UPDATE: Eric Trump Says Mar-a-Lago Security Cameras Captured FBI Agents Behaving Improperly

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No ma’am. You’re wrong, Farty.

Thrill us all with your vast knowledge and acumen and your source material. Tell us how a subject of a search warrant (which is under seal by court order) can unilaterally ignore the court ordered sealing?

By being given a copy. What a stupid fucking question. Damn dude. Were you always this dense and dishonest, or did Trump rot your brain?

 

[BackAgain]

By being given a copy. What a stupid fucking question. Damn dude. Were you always this dense and dishonest, or did Trump rot your brain?

Hey retard. If he got one (and by now I suppose he has gotten it), that doesn’t mean he’s allowed to share it.

Damn, lass. Try to focus that brain cell of yours. He isn’t allowed to disclose it.

Why don’t you ever post honestly? Farty, although you deserve and get no respect, you’re sinking lower anyway.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hey retard. If he got one (and by now I suppose he has gotten it), that doesn’t mean he’s allowed to share it.

It does. You're wrong, and you should probably just shut up now.

 

[BackAgain]

It does. You're wrong, and you should probably just shut up now.

No, tool. You’re wrong and you would be less of an obvious lying troll if you’d ever shit up.

Tell the truth for a change. And stop being so retarded.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, tool. You’re wrong and you would be less of an obvious lying troll if you’d ever shit up.

Tell the truth for a change. And stop being so retarded.

Nope. Trump could have taken a picture of it and put it on Troof Social, no problem. He could do it right now.

 

[BackAgain]

Nope. Trump could have taken a picture of it and put it on Troof Social, no problem. He could do it right now.

“Could.” As in having the physical ability? Sure.

But the question, you fucking willfully obtuse and entirely dishonest imbecile, is whether it would be legal.

It would not.

 

[Polishprince]

Big “if”. Prove it.

Its up to the accusers- let by Sleepy Joe himself- to prove their case.

Not President Trump to prove his innocence.

BTW Trump has video of the G-Men rummaging through and sniffing his old lady's unmentionables. Any FBI fellows who thought it was a good idea to gratify themselves and leaving DNA samples were busted.

 

[AntonToo]

No. He can’t. Don’t lie. Lying is bad.

Moron, there are no publication restrictions on the subject of the warrant, only on DOJ.

When are you going to stop posting pure bullshit?

 

[BackAgain]

Moron, there are no publication restrictions on the subject of the warrant, only on DOJ.

Asshole. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. It’s SEALED by court Order. Why do you think a copy isn’t already published on the front page of the Slimes? Jeez. You’re truly fucking retarded.

When are you going to stop posting pure bullshit?

Unlike you, I haven’t done that. You are an abject filthy liar. You’re worthless.

 

[AntonToo]

Asshole. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. It’s SEALED by court Order. Why do you think a copy isn’t already published on the front page of the Slimes? Jeez. You’re truly fucking retarded.

Unlike you, I haven’t done that. You are an abject filthy liar. You’re worthless.

IT IS SEALED FOR DOJ, NOT SUBJECT, who's privacy the seal protects.

You have no fucking clue.

 

[BackAgain]

IT IS SEALED FOR DOJ, NOT SUBJECT.

It’s sealed period. The DOJ is the party that requested the sealing, you imbecile.

Why would they ask for an order to keep it sealed from their own release? They could do that without any order.

I’d say “try to think” but it is beyond clear that you can’t think.

 

[AntonToo]

It’s sealed period. The DOJ is the party that requested the sealing, you imbecile.

Moron, where did you get your law degree?

Many prominent lawyers commented on this and there is absolutely zero disgreement on this - Trump is free to release the warrant, the seal does not apply to subject.

Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. attorney, tweeted: "The law prohibits DOJ from discussing a search warrant that is under seal. Secrecy rules are designed to protect the person under investigation. You know who could discuss it? Donald Trump, who would have received a copy of the inventory of items seized."

Donald Trump Arrives in New York, Yet To Share FBI Warrant

The former president is set to testify in an investigation into his business, as experts note he can publicize the search warrant on his home himself.

www.newsweek.com

Exactly contrary to your claim, DOJ requested UN-sealing to force Trump to explicitly take a position on releasing the warrant.

DOJ presser: Justice Dept. Moves to Unseal Warrant in Trump Search (Published 2022)

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said he had personally approved the decision to seek the warrant and was asking to unseal it because of “substantial public interest.” The former president has until 3 p.m. on Friday to oppose the motion.

www.nytimes.com

He has, and his team is currently mulling over finally releasing the warrant:

Trump team weighs releasing Mar-a-Lago search warrant, inventory, video and photos

The Justice Department asked a judge to unseal the search warrant and inventory, but Trump lawyers are considering releasing material prior to a ruling.

www.cbsnews.com

Former President Donald Trump's legal team is weighing whether to release the search warrant and inventory of material seized at Mar-a-Lago before a federal judge rules on the matter, according to a Florida-based attorney for Trump, Lindsey Halligan.

 

[Oddball]

Moron, where did you get your law degree?

**snert**

 

[BackAgain]

Moron, where did you get your law degree?

Many prominent lawyers commented on this and there is absolutely zero disgreement on this - Trump is free to release the warrant, the seal does not apply to subject.

Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former U.S. attorney, tweeted: "The law prohibits DOJ from discussing a search warrant that is under seal. Secrecy rules are designed to protect the person under investigation. You know who could discuss it? Donald Trump, who would have received a copy of the inventory of items seized."

Donald Trump Arrives in New York, Yet To Share FBI Warrant

The former president is set to testify in an investigation into his business, as experts note he can publicize the search warrant on his home himself.

www.newsweek.com

Your a gullible simpleton. Again. The DOJ didn’t just happen to get some magistrate judge to order them to keep it secret. The DOJ made the request for the sealing.

Why would they have to “ask” the judge for an ORDER to keep it sealed ? They wouldn’t. They could do that on their own. The request for the order is to make the subject’ lawyers and the subject himself to keep silent.

Where I went to law school isn’t the question. And also none of your business. The only meaningful question is simply this: am I right or not? And I’m totally right. And your “experts” are flatly wrong.

 

[AntonToo]

Your a gullible simpleton. Again. The DON didn’t just happen to get somenmagistrate judge to order them to keep it secret. The DOJ made the request for the sealing.

Why would they have to “ask” the judge for an ORDER to keep it sealed ? They wouldn’t. They could do that on their own. The request for the order is to make the subjects lawyers and the subject himself to keep silent.

Whew I went to law school isn’t the question. And also none of your business. The question is simply this: am I right or not? And I’m totally right. And your “experts” are flatly wrong.

Where the hell did you get an idea that the court seal applies to the subject of the warrant? You are not a lawyer by your own admition, so who the hell told you that? Where did you get this aside from your own ass?

Serious criminal lawyers that weighted in on this have only ONE position - subject is free to publicly disclose a warrant against them.

Put up your sourcing or stfu already.

 

[BackAgain]

Where the hell did you get an idea that the court seal applies to the subject of the warrant?

Moron. Of course it applies to the subject. That’s the whole point of the DOJ request made to the judge FOR a sealing order.

You are not a lawyer by your own admition,

You’re an idiot. I never “admitted” any such thing. Read slowly. I happen to be a lawyer, as I’ve said a couple of times before. Why are you so hard of thinking?Were you that double lobotomy patient?

so who the hell told you that?

Study in the field. And common sense. Either way, I’m still correct.

Where did you get this aside from your own ass?

They’re called “law books” and practice in the field of law.

Serious criminal lawyers that weighted in on this have only ONE position - subject is free to publicly disclose a warrant against them.

Absolute nonsense. No. They’re not. it is unlawful to violate a judge’s sealing order.

Put up your sourcing or stfu already.

Suck another bag of dicks.

Answer my question. Educate yourself. The DOJ wouldn’t have to ask for an order to not do something (like revealing their own requested subpoena). They could simply choose to not do so. Yet, remarkably, they did seek an order. No. Not against their own actions. But against the concern that the subject might reveal shit they want kept confidential.

 

[AntonToo]

Moron. Of course it applies to the subject. That’s the whole point of the DOJ request made to the judge FOR a sealing order.


You’re an idiot. I never “admitted” any such thing. Read slowly. I happen to be a lawyer, as I’ve said a couple of times before. Why are you so hard of thinking?Were you that double lobotomy patient?

Study in the field. And common sense. Either way, I’m still correct.

They’re called “law books” and practice in the field of law.

Absolute nonsense. No. They’re not. it is unlawful to violate a judge’s sealing order.

Suck another bag of dicks.

Answer my question. Educate yourself. The DOJ wouldn’t have to ask for an order to not do something (like revealing their own requested subpoena). They could simply choose to not do so. Yet, remarkably, they did seek an order. No. Not against their own actions. But against the concern that the subject might reveal shit they want kept confidential.

Holy shit, a moron like you, a lawyer? Hopefully you are doing taxes, not fucking up people's lives in serious criminal litgations.

I've posted the take of high profile criminal lawyers on this, they say you don't know wtf you are talking about, so came back when you have even a single opinion supporting your say-so.

 

[BackAgain]

Hoooly shit, a moron like you, a lawyer? God save your clients.

They generally did very well. But you wouldn’t understand because you’re such a massive retard.

I've posted the take of high profile lawyers on this,

So what? They happen to be wrong.

they say you don't know wtf youa re tlaking about,

No. You say that because you chose (stupidly) to buy their erroneous opinions.

so came back when you have even a single opinion supporting your say-so.

And yet, you still refuse to answer the question I put to you.

 

[AntonToo]

So what? They happen to be wrong.

Prove it dummy.

I know self-awareness is not a strong suit for you, so I'll let you in on a little secret: your bare word means fuck-all here.

 

[BackAgain]

Prove it retard.

Your word means fuck-all.

Now I have Anton talking to itself.