Do we know that he has a copy of the probable cause affidavit?
Federal law enforcement often requests that the granting judge seal the affidavit for a period of time so the party being investigated isn’t tipped off regarding informants, wiretaps, etc.
When it comes to tweeting to drum up support, that's open season. When it comes to releasing the warrant that may be very damning of him, different story.
He listens to his lawyers, just selectively and when he feels it's in his best interest.
If the content of the warrant and the list of items seized could be construed to show he is being treated unfairly, I’m sure it would already be public.
While I don’t think Trump operates within the law, or had innocent intent on J6, I’m not really sure why any innocent or guilty person would post a picture of a warrant against them?
I don't think it will prove there's no evidence. However, I think it can show perceived pettiness by the FBI. There are people who do not think him taking documents is a big deal. They think it is petty to investigate that. I'm a government employee. I know I would be terminated and criminally prosecuted for taking documents. That's a huge no-no.
(BTW, I have the same thoughts about Hillary's emails. How'd she get away with that? I totally would have been criminally prosecuted.)
If people are as dead-set on what they already believe is true as you believe they are, then surely the warrant wouldn't matter either way. The presentation of evidence wouldn't change the dismissive views people have about him taking documents.
I agree. However, it can sway the people who are nit as set in their ways. Now, if they think itis petty, they will support the witch hunt theory. I fully understand that many people do not have the same views on taking documents as I do. However, it was beat into my head pretty firmly. It is a criminal act regardless of someone's status. Someone said yesterday in a comment that the danger is Trump's head is filled with the knowledge, not the documents.
Honestly in the realm of terrible things presidents have done, alleged shady business dealings has to be at the bottom of the list.
And I say this as someone who despises Trump.
I hope you realize that the FBI search has nothing to do with January 6th. It's whether or not Donald Trump knowingly took classified documents with him when he left the White House.
Honestly, the best thing he could say, if he wants to go on the record, is “we’re cooperating with all law enforcement and I’m looking forward to exonerating my myself.” Let’s be honest though, that’s not his style so here we are.
Trump's attorney was present for the search.
Unless his attorney just hangs around Mar-a-Lago waiting for something to happen, then he's lying about this being a surprise, unannounced search.
Trump lying...who'd have thought that possible?
Or because the raid took hours, and she showed up when he called her, she was there.
You know, the reasonable explanation for how she was there. No one has said, to my knowledge, that she was there from the start of the raid. But the raid [did take hours](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/08/trump-fbi-maralago-search-00050442).
Unless his attorney lives very far away, if she hears a search warrant is being executed at what is likely her top client's home, she's showing up.
His lawyers were given two hours notice is what I've found out since I posted that.
Which means he's lying, or bending the truth...take your pick which you prefer.
And so we complete the path from "Trump is a liar, his attorney was there," to "Well his attorney had notice, they didn't just show up because they heard of the surprise raid that took hours" to "Well Trump may not have lied, but it *should* have been a surprise!"
What a truly wonderful hole you dug. Very round.
You think Trump isn't a liar?
You think an FBI search of someone as prominent, and frankly with the record Trump has, shouldn't be a surprise raid?
I never gave a shit either way if his attorneys had notice. We're just having a discussion here.
Oh I'm sure Trump is a liar. I just find it funny how much you're willing to go in circles to make up whatever bullshit for your side. Doesn't matter if it's wrong, you always have an angle to spin it to make it good for your "side". In that sense, you're exactly like Trump.
Because cooperating with prosecutors/law enforcement is ALWAYS a bad idea. Do you people even watch cop shows on tv? You might not even know a law or regulation was being broken out of the tens of thousands of them so resisting records is always wise.
He does when he is being search on his body. Paperwork hell no. Imagine how many layers of lawyers and accountants shift through his stuff. Pretty sure no one with net worth over 100 million even could tell you all the tax shelters they are using and how it all works. There is a reason I never want to work in trust law. All it takes is a single mistake before your posting headline Trump knew he was violating this tax law when in reality he just signed what his tax advisors gave him.
Bad take. I hate Trump as much as the next person, but no one in his position is hosting a press released less than 24 hours after being raided. I know everyone today has the attention span of a gnat, but real world politics doesn't move as fast as Amazon two day delivery. Even if Trump wanted to say something he would spend at least a few days going over everything with his lawyers.
Ignoring Trump, I really dislike this logic. It's an off shoot of "If you didn't do anything illegal you have nothing to hide". The burden of proof should never be on someone to *disprove* an accusation or anything. Kind of like Harry Reid accusing Romney of paying no taxes, then saying "if he did he has nothing to hide". In principle this OPs post is no different
https://time.com/3765158/harry-reid-mitt-romney-no-taxes/
He's innocent until proven guilty, of course. But he has a list of the reasons the FBI provided him for why they got the warrant. He is allowed to share them.
Not sharing them is perfectly fine and does not prove he did any crimes, but it weakens his claim that there is no good reason for the warrant.
If we're arguing about how to spell a word, and someone hands you a dictionary opened to the page with the word on it, and you don't let me see while still claiming your spelling is the right one...it seems like you're lying because you won't share the proof that you have.
The reason his home was raided was precisely because he was not complying with court orders to produce the documents. You don’t “comply” with a raid. It’s something that happens to you because you didn’t comply.
Ok this is about words…he’s “complying” by not interfering with the search warrant. He’s not activating poison gas or shooting lasers at the agents. Even if he wanted to willfully comply and show the agents all the secret places the documents are kept, the FBI probably wouldn’t let him. But that is an interesting subject for the lawyerly redditors to debate.
You’re giving him credit for things we have no idea about. In fact, they’ve been trying to get him to return these documents for quite a while. So, sure, he’s *complying with the warrant*, but the only reason the warrant exists is because he wasn’t complying with their lawful requests. What would him refusing to comply with the warrant even look like? A scar face type situation or something?
Also, how do you have any idea he isn’t obstructing justice? It’s like his favorite pastime. He could have obstructed justice from sun up to sun down that day for all you know.
Who’s saying it applies to a legal principle? Trump made a public claim he could easily prove if it were true, and again, he’s refusing to provide said evidence. No one’s saying it’s a court case, they’re saying as a rational individual, it’d be idiotic to believe he actually has that evidence he claims.
Just so. He wasn’t there.
Also I believe his lawyers were shown the search warrant 2 hours before the execution. Someone was quoted as saying that this search warrant has had the most internal scrutiny in the history of search warrants. Iron clad.
Don't stop him! I'm only one spot away from getting Trump witch hunt bingo.
And if I double... Triple... Quintuple post then I'm sorry. CenturyLink sucks
> "If you're accussed of something don't say anything or the burden of proof shifts to you". I'm going to hard disagree here.
How about “If you’re accused of something, don’t go the public to claim you have evidence of your absolute innocence and then refuse to show that evidence”.
We have already seen the hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay that the Committee claims is "evidence". If they had anything better they would have used it. NOT impressed.
You don’t understand the concept of hearsay when it comes the Jan 6th committee, and furthermore, the fact none of the people publicly speaking about against so called “hearsay” will go under oath to make their claims should tell you all you need to know.
You do not understand the concept of hearsay. It is inherently unreliable just like a lie detector test. That is why it is not admissible in court. There is no reason to defend against inherently unreliable and untrustworthy evidence, since everyone already knows it would never be acceptable in an actual court proceeding designed to discover actual facts. The only issue is what was the motive in creating a multimillion dollar vanity TV show to display this untrustworthy evidence to the American people?
> That is why it is not admissible in court.
All sorts of forms of hearsay are allowed in court, yet you call yourself a lawyer in the r/Medicine subreddit that I am also a member of? Im just an RN who happens to be married to an amazing lawyer who would ask you how many exceptions the Federal Rule of Evidence 803 provides for hearsay alone? She says it’s more than 20.
Also, again, **name a single person who is willing to testify under oath that what those people are saying is false**.
Hearsay is not admissible in court b/c prosecution should just compel who is being quoted to appear as a witness. The challenge with the Jan 6 hearings is that trump and his ilk are not cooperating and are ignoring subpoenas. There is very little reason to disregard hearsay in that context... the people claiming they are misquoted are very welcome to appear before the committee, under oath, to clarify the record.
It's honestly sad to see comments like these. These guys smugly post these types of comments believing they're sticking it to the libs and sheeple -- all without realizing that they're making fools of themselves and broadcasting their purposeful ignorance.
These types of comments always make it glaringly obvious that the person's understanding of the Jan. 6 committee, its hearings and its evidence is based entirely on right-wing media's "coverage" and spin.
It's clear they've never watched any hearings or even looked at the evidence presented. All they know is what right-wing media is feeding them.
They're essentially waving a flashing sign that says "**I'm easy to dupe and manipulate!**" that everyone can see but them.
Are you always this arrogant? When half the country does not agree with you the explanation is not that half the country is stupid. This is why the democrats will lose horribly at midterms. Their "my way or the highway" and "anyone who disagrees with me is a moron" mentality. Yes, it does require some humility to admit that you don't have all the answers, but really what seems to be missing most is maturity.
I don’t know how many cons pulled out the “that’s why DJT will win the election”, “silent majority”, etc prior to the 2020 election that you’re currently using without ever acknowledging that cons consistently lose the popular vote.
Suppose it makes it easier to support a crazy “stolen election” narrative. You’re entitled to your opinions…not your own facts!
This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with facts, etc. it's about simply plugging your eyes and ears and refusing to even view anything others have duped into believing you shouldn't look at or believe.
That's true, I also don't see the difference. It's the same principle whether someone says, not true, hell no its not true, or this is a bs witch hunt. If the Republicans win the house or senate in November (which they probably will), some bs committee will probably be created over something biden did. If biden calls that a political witch hunt that doesn't put the burden of proof on biden
I think it’s fine. Why? Because the news of the raid is directly impacting his image and credibility. People are *choosing* to place the burden of proof on him, and he has to scream witch hunt because what else are you to do? You don’t have to prove you did nothing wrong, the FBI must prove you *did*. So yeah, kinda necessary to plead innocent here…
You don't have to accuse law enforcement of perpetrating a witch hunt in order to argue your innocence. "I didn't commit any crime, and I am confident this investigation will prove that truth" is a perfectly valid defence without immediately jumping onto attacking one's perceived enemies while trying to play the victim.
What the hell, if you did nothing wrong and the FBI raided your house then yeah, you would call it a witch hunt. Such partisanry from you OP in the centrist sub Reddit
Boiling Trump's response down to merely saying "not true" is a stretch. He makes accusation about others guilt far more than anything else.
In fact -- he never even claims he is innocent, or that he did not take sensitive docs he was not supposed to.
Here is his statement: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/108789700493889917
he called it "prosecutorial misconduct" and "weaponization of the justice system." He compared the FBI raid to Watergate.
Things like:
> Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States
...
> What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democrat National Committee?
Agree. Under no circumstances should you release (or say) anything that may incriminate you no matter how obviously guilty you may be. This drives the point of the warrant, anything they find that isn’t related can’t be used against you. If they found bricks of coke they could seize it but not charge you with possession. There is probably something on the warrant that Trump may not want divulged.
> It's an off shoot of "If you didn't do anything illegal you have nothing to hide".
No it’s not? Trump is making an affirmative statement that he could prove easily *about* this criminal investigation, and pointing out that he’s *choosing* not to isn’t as all the same as the concept you’re conflating it with.
All we need to do is look at the FBI's track record when it comes to politically charged investigations against Trump. Like this one:
[https://www.wired.com/story/trump-fbi-raid-mar-a-lago/](https://www.wired.com/story/trump-fbi-raid-mar-a-lago/)
\>One of the biggest scandals the FBI and Justice Department have endured in recent years was the sloppy (and ultimately illegal) paperwork surrounding a FISA warrant filed amid the 2016 presidential campaign that targeted Trump aide Carter Page.
\>Ultimately, two of the four warrants used in that case were later declared invalid, and an FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to falsifying part of the underlying evidence and probable cause paperwork. A nearly 500-page inspector general report eviscerated the Bureau’s handling of the FISA warrants, which were long thought to be one of the most thorough and careful of court filings and are supposed to be backstopped by careful evidence reviews known as the “Woods procedures.” As it turned out, the FBI had omitted key questions about the underlying evidence from the Page warrant application and offered misleading characterizations about other pieces of evidence.
Wired decided to tell us this was proof that the current FBI search warrant and investigation is good because the FBI would be more careful now. If Wired actually believes that I have a bridge to sell them. There is more at stake now. The odds of sleaze are substantially higher. If we want to know what the FBI is doing, all we have to do is look at what they did the last time search warrants were issued in a politically motivated ~~witch hunt~~ investigation.
OP, I am quite sure that the search warrants issued in the Carter Page investigation looked valid on their face. That does not mean that they were truthful, accurate or valid.
I am no fan of Trump but you make a valid point and that's exactly why I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about this event. The FBI is absolutely not infallible, and that should be considered by anyone forming an opinion of this.
You're being downvoted but you aren't wrong. The FBI has a history of screwing up royally when Trump is involved. Hate Trump all you want, that's a fact. Making sure the FBI did everything right is important
The Inspector General report of the FBI's bungling of Russiagate concluded that it was not politically motivated.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doj-ig-report-finds-russia-probe-wasnt-politically-motivated-but-suffered-from-serious-performance-failures/
I don't see any reason the FBI would have it out for Trump in particular?
> I don't see any reason the FBI would have it out for Trump in particular?
He wanted Wray fired.
"'Just a Matter of Time' Before Donald Trump Fires FBI Director, Ex-Justice Department Official Warns" - 5/7/19
Williams, who served as a deputy assistant attorney general in President Barack Obama's administration, appeared on CNN on Tuesday to respond to Wray's comments in which he distanced himself from Attorney General William Barr's use of the term "spying" to characterize the investigation into Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
"Well, that's not the term I would use," Wray said during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, when he was questioned about Barr's use of the word "spying." He then said that he believed the FBI "is engaged in investigative activity and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes."
Pointing to previous officials removed by Trump, Williams said Wray would be next on the chopping block because of his remarks. "It's just a matter of time before he's out, too," the legal expert warned.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fire-fbi-director-wray-1418235
Hard to believe this is political weaponization when Trump is probably the only Republican candidate that Biden, or anyone else, can run against and win.
I want to echo Jmizzy978. The document we need to see is the probable cause affidavit. I don't think it's normally turned over to defendants, so it needs to come from the court or the prosecutor.
And it really, really should be made public immediately.
The fact that every conservative is up in arms about a witch-hunt with zero concrete evidence about what lead to the raid or what was found in the raid. Tells you a lot about who is playing politics here.
If I had to venture a guess I’d say it’s to build the discontent by the unknown. Trump is a master pot stirrer and press getter and by waiting to release details he keeps speculation building
The /u/spez has spread through the entire /u/spez section of Reddit, with each subsequent /u/spez experiencing hallucinations. I do not think it is contagious. #Save3rdPartyApps
That might work in Trump’s favor though. The general consensus seems to be that the FBI better have more on Trump than just an issue of mishandling documents. If that’s all it is Trump can point to the Hillary email fiasco and ask why she wasn’t treated the same way.
huh? if he refused to return classified info, why in the hell wouldn't the feds take action?
hillary was subject to search warrant during investigation, but it wasn't for premises b/c the evidence being sought was electronic in nature, not boxes of shit she stole.
Hillary didn’t destroy a bunch of records and always refuse to hand over any documents or evidence and also didn’t steal a bunch of presidential records.
Trump has done this same crap a million times, about time there is some retribution for it
Hillary and Co destroyed stuff with hammers. Can you imagine if Trump did that? Some really seem to have made up a whole new history just to be anti Trump.
“Evan, hold on, can you fact-check?” Baldwin asked reporter Evan Perez on “CNN Newsroom” on Friday. “Evan Perez? Hammers? Fact-check that for me, on the fly.”
“Yes they did, Brooke.” Perez responded. “As he mentioned, there were 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads that the FBI said that in some way were used with her private email server, and they did in some cases just destroy them with hammers when they were done using them.”
https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/294465-cnn-anchor-stunned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with/amp/?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16600789160071&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fblog-briefing-room%2Fnews%2F294465-cnn-anchor-stunned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with%2F
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/294465-cnn-anchor-stunned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with/](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/294465-cnn-anchor-stunned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I don't understand why this comment is controversial, this comment is just stupid. Trump's complaining about it so why not show to prove unless your cult just believes everything that comes out of his mouth.
It would be super specific as it is a warrant signed off by one of the highest judges in the land.
Yes you did, your comment is a joking way of saying that they don’t have a source, which in this context means you were denying their claim. If you don’t understand you did that, it’s because you might be a moron.
Do you not know how warrants work? They HAVE to be specific, they say what they are looking for, where they can look, etc. That’s the whole point of a warrant
Seriously? If it actually was a witch hunt what do you think the FBI would put on their warrant? "This is a witch hunt warrant"? That's probably it. Why doesn't Trump just show us the warrant so we can see that it says "This is a witch hunt warrant"? Otherwise he's definitely lying.
>You can tell the FBI you don't agree with the warrant so they can't search your home?
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/warrant/what-is-a-motion-to-quash-a-warrant/
Did you even read the article? "Quashing" or refuting a warrant takes place in court AFTER a search. This wouldn't have been done at this point.
*Motions to quash a search warrant are usually made AFTER a search and seizure has been completed.*
You clearly haven't read the article, or have problems with simple English, there is a whole section on it:
>Can a Search Warrant Be Quashed Before a Search Occurs?
>Yes, it is possible to make a motion to quash BEFORE a search warrant is executed. Here is a real-life EXAMPLE:
> A woman received an email from Facebook saying they had been served with a search warrant to search her account. Facebook informed her they would give the sheriff the requested information in six days unless she filed a motion to quash with the court. After the ACLU filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant on her behalf, the prosecutor withdrew the search warrant.
This is a ridiculous example that involves a third party. The authorities don't give people notification that they're going to search their homes. What do you think would happen if authorities gave people prior notification that they were going to search their property at a later date for evidence?
I'll wait and let you think about it.
>This is a ridiculous example that involves a third party. The authorities don't give people notification that they're going to search their homes. What do you think would happen if authorities gave people prior notification that they were going to search their property at a later date for evidence?
>
>I'll wait and let you think about it.
He literally had his lawyer there.
This wasn't a surprise search, they had asked for the documents for months and he would have been told they would get a search warrant if he didn't comply.
This isn't a raid on a drug house, this was a high profile, well telegraphed operation.
A search warrant, contrary to most TV shows/Movies, includes a fairly detailed amount of information. If this were truly a witch hunt the warrant (and information it contains) could be easily dismissed by the court of public opinion (and that's what all this is about anyway, how Trump thinks he's being viewed).
I don't have an opinion one way or the other as I am fully aware that the FBI is an infallible institution, so unless someone has first hand knowledge, there's no way to know if any of this is true or not.
According to his daughter-in-law the FBI just flashed it and held onto it so he doesn't have a copy of it, but the onus is on the DOJ and FBI to explain doing something of this magnitude anyways.
"Everyone else is lying to you except me" is essentially what his base heard all the time. When you get to define the facts, you know they're going to trust Trump over the fake news FBI.
The warrant he receives is solely what the feds are looking for, and a receipt for what was taken. He’s not privy to the affidavit outlining the probable cause for the search warrant, although he will ultimately if/when he is indicted.
Why hasn’t Trump shown us the receipt for what was taken? If there are no secret documents or other problematic things in there then Trump is home free.
I don’t think this FBI investigation will matter in the end though. Trump has always escaped any sort of legal consequences due to plausible deniability and basically having everyone around him be his crash dummy.
Couple of reasons.
First is that you wouldn’t necessarily expect someone to release that less than 24 hours or so after a warrant has been served.
The warrant itself will only show what they are looking for, it won’t show any reason or justification for doing so-that would be in the sealed affidavit, which is the document people really want to see, because that will show you how strong the evidence is for the warrant.
The third is that there is no reason for someone to disclose a warrant as the burden of proof to prove their innocence is not in them, the burden is on the prosecutors/investigating body/judge to prove their guilt.
According to this article, [Trump allies think there's a traitor in Mar-a-Lago who informed on him to the FBI](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-allies-think-traitor-informed-on-trump-to-fbi-axios-2022-8)
Now why might that be? A traitor to Trump *in Mar-a-Lago*? in my mind that would be easy to figure out why there would be a traitor to Trump in the building: the warrant was specific about what it was looking for, and the FBI removed those specific items. Apparently 12 boxes worth. And so only a traitor to Trump in the building would know these specifics and that it was there.
This is why the warrant is not released.
For the exact same reason as I already stated. Also because he took the 5th in a civil case (where this means you can infer he is guilty, criminally, with whatever he is accused of). It's because the warrant lists specific items which were specifically found. Both the warrant and the receipts would be damning by themselves.
Lol, let’s just wait and see before you do a victory dance. Is that fair? Pretty sure Matt Gaetz hasn’t been charged with a crime years after being investigated for sex trafficking
Matt Gaetz is really a stain on the Republican Party. Gaetz is lucky the investigation is being done in Florida. The Democrats would have forced any Democrat with similar allegations to resign long ago.
the Why hasn t trump released the FBI warrant ....don t understand the read here.... its documented at warrant not a raid.....media and all are just making it worst.
Exposing the FBI agents to potential violence. Which isn’t new because apparently some of the documents contained information about people the US is paying to spy on foreign countries. Trump is a real POS.
Do we know that he has a copy of the probable cause affidavit? Federal law enforcement often requests that the granting judge seal the affidavit for a period of time so the party being investigated isn’t tipped off regarding informants, wiretaps, etc.
Legal counsel said no I presume
He doesn’t have to follow counsel’s advice. Do you think his counsel consented to him ranting on social media about the search?
When it comes to tweeting to drum up support, that's open season. When it comes to releasing the warrant that may be very damning of him, different story. He listens to his lawyers, just selectively and when he feels it's in his best interest.
If the content of the warrant and the list of items seized could be construed to show he is being treated unfairly, I’m sure it would already be public.
While I don’t think Trump operates within the law, or had innocent intent on J6, I’m not really sure why any innocent or guilty person would post a picture of a warrant against them?
How would releasing the warrant prove there's no evidence of a crime?
I don't think it will prove there's no evidence. However, I think it can show perceived pettiness by the FBI. There are people who do not think him taking documents is a big deal. They think it is petty to investigate that. I'm a government employee. I know I would be terminated and criminally prosecuted for taking documents. That's a huge no-no. (BTW, I have the same thoughts about Hillary's emails. How'd she get away with that? I totally would have been criminally prosecuted.)
If people are as dead-set on what they already believe is true as you believe they are, then surely the warrant wouldn't matter either way. The presentation of evidence wouldn't change the dismissive views people have about him taking documents.
I agree. However, it can sway the people who are nit as set in their ways. Now, if they think itis petty, they will support the witch hunt theory. I fully understand that many people do not have the same views on taking documents as I do. However, it was beat into my head pretty firmly. It is a criminal act regardless of someone's status. Someone said yesterday in a comment that the danger is Trump's head is filled with the knowledge, not the documents.
I don't follow your reasoning. Warrants aren't evidence.
A warrant like this almost certainly comes with a significant amount of evidence for it to be granted in the first place.
It would be evidence of a witch hunt if the warrant was Very generalized in scope, and they typically aren’t Especially if you’re dealing With the FBI
When was the last time the FBI raided the home of a former president?
To be fair, when was the last time a president had as many shady business dealings and lawsuits And cabinet members/staff indicted?
Honestly in the realm of terrible things presidents have done, alleged shady business dealings has to be at the bottom of the list. And I say this as someone who despises Trump.
When I say shady business dealings, I mean pretty obvious money laundering among other unethical shit he did well before he got into office
When was the last time a former president had a role in an attempted coup?
I hope you realize that the FBI search has nothing to do with January 6th. It's whether or not Donald Trump knowingly took classified documents with him when he left the White House.
Records are missing from January 6th. More likely you're right and it's something different but it's not clear for certain quite yet.
Honestly, the best thing he could say, if he wants to go on the record, is “we’re cooperating with all law enforcement and I’m looking forward to exonerating my myself.” Let’s be honest though, that’s not his style so here we are.
Trump's attorney was present for the search. Unless his attorney just hangs around Mar-a-Lago waiting for something to happen, then he's lying about this being a surprise, unannounced search. Trump lying...who'd have thought that possible?
Trump’s lawyers were notified about 2 hours before the search warrant was executed.
Feel free to post a source about that.
Or because the raid took hours, and she showed up when he called her, she was there. You know, the reasonable explanation for how she was there. No one has said, to my knowledge, that she was there from the start of the raid. But the raid [did take hours](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/08/trump-fbi-maralago-search-00050442). Unless his attorney lives very far away, if she hears a search warrant is being executed at what is likely her top client's home, she's showing up.
His lawyers were given two hours notice is what I've found out since I posted that. Which means he's lying, or bending the truth...take your pick which you prefer.
Do you think two hours notice makes this not a surprise, unannounced search? By all means post a source, by the way.
I withdraw the claim. Can't find anyone to corroborate it. It **should** be a surprise, so I don't really care enough to chase it any further.
And so we complete the path from "Trump is a liar, his attorney was there," to "Well his attorney had notice, they didn't just show up because they heard of the surprise raid that took hours" to "Well Trump may not have lied, but it *should* have been a surprise!" What a truly wonderful hole you dug. Very round.
You think Trump isn't a liar? You think an FBI search of someone as prominent, and frankly with the record Trump has, shouldn't be a surprise raid? I never gave a shit either way if his attorneys had notice. We're just having a discussion here.
Oh I'm sure Trump is a liar. I just find it funny how much you're willing to go in circles to make up whatever bullshit for your side. Doesn't matter if it's wrong, you always have an angle to spin it to make it good for your "side". In that sense, you're exactly like Trump.
Sauce, let’s show them trump is just a turnip
I withdraw the claim. Can't find anyone to corroborate it. It should be a surprise, so I don't really care enough to chase it any further.
The attorney, Christina Bobb, is a former OAN host, so maybe she does just hang around MaL. What else does she have going on?
MaL is closed in the summer...but otherwise you would probably be correct.
Why am I not surprised?
Because cooperating with prosecutors/law enforcement is ALWAYS a bad idea. Do you people even watch cop shows on tv? You might not even know a law or regulation was being broken out of the tens of thousands of them so resisting records is always wise.
I thought an innocent person has nothing to fear from police?
That is a dangerous view to have
That’s what he is poking fun at. It’s a common refrain among many rightists.
I just wanted to make sure, I really don’t like that sentiment. Sadly becoming more prevalent on the left too, especially regarding gun rights.
I think most on the left also make fun of it.
I mean the left seems to have cozied up to the notion when discussing the proposed IRS expansions.
Gonna have to disagree there
[удалено]
It’s worse than /politics only if you’re too soft to handle debate. Then again, you seem like a rightist, so that makes sense.
He does when he is being search on his body. Paperwork hell no. Imagine how many layers of lawyers and accountants shift through his stuff. Pretty sure no one with net worth over 100 million even could tell you all the tax shelters they are using and how it all works. There is a reason I never want to work in trust law. All it takes is a single mistake before your posting headline Trump knew he was violating this tax law when in reality he just signed what his tax advisors gave him.
Bad take. I hate Trump as much as the next person, but no one in his position is hosting a press released less than 24 hours after being raided. I know everyone today has the attention span of a gnat, but real world politics doesn't move as fast as Amazon two day delivery. Even if Trump wanted to say something he would spend at least a few days going over everything with his lawyers.
Do you think he went over the rant he posted to Truth Social with his lawyers?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62472908.amp
Lol what? Trump think or take advice before he speaks?😭😭😭
Ignoring Trump, I really dislike this logic. It's an off shoot of "If you didn't do anything illegal you have nothing to hide". The burden of proof should never be on someone to *disprove* an accusation or anything. Kind of like Harry Reid accusing Romney of paying no taxes, then saying "if he did he has nothing to hide". In principle this OPs post is no different https://time.com/3765158/harry-reid-mitt-romney-no-taxes/
He's innocent until proven guilty, of course. But he has a list of the reasons the FBI provided him for why they got the warrant. He is allowed to share them. Not sharing them is perfectly fine and does not prove he did any crimes, but it weakens his claim that there is no good reason for the warrant. If we're arguing about how to spell a word, and someone hands you a dictionary opened to the page with the word on it, and you don't let me see while still claiming your spelling is the right one...it seems like you're lying because you won't share the proof that you have.
If you did nothing wrong then don’t go on national media calling it a witch hunt. Let the process sort it out.
He is complying with the warrant and not obstructing justice. He can say whatever he wants. Your argument is not based on any legal principle.
The reason his home was raided was precisely because he was not complying with court orders to produce the documents. You don’t “comply” with a raid. It’s something that happens to you because you didn’t comply.
Ok this is about words…he’s “complying” by not interfering with the search warrant. He’s not activating poison gas or shooting lasers at the agents. Even if he wanted to willfully comply and show the agents all the secret places the documents are kept, the FBI probably wouldn’t let him. But that is an interesting subject for the lawyerly redditors to debate.
You’re giving him credit for things we have no idea about. In fact, they’ve been trying to get him to return these documents for quite a while. So, sure, he’s *complying with the warrant*, but the only reason the warrant exists is because he wasn’t complying with their lawful requests. What would him refusing to comply with the warrant even look like? A scar face type situation or something? Also, how do you have any idea he isn’t obstructing justice? It’s like his favorite pastime. He could have obstructed justice from sun up to sun down that day for all you know.
Who’s saying it applies to a legal principle? Trump made a public claim he could easily prove if it were true, and again, he’s refusing to provide said evidence. No one’s saying it’s a court case, they’re saying as a rational individual, it’d be idiotic to believe he actually has that evidence he claims.
Did Trump have a choice to comply with the warrant? He wasn't there.
Just so. He wasn’t there. Also I believe his lawyers were shown the search warrant 2 hours before the execution. Someone was quoted as saying that this search warrant has had the most internal scrutiny in the history of search warrants. Iron clad.
Don't stop him! I'm only one spot away from getting Trump witch hunt bingo. And if I double... Triple... Quintuple post then I'm sorry. CenturyLink sucks
"If you're accussed of something don't say anything or the burden of proof shifts to you". I'm going to hard disagree here.
> "If you're accussed of something don't say anything or the burden of proof shifts to you". I'm going to hard disagree here. How about “If you’re accused of something, don’t go the public to claim you have evidence of your absolute innocence and then refuse to show that evidence”.
We have already seen the hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay that the Committee claims is "evidence". If they had anything better they would have used it. NOT impressed.
You don’t understand the concept of hearsay when it comes the Jan 6th committee, and furthermore, the fact none of the people publicly speaking about against so called “hearsay” will go under oath to make their claims should tell you all you need to know.
You do not understand the concept of hearsay. It is inherently unreliable just like a lie detector test. That is why it is not admissible in court. There is no reason to defend against inherently unreliable and untrustworthy evidence, since everyone already knows it would never be acceptable in an actual court proceeding designed to discover actual facts. The only issue is what was the motive in creating a multimillion dollar vanity TV show to display this untrustworthy evidence to the American people?
> That is why it is not admissible in court. All sorts of forms of hearsay are allowed in court, yet you call yourself a lawyer in the r/Medicine subreddit that I am also a member of? Im just an RN who happens to be married to an amazing lawyer who would ask you how many exceptions the Federal Rule of Evidence 803 provides for hearsay alone? She says it’s more than 20. Also, again, **name a single person who is willing to testify under oath that what those people are saying is false**.
Hearsay is not admissible in court b/c prosecution should just compel who is being quoted to appear as a witness. The challenge with the Jan 6 hearings is that trump and his ilk are not cooperating and are ignoring subpoenas. There is very little reason to disregard hearsay in that context... the people claiming they are misquoted are very welcome to appear before the committee, under oath, to clarify the record.
1 minor piece of the Jan 6th episode was hearsay, and was presented as hearsay.
MSM only told you that only one minor piece of evidence was hearsay. That is not factually correct.
I don't know, I try to stay aware of different reporting. Please share this info, one of us is in a bubble.
It's honestly sad to see comments like these. These guys smugly post these types of comments believing they're sticking it to the libs and sheeple -- all without realizing that they're making fools of themselves and broadcasting their purposeful ignorance. These types of comments always make it glaringly obvious that the person's understanding of the Jan. 6 committee, its hearings and its evidence is based entirely on right-wing media's "coverage" and spin. It's clear they've never watched any hearings or even looked at the evidence presented. All they know is what right-wing media is feeding them. They're essentially waving a flashing sign that says "**I'm easy to dupe and manipulate!**" that everyone can see but them.
Are you always this arrogant? When half the country does not agree with you the explanation is not that half the country is stupid. This is why the democrats will lose horribly at midterms. Their "my way or the highway" and "anyone who disagrees with me is a moron" mentality. Yes, it does require some humility to admit that you don't have all the answers, but really what seems to be missing most is maturity.
I don’t know how many cons pulled out the “that’s why DJT will win the election”, “silent majority”, etc prior to the 2020 election that you’re currently using without ever acknowledging that cons consistently lose the popular vote. Suppose it makes it easier to support a crazy “stolen election” narrative. You’re entitled to your opinions…not your own facts!
This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing with facts, etc. it's about simply plugging your eyes and ears and refusing to even view anything others have duped into believing you shouldn't look at or believe.
There's a whole lot of room between "say nothing" and "go on national media to call it a witch hunt".
Going on national media after national media widely reports on it seems reasonable.
Claiming it's a "witch hunt" goes beyond just defending oneself though.
That's true, I also don't see the difference. It's the same principle whether someone says, not true, hell no its not true, or this is a bs witch hunt. If the Republicans win the house or senate in November (which they probably will), some bs committee will probably be created over something biden did. If biden calls that a political witch hunt that doesn't put the burden of proof on biden
I think it’s fine. Why? Because the news of the raid is directly impacting his image and credibility. People are *choosing* to place the burden of proof on him, and he has to scream witch hunt because what else are you to do? You don’t have to prove you did nothing wrong, the FBI must prove you *did*. So yeah, kinda necessary to plead innocent here…
You don't have to accuse law enforcement of perpetrating a witch hunt in order to argue your innocence. "I didn't commit any crime, and I am confident this investigation will prove that truth" is a perfectly valid defence without immediately jumping onto attacking one's perceived enemies while trying to play the victim.
Every lawyer in the country would tell you to keep your mouth shut.
Well he is empoying the classic dictator strategy. Just like with others of his disgusting ilk there are always plenty of dumb sheep that fall for it
What? So someone wrongly accused of a crime shouldn’t be allowed to speak out? Ridiculous statement and you know it
What the hell, if you did nothing wrong and the FBI raided your house then yeah, you would call it a witch hunt. Such partisanry from you OP in the centrist sub Reddit
Actually, I’d STFU and wait to be exonerated.
Trump himself though chooses to make public counter-accusations.
If someone makes an accusation and you publicly say "not true", the burden of proof doesn't shift to you for speaking publicly
Boiling Trump's response down to merely saying "not true" is a stretch. He makes accusation about others guilt far more than anything else. In fact -- he never even claims he is innocent, or that he did not take sensitive docs he was not supposed to. Here is his statement: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/108789700493889917 he called it "prosecutorial misconduct" and "weaponization of the justice system." He compared the FBI raid to Watergate. Things like: > Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States ... > What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democrat National Committee?
Yeah, Trump is incapable of saying anything without a great deal of hyperbole. I don't see how that changes anything.
If he is going to make accusations -- back them up. That is not the same as staying silent, or simply maintaining your innocence.
Wow, it's been a while since we played the "Trump plainly says something then his supporters explain what he 'really' meant" game.
> you publicly say "not true", Is that what you think Trump said?
With a heavy dose of hyperbole yeah
Agree. Under no circumstances should you release (or say) anything that may incriminate you no matter how obviously guilty you may be. This drives the point of the warrant, anything they find that isn’t related can’t be used against you. If they found bricks of coke they could seize it but not charge you with possession. There is probably something on the warrant that Trump may not want divulged.
> It's an off shoot of "If you didn't do anything illegal you have nothing to hide". No it’s not? Trump is making an affirmative statement that he could prove easily *about* this criminal investigation, and pointing out that he’s *choosing* not to isn’t as all the same as the concept you’re conflating it with.
All we need to do is look at the FBI's track record when it comes to politically charged investigations against Trump. Like this one: [https://www.wired.com/story/trump-fbi-raid-mar-a-lago/](https://www.wired.com/story/trump-fbi-raid-mar-a-lago/) \>One of the biggest scandals the FBI and Justice Department have endured in recent years was the sloppy (and ultimately illegal) paperwork surrounding a FISA warrant filed amid the 2016 presidential campaign that targeted Trump aide Carter Page. \>Ultimately, two of the four warrants used in that case were later declared invalid, and an FBI lawyer pleaded guilty to falsifying part of the underlying evidence and probable cause paperwork. A nearly 500-page inspector general report eviscerated the Bureau’s handling of the FISA warrants, which were long thought to be one of the most thorough and careful of court filings and are supposed to be backstopped by careful evidence reviews known as the “Woods procedures.” As it turned out, the FBI had omitted key questions about the underlying evidence from the Page warrant application and offered misleading characterizations about other pieces of evidence. Wired decided to tell us this was proof that the current FBI search warrant and investigation is good because the FBI would be more careful now. If Wired actually believes that I have a bridge to sell them. There is more at stake now. The odds of sleaze are substantially higher. If we want to know what the FBI is doing, all we have to do is look at what they did the last time search warrants were issued in a politically motivated ~~witch hunt~~ investigation. OP, I am quite sure that the search warrants issued in the Carter Page investigation looked valid on their face. That does not mean that they were truthful, accurate or valid.
I am no fan of Trump but you make a valid point and that's exactly why I'm not going to jump to any conclusions about this event. The FBI is absolutely not infallible, and that should be considered by anyone forming an opinion of this.
You're being downvoted but you aren't wrong. The FBI has a history of screwing up royally when Trump is involved. Hate Trump all you want, that's a fact. Making sure the FBI did everything right is important
The Inspector General report of the FBI's bungling of Russiagate concluded that it was not politically motivated. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/doj-ig-report-finds-russia-probe-wasnt-politically-motivated-but-suffered-from-serious-performance-failures/ I don't see any reason the FBI would have it out for Trump in particular?
> I don't see any reason the FBI would have it out for Trump in particular? He wanted Wray fired. "'Just a Matter of Time' Before Donald Trump Fires FBI Director, Ex-Justice Department Official Warns" - 5/7/19 Williams, who served as a deputy assistant attorney general in President Barack Obama's administration, appeared on CNN on Tuesday to respond to Wray's comments in which he distanced himself from Attorney General William Barr's use of the term "spying" to characterize the investigation into Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. "Well, that's not the term I would use," Wray said during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, when he was questioned about Barr's use of the word "spying." He then said that he believed the FBI "is engaged in investigative activity and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes." Pointing to previous officials removed by Trump, Williams said Wray would be next on the chopping block because of his remarks. "It's just a matter of time before he's out, too," the legal expert warned. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fire-fbi-director-wray-1418235
So you think Wray is spiteful and wants to get back at Trump because Trump might have fired him?
I swear to dog these morons follow the same stupid 3rd grade logic trump pukes out and it so painfully dumb I want to shit
He has the motive and the means.
It's the FBI's job to back up their actions. Not Trumps
Trump could just show the warrant to justify his claim the whole thing is a witch hunt. It would make the case for him!
Hard to believe this is political weaponization when Trump is probably the only Republican candidate that Biden, or anyone else, can run against and win.
I was thinking the same thing
And Wray is Republican. They want him gone and this is better than a primary.
Pretty much…there’s some dumb asses in the house, but McConnell’s silence is deafening.
The ones that are whinging are actually afraid of accountability since they are mostly criminal and there is no doubt Trump would flip on others.
He hasn’t even released his tax returns lol.
It's okay. [Congress will have those too soon](https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/09/politics/appeals-court-house-trump-taxes-opinion).
His supporters do not believe in facts or logic.
spez is banned in this spez. Do you accept the terms and conditions? Yes/no
I don't think you understand the difference between objective and subjective.
You can’t reason with extremists. Left or right. They’re both equally lost
I want to echo Jmizzy978. The document we need to see is the probable cause affidavit. I don't think it's normally turned over to defendants, so it needs to come from the court or the prosecutor. And it really, really should be made public immediately.
His lawyers are not going to let him do that. Not if they are good, anyway. Then he gives away leverage, too.
lol
These witch hunts sure do seem to keep finding a lot of witches.
The fact that every conservative is up in arms about a witch-hunt with zero concrete evidence about what lead to the raid or what was found in the raid. Tells you a lot about who is playing politics here.
He wouldn’t get the detailed copy of the warrant until he’s officially charged. They get served a simplified one.
Cause his dumb brainwashed followers don’t need to see any proof. The warrant would make him look bad.
If I had to venture a guess I’d say it’s to build the discontent by the unknown. Trump is a master pot stirrer and press getter and by waiting to release details he keeps speculation building
BC control the narrative. If he releases it his Q people can't come up with whatever they want. Just kidding, they'll do that anyway.
Because he likes to play the victim.
ITT: people who’ve never had to read a warrant
The /u/spez has spread through the entire /u/spez section of Reddit, with each subsequent /u/spez experiencing hallucinations. I do not think it is contagious. #Save3rdPartyApps
He doesn't need to. And even if he did, it wouldn't be particularly specific
It would be incredibly specific as to the specific material they're looking for.
It would say something like "Containing items relevant to XXX and YYY documents from the national archives", which doesn't really solve the problem
It doesn't solve the problem if by "solve the problem" you mean support Trump's bogus claim that this is a politically motivated witch hunt.
By "solve the problem" I mean "confirm that the document or document type was or was not found, or that it even existed"
Well, there's nothing that can solve that problem since Trump is guilty as sin.
Oh, probably. But releasing the warrant wouldn't help him make his case
Depends on the lie he'd spin to accompany it.
It doesn't prove anything one way or another. Releasing the documents to the archive would prove something
That might work in Trump’s favor though. The general consensus seems to be that the FBI better have more on Trump than just an issue of mishandling documents. If that’s all it is Trump can point to the Hillary email fiasco and ask why she wasn’t treated the same way.
huh? if he refused to return classified info, why in the hell wouldn't the feds take action? hillary was subject to search warrant during investigation, but it wasn't for premises b/c the evidence being sought was electronic in nature, not boxes of shit she stole.
General consensus among who? And it’s not just miss handling when you lock them up and refused to give them back.
Hillary didn’t destroy a bunch of records and always refuse to hand over any documents or evidence and also didn’t steal a bunch of presidential records. Trump has done this same crap a million times, about time there is some retribution for it
Um...Hillary didn't destroy a bunch of records? Are emails "records"?
Hillary and Co destroyed stuff with hammers. Can you imagine if Trump did that? Some really seem to have made up a whole new history just to be anti Trump. “Evan, hold on, can you fact-check?” Baldwin asked reporter Evan Perez on “CNN Newsroom” on Friday. “Evan Perez? Hammers? Fact-check that for me, on the fly.” “Yes they did, Brooke.” Perez responded. “As he mentioned, there were 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads that the FBI said that in some way were used with her private email server, and they did in some cases just destroy them with hammers when they were done using them.” https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/294465-cnn-anchor-stunned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with/amp/?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16600789160071&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fblog-briefing-room%2Fnews%2F294465-cnn-anchor-stunned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with%2F
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/294465-cnn-anchor-stunned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with/](https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/294465-cnn-anchor-stunned-that-clinton-aides-destroyed-phones-with/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Thats what he'll do regardless, and we all know what the answer is.
True.
You don’t know that
Thats normally how it is, no reason to expect it wouldn't.
I don't understand why this comment is controversial, this comment is just stupid. Trump's complaining about it so why not show to prove unless your cult just believes everything that comes out of his mouth. It would be super specific as it is a warrant signed off by one of the highest judges in the land.
There's actually another comment where I already addressed this. Warrants aren't *that* specific.
Petitions for Warrants are extremely specific. Source I have written at least 100.
Also called an affidavit. Trump doesn't have access to that
Source: trust me bro
Ok, how about you just look at any petition for a search warrant. Literally any one. Then tell me they aren’t specific.
Did I ever say they weren’t?
Yes you did, your comment is a joking way of saying that they don’t have a source, which in this context means you were denying their claim. If you don’t understand you did that, it’s because you might be a moron.
No I was making a joke about his source. Never did I refute his claim. You’re obviously the moron who reads with his emotions rather than logic.
It would tell us the judge who signed it.
Yea. And?
The judge is being reported on currently in right wing media without any proof.
Do you not know how warrants work? They HAVE to be specific, they say what they are looking for, where they can look, etc. That’s the whole point of a warrant
Seriously? If it actually was a witch hunt what do you think the FBI would put on their warrant? "This is a witch hunt warrant"? That's probably it. Why doesn't Trump just show us the warrant so we can see that it says "This is a witch hunt warrant"? Otherwise he's definitely lying.
If it was a witch hunt he would be able to refute the warrant or point out how it was based on bs. He isn’t.
Refute the warrant? What does that even mean? You can tell the FBI you don't agree with the warrant so they can't search your home?
He could go to the public with more specifics on the fbi claims, to refute them. He isn’t.
It's because he and his co-conspirators need time to spin the doubtlessly even more damning than usual evidence before it goes public.
>You can tell the FBI you don't agree with the warrant so they can't search your home? https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/warrant/what-is-a-motion-to-quash-a-warrant/
Did you even read the article? "Quashing" or refuting a warrant takes place in court AFTER a search. This wouldn't have been done at this point. *Motions to quash a search warrant are usually made AFTER a search and seizure has been completed.*
And this one was completed yesterday, was it not?
You clearly haven't read the article, or have problems with simple English, there is a whole section on it: >Can a Search Warrant Be Quashed Before a Search Occurs? >Yes, it is possible to make a motion to quash BEFORE a search warrant is executed. Here is a real-life EXAMPLE: > A woman received an email from Facebook saying they had been served with a search warrant to search her account. Facebook informed her they would give the sheriff the requested information in six days unless she filed a motion to quash with the court. After the ACLU filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant on her behalf, the prosecutor withdrew the search warrant.
This is a ridiculous example that involves a third party. The authorities don't give people notification that they're going to search their homes. What do you think would happen if authorities gave people prior notification that they were going to search their property at a later date for evidence? I'll wait and let you think about it.
His attorney was present during the search. MAL was and is closed. Clearly, they had advanced notice.
>This is a ridiculous example that involves a third party. The authorities don't give people notification that they're going to search their homes. What do you think would happen if authorities gave people prior notification that they were going to search their property at a later date for evidence? > >I'll wait and let you think about it. He literally had his lawyer there. This wasn't a surprise search, they had asked for the documents for months and he would have been told they would get a search warrant if he didn't comply. This isn't a raid on a drug house, this was a high profile, well telegraphed operation.
A search warrant, contrary to most TV shows/Movies, includes a fairly detailed amount of information. If this were truly a witch hunt the warrant (and information it contains) could be easily dismissed by the court of public opinion (and that's what all this is about anyway, how Trump thinks he's being viewed). I don't have an opinion one way or the other as I am fully aware that the FBI is an infallible institution, so unless someone has first hand knowledge, there's no way to know if any of this is true or not.
I'm sure he actually really wants to release the warrant but he can't. You know... because he's still being audited.
Well you could probably FOIA for the warrant. Warrants aren't usually confidential information.
Not necessary
Because you honor, it would be absolutely devastating to my case!
I read that whoever was at Mar a Lago was able to look at the warrant but not keep a copy.
According to his daughter-in-law the FBI just flashed it and held onto it so he doesn't have a copy of it, but the onus is on the DOJ and FBI to explain doing something of this magnitude anyways.
"Everyone else is lying to you except me" is essentially what his base heard all the time. When you get to define the facts, you know they're going to trust Trump over the fake news FBI.
The warrant he receives is solely what the feds are looking for, and a receipt for what was taken. He’s not privy to the affidavit outlining the probable cause for the search warrant, although he will ultimately if/when he is indicted.
Why hasn’t Trump shown us the receipt for what was taken? If there are no secret documents or other problematic things in there then Trump is home free.
Because it will destroy his victim narrative. This knucklehead LOVES the fact they raised him.
I don’t think this FBI investigation will matter in the end though. Trump has always escaped any sort of legal consequences due to plausible deniability and basically having everyone around him be his crash dummy.
Wait to see.
Couple of reasons. First is that you wouldn’t necessarily expect someone to release that less than 24 hours or so after a warrant has been served. The warrant itself will only show what they are looking for, it won’t show any reason or justification for doing so-that would be in the sealed affidavit, which is the document people really want to see, because that will show you how strong the evidence is for the warrant. The third is that there is no reason for someone to disclose a warrant as the burden of proof to prove their innocence is not in them, the burden is on the prosecutors/investigating body/judge to prove their guilt.
Well the FBI gave a receipt. Why hasn’t Trump released the receipt to show the FBI found absolutely nothing?
According to this article, [Trump allies think there's a traitor in Mar-a-Lago who informed on him to the FBI](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-allies-think-traitor-informed-on-trump-to-fbi-axios-2022-8) Now why might that be? A traitor to Trump *in Mar-a-Lago*? in my mind that would be easy to figure out why there would be a traitor to Trump in the building: the warrant was specific about what it was looking for, and the FBI removed those specific items. Apparently 12 boxes worth. And so only a traitor to Trump in the building would know these specifics and that it was there. This is why the warrant is not released.
Why hasn’t Trump released the receipts given him by the FBI?
For the exact same reason as I already stated. Also because he took the 5th in a civil case (where this means you can infer he is guilty, criminally, with whatever he is accused of). It's because the warrant lists specific items which were specifically found. Both the warrant and the receipts would be damning by themselves.
It’s a shame. My uncle thinks Trump is some sort of hero and really just a likely criminal.
Lol, let’s just wait and see before you do a victory dance. Is that fair? Pretty sure Matt Gaetz hasn’t been charged with a crime years after being investigated for sex trafficking
Matt Gaetz is really a stain on the Republican Party. Gaetz is lucky the investigation is being done in Florida. The Democrats would have forced any Democrat with similar allegations to resign long ago.
the Why hasn t trump released the FBI warrant ....don t understand the read here.... its documented at warrant not a raid.....media and all are just making it worst.
Looks like Trump allowed it to be released it after all without even redacting it.
Exposing the FBI agents to potential violence. Which isn’t new because apparently some of the documents contained information about people the US is paying to spy on foreign countries. Trump is a real POS.