Trump can publicly release the warrant. Will he? If not why?
(no message)
Replies to: Trump can publicly release the warrant. Will he? If not why?
They wouldn't leave him with a copy. They presented it to his lawyers quickly & then took it back.
Here's a telling interview with Orange's attorney Alina Habba who is handling the case.
Link: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/08/10/trump_attorney_alina_habba_i_dont_trust_the_government_and_thats_a_very_frightening_thing_for_an_american.html
A dispute between Trump and presidential archives doesn't warrant a FBI raid on his home, especially
Trump side has been cooperating with presidential archives. This FBI raid is unprecedented overreach, very banana republic like.
Felonies require responses. The Dear Leader may have committed a felony.
(no message)
Like all the other felonies in the last 7 years?
Oh wait
you're praising the GOP for aiding and abetting Trump? Well Done.
(no message)
Nonsense. Why not appoint a special prosecutor to show it's not about partisan, it's about felony?
(no message)
A "special prosecutor" is not needed...and they are hardly nonpartisan
How about leaving the analysis of the US legal system to Americans, Boris.
your side has a track record there is no he commited a felony
(no message)
How about they just come out and say "we are trying to stop him from running in 2024"? Everyone
knows thats all this is. Be honest with people. I know its hard for anybody in Washington to do that but how about they give it a shot?
Meanwhile, back in the real world...a warrant for the retrieval of Confidential and potentially
Top Secret government documents was executed on Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home...all of this is decidedly very public and will be expanded upon in due time...stay tuned.
Patience. The Law requires caution and good timing.. not knee jerk reactions.
(no message)
The Law requires no such thing. Every one of you guys is talking out of your ass.
(no message)
You were crying"the end of the republic" but were very quick to hop on the same train going your way
(no message)
Reportedly, his lawyers were not given a copy.
(no message)
Oh yes they were...check out the examples linked in the attached article...standard procedure...
any time he wants, Trump can release the warrant that was given to his attorney. Don't you think the American people should know why the FBI conducted an invasive "Search and Seizure"?
Link: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/mar-lago-search-trump-challenged-release-warrant-rcna42263
Good one. The Maddowblog. Remember this one,
(no message)
Link: https://www.theblaze.com/amp/flashback-remember-when-rachel-maddow-said-the-virus-does-not-infect-vaccinated-people-2656167061
Here is an example of a warrant given to John Eastman...it spells out what is being sought, and the
subject of a "Search and Seizure" is free to publicize it if they so desire...and the subject can seek to challenge it in court...let's see what Trump decides to do...but make no mistake, Trump's attorney was given a copy.
Link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.476086/gov.uscourts.nmd.476086.1.1.pdf
By the way. I know a little something about the criminal justice system. I don’t need a linked
article to explain to me what search warrant is for.
I could care less about Trump and the search warrant. Im just laughing you watch
Maddow and she lied to audience about the vaccine. Im sure you watched that episode and held onto her every word.
Did you find some error in the Maddowblog regarding the warrant issue?
(no message)
Just admit you watched that episode of Maddow and she fooled you thinking the vaccine
was going to keep you from getting Covid.
Ok, then...you acknowledge that a legal warrant was given to Trump's attorney...now let's talk about
Rachel Maddow's "Lie"...
First off, that episode you're referring to took place on March 29, 2021...that was when we were dealing with the original (or "Wild Type") version of COVID-19...the one that the mRNA vaccines were designed to protect us from infection...to the tune of a verified "95% effectivity"...the Delta variant didn't show up until May, 2021...and Omicron was only discovered in South Africa in November of that year...
Given the 'Wild Type''s R0 factor and a 95% protection rate, if nothing changed in the virus, and everyone got vaccinated, any epidemiologist would tell you that we would have essentially stamped out the disease...that was the situation when Ms. Maddow spoke...no one knew what the future held, although the CDC and WHO knew what could happen if people did not get vaccinated.
So, when Rachel spoke that evening, anyone who got vaccinated had a 95% chance of being immune to a COVID infection...if you want to castigate her for leaving out the 5%...which was widely publicized for all to see..then have at it...but there is no way you can put her comments on the same plane as Donald Trump's assertion that COVID was a "Hoax"...given DJT's verified knowledge of the disease's mortal danger back in Jan., 2020, that's what could be termed a real "Lie".
Rachel Maddow was doing the American public a service by encouraging everyone to get vaccinated...Donald Trump, in effect, influenced untold thousands to forgo vaccination...get sick...and in too many cases, die...see the difference?
Spin it any way you want she lied in March of 2021. If she wasn’t sure
she shouldn’t have spewed it out. In her defense she probably got her information from the great Anthony Fauci.
According to you they have all this great evidence to charge him. Then charge him and move
forward.
Of course they were. This is stupid.
(no message)
False - per Alina Habba Trump's attorney involved in case.Here's her own words in interview about ii
Reported by whom? Giuliani? Of course they were given a copy.
(no message)
Actually they were not. They did not leave the warrant Monday night
It is only recently that they were allowed to have it. They wouldn’t even allow his lawyers to remain in the house. Banana Republic is an understatement
Link?
(no message)
"Halligan said the search warrant was sealed."
(no message)
Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-mara-a-lago-fbi-search-lawyer/
Do you amaze yourself with how consistently wrong you can be, daily, piggles?
I’m not amazed seeing it’s every time you post here.
The constant norm for all you trumpians.
Dim nipping at everyone's ankles as usual.
The adults are talking, Dim. Run along and play.
Ah, Piggles got caught again posting his expertise that turns out to be wrong.
And poor, Piggles has to make sure the spotlight is on his stupidity. This board is littered with your genius. Well done, again.
That means until it is executed
The target has the right to see the warrant.
Not a lawyer, but I think it also means they are not given a copy.
They can perhaps read it. In PA state law, the target only gets a copy if charges are subsequently filed.
No it doesn't.
"The search-warrant application process happens in secret in order to avoid tipping off the person whose property may be searched. Any court records related to the warrant application would be sealed. Those records typically remain under seal unless and until a criminal case is brought, and even then, authorities may try to keep the affidavit from public view. The person whose property is being searched is entitled to see the warrant, but not the affidavit."
Link: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-08-10/explainer-trump-mar-a-lago-how-fbi-gets-search-warrant
The words you quoted do not support your supposition.
I cannot open the link. Why anyone would subscribe to the LA Times is beyond my capacity for understanding.
I'll copy and paste the important line again
"The person whose property is being searched is entitled to see the warrant"
Not sure how much more clear it can be.
The quote is missing "and given a copy of it".
That seems to be something that could be more clear. Geddit?
I am not claiming expertise in this. I had not realized you were also a lawyer. Congrats.
I see. So you think they were just allowed to see it. No touching! Gotcha.
(no message)
Yes. As mentioned, that is the case in PA law. Have you shown any difference in federal law? No.
(no message)
So you knew Mary Catherine in 7th grade too I see!
(no message)
Your reference to playing "I'll show you mine" with Mary Catherine was...unwarranted.
(no message)