ADVERTISEMENT

FBI raiding Mar A Lago??

No, I'm claiming that once inside they are free to look for "anything that might be useful to their cause",.. That's why it's called a fishing trip...


"anything that might be useful to their cause"
Please show us where this is codified into the law. Provide the exact statute
 
  • Like
Reactions: redbirdhawk
It is entirely reasonable to question the legality of property seized not specifically enumerated or otherwise authorized on the search warrant. It is also next level insane (and desperate) to put foward the suggestion that Chris Wray led an operation to intentionally plant incriminating evidence at Mar-a-Lago.

Who exactly, is suggesting this?..
 
Wonderful,.. nice of them to tell you what they've taken.

It is actually. It means they can’t just present evidence at a trial and claim to have found it at your home - they have to document all that.

If during search evidence unrelated to that search is found it can be seized and used as evidence in other and subsequent investigations.

Sure, but they are still required to tell you what they took.
 
Not at all the same thing Joe,... Extremely long reach even for you.

You need to draw clearer distinctions then, lots of stuff here and elsewhere by media personalities and elected Republicans that this search warrant was not legit, politically motivated, evidence may have been planted, etc.

A healthy distrust of government is fine - that whole trust but verify concept. But it’s being twisted into paranoia and conspiracy theories to question everything. A society can’t function without trust on some level.
 
You need to draw clearer distinctions then, lots of stuff here and elsewhere by media personalities and elected Republicans that this search warrant was not legit, politically motivated, evidence may have been planted, etc. A healthy distrust of government is fine - that whole trust but verify concept. But it’s being twisted into paranoia and conspiracy theories to question everything. A society can’t function without trust on some level.

My positions are clearly defined by my comments here,.. Extraneous fodder generated by media personalities, politicians and pundits have no bearing on where I stand.
 
Who exactly, is suggesting this?..
Sorry I wasn't more clear. Trump suggested this in a publicly released statement on his social media site,

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...s-planting-evidence-at-mar-a-lago/ar-AA10w1jf

I am in agreement with you that every citizen should demand that any government search and seizure be consitutionally compliant. There must be sufficient credible evidence to authorize a search, probable cause must be firmly established, and the seizure of property must be within within legal bounds.

Citizens have a right to legally challenge the validity of any government search and seizure. Trump has that right. So far, he has not done so. Instead, he has issued statments of complaint, suggested wrongdoing, and has tried to fund raise.
 
My positions are clearly defined by my comments here,.. Extraneous news fodder generated by media personalities, politicians and pundits have no bearing on where I stand.

it’s not as clear as you think it is then.

but to the larger point, people are seizing on the basic concept of a healthy distrust of government and turning it into reasons why they can deligitimize any action by government they don’t like. You may not think it has any bearing on you, but the stance you have taken - which I don’t disagree with in theory, is being twisted beyond recognition.
 
Sorry I wasn't more clear. Trump suggested this in a publicly released statement on his social media site,

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...s-planting-evidence-at-mar-a-lago/ar-AA10w1jf

I am in agreement with you that every citizen should demand that any government search and seizure be consitutionally compliant. There must be sufficient credible evidence to authorize a search, probable cause must be firmly established, and the seizure of property must be within within legal bounds.

Citizens have a right to legally challenge the validity of any government search and seizure. Trump has that right. So far, he has not done so. Instead, he has issued statments of complaint, suggested wrongdoing, and has tried to fund raise.

I see, so Trump himself is pushing this narrative,... Well, I don't buy into that, and Trump is bat shit crazy so...
 
"anything that might be useful to their cause"
Please show us where this is codified into the law. Provide the exact statute
Abstract
It is well established by court decision that police in executing a search warrant may seize items not listed in the warrant if they observe such items in plain sight - and if it is immediately apparent to them that such items are evidence of crime. The Supreme Court has stated that there is a third requirement needed to justify police seizure of such items, namely that the discovery of the items must have been inadvertent, that is, accidental or unintentional. Therefore, if the police were seeking items not set out in the warrant, their discovery could not be inadvertent. The issue is whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent. The Supreme Court concluded that even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate "plain view" seizures, it is not a necessary condition.

 
  • Like
Reactions: nu2u
Trump had multiple chances to return all of the documents and lied about doing so. He claimed some sent back were all he held.

"A dispute over record-keeping at the Trump White House has been simmering for months. After Trump left office, he failed to return at least 15 boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago, his property in Florida that served as a kind of “White House South,” including some that contained classified material.

Those boxes were eventually returned to the National Archives in January of this year, according to a letter from the Archives to the House Oversight Committee. In June, high-level DOJ officials visited Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump’s lawyers about the investigation and materials that remained at the property, CNN reported."

 
The most amazing part of this to me is what else may have been in the safe. With this guy, there is so much illegals stuff that may have been in there. Conversely, they could find snuff films starring 12 year old girls and Trump would still win the nomination.
 
Abstract
It is well established by court decision that police in executing a search warrant may seize items not listed in the warrant if they observe such items in plain sight - and if it is immediately apparent to them that such items are evidence of crime. The Supreme Court has stated that there is a third requirement needed to justify police seizure of such items, namely that the discovery of the items must have been inadvertent, that is, accidental or unintentional. Therefore, if the police were seeking items not set out in the warrant, their discovery could not be inadvertent. The issue is whether the warrantless seizure of evidence of crime in plain view is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent. The Supreme Court concluded that even though inadvertence is a characteristic of most legitimate "plain view" seizures, it is not a necessary condition.

So, it's NOT in the statute.

Just like I'd stated.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
Illegality in any case, warrant-related or not is probable cause. Or if they run across a memo relating to Jan 6, it's fair game.
Maybe, maybe not. If it's not specified in the warrant, first, it has to be in plain view in the area designated for search. Second, there has to be a reasonable belief it is related to a crime. On that note, anything that just mentions January 6 wouldn't necessarily be a crime. If they found a document where on the first page Trump is telling someone to storm the Capitol by force, that would be a crime.

Warrants cannot be overly broad as to content or place. Since the DoJ and Trump's lawyers were already having discussions prior to the warrant, we have to assume the DoJ & FBI knew what they were looking for.
 
ADVERTISEMENT