Mar-a-lago warrant has no legal basis per 2 Constitutional lawyers-their explanation
Replies to: Mar-a-lago warrant has no legal basis per 2 Constitutional lawyers-their explanation
Wait someone on here said it would not take a Constitutional Lawyer to figure this stuff out.
(no message)
To be specific, JH, in that other thread, I noted that two 'Constitutional Lawyers' suggested that
a 'PRA' sanctioned "Negotiation" was all that was going on, and yet I couldn't find any wording in the PRA that mentioned 'Negotiations' for anything...I'm still waiting for you, Stark or anyone to direct me to some section of the Act that I may have missed...short of that, as a layperson, I'm stuck on NARA taking full possession immediately upon the former President leaving office...like Jan. 20, 2021.
Have you found the wording yet?...if not, then is my interpretation correct?
The PRA Code is more like guidelines, the rest is silent.
(no message)
Am I wrong in assuming that NARA takes ownership as soon as
The outgoing President leaves office?
Yes assume but I'll raise you briefs filed and arguments made during hearings by opposing litigants
There may be a constitutional issue with the ability of congress to have passed such a law but as I don't know which side will retain me at my hourly fee, I'll refrain from commenting further on that issue....or non-issue, depending on as noted, who is willing to pay my hourly fee.
That was Tyrone. He's an effing wingnut.
(no message)
Wouldn't it make sense for Trump to join media's motion to unseal the affidavit?
But his legal team stayed silent.
To your question- the DOJ gets to redact in whatever manner they choose.Such a release could hurt DT
(no message)
The DOJ has pledged to redact everything that won't be leaked to the NYT or WaPo
(no message)
If you cannot access the WSJ,at least read my response to Chris below. From legal standing viewpoint
...this case will go nowhere, and i think the DOJ had to know this. This in turn makes me highly suspicious that it was a fishing expedition, and that it is going to end badly for Garland, et al....but we shall see. i provided this simply to add to the information regarding the issue.
Whether DOJ chooses to file an indictment is a different question than the lawfulness of the SW.
You assume there were shenanigans, which would then include Attorney General Garland and the federal magistrate who authorized the search of a former Presidents' private residence.
I do not make such an assumption. Quite the contrary.
Trump has plenty of available remedies to challenge an unlawful search warrant or seek other relief. If he is successful on that front, we can all applaud your scholarly analysis.
Given Garland is the most political position in the entire DOJ, I would expect him to be involved
(no message)
Must....defend.....leader....
(no message)
Are you talking about Baron or the WSJ? I remember you telling me "I report, you decide". Isn't
that what Baron is doing here? Just reporting what someone else said and letting us decide?
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=84600
Hunter swiped his muffuletta out of the faculty fridge again. Chris is just hangry.
(no message)
PS -one of us is also defending unprecedented behavior by DOJ where questions haven't been answered
yet. Thus, you are no different in your investure of trust in your tribe than I.
I thought it interesting. It still matter to me if he had unacceptable documents. But still, it
shows the shenanigans that are being played within the DOJ. From the article:
"the warrant used to search former President Donald Trump's residence suggests that ''the FBI had no legally valid cause for the raid.''
This is because Trump's possession of the documents at his residence is entirely consistent with federal law that gives former presidents access to them, regardless of the statutes the FBI uses as justification in its warrant.
The authors emphasized that nothing in the PRA of 1978 suggests that the former president's physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based.
Rivkin and Casey explained that ''in making a former president's records available to him, the PRA doesn't distinguish between materials that are and aren't classified. That was a deliberate choice by Congress, as the existence of highly classified materials at the White House was a given long before 1978, and the statute specifically contemplates that classified materials will be present — making this a basis on which a president can impose a 12-year moratorium on public access.''
The authors also argue that since the FBI was initially satisfied with the installation of an additional lock on the relevant Mar-a-Lago storage room, if that turned out to be insufficient, and ''Trump refused to cooperate, the bureau could and should have sought a less intrusive judicial remedy than a search warrant — a restraining order allowing the materials to be moved to a location with the proper storage facilities, but also ensuring Mr. Trump continuing access."
Rivkin and Casey added that ''surely that's what the government would have done if any other former president were involved.''
He...must...defend...Biden....
(no message)
I criticized Biden in the thread below this one. I'm happy to do it when I disagree.
(no message)
Oh...so if we criticize Trump once, we aren't in the cult? Important to know.
Never include me in the "cult" accusation again.
Nor me.
(no message)
Oh, you both are cult members indeed. Baron being an Imperial Wizard
Neddie the Imperial Exchequer.
You two Letterman carrying water for the #1 being here is to what perfection looks like.
JH doesn’t seem to mind at all being a true subordinate.
Ah, the chilling rigors of cult culture.
Neither of you have JimB's promise to exclude you from the cult.
(no message)
He just weighed in, lol. I get to be a wizard.
(no message)
“Imperial” wizard. Just make sure you take your hood off
so everyone recognizes you for who you are.