What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Federal Judge Reveals Incumbent President Joe Biden Ordered FBI Access to Mar-a-Lago Documents

OP
skye

skye

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
53,326
Reaction score
46,462
Points
3,635
Another prime example of Joe Potatohead lying to Americans.

He said he knew nothing of the raid.

Lying sonofabitch.

The Moon Bats that voted for him are idiots.


Second, third and fourth! ^^^ :clap:




1662592515635.png
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
10,060
Reaction score
9,145
Points
2,138
Location
Sunny Florida
Lol, you don't need to explain probable cause to me. You need to explain to me why a judge when weighing probable cause should take into consideration the possible defense strategy of the plaintiff?

It would also help to explain why you believe a judge should presume a former president took actions while he was president that doesn't have a bearing on the presumptive crimes in order to establish probable cause. Furthermore from your own link.

“A search that is executed pursuant to a warrant is “presumptively valid,” and a defendant challenging the issuance of that warrant has the burden of proof to establish a lack of probable cause “or that the search was otherwise unreasonable.”

Your theory has as one of its many problems that it takes the opposite approach. Namely that Trump has the benifit of the doubt and the DOJ needs to prove the warrant was valid.


One of us doesn't understand how the law works. I don't think it's me.
The 4th Amendment isn't a "possible defense strategy" Forkup...it's a protection that's afforded every American by the Constitution! Something the Founding Fathers felt needed to BE in the Constitution! EVERY judge should take into consideration a person's 4th Amendment rights EVERY time that they issue a warrant! The Government doesn't have the right to come into your home looking for evidence of criminality by either fooling a judge with embellished claims that a crime has taken place or by finding a judge who will issue a "general" warrant! Doing either of those things will get a criminal complaint thrown out on appeal. Do it in an especially blatant fashion and those in Government who abused that 4th Amendment right could face charges themselves. This isn't something to be taken lightly. The sanctity of your home is a valuable thing. Government agents who bend the rules to get a warrant to come into your home looking for evidence that they don't already have are trashing a very important law to supposedly uphold the law.

As for what you've highlighted? On appeal a defendant has the burden of proving that a warrant wasn't valid. One of the ways that a defendant does so is by showing that the Government didn't have proof that a crime had been committed. In this case the DOJ is claiming that Trump had in his possession "classified" documents! Trump is claiming that as the ultimate authority on classification that he had declassified those materials as he is authorized to do. The Magistrate in this matter should have known the applicable law and asked the DOJ how a President could be charged with illegally possessing "classified" documents when HE is the person who has the ultimate say on the classification of those documents! He didn't do that. Instead he wrote a warrant that essentially allowed the FBI to seize anything from the house of a former President that they felt like taking! That's a "general" warrant which are illegal.

As for Trump having the "benefit of the doubt"? Once again you seem to be clueless about our legal system. ALL OF US have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to criminal charges! We're ALL presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty!
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
10,060
Reaction score
9,145
Points
2,138
Location
Sunny Florida
View attachment 692895
If you want to pretend you believe this is the menu listing at Mar O Lago be my guest. I personally think these are government documents taken by Trump and stashed at his golf resort. Feel free to disagree.
Nobody is saying that Trump didn't take the documents. Presidents take documents all the time. They're allowed to BECAUSE they are the President! There is no "crime" there! So what was the raid of an Ex President's home based on?
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,469
Reaction score
2,071
Points
195
The 4th Amendment isn't a "possible defense strategy" Forkup...it's a protection that's afforded every American by the Constitution! Something the Founding Fathers felt needed to BE in the Constitution! EVERY judge should take into consideration a person's 4th Amendment rights EVERY time that they issue a warrant! The Government doesn't have the right to come into your home looking for evidence of criminality by either fooling a judge with embellished claims that a crime has taken place or by finding a judge who will issue a "general" warrant! Doing either of those things will get a criminal complaint thrown out on appeal. Do it in an especially blatant fashion and those in Government who abused that 4th Amendment right could face charges themselves. This isn't something to be taken lightly. The sanctity of your home is a valuable thing. Government agents who bend the rules to get a warrant to come into your home looking for evidence that they don't already have are trashing a very important law to supposedly uphold the law.

As for what you've highlighted? On appeal a defendant has the burden of proving that a warrant wasn't valid. One of the ways that a defendant does so is by showing that the Government didn't have proof that a crime had been committed. In this case the DOJ is claiming that Trump had in his possession "classified" documents! Trump is claiming that as the ultimate authority on classification that he had declassified those materials as he is authorized to do. The Magistrate in this matter should have known the applicable law and asked the DOJ how a President could be charged with illegally possessing "classified" documents when HE is the person who has the ultimate say on the classification of those documents! He didn't do that. Instead he wrote a warrant that essentially allowed the FBI to seize anything from the house of a former President that they felt like taking! That's a "general" warrant which are illegal.

As for Trump having the "benefit of the doubt"? Once again you seem to be clueless about our legal system. ALL OF US have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to criminal charges! We're ALL presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty!
The 4th Amendment isn't a "possible defense strategy" Forkup.
Claiming they were violated sure as hell IS a possible defense strategy.
In this case the DOJ is claiming that Trump had in his possession "classified" documents!
Sure, but the statutes don't require the documents to be classified. The warrant highlighted 3 possible statutes that they presumed Trump to have violated. Namely

So again, even if the documents were somehow declassified, he still would be in violation of those statutes. And even if that wouldn't be the case. A judge does NOT take into consideration a POTENTIAL justification into account when establishing probable cause. They have a trial for that. He just has to consider whether or not the government has a reasonable basis and the need to conduct a search in order to find evidence for the violation of the respective statutes.

You fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the requirements for the government to be able to gather proof and the requirements to establish guilt. They ARE NOT THE SAME.

As for Trump having the "benefit of the doubt"? Once again you seem to be clueless about our legal system. ALL OF US have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to criminal charges! We're ALL presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty!
Here you do it again. After an indictment, Trump has all the protections awarded to a defendant. Before an indictment, the government has every right to try to prove he committed a crime and it is on the defense to PROVE that their steps are unreasonable. YOU fundamentally misunderstand the rights of a person before and after an indictment.
Nobody is saying that Trump didn't take the documents.
The person I replied to did. That's why I responded.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,469
Reaction score
2,071
Points
195
The 4th Amendment isn't a "possible defense strategy" Forkup...it's a protection that's afforded every American by the Constitution! Something the Founding Fathers felt needed to BE in the Constitution! EVERY judge should take into consideration a person's 4th Amendment rights EVERY time that they issue a warrant! The Government doesn't have the right to come into your home looking for evidence of criminality by either fooling a judge with embellished claims that a crime has taken place or by finding a judge who will issue a "general" warrant! Doing either of those things will get a criminal complaint thrown out on appeal. Do it in an especially blatant fashion and those in Government who abused that 4th Amendment right could face charges themselves. This isn't something to be taken lightly. The sanctity of your home is a valuable thing. Government agents who bend the rules to get a warrant to come into your home looking for evidence that they don't already have are trashing a very important law to supposedly uphold the law.

As for what you've highlighted? On appeal a defendant has the burden of proving that a warrant wasn't valid. One of the ways that a defendant does so is by showing that the Government didn't have proof that a crime had been committed. In this case the DOJ is claiming that Trump had in his possession "classified" documents! Trump is claiming that as the ultimate authority on classification that he had declassified those materials as he is authorized to do. The Magistrate in this matter should have known the applicable law and asked the DOJ how a President could be charged with illegally possessing "classified" documents when HE is the person who has the ultimate say on the classification of those documents! He didn't do that. Instead he wrote a warrant that essentially allowed the FBI to seize anything from the house of a former President that they felt like taking! That's a "general" warrant which are illegal.

As for Trump having the "benefit of the doubt"? Once again you seem to be clueless about our legal system. ALL OF US have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to criminal charges! We're ALL presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty!
he applicable law and asked the DOJ how a President could be charged with illegally possessing "classified" documents when HE is the person who has the ultimate say on the classification of those documents!
And another thing. I wasn't aware Trump IS the President? A was under the impression he is the FORMER President. What authority do you suppose a FORMER president has to declassify things?
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3,941
Reaction score
2,003
Points
938
They lied.

On Monday, August 8, 2022, the Biden FBI-DOJ raided President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago and rifled through his home and belongings for 9 hours. The FBI even ransacked 16-year-old Barron Trump’s room and First Lady Melania Trump’s closet.

The following day White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre told reporters that the Biden White House learned of the raid in the news.

Jean Pierre insisted that the President was not briefed on the raid.



Published September 5, 2022


From your own Cite, it was the WH Counsel that approved it, not the President.
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
10,060
Reaction score
9,145
Points
2,138
Location
Sunny Florida
Claiming they were violated sure as hell IS a possible defense strategy.

Sure, but the statutes don't require the documents to be classified. The warrant highlighted 3 possible statutes that they presumed Trump to have violated. Namely

So again, even if the documents were somehow declassified, he still would be in violation of those statutes. And even if that wouldn't be the case. A judge does NOT take into consideration a POTENTIAL justification into account when establishing probable cause. They have a trial for that. He just has to consider whether or not the government has a reasonable basis and the need to conduct a search in order to find evidence for the violation of the respective statutes.

You fundamentally misunderstand the difference between the requirements for the government to be able to gather proof and the requirements to establish guilt. They ARE NOT THE SAME.


Here you do it again. After an indictment, Trump has all the protections awarded to a defendant. Before an indictment, the government has every right to try to prove he committed a crime and it is on the defense to PROVE that their steps are unreasonable. YOU fundamentally misunderstand the rights of a person before and after an indictment.

The person I replied to did. That's why I responded.
I'm baffled by your belief that judges don't take into consideration justification when establishing probable cause! That's the essential part of getting a warrant. Police go to judges all the time requesting warrants only to be turned down because the judge doesn't think the evidence presented is compelling. They don't just shrug and say "You know what...your evidence of a crime was totally thin but let's see if you can find something concrete when you raid the suspect's home!"
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
10,060
Reaction score
9,145
Points
2,138
Location
Sunny Florida
And another thing. I wasn't aware Trump IS the President? A was under the impression he is the FORMER President. What authority do you suppose a FORMER president has to declassify things?
Those documents were boxed and sent to Mar A Lago as Trump was leaving the White House, Forkup! He was still President. The "authority" was granted to him by the Constitution! He WAS the Executive Branch!
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,469
Reaction score
2,071
Points
195
I'm baffled by your belief that judges don't take into consideration justification when establishing probable cause! That's the essential part of getting a warrant. Police go to judges all the time requesting warrants only to be turned down because the judge doesn't think the evidence presented is compelling. They don't just shrug and say "You know what...your evidence of a crime was totally thin but let's see if you can find something concrete when you raid the suspect's home!"
I don't know in how many ways I can explain it. I highlighted the word potential in my response right.

At every trial, a defendant's lawyers come up with justifications for their client's behavior or the evidence presented. When establishing probable clause this is not the case. The question is much, much narrower. It is simply, "does the government have enough evidence to SUSPECT a crime is committed?" Not do we know for sure he committed a crime, not can we think of a reason this isn't a crime, not any of that.

If the government delivers an affidavit to a judge that clearly is NOT sufficient to issue a search warrant sure the judge will deny that motion. But he simply doesn't weigh in every possible defense the plaintiff might have.

Maybe I'll put it in another example. Let's say the Police go to a judge claiming they have reports from a school that a student has told that their dad is beating them with an iron rod at home and is full of bruises, and they want to recover that rod as evidence. The judge will not take into consideration that the kid might be troubled and lying to the school. He will probably simply say, OK this seems a reasonable search.

Not only do you seem to say in this hypothetical that the judge should deny that motion because that might be the case, but you are claiming that he should consider that the kid might be unruly as a possible defense. Since that could possibly be a mitigating circumstance if you squint real hard. Because for the umpteent time the charges don't hinge on classification.
 
Last edited:

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,469
Reaction score
2,071
Points
195
Those documents were boxed and sent to Mar A Lago as Trump was leaving the White House, Forkup! He was still President. The "authority" was granted to him by the Constitution! He WAS the Executive Branch!
Lol should we go by the assumption that he self-pardoned himself to because he might have that authority? It's what is called a post hoc justification.

By the way. When requesting a special master the Trump defense acknowledged that that special master needs a sufficient security clearance to look at the documents, making the PRESUMPTION that Trump did something without having any evidence that he actually did it completely bogus. Declassified documents don't require a security clearance.
 

WorldWatcher

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
1,799
Points
255
Location
VA
On appeal a defendant has the burden of proving that a warrant wasn't valid. One of the ways that a defendant does so is by showing that the Government didn't have proof that a crime had been committed. In this case the DOJ is claiming that Trump had in his possession "classified" documents! Trump is claiming that as the ultimate authority on classification that he had declassified those materials as he is authorized to do.

The FPOTUS has not made the claim in court that he declassified the documents, he's only put that out via social media.

Please FPOTUS, make the claim in court you secretly declassified all the classified documents prior to leaving office on January 20, 2021:
  • didn't document it,
  • didn't tell anyone,
  • didn't remove the classifications markings of the documents in your possession,
  • continued to treat the "declassified" documents as classified documents,
  • turned over some classified documents upon Grand Jury subpoena (why if they were declassified?)
  • Agreed that the Special Master must have the proper security clearance (why if they were declassified?)

Yes please, make that claim in court.

[NOTE: Ya'll know declassification isn't about the document, it's about the information contained **IN** to document, by "declassifying" the document, that means all the other copies and the information in those documents that were declassified are not themselves also declassified. I think that is something that those who have not worked with classified material don't get. The classification isn't the document, it's the INFORMATION in the document that is classified.]

WW
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
10,060
Reaction score
9,145
Points
2,138
Location
Sunny Florida
Lol should we go by the assumption that he self-pardoned himself to because he might have that authority? It's what is called a post hoc justification.

By the way. When requesting a special master the Trump defense acknowledged that that special master needs a sufficient security clearance to look at the documents, making the PRESUMPTION that Trump did something without having any evidence that he actually did it completely bogus. Declassified documents don't require a security clearance.
You don't seem to grasp what I'm saying, Forkup! A President of the United States is the ultimate authority on classification of documents. It's literally impossible for him to be guilty of illegally possessing "top secret" materials! If a sitting President wants to take home ANYTHING then he has the authority to do so!
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
10,060
Reaction score
9,145
Points
2,138
Location
Sunny Florida
The FPOTUS has not made the claim in court that he declassified the documents, he's only put that out via social media.

Please FPOTUS, make the claim in court you secretly declassified all the classified documents prior to leaving office on January 20, 2021:
  • didn't document it,
  • didn't tell anyone,
  • didn't remove the classifications markings of the documents in your possession,
  • continued to treat the "declassified" documents as classified documents,
  • turned over some classified documents upon Grand Jury subpoena (why if they were declassified?)
  • Agreed that the Special Master must have the proper security clearance (why if they were declassified?)

Yes please, make that claim in court.

[NOTE: Ya'll know declassification isn't about the document, it's about the information contained **IN** to document, by "declassifying" the document, that means all the other copies and the information in those documents that were declassified are not themselves also declassified. I think that is something that those who have not worked with classified material don't get. The classification isn't the document, it's the INFORMATION in the document that is classified.]

WW
What "document" is it that you think a President is required to fill out to declassify documents, WW?
Who do you think a President is required to "tell" when he's declassifying something?
 

WorldWatcher

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
8,446
Reaction score
1,799
Points
255
Location
VA
What "document" is it that you think a President is required to fill out to declassify documents, WW?
Who do you think a President is required to "tell" when he's declassifying something?

Please, let him make the claim in court filings that he secretly and mentally declassified "everything" with no documentation, no written notes on the documents, not even telling his staff.

[NOTE: Ya'll know declassification isn't about the document, it's about the information contained **IN** to document, by "declassifying" the document, that means all the other copies and the information in those documents that were declassified are not themselves also declassified. I think that is something that those who have not worked with classified material don't get. The classification isn't the document, it's the INFORMATION in the document that is classified.]

If he declassified the information in the documents, were the source documents or subordinate documents where the same information also declassified (in whole or in part)?

WW
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,469
Reaction score
2,071
Points
195
You don't seem to grasp what I'm saying, Forkup! A President of the United States is the ultimate authority on classification of documents. It's literally impossible for him to be guilty of illegally possessing "top secret" materials! If a sitting President wants to take home ANYTHING then he has the authority to do so!
I grasp what you're saying just fine. What you're saying is simply bullshit. There is no mechanism that automatically declassifies anything a president touches. It requires an action by that president. There is not even a hope of establishing such a mechanism when we're talking about a former president. Suggesting that there's some magical procedure that makes a former president immune from prosecution if he mishandles government documents, let alone classified ones is simply ridiculous.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,469
Reaction score
2,071
Points
195
What "document" is it that you think a President is required to fill out to declassify documents, WW?
Who do you think a President is required to "tell" when he's declassifying something?
The agencies involved who produced the document in question for starters. Declassification is not some philosophical exercise. It requires that the government is made aware of that fact so they can actually make it, you know... declassified.
For one thing, it means that under the freedom of information EVERYBODY can request to look at those documents. Impossible to do when nobody is notified of the fact.
 
Last edited:

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
105,323
Reaction score
28,001
Points
2,210
You don't seem to grasp what I'm saying, Forkup! A President of the United States is the ultimate authority on classification of documents. It's literally impossible for him to be guilty of illegally possessing "top secret" materials! If a sitting President wants to take home ANYTHING then he has the authority to do so!

An authority they lose when they're no longer president.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
7,469
Reaction score
2,071
Points
195
An authority they lose when they're no longer president.
Doesn't even matter for the purpose of this ridiculous exercise. By law, a sitting President is still capable of mishandling classified information. He simply has an easy way out of that predicament by stating the information is no longer classified.

It's the classic "He's not so much above the law as he decides what the law is."

This happened quite a few times during his tenure though and it gave the White House all kinds of fits because they constantly had to argue that when he claimed something was declassified it wasn't ACTUALLY declassified. Because the press kept on asking for those documents under the freedom of information act.

 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
10,060
Reaction score
9,145
Points
2,138
Location
Sunny Florida
I grasp what you're saying just fine. What you're saying is simply bullshit. There is no mechanism that automatically declassifies anything a president touches. It requires an action by that president. There is not even a hope of establishing such a mechanism when we're talking about a former president. Suggesting that there's some magical procedure that makes a former president immune from prosecution if he mishandles government documents, let alone classified ones is simply ridiculous.
What action would that be, Forkup? Describe it to me!
 

Oldestyle

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
10,060
Reaction score
9,145
Points
2,138
Location
Sunny Florida
An authority they lose when they're no longer president.
Of course. That doesn't change a thing with documents they took WHILE President however...something which renders the basis for the raid null and void. Trump took those documents WHILE he was still the President! End of discussion.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top