Takeaways from the court hearing on releasing more documents from the Mar-a-Lago search

[DezLez]

17 hours ago, riclag said:

while lawyers and govt agencies negotiated  the release . Thats not stealing !

If the lawyers and govt agencies were not negotiating the return of stolen documents what were they negotiating about?

Building a new McDonald's on his property!

[FritsSikkink]

21 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Do you have proof?

Proof has been shown before but you don't bother to accept it.

[ballpoint]

16 hours ago, candide said:

In brief, do you agree to parents making deaths threats to and harassing school officials, as your previous post suggests?

Arm the teachers!

Oh, hang on.  The gun slingers aren't on the teachers side this time.

Arm the parents!

 

[nauseus]

21 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I was taught religious instruction at school until the "teacher" banned me. We don't want religious instruction back.

I was taught then we don't want? Or the other way round?  

[ozimoron]

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I was taught then we don't want? Or the other way round?  

Religious instruction as a formal subject, taught part time by a priest,  was eventually scrapped by the authorities, possibly after that same year, mid 60's. The class I was banned from was year 8, first secondary year. We means most of us.

Edited August 22, 2022 by ozimoron

[ullman]

2 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Noted.  But what does this have to do with Trump potentially going to prison for breaking the law?

I dunno but go ask this person:

https://aseannow.com/topic/1269287-takeaways-from-the-court-hearing-on-releasing-more-documents-from-the-mar-a-lago-search/?do=findComment&comment=17557038

[ullman]

23 minutes ago, candide said:

This is not a topic about Biden.

Back to topic:

"A new YouGov poll finds Americans overwhelmingly approve of the FBI’s search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago beach club to retrieve classified documents that he took from the White House, 54% to 36%."

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/polling-shows-public-support-fbis-search-mar-lago-rcna43697

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-fbi-raid-americans-support-b2147176.html

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/08/17/trump-fbi-and-mar-lago-raid-economist-yougov-poll

 

Ok boss.

 

WASHINGTON SECRETS

Majority see FBI as Biden’s 'personal Gestapo' after Trump raid

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/majority-see-fbi-as-bidens-personal-gestapo-after-trump-raid

 

More Republicans Have 'Very Favorable' View of Trump After FBI Raid: Poll

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/more-republicans-have-very-favorable-view-of-trump-after-fbi-raid-poll/ar-AA10Qf1S

 

Trump widens GOP lead after Mar-a-Lago raid: Poll

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/15/trump-widens-gop-lead-after-mar-lago-raid-poll/

 

Trump is iconic, bullet proof and your next POTUS.

 

 

 

[DezLez]

6 minutes ago, ullman said:

I dunno but go ask this person:

Who, why and what has your post or link it got to do with the OP?

A hint is in the title. 

 

Can you please try and join in the actual topic and not highjack it

[DezLez]

1 minute ago, ullman said:

Trump is iconic, bullet proof and your next POTUS.

I wonder what other "Avatars" you post under!

[Bkk Brian]

21 minutes ago, ullman said:

 

Trump is iconic, bullet proof and your next POTUS.

 

????????????????

[placeholder]

27 minutes ago, ullman said:

 

 

Trump is iconic, bullet proof and your next POTUS.

 

 

 

That's just what his supporters were saying in 2020. How did that work out?

And it's a dead giveaway of paucity of thought when someone starts making predictions. Especially when the prediction is about events that are over 2 years in the future. Unless of course you have a genuine time machine or functioning crystal ball.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies about Joe Biden's approval ratings plummeting have been removed.  Please stay on topic.

 

A post with a link to an unapproved source has been removed.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by metisdead

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, ullman said:

Ok boss.

 

WASHINGTON SECRETS

Majority see FBI as Biden’s 'personal Gestapo' after Trump raid

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/majority-see-fbi-as-bidens-personal-gestapo-after-trump-raid

 

More Republicans Have 'Very Favorable' View of Trump After FBI Raid: Poll

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/more-republicans-have-very-favorable-view-of-trump-after-fbi-raid-poll/ar-AA10Qf1S

 

Trump widens GOP lead after Mar-a-Lago raid: Poll

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/15/trump-widens-gop-lead-after-mar-lago-raid-poll/

 

Trump is iconic, bullet proof and your next POTUS.

 

 

 

Welcome to ASEANnow.

 

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, ullman said:

Ok boss.

 

WASHINGTON SECRETS

Majority see FBI as Biden’s 'personal Gestapo' after Trump raid

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/majority-see-fbi-as-bidens-personal-gestapo-after-trump-raid

 

More Republicans Have 'Very Favorable' View of Trump After FBI Raid: Poll

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/more-republicans-have-very-favorable-view-of-trump-after-fbi-raid-poll/ar-AA10Qf1S

 

Trump widens GOP lead after Mar-a-Lago raid: Poll

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/15/trump-widens-gop-lead-after-mar-lago-raid-poll/

 

Trump is iconic, bullet proof and your next POTUS.

 

 

 

Rasmussen report......

What was the question? " Do you agree that there's “a group of politicized thugs at the top of the FBI who are using the FBI … as Joe Biden‘s personal Gestapo.” ????

[ozimoron]

Trump files suit demanding special master

The filing also describes repeated contacts between Justice Department counterintelligence chief Jay Bratt and Trump’s legal team over the course of several months, including a phone call from the former to the latter at 9:10 am on Aug. 8 to inform them that “a group of FBI agents was at Mar-a-Lago to execute a search warrant.” The search, the filing says, lasted “approximately nine hours.”

 

Trump sought to portray his involvement with the Justice Department as cordial until the moment of the search but didn’t explain how boxes of material designated as highly classified remained at Mar-a-Lago after protracted discussions with investigators.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/22/trump-files-suit-special-master-mar-a-lago-search-00053196

[Bkk Brian]

54 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Trump files suit demanding special master

The filing also describes repeated contacts between Justice Department counterintelligence chief Jay Bratt and Trump’s legal team over the course of several months, including a phone call from the former to the latter at 9:10 am on Aug. 8 to inform them that “a group of FBI agents was at Mar-a-Lago to execute a search warrant.” The search, the filing says, lasted “approximately nine hours.”

 

Trump sought to portray his involvement with the Justice Department as cordial until the moment of the search but didn’t explain how boxes of material designated as highly classified remained at Mar-a-Lago after protracted discussions with investigators.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/22/trump-files-suit-special-master-mar-a-lago-search-00053196

Link to the full filing here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.1.0.pdf

 

BREAKING: the new Trump court filing with its false recitation of facts (but without submitting any evidence to back them up) will allow DOJ to address all that they did to try to get docs back before having to resort to a SW. And the lies they were told and by whom.

[LosLobo]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Link to the full filing here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.1.0.pdf

 

BREAKING: the new Trump court filing with its false recitation of facts (but without submitting any evidence to back them up) will allow DOJ to address all that they did to try to get docs back before having to resort to a SW. And the lies they were told and by whom.

The story is now a New Topic ...
 

 

[ozimoron]

"The Republican Party has turned itself against electoral democracy."

 

On Tuesday, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie delivered a cogent rebuke of the hands-off argument and declared that "fear of what Trump and his supports might do cannot and should not stand in the way of what we must do to secure the Constitution from all its enemies, foreign and domestic."

 

His column followed opinion pieces in the Times by Damon Linker and Rich Lowry warning that the U.S. Department of Justice or others pursuing Trump could set a "dangerous precedent" and provoke future unwarranted probes of Democratic elected officials.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/let-trump-walk/

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

"The Republican Party has turned itself against electoral democracy."

 

On Tuesday, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie delivered a cogent rebuke of the hands-off argument and declared that "fear of what Trump and his supports might do cannot and should not stand in the way of what we must do to secure the Constitution from all its enemies, foreign and domestic."

 

His column followed opinion pieces in the Times by Damon Linker and Rich Lowry warning that the U.S. Department of Justice or others pursuing Trump could set a "dangerous precedent" and provoke future unwarranted probes of Democratic elected officials.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/let-trump-walk/

 To imply that someone like Doug Mastriano is working to "undermine democracy" just shows what a pile of trash this very tall tall is.  

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 To imply that someone like Doug Mastriano is working to "undermine democracy" just shows what a pile of trash this very tall tall is.  

Nine Republican leaders from across Pennsylvania on Wednesday endorsed Democrat Josh Shapiro for governor over their own party’s nominee, state Sen. Doug Mastriano, saying he is an extreme candidate who would undermine democracy.

 

“Mastriano continues to fan the flames of division, doubling down on his threats to undermine our democracy and attacking anyone who dares to criticize him.”

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/06/mastriano-shapiro-gop-leaders-pa-governors-race/7820029001/

 

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by ozimoron

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 To imply that someone like Doug Mastriano is working to "undermine democracy" just shows what a pile of trash this very tall tall is.  

Good thing he has repudiated the claim that Trump actually won the 2020 election or they might have a point.

How Pa. state Sen. Doug Mastriano promoted election lies between Election Day and January 6
He spread disinformation through his social media pages over 100 times in this 64-day timeframe.

https://www.witf.org/2022/06/09/how-doug-mastriano-promoted-election-lies-between-election-day-and-january-6/

Except he hasn't.

 

 

 

 

[lemmie]

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.

 

 

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

 

Looks like it is imploding again for the deep state losers. only a matter of time before Trump's in the Whitehouse, if he chooses so.

in the rear view mirror of the liberal loses Russia Gate, two impeachments, op hurricane x-fire, Jan 6, and don't forget how he wiped out the Bush's (Jeb beat down embarrassment) , destroyed hrc in 2016, owns a jet, hotels, golf courses and now owns L Cheney!

good work Bros.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, lemmie said:

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.

 

 

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

 

Looks like it is imploding again for the deep state losers. only a matter of time before Trump's in the Whitehouse, if he chooses so.

in the rear view mirror of the liberal loses Russia Gate, two impeachments, op hurricane x-fire, Jan 6, and don't forget how he wiped out the Bush's (Jeb beat down embarrassment) , destroyed hrc in 2016, owns a jet, hotels, golf courses and now owns L Cheney!

good work Bros.

It's filed under "Opinion"

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, lemmie said:

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.

 

 

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

 

Looks like it is imploding again for the deep state losers. only a matter of time before Trump's in the Whitehouse, if he chooses so.

in the rear view mirror of the liberal loses Russia Gate, two impeachments, op hurricane x-fire, Jan 6, and don't forget how he wiped out the Bush's (Jeb beat down embarrassment) , destroyed hrc in 2016, owns a jet, hotels, golf courses and now owns L Cheney!

good work Bros.

The Presidential Records Act makes it clear that the President's records are government property.  Two lawyers are arguing that since the act does not specifically state that a former President can't keep this property that it's ok for Trump to steal the stuff.

 

Imagine if I were to squat in your house.  Would you accept the legal argument that even though it is undeniably your house and you want it back, the law doesn't specifically state that I can't squat in your house?

 

Sounds like BS to me.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

11 hours ago, ozimoron said:

It's filed under "Opinion"

A judge issuing a warrant is merely expressing an "opinion," also.

 

An opinion can be well-informed, poorly-informed, or completely uninformed.

 

Because of this, we cannot know the value of an opinion until we know how the person arrived at it-----what they considered......... and what they overlooked or ignored.

 

You, of course, are trying to use "opinion" as a perjorative. You're trying to dismiss it because it's, ahem, "just an opinion." [My words, not yours]

 

But the author[s] of the Wall Street Journal piece believe they have a basis  for having that opinion.......... (just like the judge believed there was a basis  for his, yes, opinion  that a warrant was justified!)

 

--------------

 

Personally, I think it's probably safe to assume you are incapable assailing the basis  for the proffered "opinion," since you stayed well clear of even mentioning it. Maybe you didn't even read it? 

 

Instead, you went for the perjorative: "Opinion!"............ hoping, I assume, others will dismiss it, accordingly.

 

Except opinions can be well-informed, can't they? They can be very well-informed! They can be very well-informed, as......... I hope........ the judge's opinion was, when he issued the warrant!

 

-------------

 

So.......... did you have anything you wanted to say about the CONTENT of the opinion piece, or, say, how the Presidential Records Act [PRA] does or does not apply to this situation?

 

Or were you planning to just dismiss it based on where  it happened to appear, rather than what it actually says?

 

---------------

 

(The above, of course, is "just" my opinion! lol)

[KanchanaburiGuy]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

The Presidential Records Act makes it clear that the President's records are government property.  Two lawyers are arguing that since the act does not specifically state that a former President can't keep this property that it's ok for Trump to steal the stuff.

 

Imagine if I were to squat in your house.  Would you accept the legal argument that even though it is undeniably your house and you want it back, the law doesn't specifically state that I can't squat in your house?

 

Sounds like BS to me.

It is a general principle of law that everything is legal........ until there's a law that says it isn't. 

 

For example, Roe v Wade did not make abortion legal. It said the States could not have laws that made it illegal. Same with "gay marriage."

 

Yes, the effect is the same, but the circumstances are very different: There were LAWS that said you couldn't.......... then........ those laws got struck down! Then, suddenly, you could!

 

Generally speaking, if there's no law saying you can't.......... then you can!

 

And if there are two laws that contradict each other, it's the passive position that must win, not the aggressive position.

 

(Laws that are in opposition to each other......... have the same effect as there being NO law. The individual cannot be punished for being unable to read the mind of the judge who might eventually decide!)

[candide]

31 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

A judge issuing a warrant is merely expressing an "opinion," also.

 

An opinion can be well-informed, poorly-informed, or completely uninformed.

 

Because of this, we cannot know the value of an opinion until we know how the person arrived at it-----what they considered......... and what they overlooked or ignored.

 

You, of course, are trying to use "opinion" as a perjorative. You're trying to dismiss it because it's, ahem, "just an opinion." [My words, not yours]

 

But the author[s] of the Wall Street Journal piece believe they have a basis  for having that opinion.......... (just like the judge believed there was a basis  for his, yes, opinion  that a warrant was justified!)

 

--------------

 

Personally, I think it's probably safe to assume you are incapable assailing the basis  for the proffered "opinion," since you stayed well clear of even mentioning it. Maybe you didn't even read it? 

 

Instead, you went for the perjorative: "Opinion!"............ hoping, I assume, others will dismiss it, accordingly.

 

Except opinions can be well-informed, can't they? They can be very well-informed! They can be very well-informed, as......... I hope........ the judge's opinion was, when he issued the warrant!

 

-------------

 

So.......... did you have anything you wanted to say about the CONTENT of the opinion piece, or, say, how the Presidential Records Act [PRA] does or does not apply to this situation?

 

Or were you planning to just dismiss it based on where  it happened to appear, rather than what it actually says?

 

---------------

 

(The above, of course, is "just" my opinion! lol)

Ok but did the poster, who introduced this article, present it as an opinion?

Edited August 25, 2022 by candide

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

And if there are two laws that contradict each other, it's the passive position that must win, not the aggressive position.

Really? So when the laws were enacted makes no difference?

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

It is a general principle of law that everything is legal........ until there's a law that says it isn't. 

 

For example, Roe v Wade did not make abortion legal. It said the States could not have laws that made it illegal. Same with "gay marriage."

 

Yes, the effect is the same, but the circumstances are very different: There were LAWS that said you couldn't.......... then........ those laws got struck down! Then, suddenly, you could!

 

Generally speaking, if there's no law saying you can't.......... then you can!

 

And if there are two laws that contradict each other, it's the passive position that must win, not the aggressive position.

 

(Laws that are in opposition to each other......... have the same effect as there being NO law. The individual cannot be punished for being unable to read the mind of the judge who might eventually decide!)

Show me the law that says I can't squat in your house.

 

If Trump can legally take documents that are not his and keep them even after requests to return them, can people do the same with money from a bank?

 

To my knowledge no law regarding legal ownership of property or law against theft specifies that stolen property must be returned when possible.  It's assumed, with good reason.

 

Trump defenders are getting desperate if the are now arguing that Trump hasn't done anything illegal when he takes property that is not his and refuses to return the property.

Edited August 25, 2022 by heybruce

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

A judge issuing a warrant is merely expressing an "opinion," also.

Rubbish. The judge has establish probable cause. While, strictly speaking it is an opinion it is substantiated. Exactly the same standard as we are required to meet here.

 

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

 

An opinion can be well-informed, poorly-informed, or completely uninformed.

 

Because of this, we cannot know the value of an opinion until we know how the person arrived at it-----what they considered......... and what they overlooked or ignored.

 

You, of course, are trying to use "opinion" as a perjorative. You're trying to dismiss it because it's, ahem, "just an opinion." [My words, not yours]

 

But the author[s] of the Wall Street Journal piece believe they have a basis  for having that opinion.......... (just like the judge believed there was a basis  for his, yes, opinion  that a warrant was justified!)

 

--------------

 

Personally, I think it's probably safe to assume you are incapable assailing the basis  for the proffered "opinion," since you stayed well clear of even mentioning it. Maybe you didn't even read it? 

 

Instead, you went for the perjorative: "Opinion!"............ hoping, I assume, others will dismiss it, accordingly.

 

Except opinions can be well-informed, can't they? They can be very well-informed! They can be very well-informed, as......... I hope........ the judge's opinion was, when he issued the warrant!

 

-------------

 

So.......... did you have anything you wanted to say about the CONTENT of the opinion piece, or, say, how the Presidential Records Act [PRA] does or does not apply to this situation?

 

Or were you planning to just dismiss it based on where  it happened to appear, rather than what it actually says?

I dismiss nothing based on who said it unless it contains no evidence or can't be further supported.  This falls into that category. This is the single link I could find, an unsubstantiated opinion from a Murdoch source.

 

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

 

---------------

 

(The above, of course, is "just" my opinion! lol)

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by ozimoron