Trump moves closer to getting a ''special master''

a reply to: Annee

The government employee, with Congressional approval, can pay the government for the gift. They will also need to pay taxes on the gift.

a reply to: shooterbrody

It's noted in the affadavit there were witnesses who came forward, and the committee provided some of the messages and notes of calls.

You have no shame still supporting someone that would jeopardize the county’s national security and relationship with allies by taking and mishandling top secret documents.

a reply to: frogs453
I don’t support trump
I think he is a blowhard asshole

I do support his civil rights, as all other citizens civil rights.

He has had the government lie to use its power against him before.
It appears to me they have done the same again, in a much shabbier manner.

The ends do not justify the means.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Annee

The government employee, with Congressional approval, can pay the government for the gift. They will also need to pay taxes on the gift.

Thanks.

Yep, forgot about that.

But they can't just take it.

a reply to: Annee

EDIT: hmmmm, do ya think the Trump's switched out the real coats for fake ones?

Of course!

Trump didn't disclose those gifts as required until his last full day in office

R EVEALED: Saudi Arabia gave Trump FAKE white tiger and cheetah fur coats

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Please provide a single instance where an entire warrant was thrown out because law enforcement took something not covered by the warrant?

Fruit from the poisonous tree.

a reply to: JinMI

That only applies if it can be shown the warrant was issued on fraudulent grounds. Even then the evidence could still be admissible if it can be shown that the agents executing the warrant believed it to be issued in good faith.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

You wanted an instance, I gave an instance.

Given the high profile nature of the case, should a warrant be found fraudulent, Trumps lawyers would have the argument of not having an unbiased jury.

This is way down the road stuff and lots of suppositions involved though.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Vindman. 😂😂😂

a reply to: JinMI

And I'm saying that LE taking something not covered by the warrant is not an example of "fruit from a poisonous tree." That would be more like a "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" rule which doesn't exist.

The closest it gets to that is if the prosecutor tried to use an item not covered by the warrant as evidence in a case and the defense successfully argued that the item wasn't covered by the warrant. Then the item would not be admissible as evidence but everything else covered by the warrant would still be admissible.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Which is a really good reason for having a special master.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JinMI

That only applies if it can be shown the warrant was issued on fraudulent grounds. Even then the evidence could still be admissible if it can be shown that the agents executing the warrant believed it to be issued in good faith.

Wrong
As usual
www.cbsnews.com...

One of MANY

www.mlive.com...

The constitution restricts the government
This warrant has been trashed

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What were Melania's underwear doing in a storage closet mingled with classified government documents?

They weren't. FBI went into her personal things because the "warrant" was wide enough (ILLEGALLY) to allow them. Total farce.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

'I don't see any violation. Are you suggesting that law enforcement has to know exactly where the goods at any given address are, like 2nd drawer of office desk, before a judge can sign a warrant?"

Lawfully, yes. Or the warrant can be thrown out. And all "evidence" thrown out too. This was hasty and not thought out very well at all.

a reply to: shooterbrody

How was I wrong? The article literally states this was a "fruit from a poisonous tree" scenario because evidence was collected without a warrant.

So I once again ask, please provide an example where every piece of evidence collected during the execution of a search warrant was thrown out because items not covered by the warrant were collected?

General warrants violate the 4th amendment. This warrant wasn’t specific enough. It just said get all his papers from his presidency from 2017-2021 in that house.

The British pulled this crap and this helped to start the revolution. In the USA you don’t get a warrant then hope to find something criminal.

You need to have a specific warrant on where specifically the item is and what the specific item is based on evidence and/or witness Testimony.

I Hope this gets thrown out on technicalities but it all depends on the judge and if they aren’t bought and paid for.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

"And that's when Trump wasn't there. When he's there, I'll bet they're all over the breakfast table in the dining room.

Remember when he shared .. blah blah blah.

Once he has declassified them he can do what he wants.

a reply to: frogs453

Did they take her underwear or sniff/try on her underwear?

CCTV knows for sure.

www.law.cornell.edu...
a reply to: Xcalibur254

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Oh, it will. The pedocrats can't help but # things up for themselves. They are so desperate it's was funny, until this farce of a raid and last night's facsist speech by #pedobiden (which trended #1 for over 6hr). I say , if they want blood, they got it.