Donnie Dumptruck says Mar-A-Lago's been searched by the FBI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge just ordered a redacted version released. yay!

That's not really true. He ordered DOJ to give him a proposed redacted version with justifications for the redactions. We won't see anything anytime this month, and I think there's at least a 50/50 chance DOJ prevails on him to keep it all sealed.

It's a good theoretical stance, but in practice I hope much of it is redacted to protect all the people who are cooperating with the investigation.

It will be very heavily redacted and I am sure all witness names and identifying information will be redacted out. Anything that identifies the actual documents at issue will be redacted. There will probably be some procedural stuff, background on the statutes at issue, maybe a little background section about Trump and Mar-a-Lago, that won't be redacted, but it won't be anything new. The only thing of interest that might not be redacted is the back-and-forth that happened before the search, but I'm not sure that would even be in there in the first place since it was not relevant to the legal issue.

It is the ONLY thing of interest. Garland said they did it because they had no other choice and the “back and forth” better back that up orherwise all the people saying this is a witch-hunt or politically motivated will be right.

No they won’t. Decent chance the affidavit says nothing about this because it is irrelevant as a legal matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge just ordered a redacted version released. yay!

That's not really true. He ordered DOJ to give him a proposed redacted version with justifications for the redactions. We won't see anything anytime this month, and I think there's at least a 50/50 chance DOJ prevails on him to keep it all sealed.

It's a good theoretical stance, but in practice I hope much of it is redacted to protect all the people who are cooperating with the investigation.

It will be very heavily redacted and I am sure all witness names and identifying information will be redacted out. Anything that identifies the actual documents at issue will be redacted. There will probably be some procedural stuff, background on the statutes at issue, maybe a little background section about Trump and Mar-a-Lago, that won't be redacted, but it won't be anything new. The only thing of interest that might not be redacted is the back-and-forth that happened before the search, but I'm not sure that would even be in there in the first place since it was not relevant to the legal issue.

It is the ONLY thing of interest. Garland said they did it because they had no other choice and the “back and forth” better back that up orherwise all the people saying this is a witch-hunt or politically motivated will be right.

No they won’t. Decent chance the affidavit says nothing about this because it is irrelevant as a legal matter.

Unless they have him a bunch of courtesies he wasn’t entitled to and that they wouldn’t give to anyone else, it was obviously a witch hunt!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge just ordered a redacted version released. yay!

That's not really true. He ordered DOJ to give him a proposed redacted version with justifications for the redactions. We won't see anything anytime this month, and I think there's at least a 50/50 chance DOJ prevails on him to keep it all sealed.

It's a good theoretical stance, but in practice I hope much of it is redacted to protect all the people who are cooperating with the investigation.

It will be very heavily redacted and I am sure all witness names and identifying information will be redacted out. Anything that identifies the actual documents at issue will be redacted. There will probably be some procedural stuff, background on the statutes at issue, maybe a little background section about Trump and Mar-a-Lago, that won't be redacted, but it won't be anything new. The only thing of interest that might not be redacted is the back-and-forth that happened before the search, but I'm not sure that would even be in there in the first place since it was not relevant to the legal issue.

It is the ONLY thing of interest. Garland said they did it because they had no other choice and the “back and forth” better back that up orherwise all the people saying this is a witch-hunt or politically motivated will be right.

No they won’t. Decent chance the affidavit says nothing about this because it is irrelevant as a legal matter.

A warrant is a court ordered breach of someone’s 4th Amendment rights. I this context, with Trump lawyers already involved and some amount of cooperation having gone, some description of how the cooperation ended or broke down and reached stalemate is part of the legal analysis. And yes, for this if you think this was just ok to do, it is an authorized breach of a constitutional protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge just ordered a redacted version released. yay!

That's not really true. He ordered DOJ to give him a proposed redacted version with justifications for the redactions. We won't see anything anytime this month, and I think there's at least a 50/50 chance DOJ prevails on him to keep it all sealed.

It's a good theoretical stance, but in practice I hope much of it is redacted to protect all the people who are cooperating with the investigation.

It will be very heavily redacted and I am sure all witness names and identifying information will be redacted out. Anything that identifies the actual documents at issue will be redacted. There will probably be some procedural stuff, background on the statutes at issue, maybe a little background section about Trump and Mar-a-Lago, that won't be redacted, but it won't be anything new. The only thing of interest that might not be redacted is the back-and-forth that happened before the search, but I'm not sure that would even be in there in the first place since it was not relevant to the legal issue.

It is the ONLY thing of interest. Garland said they did it because they had no other choice and the “back and forth” better back that up orherwise all the people saying this is a witch-hunt or politically motivated will be right.

No they won’t. Decent chance the affidavit says nothing about this because it is irrelevant as a legal matter.

A warrant is a court ordered breach of someone’s 4th Amendment rights. I this context, with Trump lawyers already involved and some amount of cooperation having gone, some description of how the cooperation ended or broke down and reached stalemate is part of the legal analysis. And yes, for this if you think this was just ok to do, it is an authorized breach of a constitutional protection.

You mean, it was a constitutonally authorized breach of a constitutional protection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge just ordered a redacted version released. yay!

That's not really true. He ordered DOJ to give him a proposed redacted version with justifications for the redactions. We won't see anything anytime this month, and I think there's at least a 50/50 chance DOJ prevails on him to keep it all sealed.

It's a good theoretical stance, but in practice I hope much of it is redacted to protect all the people who are cooperating with the investigation.

It will be very heavily redacted and I am sure all witness names and identifying information will be redacted out. Anything that identifies the actual documents at issue will be redacted. There will probably be some procedural stuff, background on the statutes at issue, maybe a little background section about Trump and Mar-a-Lago, that won't be redacted, but it won't be anything new. The only thing of interest that might not be redacted is the back-and-forth that happened before the search, but I'm not sure that would even be in there in the first place since it was not relevant to the legal issue.

It is the ONLY thing of interest. Garland said they did it because they had no other choice and the “back and forth” better back that up orherwise all the people saying this is a witch-hunt or politically motivated will be right.

No they won’t. Decent chance the affidavit says nothing about this because it is irrelevant as a legal matter.

A warrant is a court ordered breach of someone’s 4th Amendment rights. I this context, with Trump lawyers already involved and some amount of cooperation having gone, some description of how the cooperation ended or broke down and reached stalemate is part of the legal analysis. And yes, for this if you think this was just ok to do, it is an authorized breach of a constitutional protection.

No it isn’t. The only issue was whether there was probable cause to believe evidence of a crime was there. The government does not have to demonstrate it can get the info by other means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge just ordered a redacted version released. yay!

That's not really true. He ordered DOJ to give him a proposed redacted version with justifications for the redactions. We won't see anything anytime this month, and I think there's at least a 50/50 chance DOJ prevails on him to keep it all sealed.

It's a good theoretical stance, but in practice I hope much of it is redacted to protect all the people who are cooperating with the investigation.

It will be very heavily redacted and I am sure all witness names and identifying information will be redacted out. Anything that identifies the actual documents at issue will be redacted. There will probably be some procedural stuff, background on the statutes at issue, maybe a little background section about Trump and Mar-a-Lago, that won't be redacted, but it won't be anything new. The only thing of interest that might not be redacted is the back-and-forth that happened before the search, but I'm not sure that would even be in there in the first place since it was not relevant to the legal issue.

It is the ONLY thing of interest. Garland said they did it because they had no other choice and the “back and forth” better back that up orherwise all the people saying this is a witch-hunt or politically motivated will be right.

No they won’t. Decent chance the affidavit says nothing about this because it is irrelevant as a legal matter.

A warrant is a court ordered breach of someone’s 4th Amendment rights. I this context, with Trump lawyers already involved and some amount of cooperation having gone, some description of how the cooperation ended or broke down and reached stalemate is part of the legal analysis. And yes, for this if you think this was just ok to do, it is an authorized breach of a constitutional protection.

No it isn’t. The only issue was whether there was probable cause to believe evidence of a crime was there. The government does not have to demonstrate it can get the info by other means.

“Cannot get the info by other means.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge just ordered a redacted version released. yay!

That's not really true. He ordered DOJ to give him a proposed redacted version with justifications for the redactions. We won't see anything anytime this month, and I think there's at least a 50/50 chance DOJ prevails on him to keep it all sealed.

It's a good theoretical stance, but in practice I hope much of it is redacted to protect all the people who are cooperating with the investigation.

It will be very heavily redacted and I am sure all witness names and identifying information will be redacted out. Anything that identifies the actual documents at issue will be redacted. There will probably be some procedural stuff, background on the statutes at issue, maybe a little background section about Trump and Mar-a-Lago, that won't be redacted, but it won't be anything new. The only thing of interest that might not be redacted is the back-and-forth that happened before the search, but I'm not sure that would even be in there in the first place since it was not relevant to the legal issue.

It is the ONLY thing of interest. Garland said they did it because they had no other choice and the “back and forth” better back that up orherwise all the people saying this is a witch-hunt or politically motivated will be right.

No they won’t. Decent chance the affidavit says nothing about this because it is irrelevant as a legal matter.

A warrant is a court ordered breach of someone’s 4th Amendment rights. I this context, with Trump lawyers already involved and some amount of cooperation having gone, some description of how the cooperation ended or broke down and reached stalemate is part of the legal analysis. And yes, for this if you think this was just ok to do, it is an authorized breach of a constitutional protection.

What do you mean, "for this if you think this was just OK to do"....?

A warrant is described and regulated under that same fourth amendment.

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.

It's right there in the fourth amendment -- our right to be secure against UNREASONABLE searches -- such searches must be conducted under certain conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except scores of top Trump officials have already testified that there was no such order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge just ordered a redacted version released. yay!

That's not really true. He ordered DOJ to give him a proposed redacted version with justifications for the redactions. We won't see anything anytime this month, and I think there's at least a 50/50 chance DOJ prevails on him to keep it all sealed.

It's a good theoretical stance, but in practice I hope much of it is redacted to protect all the people who are cooperating with the investigation.

It will be very heavily redacted and I am sure all witness names and identifying information will be redacted out. Anything that identifies the actual documents at issue will be redacted. There will probably be some procedural stuff, background on the statutes at issue, maybe a little background section about Trump and Mar-a-Lago, that won't be redacted, but it won't be anything new. The only thing of interest that might not be redacted is the back-and-forth that happened before the search, but I'm not sure that would even be in there in the first place since it was not relevant to the legal issue.

It is the ONLY thing of interest. Garland said they did it because they had no other choice and the “back and forth” better back that up orherwise all the people saying this is a witch-hunt or politically motivated will be right.

No they won’t. Decent chance the affidavit says nothing about this because it is irrelevant as a legal matter.

A warrant is a court ordered breach of someone’s 4th Amendment rights. I this context, with Trump lawyers already involved and some amount of cooperation having gone, some description of how the cooperation ended or broke down and reached stalemate is part of the legal analysis. And yes, for this if you think this was just ok to do, it is an authorized breach of a constitutional protection.

He....never should have had the files to begin with. He was in violation of the law the moment those files left the SCIF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except scores of top Trump officials have already testified that there was no such order.

Who gives a "standing order" to the president, anyway?

[Anonymous]

Just to get this straight, these are Trump's comments so far:

"I was just keeping safe these documents that I declassified and the FBI planted."

"The FBI planted the documents I declassified and was just keeping safe."

"I already declassified the documents that I was keeping safe before and/or after the FBI planted them."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge just ordered a redacted version released. yay!

That's not really true. He ordered DOJ to give him a proposed redacted version with justifications for the redactions. We won't see anything anytime this month, and I think there's at least a 50/50 chance DOJ prevails on him to keep it all sealed.

It's a good theoretical stance, but in practice I hope much of it is redacted to protect all the people who are cooperating with the investigation.

It will be very heavily redacted and I am sure all witness names and identifying information will be redacted out. Anything that identifies the actual documents at issue will be redacted. There will probably be some procedural stuff, background on the statutes at issue, maybe a little background section about Trump and Mar-a-Lago, that won't be redacted, but it won't be anything new. The only thing of interest that might not be redacted is the back-and-forth that happened before the search, but I'm not sure that would even be in there in the first place since it was not relevant to the legal issue.

It is the ONLY thing of interest. Garland said they did it because they had no other choice and the “back and forth” better back that up orherwise all the people saying this is a witch-hunt or politically motivated will be right.

.

No they won’t. Decent chance the affidavit says nothing about this because it is irrelevant as a legal matter.

A warrant is a court ordered breach of someone’s 4th Amendment rights. I this context, with Trump lawyers already involved and some amount of cooperation having gone, some description of how the cooperation ended or broke down and reached stalemate is part of the legal analysis. And yes, for this if you think this was just ok to do, it is an authorized breach of a constitutional protection.

There is no constitutional impediment to a reasonable search and siezure under the Fourth Amendment as authorized by a warrant issued pursuant to a showing of probable cause. It’s right there in the text of the Amendment, which proscribes only an “unreasonable” search. To frame the issue as you have done demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except scores of top Trump officials have already testified that there was no such order.

Who gives a "standing order" to the president, anyway?

Trump is claiming that he gave a standing order about declassification. Eighteen Trump staffers say that’s crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except scores of top Trump officials have already testified that there was no such order.

This is the most comical part of the whole thing to me. If it wasn’t on paper that these documents were declassified, Donnie will have to take the stand to assert that he declassified them. That is a whole can of worms.