Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.. Warrant for raid was un-Constitutional so all this other jibber jabber doesn't amount to anything

[j-mac]

Since trump is a criminal, a LifeLong ConMan, that is NOT the guy I want.
We saw this mistake for 4 years.

But keep pretending that trump is "COOL" in some way.

What crime has he been convicted of?

 

[j-mac]

It's possible that you could be duped by Rudy, but it's Rudy.
C'mon man, this firing of Shokin was a EU thing.
rudy spun the LIE about it being a bribe.

Find me any news source that supports Rudy's claim.

Cool trick, how’d he get Biden to brag about it?

 

[Winco]

I'll believe others, thank you... Liberals lie all the time so really, there's no reason to believe them..

And I didn't get that info from Rudy... sorry to disappoint

You actually did.
Tell us the origins of the story.

Who created this story, It was Rudy.

The EU wanted Shokin fired for NOT prosecuting corruption in Ukraine, including Burisma.

Read it here:

Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Bidens, and Ukraine (updated)

A chronology of "Ukrainegate" and the Trump-Giuliani pressure on Ukraine to investigate former Vice President and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[Winco]

What crime has he been convicted of?

trump University.
You know......$25 Million.

Does that count?

 

[Marener]

American Lookout Headlines

Looking Out For America • headlines.americanlookout.com

americanlookout.com

‘This is awesome!’ UFC President Dana White doubles bonus for fighter who was bitten after seeing how he celebrated the win

A UFC fighter was awarded a one-of-a-kind performance bonus after being bitten by an opponent during a fight. Following the bout, UFC President Dana White decided to double that bonus after he saw how the fighter celebrated his victory.Flyweight fighter Andre Lima remained undefeated after a...

ussanews.com

The Trump case is a lawyers paradise, so many fine points to argue...

The WSJ OpEd says that Trump has a right to access records from his presidency.

Very well.

That’s not what we are dealing with here. The records are clearly government property. Trump wasn’t just accessing them. He was taking ownership of them.

Moreover, the PRA requires that the current administration be given access to all the former administration’s documents. Trump was preventing that from happening.

Unfortunately this OpEd is out of date because it assumes things we known not to be true, like the little line of “just put a lock on it” which turned out to be the furthest from the truth.

 

[BWK]

You exhibit a child's grasp of reality.

Wait for the indictment. Then you'll know realitySling Blade.

 

[BWK]

trump University.
You know......$25 Million.

Does that count?

Yes it does. The man was/is a thief.

 

[BWK]

What crime has he been convicted of?

Paid $2million for stealing charitable money that was supposed to go to kids with cancer. The MFr was stealing cancer money for Gods sake. And that's your hero?

 

[BWK]

Trump FBI raid: Judge delays ruling on ‘special master’ after key hearing

Judge Aileen M. Cannon heard arguments about whether she should appoint a "special master" to review documents the FBI seized from Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.

www.foxnews.com

I have seen this guy (former fbi) on Fox News before, but am still watching this particular video. However, he makes a point (or alludes to that point) in the beginning of it that I have been thinking about RE this Trump-raid thing, namely that if a search warrant is not done properly, then any "evidence" collected (using the term loosely, to be sure) is inadmissible.

End of Story, it would seem. All this other talk about how the documents were Classified or not or how Trump as president had the right to de-Classify and blah blah blah.. all seem entirely MOOT in light of the aforementioned.

Where is the argument that says the search was unconstitutional?

 

[BWK]

you are WRONG

I have studied some law. No, I'm not a lawyer but I CAN read the 4th Amendment

as can you

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The Fourth Amendment, however, is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, but only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law. Specifically how does the 4th apply in Trump's case? How is a search of documents that belong to the people that are in someone else's house, unreasonable?

 

[BWK]

Well, you got me there....I'm old enough to remember a time when Democrats weren't so disconnected from reality in this nation...When both sides considered getting some of what they wanted was good enough to work together...Right now, with this crop of lunatics in our government there is NO working with the political opposition.

Democrats have chosen the Cloward/Piven path of destruction to rebuild, and Conservative have chosen to resist that...

So, as President Biden gives his political speech tonight, and regardless of what he said when he was inaugurated of being a "uniter", now a short 18 months later is calling half the country "semi fascists" is nothing but cheap polarizing of this country, and I fear he doesn't know how to stop...

Why don't you go riot the streets in protest of the FBI doing its job then?

 

[BWK]

Garland is a partisan hack.
But yes, Dershowitz knows more about the Law than Garland.

Such as?

 

[BWK]

Funny. His brand was worshiped while he was a Democrat.

Bull fucking shit!

 

[BWK]

Again, I refer everyone to the Mapp decision--SCOTUS

They should have gone after Trump a LONG LONG time ago if he had documents that belong to the govt. They didn't.

Too bad for them, I say

Too bad for TRump.

 

[BWK]

Even Dershowitz said that the raid was illegal because the search warrant was illegal.
Any charges will get tossed.

Nothing illegal about it.

 

[kyzr]

The WSJ OpEd says that Trump has a right to access records from his presidency.
Very well.
That’s not what we are dealing with here. The records are clearly government property. Trump wasn’t just accessing them. He was taking ownership of them.
Moreover, the PRA requires that the current administration be given access to all the former administration’s documents. Trump was preventing that from happening.
Unfortunately this OpEd is out of date because it assumes things we known not to be true, like the little line of “just put a lock on it” which turned out to be the furthest from the truth.

You must have missed this part;
"In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified. That was a deliberate choice by Congress, as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978, and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present—making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12-year moratorium on public access."

So NOT government property. Like The Clinton tapes. Your post is opposite of the law.

 

[Orangecat]

Wait for the indictment. Then you'll know realitySling Blade.

What is "realitySling Blade" and how will I know it?
Learn to use commas, you illiterate imbecile.

 

[kyzr]

Nothing illegal about it.

It was way too broad. It violated the 4th Amendment. It was a "grab all papers" warrant.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-affidavit/2022/08/22/id/1084174/

 

[Marener]

You must have missed this part;
"In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified. That was a deliberate choice by Congress, as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978, and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present—making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12-year moratorium on public access."

So NOT government property. Like The Clinton tapes. Your post is opposite of the law.

No, the PRA is quite specific that presidential records are government property. Nothing in this quote says anything differently. The fact that the PRA may grant access to the former president doesn’t change the fact that the presidential records are government property.

The law says:
(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President's term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

(2) The Archivist shall deposit all such Presidential records in a Presidential archival depository or another archival facility operated by the United States. The Archivist is authorized to designate, after consultation with the former President, a director at each depository or facility, who shall be responsible for the care and preservation of such records.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title44/chapter22&edition=prelim

 

[kyzr]

No, the PRA is quite specific that presidential records are government property. Nothing in this quote says anything differently. The fact that the PRA may grant access to the former president doesn’t change the fact that the presidential records are government property.

The law says:
(g)(1) Upon the conclusion of a President's term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President. The Archivist shall have an affirmative duty to make such records available to the public as rapidly and completely as possible consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

(2) The Archivist shall deposit all such Presidential records in a Presidential archival depository or another archival facility operated by the United States. The Archivist is authorized to designate, after consultation with the former President, a director at each depository or facility, who shall be responsible for the care and preservation of such records.

Agreed. For presidential records.
The PRA also allows the president to have personal records. The fight is over which are which.

‘This is awesome!’ UFC President Dana White doubles bonus for fighter who was bitten after seeing how he celebrated the win

A UFC fighter was awarded a one-of-a-kind performance bonus after being bitten by an opponent during a fight. Following the bout, UFC President Dana White decided to double that bonus after he saw how the fighter celebrated his victory.Flyweight fighter Andre Lima remained undefeated after a...

ussanews.com

At the time, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. rejected the lawsuit, finding there was no allowance in the Presidential Records Act that would allow officials to force the Archives to grab the records from Clinton.
The ruling also determined that “a president’s discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will,” the report explained.