Koko78

Not that I'm disputing what you're saying, but do you have any links to back up that this was predicted a decade ago?

I think that's why Barr announced his press conference, and that it would precede the release of the report. Give the idiot Democrats one last opportunity to cobble together their narrative, before it's thoroughly (and hilariously) destroyed. The Democrats have been trying to imply that the report would be significantly redacted, thus proving a coverup, collusion, and obstruction. It seems that they're pissing in their pants that it might turn out to be minimal redactions.

1.) Why would you assume that's the "only evidence"? Because someone didn't put more in an article? Good God man, do you seriously think that the State's Attorney's Office has actually played their entire hand in the press? 2.) If you can't understand basic legal concepts such as "standing" (which I have explained what, twice now?), then I can't help you. You're a trip and a half. ?

Interesting that you're spending so much time crying and complaining about a general overview of 4th Amendment law. It's rather funny, actually. Do you actually pay attention to anything that doesn't fit your obviously-preconceived conclusion?

Oh, so not only do you know what the DA is thinking, but you've also read all of the submissions to the Court?

Too bad for them that walls have suddenly become immoral.

Not just sympathy and condolences. He also offered assistance. He's beyond being a monster; so far beyond that 'monster' would be a compliment. He's some sort of racist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, TWO scoop eating, wall building, actual literal super mecha-Hitler.

http://www.twainquotes.com/Newspaper.html

https://news.yahoo.com/anti-gay-protesters-shout-sodom-122601411.html Mayor Pete starts his bid for national attention by inventing a spat with Mike Pence, then suddenly anti-gay protestors start repeatedly showing up at his rallies to make noise, giving him an opportunity to make a quotable quip. Gee, this doesn't smell fishy at all. Clearly he's not going out of his way to repeatedly remind everyone that he's gay, and therefore 'woke' in the current identity politics/virtue signaling/victim derby. $3.50 says that his surrogates attack anyone who points out his first gaffe as being 'homophobic'.

It's just not charity unless you're using the donation to reduce your tax liability!

He's a credit to his people.

I love how charitable deductions has become the virtue of the moment. They really are the Donner Party.

Mayor Pete is apparently well spoken, after all.

Interesting that you claim to know what the DA is arguing. Love them google law degrees.

I gave a general overview of 4th Amendment law. If you don't want to accept that, that's your business, not my problem. I have no interest in arguing with your google law degree.

It always baffles me when wrestlers complain that "creative has nothing for [them]." Why does "creative" have a ***** job, if they can't write some kind of halfassed storyline for the mid- and low-card wrestlers?

I like the tax fraud bit. Because that's totally not the Democrats' plan to proclaim when/if they obtain Trump's taxes for "legislative purposes" then "accidentally" release selected portions to the public through their media sponsors.

The allegation isn't that Trump obstructed Mueller, but that somehow he obstructed Comey by asking him to take it easy on Flynn, and firing him for being a total douchnozzle asshat lying swamp creature.

No lose, until a transport bus somehow magically crashes (or gets crashed into), causing injuries/deaths to the illegals in front of conveniently placed cameras.

At first blush, the packaging thing sounds like a smart business move. Increases the chances for the idea to be sold to a studio/network by having everything already in place to start production. Unfortunate that the talent agencies turned it into a way to line their pockets and screw over their own clients.

You're talking about two different sets of rights. Violating the rights of the property owner is not the same thing as violating Kraft's rights. They are not linked. I've given several examples to that effect. The person with a protected interest can seek suppression of illegal evidence, when the person who does not have a protected interest cannot have the same evidence suppressed against them. It's not all or nothing. Not being able to show that there was actual human trafficking going on, as I have plainly stated, is not - by itself - a way to get the warrant tossed. If the cops had probable cause to seek a warrant, and the evidence later does not pan out does NOT invalidate the warrant absent fraud or misrepresentations by the government to get the warrant. We shall see.

Apparently things that are going well over your head.

Not necessarily. What legal right does he have to challenge a warrant to place cameras in a building he does not own, for a business he does not operate? He was not the subject of the warrant. Again, you must demonstrate standing to challenge searches - including the underlying warrants. I can't challenge the validity of a search warrant of your home, just because I happened to be standing in your living room holding drugs at the time the cops raided the place. Assuming he has any legal right to challenge the warrant under Florida law, getting it tossed based on the human trafficking allegations being later shown to be untrue is debatable. The prosecution, one would assume, would be arguing for whatever good faith exceptions exist under Florida law. 'Good faith' having been tremendously expanded by the US Supreme Court recently (in short, cops are no longer required to actually know the laws they're enforcing, so long as they act under a good faith belief, but the rest of us are still deemed to know every law and regulation ever created.) The prosecutors won't necessarily have to show that there was actual trafficking going on, but that they had a reasonable belief at the time they applied for the warrant that there was probable cause (a fair probability) of human trafficking going on there, thus the reason for the needing the warrant/cameras. That the videos later showed that there was no actual human trafficking going on there isn't the determinative factor for Kraft, unless they have evidence that law enforcement knew from the outset that they were making false representations to the Court in order to fraudulently obtain a warrant. That may or may not work for suppression, but would still likely be a better trial issue to impeach the credibility of the law enforcement officers involved, if done carefully.

That somewhat belies his 'rich people should pay more to afford all of this free crap I'm promising' schtick.

That's where Florida law may kick in. I do not know what their standards for 'expectation of privacy' are. Here's an interesting kicker, guy filed a civil suit alleging a violation of his civil rights by being taped (though not charged). From the article: ‘Reasonable expectation of privacy’ violated "Mr. Doe had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he entered that private room, on private property, to receive treatment from a licensed healthcare practitioner — namely, a massage therapist," Doe’s attorney wrote in the lawsuit. https://sports.yahoo.com/spa-client-believed-to-be-on-alleged-robert-kraft-video-sues-claiming-civil-rights-violation-221727480.html How that argument plays with Kraft being there allegedly to engage in an illegal act on top of the "treatment from a licensed healthcare provider" will be the real key to suppression. I would be somewhat surprised if the judge suppresses the video based on that argument. I don't think many states would allow that as an excuse to shield someone from evidence of illegal activity.