Trump files motion seeking independent review of docs seized during FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago

[Gnosis]

Once again, exactly my feelings. This needs 100% transparency because of what the FBI has gotten away with previously. This time, this situation, cannot be brushed under the rug with the result being (a year or three from now) a little "Oops, we overstepped" or "Oops, I guess we didn't have sufficient cause" or "Oops sorry, we didn't really intend to violate the 4th amendment".
This precedent, at this moment, needs to be set/established ethically and fairly and this situation needs to be the situation that does that.
The upcoming election and the election in 2024 are meaningless if this doesn't end up "right". If we can't insist upon and count on a single standard of justice, we have lost our country.

I actually agree. I just don't think that anyone with good sense and a conscience can stand by Trump.

 

[uptower]

 

[MTAtech]

You don't know that Trump didn't have the right to have those documents in his possession. You don't even know what the documents are. So, all you are doing is parroting what you think are the allegations against him.

By what legal theory would Trump have the right to keep secret documents that the law says he’s not entitled to?

 

[upsideguy]

You don't know that Trump didn't have the right to have those documents in his possession. You don't even know what the documents are. So, all you are doing is parroting what you think are the allegations against him.

We do know there was ample evidence that a crime was committed and there was a very reasonable expectation that additional evidence of that crime would be found in Trump's residence at Mar A Lago. Those are facts. Much beyond that, we are reading tea leaves.

That said, do not let go of the reality that a politician can be considered guilty when most of the public believes he is guilty. There was enough evidence taken that seemed consistent with the expectation of what was there that Trump is on the cusp of being considered guilty..... and we are also there regarding his efforts to overturn the election where 1/2 the population is already there. Those are facts as well.

New poll asks Americans whether Trump should face charges, top midterm priorities

About half of Americans think former President Donald Trump should face criminal charges for his role in the deadly insurrection that took place at the U.S. Capitol, but most doubt he will be.

www.pbs.org

More than half of voters think Trump should face indictment over Jan. 6: poll

More than half of U.S. voters say former President Trump should face criminal charges for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to a new Harvard CAPS-Harris poll relea…

thehill.com

 

[primaryKey]

Why do you want to prevent the people from being able to elect the president that they choose to vote for?

Man, this is a better question than most. In theory, everyone must choose for themselves, but there's a reason Trump is the "most investigated President in the history of the Presidency" and it has little to do with Dems or liberals. Where there's smoke there's fire and there's always a lot of smoke around this guy. Pardons to his associates, but only those who kept their mouths shut. The election fraud hoax, to most who don't automatically believe his lies, is unforgivable, if not actually criminal. And while there are credible criminal allegations, time will tell if they will stick to Trump or not. I understand he's still waiting for his 11,780 votes in Georgia.

Now, he's been caught with his pants down. He's in actual legal trouble. He probably should have kept his nose absolutely clean if he ever wanted to run again. There are a lot of people who don't believe Trump capable of this feat. There are a lot of people who don't give a shit whether he does or not. The law may save us from you making the same mistake a second time. Pardon my bias.

 

[Airyaman]

View attachment 67408447

Speaking of that Tweeter:



They should all just get red noses and floppy shoes at this point.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why would an FBI agent take his passport? How could the FBI do such a thing?

Because the passports were co-located with classified documents and the search warrant specified such things be collected. Once the boxes were located in a law enforcement facility and the filter team had time to begin reviewing contents and they saw they had passports they immediately returned the passports.

WW

 

[justoneman]

Because the passports were co-located with classified documents and the search warrant specified such things be collected. Once the boxes were located in a law enforcement facility and the filter team had time to begin reviewing contents and they saw they had passports they immediately returned the passports.

WW

This is your guess or they told you this?

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is your guess or they told you this?

Neither.

The search warrant called for collection of documents co-located with classified documents.

If FPOTUS's passports were in his sock drawer in his bedroom they would not have been taken (assuming FPOTUS had no other classified documents in the room).

On the other hand if the passports were in the basement storage room co-located with classified documents, then the Judges orders contained in the warrant were to collect collateral documents as well.

WW

 

[MrNiceGuy]

We do know there was ample evidence that a crime was committed and there was a very reasonable expectation that additional evidence of that crime would be found in Trump's residence at Mar A Lago. Those are facts. Much beyond that, we are reading tea leaves.

There isn't "ample evidence that a crime was committed." There is suspicion, based on the asserted labeling of documents as confidential. However, the label isn't the end of the legal analysis as to whether an President has the right to have them before and after he leaves office. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 allowed Trump to have the records allegedly in his possession, and that the general statutes cited in the search warrant — such as the Espionage Act — do not override it.

Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.

The PRA lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access. Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.

So, it is not at all clear that he was not allowed to have them.

That said, do not let go of the reality that a politician can be considered guilty when most of the public believes he is guilty.

I don't care what he is "considered" by the public, which doesn't have any knowledge except that peddled by their "news" source of choice.

There was enough evidence taken that seemed consistent with the expectation of what was there that Trump is on the cusp of being considered guilty..... and we are also there regarding his efforts to overturn the election where 1/2 the population is already there. Those are facts as well.

New poll asks Americans whether Trump should face charges, top midterm priorities

About half of Americans think former President Donald Trump should face criminal charges for his role in the deadly insurrection that took place at the U.S. Capitol, but most doubt he will be.

www.pbs.org

More than half of voters think Trump should face indictment over Jan. 6: poll

More than half of U.S. voters say former President Trump should face criminal charges for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to a new Harvard CAPS-Harris poll relea…

thehill.com

There are too many times where what we read in the news about Trump turns out to be false. Too many times that we were told doubting allegations against Trump was conspiracy theory, while the allegations themselves were, in fact, false conspiracy theories. Too many times did the FBI lie to courts to get warrants. Too many times were biased statements from FBI officials stating they were going to "stop him." Too many times were anonymous sources in the media shown to be wrong, and too many times did the political actors use anonymity and law enforceent/intelligence community for their own political purposes.

Anyone who thinks there is any evidence at this time to show that there is probable cause to arrest Trump "for January 6" is just falling for propaganda. There is not. And, not a single person on this message board, for example, has articulated the barest legal and factual basis for any such arrest. To believe it is to believe a "narrative" peddled by his political enemies, not to believe established facts.

To say "more than half" of voters think one thing or the other is not relevant. We have a country which has been dumbed down to a degree that substantial parts of the electorate believe the country is a patriarchal, fascist regime, that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned to save the environment, and that Russia was paying bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan - half the country will believe a lot of things, when the media join forces with a politicians political enemies and peddle lies over and over again - https://taibbi.substack.com/p/aaugh-a-brief-list-of-official-russia

That is why we don't go by what people "believe." We go by what Trump actually said and did, in actual fact, not someone's spin and not fluffy vague language. And, if you do that, you can't present any proof that Trump committed any crime "for January 6." If you think you can, please do.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

By what legal theory would Trump have the right to keep secret documents that the law says he’s not entitled to?

The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added). These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

…

Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that “where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment.” The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites.

…

The PRA lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access. Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president.

Opinion | The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis

A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.

www.wsj.com

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Ex president, private citizen Trump, who had his security clearances revoked had documents in his possession that he was not allowed to have.

Read that sentence over and over, until you get it.

You assume the thing that is to be proved - "that he was not allowed to have." Just because the documents were marked confidential does not end the analysis of whether the former President was allowed to have them.

You are confusing allegation with proof.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I actually agree. I just don't think that anyone with good sense and a conscience can stand by Trump.

The ludicrous part of this is their equating the actions of the law enforcers with the lawbreaker. There is no equivalence.

 

[justoneman]

View attachment 67408466

Neither.

The search warrant called for collection of documents co-located with classified documents.

If FPOTUS's passports were in his sock drawer in his bedroom they would not have been taken (assuming FPOTUS had no other classified documents in the room).

On the other hand if the passports were in the basement storage room co-located with classified documents, then the Judges orders contained in the warrant were to collect collateral documents as well.

WW

Right. So you guessed. I will guess his passports were not in a box of documents. They raided his house, cracked the safe, saw the passports and took them.

 

[Manc Skipper]

You assume the thing that is to be proved - "that he was not allowed to have." Just because the documents were marked confidential does not end the analysis of whether the former President was allowed to have them.

You are confusing allegation with proof

It's a matter of fact, not assumption.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

It's a matter of fact, not assumption.

It is not a fact. Period. It is not, as per David Rivkin's analysis. https://davidbrivkin.com/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis/ So, we shall see.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

View attachment 67408427

That's not the same case. That case number on the document you imaged there is for RI Miami LP v Tre Jester. Not the same attorneys and not the same parties. Check the case number.

How could you possibly look up a residential eviction case being "removed" from Florida state court to federal district court and think that is related to the case initiated by Donald Trump to appoint a Special Master in a case involving Presidential Records?

 

[fmw]

OK, we got that out of the way.

Hardly a disaster. Trump (and Barr) did obstruct justice, so justice was not done here. Mueller did not complete his investigation nor perform a thorough investigation. What he did discover, however, was quite damning, even the Senate said so.

Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate on Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

www.intelligence.senate.gov

Opinion | Why the Senate's Russia report should be one of America's biggest stories

Trump and Biden's contrasting positions on Russian interference in American elections are clear. Whether voters care about these differences, however, is not as obvious.

www.nbcnews.com

So, the fact that Trump did not face the music over his unethical and some illegal activities was a bit of a disaster for the rule of law, history will catch up with him. Much of the facts have been laid out for historians to eventually tell the whole story. History will not treat Trump or the Republican party well. If a touchdown is scored on a clipping penalty missed by the refs, its a touchdown. But is it really?

Whether or not he is ultimately convicted, he is up to his eyeballs in legal issues. He will be charged with one or more crimes.

MSN

Can we explain all of Trump’s legal woes in 2 minutes? A POLITICO reporter tries (and fails).

www.politico.com

Quite a litany of problems, don't you think? Pretty damn un-Presidential, IMHO.

From a pure political standpoint, Trump is far easier to beat than most other Republicans. This is not being done to prevent him from running, it is being done because in order to protect our democracy, we must protect the rule of law, which means no man is above the law. Trump crimes are so egregious and so numerous to not pursue them would mean the end of American democracy in the near future. Moreover, Trump derives much is power over his cult from the perception that he has near super-powers; of being able to slip out of any situation --- a legal Houdini. As soon as he is actually brought to account, much of the cult will go away. Remember, Houdini died pushing the limits of his own mortality.

We do need Trump held responsible. We do need to return to the sanity our adherence to the rule of law provides, don't you think?

Thanks but I already said you haven't forgotten it.

 

[Plasmaball]

You don't know that Trump didn't have the right to have those documents in his possession. You don't even know what the documents are. So, all you are doing is parroting what you think are the allegations against him.

 

[Plasmaball]

Apparently the FBI took Trump's passports. We're these documents under the national archives pervue?

 

[Plasmaball]

So they took documents that were not confidential and infact were Trumps documents. does this not indicate to you that other documents were in fact Trump's? After all the passports may have been created during his term in office. Does that not make it under the domain of the National Archives? Why would an FBI agent take his passport? How could the FBI do such a thing?

Easy. Trump had them mixed with classified docs and thus they got swept up by the fbi becsuse they have the legal right to take them. Then they filter it and return anything not covered by the warrant..

This happens ALL THE TIME.

 

[Pound4abrown]

So they took documents that were not confidential and infact were Trumps documents. does this not indicate to you that other documents were in fact Trump's? After all the passports may have been created during his term in office. Does that not make it under the domain of the National Archives? Why would an FBI agent take his passport? How could the FBI do such a thing?

Don't steal shit from the US Government and the people of the US and maybe the FBI won't get your three passports mixed in with the hundreds of classified documents you stole.
Easy ****ing peasy.

 

[justoneman]

Easy. Trump had them mixed with classified docs and thus they got swept up by the fbi becsuse they have the legal right to take them. Then they filter it and return anything not covered by the warrant..

This happens ALL THE TIME.

That is your guess. It's unlikely. The files taken by the FBI were in standard file boxes. Nobody would carelessly toss their passport into these. Clearly the passports were taken intentionally. How many other personal affects were taken. This was a fishing expedition.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That is your guess. It's unlikely. The files taken by the FBI were in standard file boxes. Nobody would carelessly toss their passport into these. Clearly the passports were taken intentionally. How many other personal affects were taken. This was a fishing expedition.

That's an assumption on your part.

Has the FPOTUS made a trip outside the country since leaving office?

WW

 

[Plasmaball]

That is your guess. It's unlikely. The files taken by the FBI were in standard file boxes. Nobody would carelessly toss their passport into these. Clearly the passports were taken intentionally. How many other personal affects were taken. This was a fishing expedition.

No that's not my guess. This is what happens.

Your projection is noted. You don't have a clue about any of this