Arrest the judge

[kyzr]

Legal but highly unusual in a case like this
Nonsense
Every person subject to an investigation can suffer reputational harm. Nonsensical claim

When the person is the leading candidate for President in 2024 its not "nonsensical".

 

[kyzr]

There is no comparison between tapes of a conversation with a historian and classified documents.
The 10-year-old court ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, rejected arguments by a conservative watchdog group that sought access to dozens of tapes recorded by Mr. Clinton and historian Taylor Branch during his administration.
Don't be such a transparently desperate clown.

Its precedent. I didn't make it up. What's transparent is that Biden and Garland want to look thru Trump's documents to see if there are any J6 "smoking guns" before the J6 committee ends.

 

[Marener]

Its precedent

It’s not. It’s a ruling from a district judge. Not precedent.

You made up everything in your post.

 

[Flopper]

Wrong... She described the UNTRUSTWORTHNESS of the DOJ and FBI in previous dealings with Trump. She was justified in the placement of a special master.

I suspected she was a Trumpster. Thanks for confirming it. I suggest you read the purpose of a special master.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think you'll find both location of search and items to be seized in the warrant are specific.

Most search warrants specify just the address of the residence, the actual dwelling and any out buildings and items to be seized are categorical. This warrant specifies the residence and excludes areas rented or occupied by guests and items are more specific than most warrants.

The items to be seized are justified in the cause for the search in the warrant which is mostly redacted. However, judging from the warrant and what has been released, the warrant is specific to documents that are evidence of violation of the specified statutes, documents that are marked classified along with boxes and associated documents as to how the documents got to the residence. Also all presidential records are to be sized. Everything listed to be seized is government property, and evidence related to how they got to Mar A Lago or violations of the statues.

From the warrant, these are areas to be searched:
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.

From the warrant, these are the items 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

Yep...way too broad and not specific at all. All of that snappy word salad but no substance.

Any judge with any integrity at all would have rejected the application and told them to narrow the search to classified material that wasn't properly stored or was evidence of a crime.
And they also wouldn't have allowed them to go rummaging thru their bedrooms and their sock drawers looking for passports, tax returns, or medical records.

And also...the judge would have required proof that the president hadn't offered to turn the stuff over willingly because this search would create a slippery-slope issue and established a horrible precedent. They had to have established that a crime had been committed which these Bozo's can't. They only can attested to their malice and their hatred for a political opponent.

The problem with all of this is no non-biased judge would have granted such a search.
Not only did they grab everything they claimed was government property but they stole personal items and trashed the place in the process. I'm sure right now they're going thru all of that material looking for any evidence Trump had that implicates Biden, Hillary, Obama, Comey, and everyone else involved in Crossfire Hurricane.

 

[mudwhistle]

I suspected she was a Trumpster. Thanks for confirming it. I suggest you read the purpose of a special master.

Or she was stating that the 4th Amendment still means something even though the FBI and the DOJ has become a fascist arm of the Democrat Party.

 

[kyzr]

It’s not. It’s a ruling from a district judge. Not precedent.
You made up everything in your post.

You type shit with no proof. Read the following links and then post a linked refutation.

Supreme Court Overturns Biden-Appointed Judge’s Ruling on VA Voter Rolls

Youngkin also reminded that Virginia allows same day registration so eligible voters can still go register and vote. This rule was also mentioned in an Associated Press story on October 31. AP wrote that those removed from the rolls can still vote: As a practical matter, anyone whose...

ussanews.com

Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute

Judge ruled in 2012 that a president's discretion to declare records "personal" is far-reaching and mostly unchallengeable.

justthenews.com

How Bill Clinton's Sock Drawer Could Play a Role in the FBI's Trump Raid Fiasco

We’re witnessing a clown show at the Justice Department and the courts. A judge, Bruce Reinhar

townhall.com

Presidential records found right in Clinton’s drawer - Judicial Watch

A 2012 court case denying access to White House audiotapes kept in former President Bill Clinton’s sock drawer after he left office could help the Trump legal team in its battle to retrieve records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago this month. The 10-year-old court ruling, issued by U.S...

www.judicialwatch.org

 

[Lesh]

Private conversations with a private citizen ARE private and personal.

National intell docs are neither

 

[Marener]

You type shit with no proof. Read the following links and then post a linked refutation.

Supreme Court Overturns Biden-Appointed Judge’s Ruling on VA Voter Rolls

Youngkin also reminded that Virginia allows same day registration so eligible voters can still go register and vote. This rule was also mentioned in an Associated Press story on October 31. AP wrote that those removed from the rolls can still vote: As a practical matter, anyone whose...

ussanews.com

Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute

Judge ruled in 2012 that a president's discretion to declare records "personal" is far-reaching and mostly unchallengeable.

justthenews.com

How Bill Clinton's Sock Drawer Could Play a Role in the FBI's Trump Raid Fiasco

We’re witnessing a clown show at the Justice Department and the courts. A judge, Bruce Reinhar

townhall.com

Presidential records found right in Clinton’s drawer - Judicial Watch

A 2012 court case denying access to White House audiotapes kept in former President Bill Clinton’s sock drawer after he left office could help the Trump legal team in its battle to retrieve records that the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago this month. The 10-year-old court ruling, issued by U.S...

www.judicialwatch.org

A district court opinion can’t bind another district court opinion. A superior court binds a lower court. An equal court cannot behind another equal court.

It’s how our legal system works. A district judge can’t be superior to another district judge.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yep...way too broad and not specific at all. All of that snappy word salad but no substance.

Any judge with any integrity at all would have rejected the application and told them to narrow the search to classified material that wasn't properly stored or was evidence of a crime.
And they also wouldn't have allowed them to go rummaging thru their bedrooms and their sock drawers looking for passports, tax returns, or medical records.

And also...the judge would have required proof that the president hadn't offered to turn the stuff over willingly because this search would create a slippery-slope issue and established a horrible precedent. They had to have established that a crime had been committed which these Bozo's can't. They only can attested to their malice and their hatred for a political opponent.

The problem with all of this is no non-biased judge would have granted such a search.

Private conversations with a private citizen ARE private and personal.

National intell docs are neither

The warrant stated "ANY COMMUNICATIONS TRUMP HAD" including communications with a lawyer that held attorney-client privilege.

The FBI is involved in a cover-up.

 

[kyzr]

A district court opinion can’t bind another district court opinion. A superior court binds a lower court. An equal court cannot behind another equal court.
It’s how our legal system works. A district judge can’t be superior to another district judge.

So all of those articles saying that it is precedent are wrong, and you typing shit with no proof is right?
Bullshit.

Its precedent until you post a credible link saying its not.
Even Judicial Watch, who brought the lawsuit against Clinton says its precedent.
Read my links again.

 

[Marener]

So all of those articles saying that it is precedent are wrong, and you typing shit with no proof is right?
Bullshit.

Its precedent until you post a credible link saying its not.
Even Judicial Watch, who brought the lawsuit against Clinton says its precedent.
Read my links again.

I searched every article and I don’t think any of them actually said it’s precedent.

Can you post the text from any of the articles making the claim? Maybe I missed it but if you want to claim that’s what the articles say, perhaps you can prove it.

 

[kyzr]

I searched every article and I don’t think any of them actually said it’s precedent.
Can you post the text from any of the articles making the claim? Maybe I missed it but if you want to claim that’s what the articles say, perhaps you can prove it.

Agreed. I read the articles and thought they implied "precedent".
But the articles never use the word "precedent". They say "connected", "what's personal is strictly the president's sole decision", the "courts agreed", if "Trump had them they are personal"...implying some type of presidential "precedent" regarding the PRA.

This ties back to Trump, due to his claims that the records that were seized were both declassified and personal. Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, said the connection between the cases is profound.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

Bill Clinton had tapes that dealt with issues relating to his presidency, but he said they were personal records, so the courts ruled they couldn’t be touched.

The 10-year-old court ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, rejected arguments by a conservative watchdog group that sought access to dozens of tapes recorded by Mr. Clinton and historian Taylor Branch during his administration. “What it highlights is that under the law, and the Justice Department’s prior legal positions, if Clinton had the tapes, they are presumably personal,” Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told The Washington Times.

 

[berg80]

Clinesmith PROVED that the DOJ/FBI can't be trusted. PERIOD.

Typing letters in the upper case proves nothing.

But Boasberg also said he agreed with a prior finding by the Justice Department Inspector General that Clinesmith and other FBI officials’ actions were not motivated by political bias, and he believed Clinesmith’s contention that he thought, genuinely but wrongly, the information he was inserting into the email was accurate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/kevin-clinesmith-fbi-john-durham/2021/01/28/b06e061c-618e-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html

There is no indication Clinesmith's error had a bearing on the approval of the warrant one way or the other. The matter was pursued so Durham would have something to show for 3 years of futility.

Amazing how you folks get your shorts in a bunch over this but see nothing wrong with Trump stealing classified docs and hiding them from the DoJ.

 

[berg80]

Its precedent.

No, it isn't precedent because the materials in question are so completely dissimilar.

 

[Marener]

Agreed. I read the articles and thought they implied "precedent".

I think these are very misleading pieces. I’m not surprised you thought you read that. I think it was the intent of the authors. They can make you believe something false without saying anything false.

The PRA clearly defines what a presidential record is. I do not accept the authors of the law relied solely on the president to decide what is a presidential record. One, it was passed after Nixon. It wasn’t like we were high on trusting presidents. Two, it would make the law completely useless. Every president could simply decide every record was private.

Most importantly, Trump has not claimed any of these records are personal or declassified.

 

[berg80]

I think it was the intent of the authors.

Of course it was. Right wing media's business model is based on disinformation. It's what attracts its audience.

 

[lantern2814]

Thats all you got? Seriously?

That’s all I need moron. Her jurisdiction. Period. Nothing wrong with the decision. Cry harder.

 

[mudwhistle]

Typing letters in the upper case proves nothing.

But Boasberg also said he agreed with a prior finding by the Justice Department Inspector General that Clinesmith and other FBI officials’ actions were not motivated by political bias, and he believed Clinesmith’s contention that he thought, genuinely but wrongly, the information he was inserting into the email was accurate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/kevin-clinesmith-fbi-john-durham/2021/01/28/b06e061c-618e-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html

There is no indication Clinesmith's error had a bearing on the approval of the warrant one way or the other. The matter was pursued so Durham would have something to show for 3 years of futility.

Amazing how you folks get your shorts in a bunch over this but see nothing wrong with Trump stealing classified docs and hiding them from the DoJ.

Well....there was no stealing going on. The NARA knew what he had and knew where it was.
The only stealing that went on was when the FBI stole Trump's personal property and broke into his empty safe.
After all....where did they get the idea that files where missing if they hadn't looked at everything earlier this year.

 

[lantern2814]

It is quite understandable why people would feel that way. In her order requiring a special master she wrote about a page of possible damage Trump might face if there were media leaks and if DOJ was unable to finish their review in a timing manner, etc but there was nothing that she wrote justifying her order for a Special Master. She is a Trump appointee returning the favor.

However, the delay is probably not going to last more than 5 or 6 weeks and the investigation will continue without all the boxes of evidence.

Another liar. The judge was approved after Xiden took office with a dozen Dems approving her. Your desperation as this case falls apart is obvious.