Law Trumps home raided

[Damien Karras]

Can’t return them all, Putin would be angry..

He has them stuffed in his gigantic pair of depends. He knows not even the FBI will check that cavity

 

[panamaican]

I don't understand this.

If a person is suspected of having stolen items, is it not common for DOJ to get search warrants to blanket search their homes, offices, etc?

It seems the Mar-A-Lago warrant had to be very specific and was limited to certain rooms only.

You would think with Trump already proven to be someone who will never admit or turn in anything and the only way to get doc's, that the DOJ should be able to get a blanket search warrant to search anywhere and everywhere they suspect documents might be including all of his Bedminster property. I think that is how it would certainly be with any of us.

Is this yet another instance of Trump just being given massive deference he does not deserve?

@panamaican , or anyone?

No, search warrants are only granted if you have some kind of proof that the thing you're looking for will be found at the location that you are searching. A good search warrant should never grant a blanket right to search all of someone's homes, offices, etc. unless there are specific things to be found at each home, office, etc.

So let's say you're looking for a doctor's stash of illegal prescription meds. The LEO's will have to establish why those meds are likely to be found at the office in order to search there (the meds are delivered to the office). If they want to search the doctor's house also, they're going to need to establish likelihood separately (they believe that the doctor distributes the meds from his house after receiving them at the office). They can't just say that because the doctor has illegal meds we can search everything he owns for them. So, if our fantasy doctor owned a vacation house 2 cities away, it couldn't be included in a search warrant unless they could tie that house to the drugs. (Aside: this is what the Breonna Taylor situation was about, the cops lied about the connection between the searched premises and the illegal activity).

For Trump, the DOJ is going to very cautious about what they put in the warrant location-wise because if they stretch the connection between a location to be searched and the materials to be found there, it's going to get extra scrutiny. So they'll be as precise as possible. In reality, that's not deference Trump doesn't deserve, that's how it should be for all of us.

 

[genecop]

No, search warrants are only granted if you have some kind of proof that the thing you're looking for will be found at the location that you are searching. A good search warrant should never grant a blanket right to search all of someone's homes, offices, etc. unless there are specific things to be found at each home, office, etc.

So let's say you're looking for a doctor's stash of illegal prescription meds. The LEO's will have to establish why those meds are likely to be found at the office in order to search there (the meds are delivered to the office). If they want to search the doctor's house also, they're going to need to establish likelihood separately (they believe that the doctor distributes the meds from his house after receiving them at the office). They can't just say that because the doctor has illegal meds we can search everything he owns for them. So, if our fantasy doctor owned a vacation house 2 cities away, it couldn't be included in a search warrant unless they could tie that house to the drugs. (Aside: this is what the Breonna Taylor situation was about, the cops lied about the connection between the searched premises and the illegal activity).

For Trump, the DOJ is going to very cautious about what they put in the warrant location-wise because if they stretch the connection between a location to be searched and the materials to be found there, it's going to get extra scrutiny. So they'll be as precise as possible. In reality, that's not deference Trump doesn't deserve, that's how it should be for all of us.

Who could possibly prove something is somewhere that they haven’t been…?
Proof is a very high standard..

 

[Andy Capp]

I don't understand this.

If a person is suspected of having stolen items, is it not common for DOJ to get search warrants to blanket search their homes, offices, etc?

It seems the Mar-A-Lago warrant had to be very specific and was limited to certain rooms only.

You would think with Trump already proven to be someone who will never admit or turn in anything and the only way to get doc's, that the DOJ should be able to get a blanket search warrant to search anywhere and everywhere they suspect documents might be including all of his Bedminster property. I think that is how it would certainly be with any of us.

Is this yet another instance of Trump just being given massive deference he does not deserve?

@panamaican , or anyone?

It seems likely it was specifically limited in scope to defuse accusations of the raid being a blanket fishing expedition even though they were accused of that anyway lol. Plus, when it comes to obtaining a warrant, it's all about probable cause, and if they lacked any probable cause--at the time--to show documents may be stored at other p. Trump* properties or elsewhere, they wouldn't be able to get a broader warrant anyway I think. I don't think "because p. Trump is such a liar liar pants on fire" would be sufficient justification.

And yeah, it could be to avoid ruffling any more feathers than necessary because they're over-cautious about accusations of bias--it's very apparent p. Trump has already received quite a bit of special treatment others would not.

One other possible reason to consider is that, knowing with almost complete certainty they would find documents in the course of their search, they didn't need to go after other properties, preferring instead to allow for such information (if it existed) to be exposed a staggered fashion so they can keep piling on revelations as they develop and keep the story in the news cycle. I mean, if they were really worried about national security, how come they waited 18 months before cracking down in the first place?

I am no lawyer, but sans any contradiction from those more knowledgeable, I consider all of the above to be equally likely and not all mutually exclusive. What I would want to know right now if I were involved in the investigation is what the fuck p. Trump was doing with those documents for the last year before the raid--some aspect of which led to the tip which led them to raid p. Trump's "home", and why is he still walking around a free man now given what we know at this point. I can only hope it's because they're still trying to encircle more people in their net.

This all assumes everything that we have been told is factual--and there's literally no reason to think otherwise since it's all documented: I think if he doesn't face any punishment for this it will be a stain on the entirety of America that will not fade for a long long time. As it is, it's laughable that all he had to do is pay a fine to skate from his fraudulent charity and university, not to mention helping foreigners get into the country with false work visas through his "modeling agency" (e.g. Melania), using his position as POTUS to inflict anti-competitive business practices on hotel operators by directing foreign dignitaries to his properties, and the list goes on and on and on. It's nauseating.

*p. Trump because it's said he likes a little extra p.

 

[Rational Poster]

Who could possibly prove something is somewhere that they haven’t been…?
Proof is a very high standard..

Trump is an idiot loser and he's surrounded by self serving losers who told the FBI.

 

[genecop]

Trump is an idiot loser and he's surrounded by self serving losers who told the FBI.

Thats called hearsay genius…proof has a different standard..

 

[Rational Poster]

Thats called hearsay genius…proof has a different standard..

No it's not. If they saw the documents in the location that's direct evidence.

NARA also knows he has them all because these records are catalogued.

 

[panamaican]

Who could possibly prove something is somewhere that they haven’t been…?
Proof is a very high standard..

You know what I meant. Not "prove" but "probable cause that a reasonably identified thing is at a particular location" doesn't really add anything to what I'm saying while being a lot longer to type.

The point being that the police can't just search everything someone owns for some iten just because they believe that the person has the item. There's a standard there and Trump is entitled to be protected by that standard, the same as everyone else.

 

[Mack McMarkles]

No, search warrants are only granted if you have some kind of proof that the thing you're looking for will be found at the location that you are searching. A good search warrant should never grant a blanket right to search all of someone's homes, offices, etc. unless there are specific things to be found at each home, office, etc.

So let's say you're looking for a doctor's stash of illegal prescription meds. The LEO's will have to establish why those meds are likely to be found at the office in order to search there (the meds are delivered to the office). If they want to search the doctor's house also, they're going to need to establish likelihood separately (they believe that the doctor distributes the meds from his house after receiving them at the office). They can't just say that because the doctor has illegal meds we can search everything he owns for them. So, if our fantasy doctor owned a vacation house 2 cities away, it couldn't be included in a search warrant unless they could tie that house to the drugs. (Aside: this is what the Breonna Taylor situation was about, the cops lied about the connection between the searched premises and the illegal activity).

For Trump, the DOJ is going to very cautious about what they put in the warrant location-wise because if they stretch the connection between a location to be searched and the materials to be found there, it's going to get extra scrutiny. So they'll be as precise as possible. In reality, that's not deference Trump doesn't deserve, that's how it should be for all of us.

I find that so odd.

So I rob a bank. They have me on video doing it. But they do not have any proof of where I may have hid the money. They know I own a home, have a storage locker and an office but without some direct proof, they would not be able to get a search warrant?

I am not doubting you but it seems so odd. I could totally understand that standard, you say, if they had no direct proof of me doing the crime and only a suspicion, and thus no fishing type search warrant. But you would think if they had video of me robbing the bank, they would then get to check my storage locker and home and office for the cash.

 

[panamaican]

I find that so odd.

So I rob a bank. They have me on video doing it. But they do not have any proof of where I may have hid the money. They know I own a home, have a storage locker and an office but without some direct proof, they would not be able to get a search warrant?

I am not doubting you but it seems so odd. I could totally understand that standard, you say, if they had no direct proof of me doing the crime and only a suspicion, and thus no fishing type search warrant. But you would think if they had video of me robbing the bank, they would then get to check my storage locker and home and office for the cash.

It's case by case. I understand the point you're asking with your hypo but it's more complicated than that. The police have to take their request to a judge and convince the judge that they meet the standards to search that location because it's the judge who grants the warrant.

So it's a combination of what evidence they have, how convincing an argument they can make, and what the judge deems sufficient to meet their probable cause (happy @genecop?) burden.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Thats called hearsay genius…proof has a different standard..

well whoever gave the feds the information that was damning enough to get a judge to obtain a search warrant for a former president of the united states. whatever testimony they provided, it had to have been pretty convincing.

nonetheless it turns out whoever sold out your orange idol gave them accurate information, and they were right on the money, seeing how the feds knew what they were looking for and knew where to find it, they executed their lawful search warrant and they went in there and they found what they were looking for. government property tucked away in cardboard boxes mixed up with time magazines and personal documents, inside a private citizens golf resort, complete with classified and top secret documents stored unsecured and in an unauthorized location. documents which trumps own lawyers sworn off on affadavits that they no longer had on the property. well it turns out that it was on the property, they went in there and they recovered it, and now diaper don is in some deep doo-doo, and you are just going to have to genecope with that.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

I find that so odd.

So I rob a bank. They have me on video doing it. But they do not have any proof of where I may have hid the money. They know I own a home, have a storage locker and an office but without some direct proof, they would not be able to get a search warrant?

I am not doubting you but it seems so odd. I could totally understand that standard, you say, if they had no direct proof of me doing the crime and only a suspicion, and thus no fishing type search warrant. But you would think if they had video of me robbing the bank, they would then get to check my storage locker and home and office for the cash.

well if you've had a prior history of having the feds coming to your door and recovering the banks property every other month that you really shouldnt be keeping there, they already know its a hot spot for you to be storing the banks money at, and theyve been hounding you all the time to get it back and youre being squirrely with them, i wouldnt think it would be too hard for them to obtain a warrant if you already a prior history of storing their property on your premesis and somebody gives them enough reason to believe that you've still got some of it left on your premesis. even moreso for the common criminal citizen. theyre gonna end up turning that place upside down and then some before they get done with you.

good ole donny playing his 5D chess. robbing banks and storing the money at his house, the genius criminal that he is. he should have just gave all of them government documents to the crackhead pillow salesman so he could store them alongside all of the evidence of election fraud. aint nobody in the world ever gonna find it there.

 

[Andy Capp]

You know what I meant. Not "prove" but "probable cause that a reasonably identified thing is at a particular location" doesn't really add anything to what I'm saying while being a lot longer to type.

The point being that the police can't just search everything someone owns for some iten just because they believe that the person has the item. There's a standard there and Trump is entitled to be protected by that standard, the same as everyone else.

Although I did anyway because Captain Pedantic insisted.

 

[genecop]

well whoever gave the feds the information that was damning enough to get a judge to obtain a search warrant for a former president of the united states. whatever testimony they provided, it had to have been pretty convincing.

nonetheless it turns out whoever sold out your orange idol gave them accurate information, and they were right on the money, seeing how the feds knew what they were looking for and knew where to find it, they executed their lawful search warrant and they went in there and they found what they were looking for. government property tucked away in cardboard boxes mixed up with time magazines and personal documents, inside a private citizens golf resort, complete with classified and top secret documents stored unsecured and in an unauthorized location. documents which trumps own lawyers sworn off on affadavits that they no longer had on the property. well it turns out that it was on the property, they went in there and they recovered it, and now diaper don is in some deep doo-doo, and you are just going to have to genecope with that.

Any Day now…

 

[kflo]

Any Day now…

Do you think he broke laws?

 

[genecop]

Do you think he broke laws?

Yes he broke laws….

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Yes he broke laws….

the chuds dont even try to deny that he broke any laws. they dont care about what he did and they wont even try to argue against it. surprising, after they cried and cried for years about hillaries emails and how that was sacrilege and tyrannny. instead they go straight to their whataboutisms and their deflections and their sad little chuddery. they cant even defend the orange messiah that they worship. not that he will be able to defend himself after he gets indicted. they put on their cute little facade about how they were totally against all that stuff. until their orange chudlord gets caught up in doing the same shit but worse and now its a different story from these sad little mental midgets.

lock her up! lock her up! errr.....wait no. we're not mad about that kind of stuff anymore. now stealing top secret information from the government and storing it in a golf course is just as petty as jaywalking, unless of course its the other side who does it. and whoever caught my orange idol in the act for his petty little crimes needs to be quartered at dawn for their deep state weaponized witch hunt and political hitjob. fucking muppets lol. they are the victims everybody! everybody feel bad for them!! the fbi planted classified documents inside the mar-a-lago, which private citizen donald trump then secretly declassified inside of his head without anybody else in the world ever knowing about, and they better give those fbi-planted government documents back to diaper don so that donnie dearest can properly return those government documents to their rightful owners again after his lawyers already sworn off on those documents no longer being on the premesis many many months ago.

law and order baby! back the blue!

 

[lilelvis]

Let's keep it clean and on topic, people.

People?

 

[Strychnine]

Ex-partner of Ukrainian ‘heiress’ who infiltrated Trump Mar-a-Lago circle is shot at Montreal resort

"Police in Québec are investigating a shooting outside a hotel that injured ​​Valeriy Tarasenko, an entrepreneur with ties to a woman who allegedly posed as an heiress to the Rothschild fortune to infiltrate Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

Police were called around 12.45 about a shooting outside of a hotel in Estérel, Quebec.

Radio-Canada reported that three people opened fire on three others in the parking lot, before leaving in a black SUV.

Estérel mayor Frank Pappas told CTV after speaking with police and viewing surveillance video he believed the shooting, which left Mr Tarasenko with serious but non-life-threatening injuries, he believed the violence was a targeted attack."

Ex-partner of Ukrainian ‘heiress’ who infiltrated Trump Mar-a-Lago circle is shot at Montreal resort | By Taboola News

 

[44nutman]

Ex-partner of Ukrainian ‘heiress’ who infiltrated Trump Mar-a-Lago circle is shot at Montreal resort

"Police in Québec are investigating a shooting outside a hotel that injured ​​Valeriy Tarasenko, an entrepreneur with ties to a woman who allegedly posed as an heiress to the Rothschild fortune to infiltrate Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate.

Police were called around 12.45 about a shooting outside of a hotel in Estérel, Quebec.

Radio-Canada reported that three people opened fire on three others in the parking lot, before leaving in a black SUV.

Estérel mayor Frank Pappas told CTV after speaking with police and viewing surveillance video he believed the shooting, which left Mr Tarasenko with serious but non-life-threatening injuries, he believed the violence was a targeted attack."

Ex-partner of Ukrainian ‘heiress’ who infiltrated Trump Mar-a-Lago circle is shot at Montreal resort | By Taboola News

Phony Rothschild is Thicc.
No doubt Trump tried to 2 pump her.