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

[Blisterfinger]

They don't have to negotiate with Trump. He received a subpoena and broke the law by refusing to comply with his legal obligations.

Highly unethical to raid a former president and candidate for the presidencies compound.
A subpoena obtained by a lawless auto-pen regime with dishonesty and illegality is not valid. Just like any orders for the military to break laws or ethical codes. Invalid. Read the article

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Highly unethical to raid a former president and candidate for the presidencies compound.

It would have been unethical and derelict to let the criminal private citizen continue to possess classified materials and to continue to lie to investigators and the courts.

What you want is unethical, special treatment for the fat rapist.

 

[martybegan]

But were moot, while abortion was a constitutionally protected right for nearly 50 years.

it was an improperly made up "right" for 50 years.

 

[postman]

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

That means nothing.
The WH counsels office is not a court of law, so they can only issue a political opinion, not a legal one.

Such as the WH OLC can have an opinion on the 2nd amendment, interpreting it as being able to confiscate guns they don't like.

But that doesn't make it law. Or allow for them to do it, until it's struck down, without retroactive effects.

 

[martybegan]

That means nothing.
The WH counsels office is not a court of law, so they can only issue a political opinion, not a legal one.

Such as the WH OLC can have an opinion on the 2nd amendment, interpreting it as being able to confiscate guns they don't like.

But that doesn't make it law. Or allow for them to do it, until it's struck down, without retroactive effects.

the SC can do whatever it wants pretty much. I see them saying "congress needs to define emergencies better" and then saying no more tariffs under this going forward, but no retroactive paying things back.

 

[postman]

They don't have to negotiate with Trump. He received a subpoena and broke the law by refusing to comply with his legal obligations.

You don't negotiate with criminals.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He made His moves based on interpretations of existing law by His WH counsels office.

Then that was another mistake, in addition to breaking the law.

 

[martybegan]

You don't negotiate with criminals.

No, if you are a democrat, you release them repeatedly, especially if they are illegal aliens.

 

[Delldude]

That means nothing.
The WH counsels office is not a court of law, so they can only issue a political opinion, not a legal one.

Such as the WH OLC can have an opinion on the 2nd amendment, interpreting it as being able to confiscate guns they don't like.

But that doesn't make it law. Or allow for them to do it, until it's struck down, without retroactive effects.

It's a legal opinion until challenged in court.

 

[Blisterfinger]

It would have been unethical and derelict to let the criminal private citizen continue to possess classified materials and to continue to lie to investigators and the courts.

What you want is unethical, special treatment for the fat rapist.

Unethical is calling somebody a rapist who isn't.
Unethical is also calling someone who Hitler who is not even close to that. Deadly force was authorized on the FBI raid party. Unethical.
It's an invitation to violence which your party is so steeped in.
Why are you so violent? Does it help you?

 

[SeaMajor7]

If 37 TRILLION in debt isn't an EMERGENCY, then wtf is one?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a legal opinion until challenged in court.

Hahaha

So is this: "I am allowed to take your house and car."

Give it up, dude.

 

[martybegan]

Hahaha

So is this: "I am allowed to take your house and car."

Give it up, dude.

That's been proven in courts over and over and over.

 

[Delldude]

Hahaha

So is this: "I am allowed to take your house and car."

Give it up, dude.

How was it firearms were confiscated in New Orleans during Katrina?

 

[Blisterfinger]

You don't negotiate with criminals.

The criminals were in the White House at the time

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How was it firearms were confiscated in New Orleans during Katrina?

How do cars get stolen?

Someone took them illegally.

 

[postman]

the SC can do whatever it wants pretty much. I see them saying "congress needs to define emergencies better" and then saying no more tariffs under this going forward, but no retroactive paying things back.

As in the past, the SC can use "legislative intent" to determine what they mean by "emergencies".

In fact, like what the SC did with the voting rights act, if congress doesn't like the SC's interpretation of congressional intent, they can pass a new law clarifying it.

And as the SC said in Marburry v Madison, they have no mandamus over the legislative branch.

 

[martybegan]

As in the past, the SC can use "legislative intent" to determine what they mean by "emergencies".

In fact, like what the SC did with the voting rights act, if congress doesn't like the SC's interpretation of congressional intent, they can pass a new law clarifying it.

And as the SC said in Marburry v Madison, they have no mandamus over the legislative branch.

What they have is the last stop in interpreting the laws, which would be what would happen in this case.

Not a Constitutional issue, an issue of congressional intent and executive interpretation of that intent.

I would personally rule to allow Trump to proceed, but I feel the court would take my position above as a compromise.

Unlike you I can think beyond what I want to happen, and see what I think will probably happen.

 

[postman]

It's a legal opinion until challenged in court.

The opinion itself carries no legal weight.
Meaning, they use it to support any actions.
The equivalent of "mommy said I could do it".

 

[Delldude]

How do cars get stolen?

Someone took them illegally.

You admit the government was illegal?