Why so many magazines and articles removed as 'Classified' from Mar-a-Largo

a reply to: shooterbrody

United States v. Grubbs. An anticipatory search warrant was issued to be executed once contraband material was delivered to Grubbs' residence. The Supreme Court ruled that the warrant was legal and must the 4th Amendment's particularity requirement.

How could that warrant list the exact place to be searched for the contraband when the contraband wasn't even on-site when the warrant was issued?

a reply to: Xcalibur254
Was Grubbs a former potus?
I am unfamiliar with his term, can you supply details?


You are comparing a cat to the space shuttle.
Was that case on twitter?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Where in the Constitution or US Code does it say the particularity requirement of the 4th Amendment applies differently to former Presidents?

a reply to: Xcalibur254
Lots of places
The fact that you do not know does not mean they do not exist.

The fact that you are trying to shoehorn the former potus into a regular citizen is hilarious.
Regular citizens get ss protection for life?
Regular citizens can declassify what they like?
Regular citizens get personal gifts from foreign dignitaries?


The reason this illegal political fishing expedition is getting attention is because of how unprecedented the illegal action by the Biden administration is.

It’s cool
Keep blindly defending this offense to the bill of rights.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So, you cannot cite anything that states the particulairty requirement applies differently for former Presidents? Got it.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
I can
Just won’t for you
Get it off of twitter


Quit making stupid comparisons for this
There are none
It is what “unprecedented “ means

a reply to: shooterbrody

So, you cannot cite anything that states the particulairty requirement applies differently for former Presidents? Got it.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
Executive privilege
Client attorney privilege
To name 2
There are others

I’m not doing your work for you
Scour twitter

a reply to: shooterbrody

Executive privilege and attorney-client privilege have nothing to say about the particularity requirement. Try again.

Lol
Keep thinking that pumpkin head

This is hilarious

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Considering that the Courts have never legally defined "Executive Privilege" how do we know what does or doesn't affect it?

a reply to: JIMC5499

Thats going to be the crux of the issue.

Current potus revokes former potus presents a constitutional crisis. I'll spare you from the doom porn behind all that.


Without note or notice, the former potus could be made to be in violation of many statutes while doing nothing.

Biden did that, and the leads are going back to his desk.

a reply to: JinMI
Biden already commented he didn’t know anything about this

Lololololol

a reply to: JIMC5499

That's exactly my point. Neither attorney-client privilege nor executive privilege are codified anywhere. So how can they have anything to say about the particularity requirement?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

5th amendment.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
Nice big gray area. Ever notice how the Liberal Socialists like to play in those areas? They can say what ever they want, knowing that by the time the Courts catch up with them, it's too late and they have accomplished their goal. There's no clearly legal definition of what constitutes "insurrection" either.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcalibur254

5th amendment.

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

All kinds of wiggle room there. There's been no Grand Jury. A case can also be made for the President being the Commander in Chief of the military. There's been no declared war, however there was a declared "public danger".

There's all kinds of room to intimidate, harass, accuse and other things. When you have the assistance of a Media who will try somebody in the Court of Public Opinion without fear of being held accountable for their actions, anything is possible.

a reply to: JinMI

Nope. Attorney-client privilege is strictly common law. And in fact, there is a crime-fraud exception that allows privileged information to be admissible if the client sought information from his attorney specifically to be used in the commission of a crime. To quote Clark v. United States:

A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told.

I would argue that if attorney-client privilege is protected by the 5th Amendment then such an exception would not be allowed.

As for executive privilege, the courts didn't even officially recognize its existence until Nixon v. United States.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I didn't say protected.

Your words:

Neither attorney-client privilege nor executive privilege are codified anywhere.

Privilege is extrapolated from the 5 amendment.

Lol
Imagine being so far in the weeds supporting tyrant you argue AGAINST attorney client privilege.


Wow



You don’t just support the tyranny, you advocate tyranny.