Convicted felon Donald Trump stole top secret nuclear docs - greatest security risk in US history

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, T master said:

 

So what's the update it's been long enough to know BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT if these supposed documents were as sensitive as the American politicians have become to anything surrounding this matter .

 

Like a infamous poster here use to reply all the time "Where's the Proof" common BT lets see it so we can get past it we know you never will because you live in the past but i want this POS to go to jail seeing as you must have something that can prove i too be true ..

 

Put up or shut up ...

Justice is rolling along. Will you cry when he is locked up? 

[Westside]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

How could there be one of him born every minute, Ned?  That's vaginically impossible. 

Thank God for small favors! 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Multiple vaginitis producing similar suckers? 

Tibs - seems your autocorrect algorithm is trending towards a word you must use often texting

[Doc]

20 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Justice is rolling along. Will you cry when he is locked up? 

 

You mean like the 50 other times...

[Tiberius]

37 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

You mean like the 50 other times...

The GOP senate won’t be the jury this time 

[ChiGoose]

20 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

It's a shame, really, that this is happening.  Had the government been more diligent and disciplined in their approach, they could have avoided the appearance of impropriety and tyranny at work.   Turns out they can get court permission to storm the castle, organize and dispatch law enforcement officials armed to the teeth, spend hours on site, photograph documents purported to be classified, provide them to the press, and yet still gather an enormous number of documents unrelated to the seizure.   

 

On top of that, they resist any objective review of the seized documents by an independent third party, in essence stating "You just gotta trust us.".  

 

 

That is not at all what happened here and grossly distorts the facts and the law. 
 

Not only did Trump’s lawyers not even allege that the search was in any way improper, but when the judge asked if they could find a single previous case that supported their positions they could not. 
 

Simply put, you are not entitled to what Trump is asking for in the pre-indictment phase. Once indicted, you have expanded rights and access, but not before. 

[SoCal Deek]

21 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

That is not at all what happened here and grossly distorts the facts and the law. 
 

Not only did Trump’s lawyers not even allege that the search was in any way improper, but when the judge asked if they could find a single previous case that supported their positions they could not. 
 

Simply put, you are not entitled to what Trump is asking for in the pre-indictment phase. Once indicted, you have expanded rights and access, but not before. 

Goose, it’s obvious you’re a lawyer or in the legal profession. I have to ask. If they search your home on a warrant, are they entitled to take anything other than what the warrant was for? Not trying to be political here…I really don’t know. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

That is not at all what happened here and grossly distorts the facts and the law. 
 

Not only did Trump’s lawyers not even allege that the search was in any way improper, but when the judge asked if they could find a single previous case that supported their positions they could not. 
 

Simply put, you are not entitled to what Trump is asking for in the pre-indictment phase. Once indicted, you have expanded rights and access, but not before. 

We keep having the same discussion, Chi.  I’m not a lawyer, I don’t work for the government and am simply a citizen looking at what has happened.  
 

In your world, at least as far as Trump is concerned, it seems to me you’ll bend over backwards to defend practice without regard to optics and damage it does to the national psyche.  
 

In my world, if the DOJ is going to go to the extreme and raid the guys house, they should have the professionalism to avoid the appearance of impropriety and not seize documents outside the scope allowed.  If it takes 10 hours, spend 10 hours.  If it’s 40 hours to do the job “right”, spend 40 hours.   If 75 people are needed, get 80. 
 

From a legal perspective, it seems reasonable to me that the law considers the appointment of a Special Master and a pause in review while things get worked out.  Again, I’m not a lawyer, but a judge considered the argument and allowed for it to happen.   Was this an egregious example of judicial misconduct, or an opinion allowed within the scope of the law? 
 

DOJ disagrees, within the context of the law, appeals and wins.  The story there is “Trust us, all is fine.”. 
 

If you’re going to raid a guys house after 4 years of trumped up scandals, political manipulation and innuendo, do it right.  
 

I understand this barnyard explosion can happen legally, I just don’t think it should happen.  

Edited December 3, 2022 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

40 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Goose, it’s obvious you’re a lawyer or in the legal profession. I have to ask. If they search your home on a warrant, are they entitled to take anything other than what the warrant was for? Not trying to be political here…I really don’t know. 

Bigger question imo, is was it within their control to limit what they took to the documents they were authorized to seize?  They had complete control of the area being searched, empowered to detain, arrest or dispatch anyone who did not comply or got aggressive.  
 

I believe Chi is a proponent of application of Occam’s Razor…in the calm light of day, the DOJ seized documents outside the scope of the investigation (some purported to include documents protected under attorney-client privilege) and is fighting tooth and nail to avoid an objective review of documents.  
 

What seems more likely….an “Oops” or “the full weight and power of the United States government” coming down on a political figure? 
 

 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 
 

What seems more likely….an “Oops” or “the full weight and power of the United States government” coming down on a political figure? 
 

 

Regardless of what it really is it absolutely has the look of the latter.  Bad optics all around.  

[T master]

21 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Justice is rolling along. Will you cry when he is locked up? 

 

Not even 1 tear !! But you can bet if there isn't enough evidence to put him there you will continue your vendetta by continuing to bring up BS just because that's what you & BT do .

 

Neither of you can move forward your always looking in the rear view which tells us why you voted the way you did ...

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, T master said:

 

Not even 1 tear !! But you can bet if there isn't enough evidence to put him there you will continue your vendetta by continuing to bring up BS just because that's what you & BT do .

 

Neither of you can move forward your always looking in the rear view which tells us why you voted the way you did ...

He is a serial criminal. He is the political leader of the GOP. 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

59 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Regardless of what it really is it absolutely has the look of the latter.  Bad optics all around.  

Yes, exactly.

 

 

 

45 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He is a serial criminal. He is the political leader of the GOP. 

 

 

He’s nearly 80 years old.  He may be the most crafty serial criminal in the history of mankind.  

[Doc]

21 hours ago, Tiberius said:

The GOP senate won’t be the jury this time 

 

Huh?  He can't be impeached again (at least, right now).

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Goose, it’s obvious you’re a lawyer or in the legal profession. I have to ask. If they search your home on a warrant, are they entitled to take anything other than what the warrant was for? Not trying to be political here…I really don’t know. 

They are supposed to take what is within the bounds of the search warrant.

 

However, law enforcement personnel aren’t lawyers. So if the warrant says “documents” they are going to grab any documents that could possibly be relevant. If there are personal documents intermingled with government documents, those personal documents would actually be in scope because they could show intent to a jury. However, if the agents took something way out of scope, like a car, that would be something that Trump might be able to get back (more on how in a bit).
 

From there, the prosecutors will do a review of what was seized. In this case, they also used a filter team (also known as a “taint” team). These are DoJ lawyers who are not involved with the Trump case but understand the law and potential privilege. They will review documents for potential privilege and flag anything that should not be passed to the prosecution.
 

Once the prosecutors have the evidence, they can review it, talk to witnesses, etc. Eventually, they will have to make an indictment decision. If they decline to indict, they have to return everything. If they indict, that opens Trump up to additional rights as a criminal defendant. At that point, there is an official case on a judicial docket and his layers can file motions seeking to bar certain evidence from the trial. If something was seized improperly, this is when his lawyers would argue that before a judge in an effort to have it excluded from trial and/or returned to Trump’s possession.
 

Between when the search is conducted and when an indictment is issued, people have very few rights to get their stuff back. That seems unfair (and maybe it is) but part of the rationale is that if targets knew where the investigation was headed, they could seek to conceal additional evidence or tamper with potential witnesses before the DoJ could talk to them. You would need a REALLY good reason to get it back (like if you weren’t the target but instead a third party who was tangentially related and some of the items taken are critical to your business). 
 

If, however, the search was egregious, the target can file a motion to that effect. To be successful, they need to meet the four Richey elements. The first and foremost is a callous disregard of constitutional rights. 
 

If the search was not egregious, but the government seized property and has held it without resolution (indictment or declination) for a long period of time, the target can file a Bivens motion alleging that the delay is an infringement on their rights. 
 

In Trump’s case, his lawyers did not allege a callous disregard of constitutional rights, as is required by Richey. Nor did they file a Bivens motion. I don’t think they even challenged the legitimacy of the search warrant itself (which is good because they would lose that one pretty quickly). They are apparently trying to assert that Trump has the rights of an indicted person during the pre-indictment phase solely because he is a former president. 
 

When pressed by the 11th circuit panel (two Trump appointed judges and one from George W. Bush), Trump’s attorneys could not cite a single case that backed their theory. That is a *really* bad look before an appellate court. Case precedent is incredibly important, and not having a single precedent in your favor means you’re probably going to lose.

 

Basically, all of the legal precedent and facts were on the side of the DoJ here. In fact, the 11th Circuit stated in its opinion:

 

”In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test, drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option.”

 

So now, Trump has exactly the same rights you or I would have in this situation. If and when he’s indicted, he will be granted additional rights and privileges including discovery to obtain what the government has and depose its witnesses. He will also be able to argue that certain evidence should not be admissible at trial. All of this would happen before a judge in criminal court. 
 

If the DoJ does not indict him, they will have to return all of his stuff (he will never get the government docs back as they are not his). If they drag their feet for a while (at least a year), he can file a Bivens motion to get it back. 
 

Instead of Trump being treated differently or targeted for politics, this is actually a very straightforward case of a legal search warrant being executed against a private citizen. 
 

The mainstream media will screw up the reporting because that’s how they do, but when you look at the pleadings and rulings, this one is pretty simple. Trump will either get his stuff back at the declination decision, or be able to challenge the evidence when he is indicted. He’s just not allowed to jump the gun like he is trying to now. 

[BillStime]

The greatest security risk in US history...

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:45 AM, ChiGoose said:

They are supposed to take what is within the bounds of the search warrant.

 

However, law enforcement personnel aren’t lawyers. So if the warrant says “documents” they are going to grab any documents that could possibly be relevant. If there are personal documents intermingled with government documents, those personal documents would actually be in scope because they could show intent to a jury. However, if the agents took something way out of scope, like a car, that would be something that Trump might be able to get back (more on how in a bit).
 

From there, the prosecutors will do a review of what was seized. In this case, they also used a filter team (also known as a “taint” team). These are DoJ lawyers who are not involved with the Trump case but understand the law and potential privilege. They will review documents for potential privilege and flag anything that should not be passed to the prosecution.
 

Once the prosecutors have the evidence, they can review it, talk to witnesses, etc. Eventually, they will have to make an indictment decision. If they decline to indict, they have to return everything. If they indict, that opens Trump up to additional rights as a criminal defendant. At that point, there is an official case on a judicial docket and his layers can file motions seeking to bar certain evidence from the trial. If something was seized improperly, this is when his lawyers would argue that before a judge in an effort to have it excluded from trial and/or returned to Trump’s possession.
 

Between when the search is conducted and when an indictment is issued, people have very few rights to get their stuff back. That seems unfair (and maybe it is) but part of the rationale is that if targets knew where the investigation was headed, they could seek to conceal additional evidence or tamper with potential witnesses before the DoJ could talk to them. You would need a REALLY good reason to get it back (like if you weren’t the target but instead a third party who was tangentially related and some of the items taken are critical to your business). 
 

If, however, the search was egregious, the target can file a motion to that effect. To be successful, they need to meet the four Richey elements. The first and foremost is a callous disregard of constitutional rights. 
 

If the search was not egregious, but the government seized property and has held it without resolution (indictment or declination) for a long period of time, the target can file a Bivens motion alleging that the delay is an infringement on their rights. 
 

In Trump’s case, his lawyers did not allege a callous disregard of constitutional rights, as is required by Richey. Nor did they file a Bivens motion. I don’t think they even challenged the legitimacy of the search warrant itself (which is good because they would lose that one pretty quickly). They are apparently trying to assert that Trump has the rights of an indicted person during the pre-indictment phase solely because he is a former president. 
 

When pressed by the 11th circuit panel (two Trump appointed judges and one from George W. Bush), Trump’s attorneys could not cite a single case that backed their theory. That is a *really* bad look before an appellate court. Case precedent is incredibly important, and not having a single precedent in your favor means you’re probably going to lose.

 

Basically, all of the legal precedent and facts were on the side of the DoJ here. In fact, the 11th Circuit stated in its opinion:

 

”In considering these arguments, we are faced with a choice: apply our usual test, drastically expand the availability of equitable jurisdiction for every subject of a search warrant; or carve out an unprecedented exception in our law for former presidents. We choose the first option.”

 

So now, Trump has exactly the same rights you or I would have in this situation. If and when he’s indicted, he will be granted additional rights and privileges including discovery to obtain what the government has and depose its witnesses. He will also be able to argue that certain evidence should not be admissible at trial. All of this would happen before a judge in criminal court. 
 

If the DoJ does not indict him, they will have to return all of his stuff (he will never get the government docs back as they are not his). If they drag their feet for a while (at least a year), he can file a Bivens motion to get it back. 
 

Instead of Trump being treated differently or targeted for politics, this is actually a very straightforward case of a legal search warrant being executed against a private citizen. 
 

The mainstream media will screw up the reporting because that’s how they do, but when you look at the pleadings and rulings, this one is pretty simple. Trump will either get his stuff back at the declination decision, or be able to challenge the evidence when he is indicted. He’s just not allowed to jump the gun like he is trying to now. 

Thanks for the very thorough explanation. I didn’t see it until just now. It’d be easier to find if BillStime would show some restraint instead of dumping his daily Twitter garbage into each and every thread. 

[Chef Jim]

59 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks for the very thorough explanation. I didn’t see it until just now. It’d be easier to find if BillStime would show some restraint instead of dumping his daily Twitter garbage into each and every thread. 

 

Put him on ignore.  Then you can pick and choose which comment of his you want to actually open and read.  

[SCBills]

These people are leading our military and you believe Trump is our greatest security risk?

 

I’ll go ahead and start learning Mandarin…

 

 

[BillStime]