FBI doubted probable cause for Mar-a-Lago raid but pushed forward amid pressure from Biden DOJ, emails reveal

[postman]

No. You’re denying reality. Again.

DOJ got a “referral” from the National Archives. The Presidential records act was never a criminal statute. And any delay over the submission of such “records” by a President or former President to the National Archives pending negotiations isn’t a criminal matter, either.

And a President who has chosen to declassify records isn’t in illegal possession of “classified” records in any event.

There never was any crime for the DOJ and FBI to even “investigate.”

No judge should have approved that warrant.

This is where you conflate the two. Not only did Trump violate the presidential records act, which as you said has no criminal penalties.
He also simultaneously violated the national security laws covering classified documents. Which have criminal penalties.

 

[martybegan]

There have been hundreds of ruling on laws.
And as such are as applicable to any law or act.
If it's unconstitutional it's unconstitutional retroactive to it's very start, and made null as if it never existed.

Not on the specific tariff law in question, as well as the circumstances as applied by the Trump Administration.

Maybe know a bit how our system of government works before talking about it.

 

[Delldude]

He also simultaneously violated the national security laws covering classified documents. Which have criminal penalties.

Was He convicted?

 

[postman]

Not on the specific tariff law in question, as well as the circumstances as applied by the Trump Administration.

Maybe know a bit how our system of government works before talking about it.

The circumstances don't matter. Once ruled unconstitutional it's as if wiped clean from the face of the earth by an act of GOD.

And treated as if it never existed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And I have already supported the truth I posted

You did not support your ad hoc lie that the judge did not consider the warrant, as any judge or any warrant.

Saying you did is another lie .

 

[martybegan]

The circumstances don't matter. Once ruled unconstitutional it's as if wiped clean from the face of the earth by an act of GOD.

And treated as if it never existed.

It won't be ruled unconstitutional, it would be ruled as against the intent of congress as per the law passed. This is about interpretation of a law, not Constitutionality.

Since it would be the first ruling, there would have been no precedence against the executive for interpreting it as such, and therefore the SC would probably say "you can't do this going forward, but anything in the past will stand"

 

[postman]

Key effects of an unconstitutional ruling:

Invalidation: The law is deemed legally non-existent and unenforceable, as if it were never passed.

Cessation of Enforcement:

Government bodies, including the executive branch, must stop enforcing the law, and individuals can no longer be prosecuted under it.

Benefit to Individuals:

If someone was affected by the law (e.g., lost a job, was convicted), they might get relief, like their job restored or a conviction reversed

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Was He convicted?

Is this a court of law?

 

[postman]

Was He convicted?

Neither was the guy who shot Donald Trump.

 

[martybegan]

Key effects of an unconstitutional ruling:

Invalidation: The law is deemed legally non-existent and unenforceable, as if it were never passed.

Cessation of Enforcement:

Government bodies, including the executive branch, must stop enforcing the law, and individuals can no longer be prosecuted under it.

Benefit to Individuals:

If someone was affected by the law (e.g., lost a job, was convicted), they might get relief, like their job restored or a conviction reversed

This isn't about constitutionality, it's about how a law passed by congress is interpreted and the intent of congress when it passed the law.

 

[Delldude]

Neither was the guy who shot Donald Trump.

I think he was.

 

[BackAgain]

This is where you conflate the two. Not only did Trump violate the presidential records act, which as you said has no criminal penalties.
He also simultaneously violated the national security laws covering classified documents. Which have criminal penalties.

Wrong. The 1st part (which involved zero conflation on my part) was the non criminal nature of the PRA.

The 2nd part (which also involved no conflation on my part) is the QUESTION of whether President Trump violated any national security laws when he had already declassified those materials.

We absolutely had far more evidence that President Trump HAD declassified the materials than we have of Biden even being aware of what was signed by his autopen.

The magistrate judge who signed off on that search warrant didn’t seem to give a shit about either of those questions before making his decision to sign the warrant.

In brief, the search warrant application failed to articulate any actual probable cause for that absurd search warrant.

 

[BackAgain]

You did not support your ad hoc lie that the judge did not consider the warrant, as any judge or any warrant.

Saying you did is another lie .

Your lies are never ending. Like when you claim that I lied. I didn’t.

I also didn’t say that the magistrate judge had not considered the warrant application.
What. Did say was that it was a shame that the magistrate judge didn’t consider the other factors I had enumerated.

I suppose reading with comprehension is beyond you. As is honesty.

 

[postman]

It won't be ruled unconstitutional, it would be ruled as against the intent of congress as per the law passed. This is about interpretation of a law, not Constitutionality.

Since it would be the first ruling, there would have been no precedence against the executive for interpreting it as such, and therefore the SC would probably say "you can't do this going forward, but anything in the past will stand"

It's actually about constitutional authority.
Did congress give Trump the power to invoke tariffs, that wasn't supported by the law congress passed allowing the President to invoke tariffs under national security.

If his tariff was not supported by that law, or even if that law was overly broad, and thus the congressional law itself ruled unconstitutional.
Either way would make the Trump Tariff, unconstitutional (not supported by the constitution)

 

[postman]

....and therefore the SC would probably say "you can't do this going forward, but anything in the past will stand"

They've never said that before.

 

[Delldude]

In brief, the search warrant application failed to articulate any actual probable cause for that absurd search warrant.

From reading on this, I think DOJ made the comment that they 'convinced' the judge there was probable cause and he bit. No where is it said the judge came to a conclusion based on provided evidence, only he was 'convinced'.

 

[martybegan]

It's actually about constitutional authority.
Did congress give Trump the power to invoke tariffs, that wasn't supported by the law congress passed allowing the President to invoke tariffs under national security.

If his tariff was not supported by that law, or even if that law was overly broad, and thus the congressional law itself ruled unconstitutional.
Either way would make the Trump Tariff, unconstitutional (not supported by the constitution)

Congress did give him power, the question is over what defines an emergency.

This has nothing to do with constitutionality, it has to do with the intent of the law.

 

[martybegan]

They've never said that before.

You don't have proof of that.

 

[Delldude]

It's actually about constitutional authority.
Did congress give Trump the power to invoke tariffs, that wasn't supported by the law congress passed allowing the President to invoke tariffs under national security.

If his tariff was not supported by that law, or even if that law was overly broad, and thus the congressional law itself ruled unconstitutional.
Either way would make the Trump Tariff, unconstitutional (not supported by the constitution)

He made His moves based on interpretations of existing law by His WH counsels office.
That what SCOTUS is there for. A check valve.

 

[postman]

The 2nd part (which also involved no conflation on my part) is the QUESTION of whether President Trump violated any national security laws when he had already declassified those materials.

Actually William Barr said it best.
That if it was true that Trump declassified the contents of those boxes, that would be worse than possession of the classified materials.

In fact, I believe Trump doing so, would be a clearly impeachable act, if not actual treason. Giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

Akin to Benedict Arnold planning to surrender West Point.