- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge gives DOJ 5 days to respond to request to unseal Trump raid search warrant
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:29 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:29 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Mickey, it is supposed to be SOP to provide the attorney with a copy of the warrant if he is there.
2
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:29 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Trump can release his own copy if he chooses.
Assuming he does have a copy.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:30 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
If this is the actual reason, it will even more point to a politicization of the DOJ.
I agree with you there.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:30 pm to Paddyshack
I know nothing of law but am I way off thinking they have to see what they find before they release the warrant because they will alter it. ?
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:30 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Mickey, it is supposed to be SOP to provide the attorney with a copy of the warrant if he is there.
Look at my post back a page, they did.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:32 pm to KiwiHead
quote:Which brings us back to the question I asked BBond.
Mickey, it is supposed to be SOP to provide the attorney with a copy of the warrant if he is there.
Random lawyer shows up at a search, with no letter of representation and no proof whatsoever that she represents the property owner ... except her assertion that she does so.
Must the LEOs allow this random lawyer onto the premises? Must they provide her with legal documentation, such as warrants?
AGAIN, I don't do criminal work. I do NOT know the answer to these questions. But I think that they ARE relevant questions.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:33 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:It is also very common for the DOJ to raid the home of the former president, who also happens to be the ruling party’s primary political opponent.
It's very common for the DOJ to not release statements during an investigation. At least not right away.
Very common.
Oh, no, wait, that is Venezuela that I’m thinking of.
This post was edited on 8/10/22 at 6:34 pm
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:34 pm to Scruffy
quote:
It is also very common for the DOJ to raid the home of the former president, who also happens to be the ruling party’s primary political opponent.
Very common.
Oh, no, wait, that is Venezuela that I’m thinking of.
It's very common for the FBI/DOJ to also bring along CNN while they raid the home of a political dissident as well.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:35 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:More complex than that.
Why does it need to be unsealed if Trump has it?quote:
Unsealed by the court thus making it available to a public records request. Trump can release his own copy if he chooses.
What Trump has now (if anything) is the warrant WITHOUT the sealed portions, which apparently include the probable cause affidavit(s). He could release it, but it would not show very much of interest.
The upcoming "show cause" hearing is to determine whether the SEALED portion of the warrant (mostly the affidavits) will become UNSEALED and thus available to the public.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:35 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Yikes. In light of the history and past communications regarding these docs, this is a very very thin warrant. If this is the actual reason, it will even more point to a politicization of the DOJ.
Another obvious example of differential treatment along political lines.
Unequal treatment under the law.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:35 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Surprised they didn’t bring them along for this one.
It's very common for the FBI/DOJ to also bring along CNN while they raid the home of a political dissident as well.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:35 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Random lawyer shows up at a search, with no letter of representation and no proof whatsoever that she represents the property owner ... except her assertion that she does so.
FBI would have known. Like they would pull this stunt off without discussing the possibilities of what could go down before/during/after a raid.
I mean the plan this shite out to some degree...unless you of the opinion that they fly by the seat of their pants?
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:36 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
It's very common for the DOJ to not release statements during an investigation. At least not right away.
This DOJ is in a different universe
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:36 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Surprised they didn’t bring them along for this one.
It was a really bad look during the Stone raid. They didn't want that kind of attention again.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:37 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
Will be interesting if the DOJ argues to keep it sealed if he bucks them and unseals it.
That's how you shoot yourself in the back of the head. Twice.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:37 pm to LSUbest
quote:
Another obvious example of differential treatment along political lines.
Unequal treatment under the law.
I've heard reports of them not only not allowing Trump's legal representation to enter and observe the search, but also ordered that all the security cameras be turned off.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:39 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Random lawyer shows up at a search, with no letter of representation and no proof whatsoever that she represents the property owner ... except her assertion that she does so.
You're just assuming this.
Seeing as the FBI did eventually show it to her, I'd say her bonafides checked out.
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:40 pm to gaetti15
quote:The statement I read from the lawyer was quite specific that she had not previously been involved in this part of what she described as "his legal portfolio."
FBI would have known. Like they would pull this stunt off without discussing the possibilities of what could go down before/during/after a raid.
I mean the plan this shite out to some degree...unless you of the opinion that they fly by the seat of their pants?
DoJ and/or FBI had probably been dealing with an attorney in DC. They had probably never heard of this local Florida attorney, who went down to Mar-a-Lago when she heard what was happening.
Let's say that she is a probate lawyer and is establishing a new Trust for Barron. She is not even a criminal lawyer. But she was nearby and showed up when she heard about the "raid," to try and protect her client's interests. The FBI has no idea who she is, and she cannot PROVE that she is Trump's attorney.
Are they required to cooperate with her?
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
DoJ and/or FBI had probably been dealing with an attorney in DC. They had probably never heard of this local Florida attorney, who went down to Mar-a-Lago when she heard what was happening.
Let's say that she is a probate lawyer and is establishing a new Trust for Barron. She is not even a criminal lawyer. But she was nearby and showed up when she heard about the "raid," to try and protect her client's interests. The FBI has no idea who she is, and she cannot PROVE that she is Trump's attorney.
Are they required to cooperate with her?
laughs in NSA
Posted on 8/10/22 at 6:41 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I've heard reports of them not only not allowing Trump's legal representation to enter and observe the search, but also ordered that all the security cameras be turned off.
Yes, I have to.
But they made appointments at the convenience of Killary.
Page 3 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News