(08-20-2022 02:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-20-2022 09:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-20-2022 08:52 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(08-20-2022 08:38 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  No matter how you explain it Tanq it’s not a good look from the outside looking in.

Nor does it win you any points as a go-to poster for what ordinarily are balanced and insightful points.

You're the expert, so tell me:

Do your Rules of Procedure take precedence over the 4th Amendment? Because that results is an unannounced raid on a private residence. But so long as the Rules of Procedure are followed, then the hell with citizen rights.

How many searches/ seizures/ raids in this country are done under warrant and are also done unannounced? The vast majority.

Please cite any legal basis that outlaws 'an unannounced raid'.

I dont think there is anything wrong with 'unannounced raids', mind you.

Think this:

Phone rings, Pablo Escobar picks up: Si?
DEA: This is the DEA. We need to announce a raid on your home in 30 minutes. Thank you.

Do you see the inherent problem with that which you complain about?

You keep noting stuff like 'the hell with citizen rights'. What 'citizen right' of any sort was violated in the Mar a Lago search and seizure? No offense Adopted, but denoting that phrase in the general doesnt make it so.

Quote:In this case, the targets are high profile folks, and can stand up for themselves better than most. In the next instance - - yours or mine perhaps - - we will not have that kind of high-profile protection.

One of the problems, Adopted, and with all due respect, is that I dont think you even really understand the contours of the 4th Amendment, and the role of a warrant in that/

Quote:Yet you want ME, an outsider, to disprove the validity of the warrant

When YOU keep claiming how illegal it is -- yes. Your typing that over and over and over doesnt make it a fact. If you want to keep claiming how improper and illegal something is, absolutely you need to tell me why.

Quote: - - when the very targets are not allowed to see the underlying affidavit filed in support.

In the process of this country, an affidavit under seal generally is not given to a target of a search at the time of the search (ill cover why later). What matters is that the underlying affidavit must be sufficient for a judge to sign off on it. That is the judge denotes the overlying rationale contained in the proposed warrant (which then becomes the warrant when approved), and sees if the items that are to be looked for are proper under that rationale and affidavit, then sees if the means and scope are proper under that rationale and affidavit.

The warrant we have. And the rationale is violation of three statutes, and the things being sought are provided. When the judge is convinced that the application and the affidavit are proper, there is sufficient cause to believe the items are likely to be found, and the means of search are proper for the items being sought -- he signs.

That affidavit must be provided in only two circumstances: a) charges are filed, and the affidavit becomes necessary since the defense at that point has every right to challenge the validity for evidentiary purposes; and b) when a person files a lawsuit claiming damages for a breach of rights under color of law.

The reason the affidavit is not provided until the above two points is easy. If the DEA raids a drug lord den, kind of idiotic to show the drug lord the names of the informants. Because, many times an arrest happens well after any particular search and seizure. But now magically you think it is good public policy to drop the affidavit off in any and all searches? Uhhhh..... sorry, I am not on board with that.

If Trump sues for breach rights under color of law, that process becomes the focus and he should be absolutely entitled to see the affidavit. If there is an arrest, the the issue if the search was in all respects proper becomes a key and central issue, and again it is proper to release the affidavit to them. Otherwise -- public policy (above with the drug lord and snitch) kind of stacks against that being dropped off at the time of the search. And I am okay with that balance.

Quote: Don't know about your wife (or if you are even married), but mine would be none too fond of FBI agents pawing through her closet.

The warrant allows the agents to search for documents -- which then allows them to search areas that could contain such documents. That is common sense.

I know my clothes closets and drawers are all large enough to stuff a file folder of documents, not to mention a single document. That is a tough byproduct of the search, but the allowing of the search 'for documents' allows them to search any area that could contain documents. Kind of common sense.

Quote: And it would not much matter to her if a nose-picking federal judge with a social-media history of uncomplimentary statement directed at me signed off on it.

And honestly, I know a number of judges who also have political views. All of them I have had experience with I have zero doubt that, when it is time to be a judge, that they can set aside those political views. Not just zero doubt, I have first hand witnessed that.

Given that, I absolutely will give the judge the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:And so yes, tanq, I am "ripping you" for unquestioning acceptance of the judge's signature. I'd expect better from you than that.

And adopted, one of the problems is that you really dont seem understand the contours of the 4th amendment when decrying the actions as inherently illegal and improper. Not meaning to say this in a rude, or arrogant tone, or in a belittling manner. But, it is probably one issue in this conversation.

Thanks for the very civil tone and conversation. Have a great weekend if I dont speak much more this weekend.

Thats probably because the DOJ has a proven history of lying in warrant affidavits when it comes to Trump (See Russia Russia Russia).

While you claim no agent would ever risk the penalties---its clear agents did in the Russia Russia Russia spying scandal---and best I can tell----some 5 years later nobody has paid much of any penalty at all.

Clinesmith did -- and did pay a price. A felony ding on you is a major screw job in the legal world.

In honesty, with this search, I sincerely dont think the attorney heading this matter would be willing to not just toss the results of this search based on a false affidavit, but to toss *anything* that relates to the search in any form with the same act.

Further, with this, this contains offenses that are far more numerous than those facing Clinesmith -- in number and in severity.

Of course, you are free to think whatever you want. Given the above repercussions probably being fatal to the entire matter + much more potential criminal liability if undertaken over Clinesmith + far more individual civil liability, I dont think it more likely as you may.