Trump Sues the Government over search of Mar A Lago - sends personal note of warning!

[Yssup Rider]

THIS says otherwise

[HedonistForever]

Anybody got access to digital Wall St. Journal? If you do, please print this article. I don't subscribe and as much as I would like to read that article, I'm not going to pay to read it since I pretty much know what it says, still want to read it. In one respect, I think it addresses what got 1bm1 so hot under the collar, that this was a "general warrant" and therefore illegal violating the 4th Amendment. Now what perhaps 1bm1 failed to see as he often does, I wasn't stating that as a fact! When two lawyers enter a court room, they bring two very different opinions to be argued. The first one to tell the other lawyer that they are an idiot for their opinion and he knows far more about these things after all being a more superior attorney, they turn out to be the idiot with that air of superiority that usually bites people like that in the ass sooner or later.. ( RittenHouse ) But I digress.

What I was saying and maybe It wasn't good enough for a more superior mind, is that "THIS", a discussion on whether this was a general warrant or otherwise illegal, is going to be argued!!! That is all I said or was trying to say and the real attorney in the room says, "you don't know what you are talking about and embarrassing yourself". Well that last part, I have to admit I got a chuckle from that.

And as it turns out, low and behold ( I think ) the esteemed Wall St. Journal confirms the idea that there is a legal debate as to whether this warrant was "up to par", shall we say.

All that I ever said, "there will be a discussion on this issue", and "WALA".

Now if that is NOT what the article says at all, forget I said any of this

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-warrant-had-no-legal-basis-mar-a-lago-affidavit-presidential-records-act-archivist-custody-classified-fbi-garland-11661170684

The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis

A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.


By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Aug. 22, 2022 12:51 pm ET

Was the Federal Bureau of Investigation justified in searching Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago? The judge who issued the warrant for Mar-a-Lago has signaled that he is likely to release a redacted version of the affidavit supporting it. But the warrant itself suggests the answer is likely no—the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.
The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added). These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts.

And that's where it ends if you don't pay up.


I mean, we only have to look at the Clinesmith case where an attorney for the FBI falsified an affidavit that was given to a FISA Judge and their opinion, to move forward with "Crossfire Hurricane" I think it was called and they did and it was based on false information and we are just supposed to say "well, maybe that won't happen in this case"? No, sorry, those days are gone now. The DOJ and FBI upper echelon,

have thoroughly disgraced themselves but for a damn righteous cause in their estimation "get Donald Trump" and I don't care how you have to do it"! Oh, that reminds me, that was all most word for word the FALSE accusation that Adam ( shit for brains ) Schiff said was part of the phone call between Trump an Zelensky. "I want you to get Joe Biden for me and I don't care how you do it", Schiff said, Trump said. And when it blew up in Schiffs face, that he had "made up" part of a conversation that was later used to help impeach a President for doing essentially, what we saw Vice President Biden do on video.


Offer a quid pro quo, you do this for me and I give you money, but it was OK because Obama, the President said it was OK, the only one that matters I guess, that has that right but if that's true, didn't President Trump have that same right being President and all, "look into this Biden family corruption thing would you, "WE" as in the people of the U.S., would be grateful". That was it, no literal quid pro quo, just one made up to impeach a President.


Anyway, if you can print this article, I sure would like to read it.

[1blackman1]

Yes. You are continuing to embarrass yourself. Lawyers don’t don’t argue their opinion. At least not in the sense you state. We make legal arguments based on facts that can be established and application of law and precedent. But whatever, you have shown that you can’t don’t or won’t understand that opinions are not facts. And just because you think something doesn’t make it a valid argument.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Yes. You are continuing to embarrass yourself. Lawyers don’t don’t argue their opinion.


They draw an opinion based on what the believe are facts, well, the honest ones, which often turn out not to be facts. Russia, Russia, Russia!


At least not in the sense you state. We make legal arguments based on facts that can be established and application of law and precedent.


And your "arguments" are often objected to for lack of facts and sustained.


But whatever, you have shown that you can’t don’t or won’t understand that opinions are not facts.



And yet I often explain that what I am saying is not to be taken as fact but merely my opinion and I guess you miss that every time I say it.


And just because you, the Wall Street Journal, other media reporting and multiple Constitutional scholars think something doesn’t make it a valid argument.

FTFY


And I hope you would agree that applies to you too, right?



and OH, just because you stated that Rittenhouse was guilty of murder, your opinion based on your vast knowledge of the law, didn't make you correct.



Your argument was not valid counselor.

[1blackman1]

A jury decided he was not guilty of murder. Which is how the system works. Were it an “issue of law” the jury would not have been responsible for the decision. Jury determine “issues of fact”. So factually the jury decided that it was not murder. I maintain I was correct as to the law. In fact if you go back and read what I wrote back then, I’m sure I said it was up to a jury. But I (me personally) would have decided differently.

[Jacuzzme]

And you would’ve been a biased retard, only wanting to convict a kid because of personal beliefs, not facts or law.

[Yssup Rider]

Lads, let’s leave the insults and personal-attacks and discuss the topic at hand, lest ye poke the bear.

Please and thank-you.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

A jury decided he was not guilty of murder. Which is how the system works. Were it an “issue of law” the jury would not have been responsible for the decision. Jury determine “issues of fact”. So factually the jury decided that it was not murder. I maintain I was correct as to the law. In fact if you go back and read what I wrote back then, I’m sure I said it was up to a jury. But I (me personally) would have decided differently.

I'll bet you do! I'll bet you do!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Yes. You are continuing to embarrass yourself. Lawyers don’t don’t argue their opinion. At least not in the sense you state. We make legal arguments based on facts that can be established and application of law and precedent. But whatever, you have shown that you can’t don’t or won’t understand that opinions are not facts. And just because you think something doesn’t make it a valid argument.

And at the end of the trial, guess what, one of you got their facts wrong according to the jury but as you said, juries can get it wrong sometimes. I wonder if putting that in one's resume would help or hurt?


We all know that some less than "scrupulous lawyers", will substitute opinion for facts hoping not to get caught by a less brilliant or over worked lawyer who will miss it.


Two attorneys giving alternate theories based on "their evidence". They can't both be right even though they think because they are an attorney, they have to be right?

[Yssup Rider]

What on erf does that mean, HF?

You can’t win your point by attacking the entire legal system. Sounds like that’s what you’re doing.

Next time you go to court, take a Fox News commentator to defend you.

[1blackman1]

Don’t worry about HF, his bullshit sounds great in his head. Then he starts typing and we all get see it’s just asinine bullshit. He reminds me of the person you have a discussion with that talks all the time and never listens. They think because they drone on and on that it’s impressive when in reality all you think is “will this guy shut the fuck up”. He’s a master bloviator. If he actually read what people wrote instead of believing he must disprove every word to feel smart he might get somewhere.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Don’t worry about HF, his bullshit sounds great in his head. Then he starts typing and we all get see it’s just asinine bullshit. He reminds me of the person you have a discussion with that talks all the time and never listens. They think because they drone on and on that it’s impressive when in reality all you think is “will this guy shut the fuck up”. He’s a master bloviator. If he actually read what people wrote instead of believing he must disprove every word to feel smart he might get somewhere.

I was glad he put me on ignore....he was so full of chit!

Tiny has already eviscerated his comparison of Biden and Ukraine and Trumps impeachment call to Ukraine.

He fancies himself Johnny fucking Cochran just because he predicted the outcome of one 50/50 trial. A Billy goat could have done as much...


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/preside...hives-records/

"The question in this case is not a close one," Wall wrote to Trump attorney Evan Corcoran. "The Executive Branch here is seeking access to records belonging to, and in the custody of, the Federal Government itself.

[69in2it69]

And he didn't want to release his tax records like every other president because he was so rich...oh being audited, maybe broke af and in debt to foreign nationals. Hopefully when this fumb duck dies, within a few years we can return to rational politics.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Don’t worry about HF,


You got that right!


his bullshit sounds great in his head. Then he starts typing and we all get see it’s just asinine bullshit. He reminds me of the person you have a discussion with that talks all the time and never listens. They think because they drone on and on that it’s impressive when in reality all you think is “will this guy shut the fuck up”. He’s a master bloviator. If he actually read what people wrote instead of believing he must disprove every word



Just like you, right?


to feel smart he might get somewhere.

I'm right where I want to be, not a care in the world.

Pissing you off is just lagniappe! For the non-New Orleanians.

la·gniappe

/ˌlanˈyap/


something given as a bonus or extra gift.

[Salty Again]

... Surely looks like a lot o' guess-work as reason
for the Raid... A lot o' "might haves" and "could be-s"
and "not sures"... Didn't see ANY concern of the
nuke codes - except from liberal media...

Crikey! ... FBI (and the archives people) not even sure
on whether Trump had anything still "classified"...

Surely makes ya wonder IF the archives people even are
aware of WHAT papers and records THEY do have themselves.

#### Salty