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

a reply to: Ahabstar

Right! Didn't Eric Trump insist the family was releasing the video of the search? That was weeks ago. Maybe they will release it with the health plan. I distinctly remember a tweet from him. “repeal and replacement of ObamaCare is moving fast!”

So, I'm guessing Trump will not release it anytime soon, or ever.

a reply to: Brassmonkey

Which another missing key…

Who is the witness? Are they a legitimate source?
What was listed in the warrant? Locations? Would that witness have that access?
Does the additional lock have merit for or against Trump, the accusations of the witness, the FBI?
If the information was out of date due to that new lock because it could have been moved or removed in that time and the witness didn’t have access…correct or incorrect still makes that information a bad source for a warrant.

A good example of the last part is the two scoops scandal. Did the other diners have the option of a second scoop if they asked or were they refused rudely by Trump?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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?

You did not even read it.

Klaeren said he firmly believes had Cottrell given Filip all the information he gleaned during the investigation, Filip would not have approved the search.

Do not again ask me to provide info when you are either to lazy to read it or to dishonest to admit it


..!. .!..

originally posted by: 20Eyes1974
www.law.cornell.edu...
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Thanks for the info
They will not understand it

a reply to: 20Eyes1974

Exclusionary Rule

Dollree MAPP V Ohio

28
And only last Term, after again carefully re-examining the Wolf doctrine in Elkins v. United States, supra, the Court pointed out that 'the controlling principles' as to search and seizure and the problem of admissibility 'seemed clear' (364 U.S. at page 212, 1441 of 80 S.Ct.) until the announcement in Wolf 'that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not itself require state courts to adopt the exclusionary rule' of the Weeks case. At page 213 of 364 U.S., at page 1442 of 80 S.Ct. At the same time, the Court pointed out, 'the underlying constitutional doctrine which Wolf established * * * that the Federal Constitution * * * prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by state officers' had undermined the 'foundation upon which the admissibility of stateseized evidence in a federal trial originally rested * * *.' Ibid. The Court concluded that it was therefore obliged to hold, although it chose the narrower ground on which to do so, that all evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure was inadmissible in a federal court regardless of its source. Today we once again examine Wolf's constitutional documentation of the right to privacy free from unreasonable state intrusion, and, after its dozen years on our books, are led by it to close the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right, reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very same unlawful conduct. We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Trump was warned by his lawyers to stop talking to Mark Meadows a week before the search. So there is a potential witness. And he was listed on the official list of people he gave access to records. So he would know. Secret Service agents are potential witnesses. There are others around the former President who would definitely know, even if they had just seen him with classified docs outside of the secure area.

If you read the filings by the government they told told the Trump team to secure the area with an additional lock until they hear back from the feds. That is in contrast to Trumps claim of everything was fine, they just said it needed more security.

So, considering first Trump was yelling, planted, then declassified, in which his lawyers have not argued either, along with the attestation in June that all classified material was turned over, I'm thinking Trumps claim regarding the lock is highly unreliable.

a reply to: frogs453

I would hold that video until trial. Show the video and have the lawyer ask if the agents could be identified so we may question as to if classified files were found in her thongs sewn into a hidden area. Anything to point out the desperation and intrusion by less than professional conduct.

Dismissal means they didn’t have Jack or was conducted too improperly in the first place to continue.

If that witness is rendered secondhand knowledge by time factors in evidence, the entire warrant and everything gathered is inadmissible…even if they had pics of Putin rolling another doobie and reading away.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Does the additional lock have merit for or against Trump, the accusations of the witness, the FBI?

To me, this small piece of the puzzle is very interesting.

Getting the SS detail to apply the lock reads quite plainly as "hey, this room isn't secure and you 24/7 guards have to put a lock on it" which they did.

Quite the conundrum of a statement.

It's also where the communication ceased before the raid.

a reply to: frogs453

June that all classified material was turned over,

Proof please.

a reply to: frogs453

Also correct and possible that Meadows or a SS agent is key. Dangerous ground for an SS agent though, very dangerous ground indeed.

a reply to: Ahabstar

If that witness is rendered secondhand knowledge by time factors in evidence, the entire warrant and everything gathered is inadmissible…even if they had pics of Putin rolling another doobie and reading away.

Something about exigency


Hmmmmm
Authorized what date?
Signed what date?
Executed what date?

It’s not a pass to take what you want from where you want when you want.

a reply to: 20Eyes1974

You're still making a "fruit from the poisonous tree" argument. The original claim that prompted this debate is that the search warrant should be thrown out because investigators took items not covered by the warrant. No one has yet to provide an example of that precedent ever being set.

a reply to: JinMI

The DOJ references it in their filing. It has also been reported that Cocoran wrote it and Bobb signed it. In their rebuttal the other day, the Trump lawyers did not refute that statement regarding the signed attestation. If it was false, which is a big part of the issue, considering he did have more classified documents, you don't think they would have mentioned it? That would have meant the DOJ lied. As a matter of fact, there has already been speculation of whether those 2 will face charges for obstruction themselves.

In the 36-page filing, the department says it obtained a search warrant for the Florida estate after gathering evidence "that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government's investigation," with Trump's attorneys misleading federal investigators and falsely claiming all sensitive material had been returned by the former president.

Christina Bobb, who on June 3 signed a letter (seemingly falsely) testifying that all materials stored at the Florida estate had been handed over to authorities.

According to the New York Times, Corcoran drafted a statement, signed by Bobb, that claimed that, to the best of their knowledge, all classified material that was at Mar-a-Lago had been handed over.

Newsweek

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The logic is that by taking things that aren't on the warrant, either A) the warrant was too vague, IE general or B) the agents went beyond the warrant and categorically violated Trumps constitutional rights, which would be an illegal search and seizure.

a reply to: frogs453

Again, for what now, the 5th time? All these claims link back to a NYT article:

At least one lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump signed a written statement in June asserting that all material marked as classified and held in boxes in a storage area at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and club had been returned to the government, four people with knowledge of the document said.

archive.ph/Gv0gC

a reply to: JinMI
Like you had forgotten
Lol
Same crap every day

a reply to: JinMI

The claims of who signed it do go to a report, which is why I said it's been reported.

Not the statement of the existence of the letter as noted in the official filing of the DOJ. That exists as an official filing and statement of evidence to support the governments claim.

Which as you say, for the 5th time, has not been refuted by his legal team.

a reply to: JinMI

A.) Please look at other examples of search warrants and tell me that the Trump search warrant is vague than those.

B.) And any item collected not covered by the search warrant would be inadmissible in court even if it showed evidence of criminality. It would not suddenly make every item covered by the warrant inadmissible as well. Unless you can show precedence.

By the way, all of the items collected were covered by the warrant:

a. Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any
containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as
well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the
aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: JinMI

The claims of who signed it do go to a report, which is why I said it's been reported.

Not the statement of the existence of the letter as noted in the official filing of the DOJ. That exists as an official filing and statement of evidence to support the governments claim.

Which as you say, for the 5th time, has not been refuted by his legal team.

Then show me the filing.

We don't prove negatives. Did you refute racism today?

a reply to: shooterbrody

It's still a "fruit from a poisonous tree" argument. As I said previously, the only way all evidence collected with a warrant is tossed out is if the defense can prove the warrant was issued in bad faith or under fraudulent terms.

It will not get tossed out if investigators collect items not covered by the warrant. Those items will just not be allowed to be admitted as evidence and will be returned to their owner.