![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
|
|
Quoted: Are you debating the prior FBI visit, inventory and evaluating the security with added requirements Trump complied to or are you just tossing more shit, assumptions and speculations? Want to keep guessing or buy a vowel? View Quote If they were declassed why were any security measures required? Is that a difficult concept to understand? |
|
Quoted: No, it doesn't. It doesn't describe the specific things that are to be seized nor does it describe where those things were to be found nor does it place any limitations on either. The warrant was overly broad and this invalid/illegal. View Quote That argument is unlikely to succeed in court. |
|
Quoted: Again, this was a couple months ago. He couldn't declassify anything then. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The government didn’t want the documents to be declassified so they just didn’t do the work. So trump declassified them anyway. Again, this was a couple months ago. He couldn't declassify anything then. They were declassified when he was President. |
|
Quoted: ![]() My sincere thanks! The trolling was obnoxious. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Shadow_Dancer and ISEEYOU2 have been removed from the thread. Please do not waste time replying to them. ![]() My sincere thanks! The trolling was obnoxious. Not anywhere near obnoxious as the people who replied to them, and the other grey_bars. Jay |
|
Quoted: Love these!! every time you ask a TDS libtard any why or what question for how they think they ALWAYS let out a BIG sigh and then have nothing to say. Then they act like 'you just dont get it..'.... and the whole time you know in their tiny little head they are thinking 'well shit... I don't know, the news headlines told me what to think/feel"... Completely full retard. How do these people function? View Quote Can you provide an example of such a question? |
|
Quoted: If they were declassed why were any security measures required? Is that a difficult concept to understand? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Are you debating the prior FBI visit, inventory and evaluating the security with added requirements Trump complied to or are you just tossing more shit, assumptions and speculations? Want to keep guessing or buy a vowel? If they were declassed why were any security measures required? Is that a difficult concept to understand? National Archives Act |
|
|
Quoted: Seizing the documents from the attorneys will be an issue too. This would be a nightmare of a trial that I'm sure even the government doesn't want. View Quote |
|
Talking about privileged communications. Not what you’re talking about.
|
|
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote Presidents retain their security clearance, and get classified briefings. |
|
Quoted: Kash Patel is hardly a neutral party and his story also doesn't make sense. In order for him to know that all of the documents were declassified, he would have to know what documents were present at Mar A Lago. I don't think Kash was in charge of filing. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's a case with a probable cause affidavit that supposedly contains classified information because the search was targeting classified information. The fact that the judge is considering releasing anything is shocking in a good way. Pure BS when president Trump declassified everything he had delivered to his home. Also stored in a SCIF with an FBI padlock on it. Your mental gymnastics are impressive but the basis of the warrant is as total shit as the FISA warrant basis, total shit. Your discussion is a circular loop of the same crap. We do have a clue. Kash Patel told us what it was, and that it was declassified. If he's right or not... Is the FBI a neutral party? |
|
View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: According to Kash, some things weren't. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: They were declassified when he was President. According to Kash, some things weren't. 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. |
|
Quoted: National Archives Act View Quote 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. |
|
|
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/weeks-mar-lago-search-trump-dod-official-vowed/story?id=88461618 |
|
Quoted: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/weeks-mar-lago-search-trump-dod-official-vowed/story?id=88461618 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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 |
|
Quoted: You have never applied for a search warrant, nor had training in law enforcement or criminal justice work. If a law enforcement officer is looking for documents, the scope of the search is any area at the property described where documents could be found/stored/hidden. As for the actual affidavit, since it hasn’t been released, it is premature to say definitively that it is faulty/invalid/illegal. There might be probable cause to do what they did, but the larger question is how wise it was. I do not think it was wise to do, legal or not, with the Hillary Clinton elephant in the room. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: No, it doesn't. It doesn't describe the specific things that are to be seized nor does it describe where those things were to be found nor does it place any limitations on either. The warrant was overly broad and this invalid/illegal. You have never applied for a search warrant, nor had training in law enforcement or criminal justice work. If a law enforcement officer is looking for documents, the scope of the search is any area at the property described where documents could be found/stored/hidden. As for the actual affidavit, since it hasn’t been released, it is premature to say definitively that it is faulty/invalid/illegal. There might be probable cause to do what they did, but the larger question is how wise it was. I do not think it was wise to do, legal or not, with the Hillary Clinton elephant in the room. 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. |
|
Quoted: What you are saying here, is that searches and seizures by law enforcement are regularly conducted in an unconstitutional manner. He posted the plain text of the Fourth Amendment, as did I earlier. It's not his (or mine, or any other American's) fault that lawyers and judges have weasel worded the issue enough that it is now considered "settled" that illegal warrants and seizures (that do not specifically name the items to be seized) are "legal". And of course as even the Founders recognized, just because it's "law" doesn't mean it's legal or right. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, it doesn't. It doesn't describe the specific things that are to be seized nor does it describe where those things were to be found nor does it place any limitations on either. The warrant was overly broad and this invalid/illegal. You have never applied for a search warrant, nor had training in law enforcement or criminal justice work. If a law enforcement officer is looking for documents, the scope of the search is any area at the property described where documents could be found/stored/hidden. As for the actual affidavit, since it hasn’t been released, it is premature to say definitively that it is faulty/invalid/illegal. There might be probable cause to do what they did, but the larger question is how wise it was. I do not think it was wise to do, legal or not, with the Hillary Clinton elephant in the room. What you are saying here, is that searches and seizures by law enforcement are regularly conducted in an unconstitutional manner. He posted the plain text of the Fourth Amendment, as did I earlier. It's not his (or mine, or any other American's) fault that lawyers and judges have weasel worded the issue enough that it is now considered "settled" that illegal warrants and seizures (that do not specifically name the items to be seized) are "legal". And of course as even the Founders recognized, just because it's "law" doesn't mean it's legal or right. 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. |
|
Quoted: Again, this was a couple months ago. He couldn't declassify anything then. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The government didn’t want the documents to be declassified so they just didn’t do the work. So trump declassified them anyway. Again, this was a couple months ago. He couldn't declassify anything then. For the umpteenth time... HE DID IT WHILE STILL POTUS. |
|
Quoted: Seizing the documents from the attorneys will be an issue too. This would be a nightmare of a trial that I’m sure even the government doesn’t want. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I agree with you. Passports are documents, but possessing your own passport is not a violation of any law and is not evidence of mishandling classified, transmitting it to a foreign intelligence service, leaking classified to the media, or any of the other things listed in 793 and 794. Things like that will not only be considered seized unreasonably, they also open the agents who took them to deprivation of civil rights under color of law litigation. Seizing the documents from the attorneys will be an issue too. This would be a nightmare of a trial that I’m sure even the government doesn’t want. The very fact the agents seized privileged documents is precisely why the warrant was unlawfully broad. |
|
|
Quoted: I appreciated getting called a “cucked quisling”. I had to look it up, and learned a new word. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: DK, have any of the trump absolutist who are trying to provoke a negative reaction from non trump supporters been removed from the thread? I appreciated getting called a “cucked quisling”. I had to look it up, and learned a new word. ![]() Which one weren't you familiar with? |
|
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They were declassified when he was President. According to Kash, some things weren't. 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. ![]() |
|
Quoted: https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/weeks-mar-lago-search-trump-dod-official-vowed/story?id=88461618 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: 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. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/weeks-mar-lago-search-trump-dod-official-vowed/story?id=88461618 Read your article. |
|
|
Quoted: 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 View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: And/or the agents executing it are incompetent. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The very fact the agents seized privileged documents is precisely why the warrant was unlawfully broad. 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The very fact the agents seized privileged documents is precisely why the warrant was unlawfully broad. 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The very fact the agents seized privileged documents is precisely why the warrant was unlawfully broad. 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. 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)? |
|
Quoted: 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". https://i.imgur.com/81Kcakl.gif View Quote I can think of better things to drop..... |
|
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The affidavit that we haven't seen yet is what would have established probable cause for the search. The search warrant itself is just like every other search warrant and it is nothing unusual in terms of its scope and wording. I blame TV for giving people completely unrealistic notions about how warrants work. You don't need an affidavit to know that the search exceeds the 4th amendment restrictions Googled overbroad warrants. About 538,000 results (0.48 seconds) Here are three of many cases similar to the M-A-L warrant. United States v. Bridges, 344 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2003) There was probable cause to search the defendant’s office based on the information in the application that documented his efforts to provide illegal tax advice to various clients, including undercover agents. The search warrant in this case, however, was overly broad. It listed, among the items to be seized, “All records . . . documents . . . computer hardware and software . . .” Though this list was detailed, it was too expansive. There was simply no boundary to what could be seized. In addition, the warrant did not specify the crimes that were the subject of the search (nor did the warrant incorporate the application) so there was no limitation in that manner. Though the application was detailed, the warrant was not. All evidence should have been suppressed. (No discussion of Leon). In re Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Solid State Devices, Inc., 130 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 1997) The government established probable cause that certain practices of the target corporation were fraudulent. Indeed, there was information that the company "routinely" engaged in fraudulent practices. Nevertheless, the corporation itself was not pervaded by fraud, in the sense that the corporation had little legitimate business. Therefore, a warrant which resulted in the seizure of approximately 90% of the corporation's records over a five year period, including 2,000 file drawers, was overbroad and the target's motion for return of seized property should have been granted. United States v. Fuccillo, 808 F.2d 173 (1st Cir. 1987) The search warrant in this case authorized the seizure of cartons of women’s clothing, the contents of those cartons, without identifying the contents of the cartons, and control slips identifying the stores intended to receive those cartons. The vice with this warrant was the failure to specify what types of clothing were subject to seizure – that is, what clothing was believed to have been stolen and thus within the parameters of the search warrant affidavit. The Court holds that the warrant was overbroad on its face and that the good faith exception did not apply because the obvious infirmity of the warrant. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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. 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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. 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. |
|
|
Fitton spells it out.
Judicial Watch does a lot of good work. ![]() Biden Raid on Trump Home is a Scam! Judicial Watch Special Court Update |
|
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! |
|
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.