Again, this was a couple months ago.  He couldn't declassify anything then.

Tell that to Kash.

If they were declassed why were any security measures required?  Is that a difficult concept to understand?

That argument is unlikely to succeed in court.

They were declassified when he was President.

Not anywhere near obnoxious as the people who replied to them, and the other grey_bars.

Jay

Can you provide an example of such a question?

National Archives Act

According to Kash, some things weren't.

That's getting us into another gray area.  It's well established that the President can grant whatever clearance and NTK he wants to grant to whomever he wishes to have it, but I don't think the authority of former presidents has ever been established.  And when a President leaves office, are those clearances and NTK revoked?  Attorneys don't have an inherent right to access or hold classified material based on having passed a bar exam, and their offices are not cleared facilities for storage.

Talking about privileged communications. Not what you’re talking about.

They may not have complied. But he declassified everything.

Presidents retain their security clearance, and get classified briefings.

Is the FBI a neutral party?

Remember how everything President Trump did was a "constitutional crisis" or an "existential threat" to Democracy? Remember how the leftist dirtbags and rino's parroted back those same MSM sound bites just about every week? Hell, one flaccid shill here is still parroting the  "existential threat" nonsense every chance he gets.

And now that we really do have a 4th amendment "constitutional crisis" and "existential threat" to Democracy its crickets. Total crickets.

Like we always say, they accuse the other person of what they are doing.

What I heard him say, was that Trump declassified those docs subject to reasonable deletions, and that they slow walked it, and didn't do their part. He wasn't talking about now. He was talking about during Trumps presidency.

On his last day Trump said fuck it, you assholes had your chance, and signed the doc above.

You have Kash Patel saying otherwise? I'd like to hear that.

Where, specifically?  

I just skimmed through that POS, and except for the Kennedy Assassination and Nixon records (which IMO flirts with being a Bill of Attainder), I saw a whole lot of "may accepts" and not any "shall obtain/seize/etc."  It appears people are attributing authority to the Archives that they just don't have.

Ah.  Gotcha.

Yes.  I was referring to other people who a President may have granted a clearance.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/weeks-mar-lago-search-trump-dod-official-vowed/story?id=88461618

Your position is that the docs that CBS news calls classified, but Patel says Trump declassified, that were sent to the National archives by white house staff that fucked Trump over are classified, and are also the same docs that were at Trumps home?

Are you confusing those docs with the docs raided from Maralago?

Edits: I've been drinking

Don't be too sure on that, slick. A general warrant of the type issued is neither legal nor appropriate. Since the FIBs already had access to where the documents were stored previously, that is the location that should have been listed on the warrant. Further, since there were essentially no limits on what documents could be seized, that violates the 4th Amendment in a blatantly unConstitutional way.

What is in the affidavit is irrelevant to the warrant being unlawfully overbroad. Had you actually listened to any of the actual Constitutional attorneys whose commentary has been posted in the thread, you'd already know that.

Except as a matter of settled law, a warrant of the type issued would have been tossed for being overly broad and insufficiently specific thus violating the 4th Amendment.

For the umpteenth time... HE DID IT WHILE STILL POTUS.

The very fact the agents seized privileged documents is precisely why the warrant was unlawfully broad.

Attached File

Which one weren't you familiar with?

And/or the agents executing it are incompetent.

He fucking knows it.

"White House counsel and company disobeyed a presidential order and implemented federal governmental bureaucracy on the way out to basically send the stash to the National Archives, and now that's where it's at," Patel said in a subsequent interview on June 23 on a different pro-Trump internet show".

Read your article.

Ask the FBI.
It's hard for you and them to understand.

The claim is Trump declassed everything Russiagate the day before leaving office.

Per Kash two months ago, not everything was declassed.  Some Russiagate information is still classified and in the possession of the National Archives.  Kash claims Trump has tasked him with tracking those still-classified documents down and releasing them.

The claim that everything Russiagate was declassed doesn't seem completely honest when Trump's own boy is publicly saying some things regarding Russiagate were in fact not declassed.

It's not about the docs at MAL, it's about the statement that Trump declassed everything.

My guess is both. Unless you were stupid, you'd find some way of getting out of serving an obviously defective warrant on very popular former President's residence. Sorry, boss, kid has a doctor's appointment for back-to-school, uh, cough-cough I may have Kung Flu, etc.

the fact that they were able to muster so many agents to serve a warrant at a residence they knew was empty or had at best a skeleton staff tends to suggest that suspicions of the FBI being fully in the bag for the swamp critters, rinos, dems, progressives, and commie sympathizers, in general, is looking more and more likely a possibility.

What don't you understand?

The moment when Trump ordered them declassified, they were declassified.

Now other people complying with that order and releasing the documents is another matter.

Trump's own boy?

You and I know fucking well these facts.

1a)   You can play technicality all you want. He was THE OCA. Fuck the "experts" and their on-the-fly pronouncements. He was head of the Executive Branch. BTW, NO statute overrides the U.S. Constitution. <=== Lemme HIGHLIGHT THAT for future knowledge for everyone here.
1b)   I'll vote for the MF just based on the BS you're trying to push. Hope you were doing handstands and cartwheels when Hillary had a server with classified information connected to the internet, because last I remember, she skated (with around 2,000 classified documents in her possession).
2)     Democrats have situational ethics and rules. So I disregard ALL arguments dealing with hypocrisy. Against democrats, they're just a nonstarter which leads me to number three.
3)     This doesn't get fixed without violence. All this is just ring around the fucking rosey until we "get there". Sooner the better.

FO time yet?

Oh, and uhhhh.... FUCK CHUCK SCHUMER in the eyeball.

Since the FIBs have been proven to be a corrupt, rogue, criminal organization, one has to wonder who is pulling their strings? Who is/are the ringleader(s)?

I guess that he thinks that a POTUS has to physically lay hands on paper for it to really be declassified.

If I were king for a day I would fly over DIA, those buildings in Utah (NSA), and a few other places, dropping titty sprinkles and say "DECLASSIFED".

I can think of better things to drop.....

When you say there were essentially no limits on what documents could be seized, and that violates the 4th Amendment, this is a great example of someone not understanding how it works.

The statutes listed on the affidavit and warrant have elements within them. Those elements limit searches to looking for items that satisfy the elements of the crimes they believe were violated.  There are some exceptions, like if while searching for classified documents in a closet, they found 87 unregistered bump stocks. Because they had probable cause to be in the closet (a place where documents could be) and searching for documents, they found the baby-killing bump stocks incidentally, they could seize those too.  

The passports, on the other hand, don’t match up with items that were prohibited under any law, and don’t support any of the elements of the possible violations listed on the warrant. Does seizing them render the entire search unreasonable? No, but the passports themselves were unreasonably seized, so they can cause problems for the FBI.

What would render the search unreasonable under the 4th Amendment could be something like knowingly lying on the affidavit or failing to properly list the site to be searched (like putting 123 Any Street, when the residence was at 456 Any Street).  

If a law enforcement agency has probable cause that someone has a nuclear warhead at their house, and a witness/informant says they saw it in the garage, they can still reasonably request to search any part of the residence when filling out the affidavit for the warrant, provided they have good faith that it hasn’t been moved out altogether, and they can look in any place a nuclear warhead could be hidden, as long as that place is within the residence, property, building etc, they list on the affidavit. The guy with the warhead could move it into the kitchen a day after the witness saw it. He is still in possession, regardless of where it was moved within the house.  

What remains to be seen IMHO is the real purpose of the search. Clinton got out of jail free for committing ostensibly greater violations of the law. How DOJ decides to explain the raid on Trump, but no such raid on Clinton will be very telling. Whatever items Trump had that were supposed to be prohibited must be incredibly bad. If they are not way, way worse than what Clinton did, that will seal the fate of the investigation and likely destroy any credibility the FBI might have had left at this point.

Umm watch the video?

Googled overbroad warrants. About 538,000 results (0.48 seconds) Here are three of many cases similar to the M-A-L warrant.

If it keeps the uniparty in charge of Washington, it will all be worth it. They will regain their trust and credibility five or ten years from now, or however long it takes, to get the country back under their control so they can muzzle their opposition in congress and elsewhere.

Your superficial arm waving doesn't change both the Constitution and the case law surrounding it. The warrant was unConstitutionally overbroad. The Supreme Court has ruled on very similar cases multiple times and each time narrows what is and isn't permissible. A general warrant of the type issued is unlawful. Further, the warrant is overbroad not only in the specific location to be searched but also on the documents themselves, basically arguing any document or item that was created during his entire Presidency was fair game. That breadth in and of itself cannot be supported by any affidavit, regardless of the content thereof. Again, the warrant was unlawfully broad and you are just wrong. And, shame on you for supporting it.

Those aren’t very similar at all.

If you want similar, look at Manafort’s case and his attempt to quash a search warrant.

Fitton spells it out.
Judicial Watch does a lot of good work.

I'm afraid this is all academic at this point folks.

I highly doubt there will be a USA holding an election in '24 (at least, what we'd recognize as the USA), and I honestly wonder if 2022 will have one either!