FBI raids Mar-A-Lago; Known criminal Donald Trump still at large

Will they find smoking gun evidence?


  • Total voters
    40

Remorseless1

Prince
Joined
Jan 24, 2022
Messages
584
IANAL but don't try this at home, kids
When the government produces a legal search warrant, resistance is illegal. There is not a word in the Constitution that would give rise to the notion that citizens can by themselves decide which laws they will obey. The Declaration may mention revolution, but this was a document endorsing separation from its colonial overlords.
 

Zelig

Beep Boop
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
17,230
Location
Canada
there actually are legal thresholds after which a citizen is allowed to forcibly resist police. the state does not have a true monopoly on violence in usa, per constitution.

for some reason, this does not include no-charge "forfeiture" of cash, despite that it is literally armed robbery.

note that first post that started this chain advocated seizure of land and a tremendous number of high value associated assets, with no mention of compensation:

This is all kind of boring and predictable and not relevant to the point that you are the one who brought up guns and shooting.
 

TheMeInTeam

If A implies B...
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
27,657
IANAL but don't try this at home, kids
very much good advice regardless. whether one is justified or not won't mean much to the person in question when they're shot. and hypothetical police acting sufficiently badly that forcibly resisting them is legally justified are probably not police who will have any qualms about making further violations.

Citation needed.

not really, no. or if you insist, google the bill of rights or something. the same principles of imminent threat of severe bodily harm or death apply as usual. if we are taking as given that law enforcement is doing something blatantly illegal alongside that threat of force, such as in the ridiculous hypothetical, then you can defend yourself.

whether you should try is another matter, per above. there aren't many roadside fights vs law enforcement that end well, if any. but maybe in the case of a raid where both sides are sending thugs it looks a bit different.

When the government produces a legal search warrant
there was nothing even kind of legal in the hypothetical presented, hence my commentary on it. different fact pattern in hypothetical would lead to different conclusions.

There is not a word in the Constitution that would give rise to the notion that citizens can by themselves decide which laws they will obey.
there was no law to "not obey" in the hypothetical. just an illegal seizure by force on a comical premise, coupled with an (as described) 5th amendment violation (compensation) as well.

put another way, officers can't legally break into a store and loot the place without any basis. even if they're in uniform. even if the mayor's son tells them they can while pretending to be the mayor. they are no less criminal than any other person acting in this scenario, and are no more immune to the consequences of said criminal action according to law. this is not a hypothetical where qi can apply.

This is all kind of boring and predictable and not relevant to the point that you are the one who brought up guns and shooting.
forcible eviction and theft --> armed robbery. where do you think that leads.
 

Lexicus

Deity
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
28,700
Location
Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
Citation needed.
The Constitution isn't that long. Read the whole thing and tell me where it says that lol

When the government produces a legal search warrant, resistance is illegal. There is not a word in the Constitution that would give rise to the notion that citizens can by themselves decide which laws they will obey. The Declaration may mention revolution, but this was a document endorsing separation from its colonial overlords.

You can see that the right in this country has changed but little in 160 years. 160 years ago they asserted the right of revolution over the lawful election of a President, now maybe they'll do it again over the lawful execution of a search warrant on their guy.

One can hope that Marx's quip about history unfolding first as tragedy then as farce holds true here as well.
 

danjuno

Can the circle be unbroken?
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
2,183
Location
WV
So you're saying there's an opportunity to burn down the deep south again? :devil:
 

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
50,338
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Trump's friendly Judge in FL was overturned today by the Appeals court.

From CNN:

A federal appeals court is allowing the Justice Department to continue looking at documents marked as classified that were seized from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and resort. The emergency intervention upends a trial judge’s order over those documents that had blocked federal investigators’ work on the documents, and is a strong rebuke of the Trump team’s attempt to suggest without evidence that materials were somehow declassified. Trump’s options to block the criminal investigation are now dimming with one of his only remaining possibilities being an emergency request to the Supreme Court.

The ruling was issued by a three-judge panel of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals – two of whom were nominated by Trump.


DOJ can resume criminal probe of classified documents from Mar-a-Lago, appeals court says​

A special master’s review of that subset of about 100 records, which would’ve allowed Trump’s legal team to see them, is now partially stopped. The special master, Judge Raymond Dearie, is able to continue his work reviewing the rest of the material seized from Mar-a-Lago, to make sure records belonging to Trump or that he may be able to claim are confidential aren’t used by investigators.

Those records – which prosecutors have said contain highly sensitive national security information – are at the heart of the criminal investigation into the mishandling of federal records after the Trump presidency. Concern over them was a major factor that prompted the Justice Department and a court to authorize the unprecedented search of the former President’s home.

Altogether, the 29-page opinion was a major boost to the arguments the Justice Department has made throughout the dispute over the Mar-a-Lago documents, while undermining several claims that Trump had made about the materials the FBI seized.

[IMG alt="President-elect Donald Trump along with his children Eric, left, Ivanka and Donald Jr. arrive for a press conference January 11, 2017 at Trump Tower in New York.
"]https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/220217160504-trump-children-new-york-011117-file.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_144,w_256,c_fill[/IMG]

New York attorney general files civil fraud lawsuit against Trump, some of his children and his business

“It is self-evident that the public has a strong interest in ensuring that the storage of the classified records did not result in ‘exceptionally grave damage to the national security,’” the three-judge panel stated. “Ascertaining that necessarily involves reviewing the documents, determining who had access to them and when, and deciding which (if any) sources or methods are compromised.”

Throughout the litigation, Trump’s lawyers have raised vague questions about whether the materials are in fact classified. But they have not straightforwardly asserted in court that the former President declassified them, even as Trump himself has claimed outside of court that he did.

Court rebukes Trump on declassified claims​

Wednesday night, the appeals court panel called Trump’s legal team out.

“Plaintiff suggests that he may have declassified these documents when he was President,” the court wrote. “But the record contains no evidence that any of these records were declassified. And before the special master, Plaintiff resisted providing any evidence that he had declassified any of these documents.”

[IMG alt="PALM BEACH, FLORIDA - FEBRUARY 10: Former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort is seen on February 10, 2021 in Palm Beach, Florida. Palm Beach Town council announced there was nothing specifically that prohibited Mr. Trump from using the property as his residence after questions had been raised by others in the town if he could live there. "]https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/220907152113-mar-a-lago-file-021021.jpg?c=16x9&q=h_144,w_256,c_fill[/IMG]


Trump’s lawyers had also sought to put off making any specific disclosures about whether the documents had been declassified while the special master initially reviews the materials. The appeals court included an extensive takedown of the logic US District Judge Aileen Cannon put forward for ordering the special master review and for denying the DOJ’s request that the classified documents be exempted from it. The panel dissected the rationale Cannon had presented to justify her intervention, saying she had put forward an “untenable” approach for letting an intelligence community assessment of the documents continue while the criminal probe into them was on pause. The government had “sufficiently explained how and why its national security review is inextricably intertwined with its criminal investigation” – a claim that Cannon had dismissed.

“The records’ classification markings establish that they are government records and that responsible officials previously determined that their unauthorized disclosure would cause damage – including ‘exceptionally grave damage’ – to the Nation’s security,” the prosecutors had told the 11th Circuit in a Tuesday night filing. The Justice Department had asked for the 11th Circuit’s intervention in the Mar-a-Lago documents dispute after Trump successfully sued to obtain the appointment of a special master – an independent attorney – to pour through the roughly 11,000 documents the FBI had obtained in its search. Cannon previously declined a Justice Department request that she pause the parts of her order that applied to the 100 documents identified as classified. None of the three criminal statutes the FBI cited when it obtained the Mar-a-Lago search warrant hinge on the materials being classified, DOJ argued.

Two Trump nominees
The three-judge panel that issued the unanimous ruling Thursday is made up of three judges, two of whom were appointed by Trump. Judges Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher were appointed by Trump in 2018 and 2020 respectively, while Judge Robin Rosenbaum was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2014. Before serving on the 11th Circuit, Grant – who was confirmed 52-46 in the Senate – was a Supreme Court justice for the state of Georgia and served as the state’s solicitor general from 2015 to 2016. Brasher served as a district court judge in the middle district of Alabama before being appointed by Trump and was confirmed with vote of 52-43. Rosenbaum was confirmed on a 91-0 vote in the Senate and served as a District Court judge in the Southern District of Florida before being appointed to the 11th Circuit.

Worries about national security​

In seeking to restart its criminal investigation into the documents, the Justice Department argued that Cannon’s order was hindering investigators from taking steps to assess and mitigate national security risks posed by how the documents were handled. Cannon said that a national security assessment of the materials being conducted by the intelligence community could proceed. However, the Justice Department argued that that assessment could not be decoupled from the criminal investigation. The appellate judges found that the federal government and national security could be harmed by the pause in its investigation, and Trump’s team didn’t have good enough reason to review potentially classified records. The court also didn’t dispute the Justice Department saying it couldn’t divorce the intelligence review of the documents from its criminal investigation.

“An injunction delaying (or perhaps preventing) the United States’ criminal investigation from using classified materials risks imposing real and significant harm on the United States and the public,” the court wrote. “Courts should order review of such materials in only the most extraordinary circumstances. The record does not allow for the conclusion that this is such a circumstance,” the ruling added.

Not Trump’s records​

The 11th Circuit resoundingly rejected Trump’s arguments that he may have an interest in classified records that could keep them from federal criminal investigators. Trump “does not have a possessory interest in the documents at issue, so he does not suffer a cognizable harm if the United States reviews documents he neither owns nor has a personal interest in. Second, we find unpersuasive Plaintiff’s insistence that he would be harmed by a criminal investigation,” they wrote.

“Because of the nature of the classified materials at issue here and based on the record, we have no reason to expect that the United States’ use of these records imposes the risk of disclosure to the United States of Plaintiff’s privileged information,” they wrote.
 

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
50,338
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Trump claimed on Fox News tonight that he could declassify documents just by thinking it and that he declassified all the documents at Mar A Lago. Also tonight, the Appeals Court said that the whole declassification issue doesn't matter at all because the documents weren't his. The Appeal decision threw out every significant action taken by fake judge Cannon and told her that she was wrong at every turn.

"Lock him up!"
 

GenMarshall

Highborne Night Elven Ghost Agent
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
43,837
Location
New Suramar City, Vekta, United Terran Systems

JollyRoger

Slippin' Jimmy
Supporter
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
43,292
Location
Chicago Sunroofing
Kudos to the 11th Circuit law clerks for working the following case cite into the opinion:

Second, we find unpersuasive Plaintiff’s insistence that he
would be harmed by a criminal investigation. “Bearing the discom-
fiture and cost of a prosecution for crime even by an innocent per-
son is one of the painful obligations of citizenship.”
Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 325 (1940).
 

TheMeInTeam

If A implies B...
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
27,657
Your word association sample isn’t relevant to the point at hand.

You brought up guns and violence. Not the post you were responding to. Nothing you say can change this fact.
armed robbery generally counts in both "guns" and "violence" categories. fully demolishing infrastructure against someone's will in an illegal manner also counts in the "violence" category.

there's nothing to "associate" here. the original joke thing advocated a crime that tends to end poorly, and i pointed out that we probably don't want to joke about/advocate crimes where using violence in self defense is justified.

Second, we find unpersuasive Plaintiff’s insistence that he
would be harmed by a criminal investigation.
plaintiff alleges a violation of bill of rights (4th amendment). i don't see how the court can claim this isn't harm.

whose documents were seized has not yet been determined in court.
 

Arakhor

Dremora Courtier
Super Moderator
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
38,449
Location
UK
Well, unless Trump saw fit to classify his own documents, chances are that they're all govt property.
 

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
50,338
Location
Albuquerque, NM
whose documents were seized has not yet been determined in court.
Yes it has. The Court of Appeals said yesterday that the classified documents belong to the people of the United States and that Trump has no personal claim on them.
 

Gori the Grey

The Poster
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
8,369
Trump claimed on Fox News tonight that he could declassify documents just by thinking it and that he declassified all the documents at Mar A Lago.
I hope DoJ listens carefully to his response, because he in effect admits to having documents in other locations. For as much practice as he gets at it, Trump is a crappy liar. First the bluster "I can declassify just by thinking about it." Then, on inhale, "or to wherever you're sending it." That's the admission that he has more documents at other of his residences.
 

Zelig

Beep Boop
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
17,230
Location
Canada
armed robbery generally counts in both "guns" and "violence" categories. fully demolishing infrastructure against someone's will in an illegal manner also counts in the "violence" category.

there's nothing to "associate" here. the original joke thing advocated a crime that tends to end poorly, and i pointed out that we probably don't want to joke about/advocate crimes where using violence in self defense is justified.

You're the one who brought up armed robbery.
 

FriendlyFire

Codex WMDicanious
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
21,166
Location
Sydney
plaintiff alleges a violation of bill of rights (4th amendment). i don't see how the court can claim this isn't harm.
whose documents were seized has not yet been determined in court.

Police carry out lawful searches and raids all the time
Trumps own lawyers arent even claiming that those documents belong to him.
 

Sommerswerd

Shades of the Sun
Supporter
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
21,808
Location
Murica
Kudos to the 11th Circuit law clerks for working the following case cite into the opinion:

Second, we find unpersuasive Plaintiff’s insistence that he
would be harmed by a criminal investigation. “Bearing the discom-
fiture and cost of a prosecution for crime even by an innocent per-
son is one of the painful obligations of citizenship.”
Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 325 (1940).
:lol:That's 100% percent what they did... they went back for that old gem. Fantastic trolling!:goodjob:

The best part is we can now cite it as Trump v. United States ... See also, Cobbledick v. United States!:D
 
Last edited:

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
50,338
Location
Albuquerque, NM
The context.

11th Circuit on "What About Harm To Trump's Reputation?"​

Mega lol...
------

The remaining potential injury identified by the district
court is “the threat of future prosecution and the serious, often in-
delible stigma associated therewith.” Doc. No. 64 at 10. No doubt
the threat of prosecution can weigh heavily on the mind of some-
one under investigation. But without diminishing the seriousness
of that burden, “if the mere threat of prosecution were allowed to
constitute irreparable harm . . . every potential defendant could
point to the same harm and invoke the equitable powers of the dis-
trict court.”

United States v. Search of Law Office, Residence, and
Storage Unit Alan Brown, 341 F.3d 404, 415 (5th Cir. 2003) (quota-
tion omitted). If this concern were sufficient to constitute irrepa-
rable harm, courts’ “exercise of [their] equitable jurisdiction would
not be extraordinary, but instead quite ordinary.”
Id.

“It is a familiar rule that courts of equity do not ordinarily
restrain criminal prosecutions.” Douglas v. City of Jeannette,
.....

First, as we have explained, Plaintiff does not have a posses-
sory interest in the documents at issue, so he does not suffer a cog-
nizable harm if the United States reviews documents he neither
owns nor has a personal interest in.
Second, we find unpersuasive Plaintiff’s insistence that he
would be harmed by a criminal investigation. “Bearing the discom-
fiture and cost of a prosecution for crime even by an innocent per-
son is one of the painful obligations of citizenship.”
Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 325 (1940).
Third, because of the nature of the classified materials at is-
sue here and based on the record, we have no reason to expect that
the United States’s use of these records imposes the risk of disclo-
sure to the United States of Plaintiff’s privileged information.

----------

Yep. They cited Cobbledick.
 

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
50,338
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Given the very quick turnaround on this ruling, it seems like the Appeals Court staff must have been working on research ever since the DOJ announced they would appeal last week.
 

EvaDK

Emperor
Joined
Sep 27, 2016
Messages
1,143
Location
Denmark
All documents that detail US nuclear secrets, are not Trumps to declassify no matter what his legal team claims. There's a very strict protocol as to how such documents are declassified and the President is not a part of that protocol at all.
 
Top Bottom