Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump can only file a Fourth Amendmdnt challenge post-indictment.

But he can raise money by threatening imaginary actions against his imaginary grievances. He just needs to say he will fight and money pours in from his idiot worshipers.

Anonymous wrote:Trump can only file a Fourth Amendmdnt challenge post-indictment.

Anonymous wrote:Trump can only file a Fourth Amendmdnt challenge post-indictment.

Anonymous wrote:Trump can only file a Fourth Amendmdnt challenge post-indictment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The question is was it reasonable? This judge concluded it was and people want to see the basis for his decision. It is reasonable if trumps team wasn’t cooperating. But if they were cooperating and then DOJ went silent for 2 months and then got the warrant, I think there is a fair argument that it was unreasonable. If law enforcement is working with a person about obtaining things, and the person is cooperating and awaiting the next steps, then this was an unreasonable warrant. The judge’s decision could be overturned. The warrant CAN be found invalid on appeal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The question is was it reasonable? This judge concluded it was and people want to see the basis for his decision. It is reasonable if trumps team wasn’t cooperating. But if they were cooperating and then DOJ went silent for 2 months and then got the warrant, I think there is a fair argument that it was unreasonable. If law enforcement is working with a person about obtaining things, and the person is cooperating and awaiting the next steps, then this was an unreasonable warrant. The judge’s decision could be overturned. The warrant CAN be found invalid on appeal.

That . . . is not how the law works. At all.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The question is was it reasonable? This judge concluded it was and people want to see the basis for his decision. It is reasonable if trumps team wasn’t cooperating. But if they were cooperating and then DOJ went silent for 2 months and then got the warrant, I think there is a fair argument that it was unreasonable. If law enforcement is working with a person about obtaining things, and the person is cooperating and awaiting the next steps, then this was an unreasonable warrant. The judge’s decision could be overturned. The warrant CAN be found invalid on appeal.

Anonymous wrote: