search) being occupied, rented, or used by third parties (such as Mar-a-Largo Members) and not otherwise used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff, such as private guest suites. I think you are confusing the places allowed to be searched under the scope of the warrant with what's allowed to be seized. It doesn't authorize taking whatever is nearby, because they cannot take anything that doesn't count as evidence of violating the listed statutes, unless they find something like a pile of unregistered auto sears on the desk next to the documents. Meaning those boxes don't have to contain any documents relevant to the investigation, they just have to be stored or found near documents that do pertain to the investigation. I don't know how you are reading that any other way A. and C. together seem like a pretty broad net to cast. Isn’t everything he did document-wise while in office either a government document or presidential record? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:52:56 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Holy fuck dude. It states "as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;". Meaning those boxes don't have to contain any documents relevant to the investigation, they just have to be stored or found near documents that do pertain to the investigation. I don't know how you are reading that any other way I think you’re reading more into it, but the warrant is not authorizing them to take random things. The 4th Amendment reasonableness standard still exists. Taking things unlawfully and from a person who can afford tier 1 legal counsel is perilous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 6:58:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A. and C. together seem like a pretty broad net to cast. Isn't everything he did document-wise while in office either a government document or presidential record? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 7:03:19 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think you’re reading more into it, but the warrant is not authorizing them to take random things. The 4th Amendment reasonableness standard still exists. Taking things unlawfully and from a person who can afford tier 1 legal counsel is perilous. Reading that warrant verbatim, I can spin it in my head in such a way that I can take everything in the room if I find a document with a classification stamp on it and be fully able to defend myself simply by quoting the warrant. “Near” is very open to debate if it’s not actually given a limit. If I was to be questioned on it, I would not be nervous as I would be still within the scope of the warrant. Then there’s line C, so that gives me clearance to take EVERY single document from the ENTIRE time he was POTUS. How is that not broad? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 7:04:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think you’re reading more into it, but the warrant is not authorizing them to take random things. The 4th Amendment reasonableness standard still exists. Taking things unlawfully and from a person who can afford tier 1 legal counsel is perilous. How so? What consequences does anyone face for corruption in the pursuit of Trump? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 7:05:06 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they can be personal records. And he is the one to determine what is a Presidential Record or a personal record. Not the Archivist. Not the DOJ, Not the Feebs, and not the DNC. Ok I didn’t know that but that doesn’t stop them from taking them during the raid. Right? Edit: it sounds like they’ll seize everything and then make him prove they were personal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 7:12:01 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think you’re reading more into it, but the warrant is not authorizing them to take random things. The 4th Amendment reasonableness standard still exists. Taking things unlawfully and from a person who can afford tier 1 legal counsel is perilous. Afford? Yes. Get? No. No one wants to take the job of defending Trump. I will ruin their career, no matter the result. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 7:17:54 PM EDT
[#32]
I pretty much bailed on this thread because of the _purse_swingers, but in case anyone missed this.. It is now the third report that backs up my theory (page 68ish) that the DOJ concocted this up as an excuse to get back the Russia-gate documents. There was also a report that many of the agents being investigated by Durham for their involvement in Russia-gate were involved in the MAL raid.
Report: FBI was after the Russia-collusion documents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 7:37:35 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whatever kiddo. GD has tons of opinions, tons of brilliant posters, and some real idiots. And depending on the topic, our place on that spectrum slides. It’s what makes this place great, and entertaining. I disagree with the mob plenty. It’s entertaining, and educational. But straight up trolling? Nah. That’s boring. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We saw it over and over in the Q threads a few years back. The mental obstacle course some people would willingly put themselves through in order to defend indefensible positions was fascinating. I have never seen a troll rub the fact that they are a troll in peoples faces while trolling before. fascinating. Whatever kiddo. GD has tons of opinions, tons of brilliant posters, and some real idiots. And depending on the topic, our place on that spectrum slides. It’s what makes this place great, and entertaining. I disagree with the mob plenty. It’s entertaining, and educational. But straight up trolling? Nah. That’s boring. fascinating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 7:58:22 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reading that warrant verbatim, I can spin it in my head in such a way that I can take everything in the room if I find a document with a classification stamp on it and be fully able to defend myself simply by quoting the warrant. “Near” is very open to debate if it’s not actually given a limit. If I was to be questioned on it, I would not be nervous as I would be still within the scope of the warrant. Then there’s line C, so that gives me clearance to take EVERY single document from the ENTIRE time he was POTUS. How is that not broad? If they could take whatever they wanted under the scope as some are interpreting it, then they would not have returned the passports. They would have hidden behind those words. You can take documents in there, whether they are next to anything or not, because the point of the search was to find documents that support violations of the listed statutes. The search warrant lets you access that home/office/residence/building or whatever is listed there. We will need to see what was actually taken. They have to return anything that doesn’t fall within that scope and returning those items doesn’t necessarily take them off the hook when it comes to culpability. There will be a lot of things that need to happen before legal action can be pursued against FBI, including determining what is now missing from Trump’s property. It’s too early to say the warrant was applied for in bad faith, or that they lied because we haven’t seen the affidavit, but I am very suspicious and having the AG sign off without notifying POTUS tells me the game of plausible deniability was in play. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:00:30 PM EDT
[#35]
The fact that they went to a magistrate with a history of opposition to Trump instead of to a senior judge says a lot also.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:05:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How so? What consequences does anyone face for corruption in the pursuit of Trump? That is a good question. This is the first time something like this has been done against a former president. It was also recorded on video. If DOJ does absolutely nothing, the civil suit portion remains open and viable. Civil rights violations also mean no qualified immunity for the agents who violated them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:10:51 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is a good question. This is the first time something like this has been done against a former president. It was also recorded on video. If DOJ does absolutely nothing, the civil suit portion remains open and viable. Civil rights violations also mean no qualified immunity for the agents who violated them. The lawyer that lied on a warrant app got a slap on the wrist. The guy who lied to the FBI to start the investigation was acquitted against the odds. The Mueller team that destroyed their phones wasn’t disciplined at all. The FBI guy that lied in an FBI investigation into his improper conduct was rehired to get his pension and paid a generous settlement. There are no consequences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:14:45 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok I didn't know that but that doesn't stop them from taking them during the raid. Right? Edit: it sounds like they'll seize everything and then make him prove they were personal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:15:38 PM EDT
[#39]
DOJ argues that over broad warrants aren’t a reason for exclusion via the good faith exception.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:16:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I pretty much bailed on this thread because of the _purse_swingers, but in case anyone missed this.. It is now the third report that backs up my theory (page 68ish) that the DOJ concocted this up as an excuse to get back the Russia-gate documents. There was also a report that many of the agents being investigated by Durham for their involvement in Russia-gate were involved in the MAL raid. Report: FBI was after the Russia-collusion documents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:18:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They went into a huge minefield if they took attorney/client stuff. Oh, man. The crossed that particular Rubicon some time ago. They confiscated attorney/client documents from Project Veritas, and then promptly leaked them to the New York Times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:24:49 PM EDT
[#42]
Is it possible that DOJ intentionally went In With a bad warrant knowing anything they took would be excluded but with an understanding that it would all remain sealed? That way they can say Trump got off due to an administrative error but trust us, he did bad stuff? Really bad stuff, we just can’t show you or tell you because it’s sealed and classified. That way this cloud looms over him forever. Just speculating.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:31:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's a trick question! the FIBs are the Sword and Shield of the DNC. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Who violated his 4th amendment rights? The FBI or the DNC? Edit: serious question. More accurately, the fangs of the venomous snake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:37:37 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it possible that DOJ intentionally went In With a bad warrant knowing anything they took would be excluded but with an understanding that it would all remain sealed? That way they can say Trump got off due to an administrative error but trust us, he did bad stuff? Really bad stuff, we just can’t show you or tell you because it’s sealed and classified. That way this cloud looms over him forever. Just speculating.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:38:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it possible that DOJ intentionally went In With a bad warrant knowing anything they took would be excluded but with an understanding that it would all remain sealed? That way they can say Trump got off due to an administrative error but trust us, he did bad stuff? Really bad stuff, we just can’t show you or tell you because it’s sealed and classified. That way this cloud looms over him forever. Just speculating. Maybe, and they keep the documents they don't want him to have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:39:44 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:47:41 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reading that warrant verbatim, I can spin it in my head in such a way that I can take everything in the room if I find a document with a classification stamp on it and be fully able to defend myself simply by quoting the warrant. “Near” is very open to debate if it’s not actually given a limit. If I was to be questioned on it, I would not be nervous as I would be still within the scope of the warrant. Then there’s line C, so that gives me clearance to take EVERY single document from the ENTIRE time he was POTUS. How is that not broad? Hell, for that matter, an overly eager FBI agent might interpret "collectively stored or found together" to mean anything stored at Mar-a-Lago. Would that stand up to scrutiny? Maybe...maybe not, depends on how good your judge shopping is. But the most important thing is that even if it's ruled as a not good search or even warrant, they've been allowed to confiscate all of this stuff, copy it and begin their parallel construction arguments if they find something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:48:20 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The FBI did nothing wrong. Trump is not above the law. If he is then America is DEAD !!! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And I'm sure it was like 86% legit  The FBI did nothing wrong. Trump is not above the law. If he is then America is DEAD !!! Bullet_Sponge is that you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:51:54 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe, and they keep the documents they don't want him to have. If this is about russiagate docs, there is no way he doesn’t have copies of all stored safely in multiple locations. He’s no idiot. I happen to believe they have absolutely nothing on him. After 6 years, they’d have locked him up already if he was even slightly compromised. I think they’re just trying to create the appearance that he’s done wrong. If they found anything in that raid, they’d have perp walked him already with a 5am raid to arrest him on live tv with cameras from CNN and MSNBC on site. He might be the cleanest candidate ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2022 8:55:28 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If this is about russiagate docs, there is no way he doesn’t have copies of all stored safely in multiple locations. He’s no idiot. I happen to believe they have absolutely nothing on him. After 6 years, they’d have locked him up already if he was even slightly compromised. I think they’re just trying to create the appearance that he’s done wrong. If they found anything in that raid, they’d have perp walked him already with a 5am raid to arrest him on live tv with cameras from CNN and MSNBC on site. He might be the cleanest candidate ever. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Maybe, and they keep the documents they don't want him to have. If this is about russiagate docs, there is no way he doesn’t have copies of all stored safely in multiple locations. He’s no idiot. I happen to believe they have absolutely nothing on him. After 6 years, they’d have locked him up already if he was even slightly compromised. I think they’re just trying to create the appearance that he’s done wrong. If they found anything in that raid, they’d have perp walked him already with a 5am raid to arrest him on live tv with cameras from CNN and MSNBC on site. He might be the cleanest candidate ever. True. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File