Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

Liberty Tree

Way has turned out to be a t*****r.

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

He is concerned about his job and now he is working for Biden

BIRDMAN

He’s tired of the FBI chasing him for the last five years and making up stuff

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

BIRDMAN

Judges are supposed to be blind he should be fired immediately

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

1ProudAmerican

You are so openminded your few functioning brains have fallen out...such a gullible fool!!!!

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

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.

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

Democrats are afraid of one old man...President Donald Trump

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

Howw do you know what is in his safe were you there I would be more worried about what was in the 12 or so boxes that the FBI took out of there. also remember Trump hired the current head of the FBI

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

Trump hired the current head of the FBI.......Yes he did and that A$$wholes allegiance is only to his boss no matter who he/she/or it is.

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

yes his boss is the POTUS gee he was just fine when it was crooked Trump funny how that works go have some more whine

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

I believe that stupidity must be in the DNA of liberals so maybe stupidity isn't their fault.