woodguru

That is way too funny, and you say the DOJ doesn't have a sense of humor?

elledee

Trump strengthened laws and made it harder for your demonrat buddies to c***t ......what irony....have you been checked for brain tumors

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

Did Donny tell you that. Lol.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Amendment IV, US Constitution
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 Warrant shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable cause: The officer should give reasonable information to support the possibility that the evidence of illegality will be found. Such information may come from the officer’ personal observations or that of an informant. If the warrant lacks accurate information as to what will be searched, the search is unlawful. See Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004).

Particularity: The warrant should describe the place to be searched with particularity. 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.” 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. 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. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006).

Required authorization: Signed by a “neutral and detached” magistrate or judge. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971).
Bruce Reinhart is the federal judge who approved the warrant that allowed FBI agents to raid Trump's south Florida resort. A look at judge Reinhart's history as an attorney and magistrate judge is revealing.
Reinhart donated big bucks to Obama's campaign, and before taking the bench, Reinhart worked in private practice for 10 years after serving as an assistant U.S. attorney in South Florida from 1996 to 2008.

According to the Miami Herald, Reinhart abruptly left the U.S. attorney's office on Jan. 1, 2008. By the next day, he was representing key Epstein employees.

Importantly, Reinhart worked in the same U.S. attorney's office that was at the time prosecuting Epstein for sexual crimes against children. That office cut Epstein a sweetheart deal that allowed him to plead guilty to lesser state charges, and he essentially avoided serving any time in jail.

For his part, Reinhart denied that he ever represented Epstein himself. But he admitted to representing Epstein's employees, including his pilots, "his scheduler, Sarah Kellen; and Nadia Marcinkova, described by some victims as Epstein’s sex s***e," the Herald reported in 2018.

In 2011, Reinhart was named in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act lawsuit, which accused him of violating Justice Department policies by switching sides, implying that he leveraged inside information about Epstein’s investigation to curry favor with Epstein. Reinhart, in a sworn declaration attached to the CVRA case, denied the allegation, saying he did not participate in Epstein’s criminal case and “never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter.’’

Questions:

Why do the exact details of the warrant remain under government seal?
Does the warrant meet the legal and constitutional requirements for:
* probable cause (there is a difference between probable cause and suspicion),
* particularity of persons or property to be seized,
* and for authorization by a "neutral and detached" (impartial) magistrate?
Did the petitioners for the warrant have probable cause to determine there was incriminating evidence in Trump's private safe, or was it mere suspicion that prompted FBI agents to break into the safe?
Why are FBI agents indiscriminately seizing boxes, cartons, cases, documents, luggage, and other materials
without examining the contents to determine if they meet all the requirements for probable cause and particularity before removing them from Trump's private home?
What possible reason exists for FBI agents to rifle through Melania's closets and wardrobe? Was it probable cause or mere suspicion?

A blanket search warrant is a broad authorization from a judge that allows the police to search multiple areas for evidence without specifying exactly what they are looking for and seize everything found.
The Fourth Amendment provides that “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.” Accordingly, in Stanford v. Texas the Supreme Court asserted that this Constitutional requirement protects against “the use of general warrants as instruments of oppression. Therefore, blanket search warrants are unconstitutional, and all evidence obtained under the blanket warrant must be excluded from the trial of the defendant.

We have long known the DOJ and its LE arm, the FBI, are politically corrupted bureaucracies not bound by our Constitution or the Rule of Law.

The raid on Mara-a-Lago is nothing more than a continuation of the democrat socialist "Witch Hunt".
The b***hes are hell bent on removing Donald Trump and anything and anyone even remotely associated with him from the face of the earth, and that includes the Americans who support him.

Constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz has described the raid as "unconstitutional" and "absolutely outrageous,"

So, FK all of you l*****t cretins, your wickedness will undoubtedly be well documented in the historical records.

.

Justice is one thing, vengeance is quite another.

woodguru

I guess you missed the classified materials law he wanted to get Hillary on huh?https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/8/9/2115597/-Guess-which-president-made-removal-of-classified-documents-a-felony?pm_source=story_sidebar&pm_medium=web&pm_campaign=recommended

BIRDMAN

Yes I was golfing with him last week in New Jersey

archie bunker Loc: Texas

What are you gonna say if it turns out there were no classified documents in that seizure?
Same thing as the Russia collusion thing?
Meh.....next!

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

And then he declassified all documents associated with the Russian collusion issue and the Hillary email scandal. But try to request them via the FOIA system, and you find out it will take 25 years to produce them.

Rose42

Woody isn’t thinking. They keep coming up with new things about trump but so far have very little to show for it. After this blows over a new one will pop up. Guaranteed.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Yep.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

This is "get Trump" number 45.

Justice101

But there are some doubts about whether the bill Trump signed into law could be used to prosecute him, Moss said, as it's unclear whether it applies to former presidents.

https://www.businessinsider.com/law-trump-signed-2018-may-punish-him-classified-info-2022-8?op=1

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

we shall see but I have a feeling that the DOJ the FBI and the state of Georgia know what they are doing. MY guess is Georgia will be the first to indict Trump, followed by the DOJ right after the Nov e******ns. we shall see

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

They might indict but when discovery begins in any trial, all will be dismissed.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

Do you believe that Trump has that much political clout?

There will be no indictments unless the evidence of crimes is airtight.

But the odds of a conviction are slim. Just needs one cult member to rig the verdict.