The Mar-A-Lago raid

marke

Well-known member
Why does Trump want his passport back? Why did the thieves and robbers take it in the first place? Trump wants his personal papers back? Why did the liars and anarchists take them in the first place? Why does Trump want some officials besides Trump-hating leftist animals reviewing his documents and sorting them? Wouldn't anyone under illegal attack by political enemies want to be treated fairly and justly?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
What document was Trump not allowed to declassify and why? Also, why were reporters allowed to view those documents laid out in front of the whole world as if they contained no secret at all?
Exactly, did all those reporters have top-secret clearance status? Or was this just a political hatchet-job?
 
Last edited:

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Why would the FBI need to insert documents during a raid to make Trump look bad? This is a feeble soundbite headline even for TGP. He already looked bad (and that's nothing to do with his ridiculous fake tan either).
 

marke

Well-known member
Why would the FBI need to insert documents during a raid to make Trump look bad? This is a feeble soundbite headline even for TGP. He already looked bad (and that's nothing to do with his ridiculous fake tan either).
There is a reason laws are in place that restrict law enforcement officers from open raids and random searches and seizures. Democrats on their witch-hunting raid on Trump's residence violated his rights by ignoring the laws protecting Trump from unlawful searches and seizures. If Trump had documents he was not allowed to keep then those documents should have been listed by name on the search warrant, but they were not. If this raid involved any other American any honest court in the land would throw out any and all evidence obtained by the unlawful search and seizure.

Probable Cause Requirement | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Probable Cause and the Warrant Requirement
U.S. Constitution Annotated
Amdt4.3.2.2.1.2 Probable Cause Requirement

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The concept of “probable cause” is central to the meaning of the warrant clause. Neither the Fourth Amendment nor the federal statutory provisions relevant to the area define “probable cause” ; the definition is entirely a judicial construct. An applicant for a warrant must present to the magistrate facts sufficient to enable the officer himself to make a determination of probable cause. “In determining what is probable cause . . . [w]e are concerned only with the question whether the affiant had reasonable grounds at the time of his affidavit . . . for the belief that the law was being violated on the premises to be searched; and if the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged, there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant.” 1 , quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). “An anticipatory warrant is 'a warrant based upon an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of a crime will be located at a specified place.'” 547 U.S. at 94. Probable cause is to be determined according to “the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” 2 Warrants are favored in the law and their use will not be thwarted by a hypertechnical reading of the supporting affidavit and supporting testimony.3 For the same reason, reviewing courts will accept evidence of a less “judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant.” 4 Courts will sustain the determination of probable cause so long as “there was substantial basis for [the magistrate] to conclude that” there was probable cause.5


Amdt4.3.2.2.1.3 Particularity Requirement

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

“The requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another.
As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” 1 This requirement thus acts to limit the scope of the search, as the executing officers should be limited to looking in places where the described object could be expected to be found.2 The purpose of the particularity requirement extends beyond prevention of general searches; it also assures the person whose property is being searched of the lawful authority of the executing officer and of the limits of his power to search. It follows, therefore, that the warrant itself must describe with particularity the items to be seized, or that such itemization must appear in documents incorporated by reference in the warrant and actually shown to the person whose property is to be searched.3 (because the language of the Fourth Amendment “specifies only two matters that must be 'particularly describ[ed]' in the warrant: 'the place to be searched' and 'the persons or things to be seized[,]' . . . the Fourth Amendment does not require that the triggering condition for an anticipatory warrant be set forth in the warrant itself.”


By seizing Trump's passport and his private papers alone, not to mention other items that were off-limits, the raiders violated his rights, making the search and seizure illegitimate.
 
Last edited:

User Name

Greatest poster ever
"No evidence," you say? I'd say that hundreds of top-secret documents found stashed at Trump's residence in Mar-A-Lago is a lot of evidence. And then there was the Trump Foundation, which was "dissolved by court order in 2019 after various legal violations came to light." Lots of evidence there. And then there is the Trump Organization: "In September 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a civil lawsuit against the organization. A separate criminal trial brought by the Manhattan district attorney began in October; on December 6, the organization was convicted on 17 criminal charges.[17][18]" Lots of evidence there.

To say that there is "no evidence" of wrongdoing on Trump's part is just a delusional lie.
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
"No evidence," you say? I'd say that hundreds of top-secret documents found stashed at Trump's residence in Mar-A-Lago is a lot of evidence. And then there was the Trump Foundation, which was "dissolved by court order in 2019 after various legal violations came to light." Lots of evidence there. And then there is the Trump Organization: "In September 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a civil lawsuit against the organization. A separate criminal trial brought by the Manhattan district attorney began in October; on December 6, the organization was convicted on 17 criminal charges.[17][18]" Lots of evidence there.

To say that there is "no evidence" of wrongdoing on Trump's part is just a delusional lie.
So you disagree with the Trump side of this....What say you about the Biden side? 😐
 

marke

Well-known member
"No evidence," you say? I'd say that hundreds of top-secret documents found stashed at Trump's residence in Mar-A-Lago is a lot of evidence. And then there was the Trump Foundation, which was "dissolved by court order in 2019 after various legal violations came to light." Lots of evidence there. And then there is the Trump Organization: "In September 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a civil lawsuit against the organization. A separate criminal trial brought by the Manhattan district attorney began in October; on December 6, the organization was convicted on 17 criminal charges.[17][18]" Lots of evidence there.

To say that there is "no evidence" of wrongdoing on Trump's part is just a delusional lie.
All we need do is examine Schiff's false claim he had irrefutable evidence of TTrump'scollusion with Russians to steal the 2016 election. Democrats do not have evidence against Trump, they just claim they do because they are hateful liars who will trample others to support the corrupt democrat party that supports them.
 

marke

Well-known member
Investigate away. But if that hasn't been done, it can only be because the Republicans don't want to for whatever reasons.
There is a reason why democrats keep failing to find evidence of democrat corruption. They pay their investigators to cover up crimes, not report facts and evidence.

Nobody with a pure heart and uncorrupted mind would ever hire these kinds of cops to investigate democrat crimes.

1671300927763.jpeg
 

marke

Well-known member

User Name

Greatest poster ever
I take such wild rumors with a grain of salt.
Are you saying that Trump's personal lawyer, political supporter and close friend, is a "liar" who spreads "wild rumors"? Why would he do such a thing? Well...this is one of those rare occasions when you're right!
 
Top