Monthly Archives: August 2022

Fox News and other right-wing media outlets have claimed that the FBI and the Justice Department violated former President Donald Trump's Fourth Amendment rights during the August 8 search of his Mar-a-Lago residence, but legal experts dispute this claim.

On August 8, the FBI executed a judge-approved search warrant as part of ongoing investigations into Trumps possible mishandling of classified documents and presidential records. Earlier this year, reports surfaced that the National Archives and Records Administration had retrieved 15 boxes of White House records from Mar-a-Lago in January, some of which contained classified materials. After months of back and forth between the FBI and Trump which includedFBI and DOJ investigators visiting Mar-a-Lago and the issuance of a subpoena to Trump in pursuit of documents that federal investigators believed he had failed to turn over earlier in the year the agency finally got a search warrant approved by a Florida judge, which led to the August 8 search.

In response to these events, right-wing media have downplayed the seriousness of Trumps potential wrongdoing, pushed false claims and baseless conspiracy theories, fearmongered that the Justice Department and the FBI have been weaponized against Trump, and now are claiming that law enforcement violated the former presidents Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, despite the fact that the FBI had a warrant for the search.

More:
Right-wing media claim Trump's Fourth Amendment rights were violated in Mar-a-Lago search - Media Matters for America

(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Two weeks ago, the FBI executed a search warrant at the former presidents private club to retrieve government property wrongfully retained after American voters sent Donald Trump packing. Since then, weve seen conservative group Judicial Watch sue to gain access to the search documents, followed by every major media outlet in the country piling on to successfully kick loose the warrant, inventory, and soon a redacted version of the underlying affidavit.

What we havent seen is Donald Trumps lawyers do anything at all besides yell on TV and make wild accusations that the FBI planted evidence. But last week Fox Newss Laura Ingraham seems to have lit a fire under Team Trump, so now were getting a major motion pertaining to the Fourth Amendment.

As usual, the former president is vague on exactly which statutes the scammers supposedly violated. Nor is he clear how this grievous wrong will be vindicated. But hes sure that his rights, together with the rights of all Americans, have been violated at a level rarely seen before in our Country. And hes not going to put up with it!

Trumps lawyer Lindsey Halligan, whose primary practice area appears to be landlord-tenant disputes, promised that Trumps illustrious legal team was taking the matter seriously if not expeditiously but said she was not going to talk about it until its actually filed.

Dr. Gina has neither a medical degree nor a degree in psychology, and shes not a licensed therapist. She does have a PhD in human and organization systems from an online university, though, and she did write a book claiming Trump was the most sound-minded person to ever occupy the White House. So you know this conversation was on the highest level all ways round.

James Trusty, a former federal prosecutor and one of Trumps only attorneys with relevant experience, was more specific on Fox this weekend.

The Fourth Amendment requires particularity. It requires narrowness to the intrusion on the persons home, he said, going on to describe the warrant as authorizing the functional equivalent of a general search.

How fun for Fox viewers to discover that civil liberties are good, actually!

Were going to come out swinging and say, look, you know, this cannot be just with a wink and a nod from DOJ that we are supposed to trust them, he went on. Under these circumstances, were going to have to get court involved, judicial intervention at the District Court level, to get somebody in the mix here that can help vindicate the Fourth Amendment rights of the president.

Simply as a matter of linear time, it is already too late for the former presidents legal team to come out swinging. But if he wants to file a Rule 41 motion for the return of property, as his former lawyer John Eastman did recently, he may have a bit of a bit of a problem since the FBI went in there to seize government property wrongly retained, and most of the stuff taken doesnt belong to him.

In fact, as Politico notes, while Trump threw a massive online tantrum about agents seizing his three passports, he appears to have been unaware that they were even taken and only alerted to the fact when the FBIs filter team flagged them as improperly seized and returned them.

In later comments to conservative host Mark Levin, Trusty elaborated on his theme of government overreach and promised to seek a special master to intervene to protect documents which are attorney-client privileged, although it appears that the Department is already employing its own filter team. The irony of a lawyer going on television to broadcast Trumps legal strategy while complaining that the government is illegally prying into his Trumps legal strategies appears to be lost on Trusty. But his client appears to be far more concerned with what goes on in front of the camera than in the actual courtroom.

And PS, while Trusty promised Levin that he would be filing within hours, as of this writing, nothing has hit the docket.

United States v. Sealed Search Warrant [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Read this article:
Trump Lawyers Promise To 'Come Out Swinging' And It Only Took Them Two Short Weeks! - Above the Law

The execution of the search warrant at former President Donald Trumps home in Florida caused consternation for some who think the warrant was politically driven. Serving a search warrant on Trump has political implications, but that does not mean it was done without a proper constitutional basis.

As an initial matter, the individuals seeking the search warrant made a determination that Trumps home contained evidence of a crime or items that were illegally possessed. In other words, officials with the FBI, in conjunction with attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice, concluded that such evidence probably was inside the home. Given that this search warrant was unprecedented, it is hard to imagine those officials and attorneys made the decision lightly.

Even if one believes those officials and attorneys engaged in rampant political misconduct, an external check exists. For federal law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant, they had to get authorization from a neutral U.S. magistrate judge. The FBI agent had to present an affidavit, swearing under oath and penalty of perjury to all the details in the affidavit that supported the assertion there probably is evidence of crime. There cannot be any vague assertion that some crime happened. Instead, the affidavit must have information that describes the expected evidence in support of the allegations related to the specific crime.

In order for the magistrate judge to sign the search warrant, that person had to find that probable cause existed based on the totality of the circumstances. Federal magistrate judges are not political nominees; they are highly trained legal experts who are selected to work for a federal court based on merit.

As a former U.S. magistrate judge, I signed countless search warrants, but never one as high profile as this one. Each time I reviewed an application for a search warrant, I read and analyzed all the documents carefully, ensuring there was full compliance with the Fourth Amendment before I signed the warrant. I can only imagine if I were reviewing a warrant application for a former president that my high level of diligence would have somehow been even higher. I would expect whoever signed this search warrant exercised a similar exacting level of legal analysis.

If somehow the oversight and review by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the magistrate judges analysis all failed, Trump still had options. He could have gone to federal court seeking to quash the search warrant with arguments that it violated the Fourth Amendment. Another federal judge would have reviewed the search warrant to ensure it complied with Fourth Amendment requirements. Trump, with his legal resources, did not choose to have a federal judge immediately review the warrants constitutionality, which likely indicates nothing readily appeared to be unconstitutional.

As search warrants are a law enforcement tool in criminal investigations, the Fourth Amendment authorizes their issuance provided they meet a number of parameters, including particularity and reasonableness. The execution of the warrant may not lead to any charges against any individual, including Trump, as there is no certainty that the FBI agents will find evidence of a crime. Probable cause based on a totality of the circumstances is the standard, as opposed to certainty.

However, if Trump is charged with a crime based on any evidence obtained from the search of his home, he will have another chance to challenge the search warrant. He can file a motion to suppress with the federal judge overseeing the charges against him that could challenge the allegations and information in the agents sworn affidavit, any shortcomings in the magistrate judges review of the warrant application, or any problems with the execution of the warrant at his home. Finally, Trump can appeal any unsuccessful motion to suppress to the federal appellate court, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many of Trumps supporters decried the execution of the search warrant. None of these supporters, however, pointed to any concrete Fourth Amendment violations in the warrant. Trump chose to forgo filing a motion to quash. A number of constitutional safeguards exists. Ultimately, the search warrant, while shocking given its target, appears to comply with the Fourth Amendment based on what we currently know.

Brian L. Owsley is an associate professor of law at UNT Dallas College of Law, where he teaches, among other topics, federal criminal procedure, which concerns the Fourth Amendment. He served as federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas from 2005 until 2013.

Visit link:
Commentary: 'I signed countless warrants. Search of Trump's house is shocking and constitutional.' - San Antonio Express-News

Welcome back to The Flyover, your daily midday digest of what local media outlets and Twitter-ers are gabbing about.

Sign up, get MN's top headlines in your inbox every day. Easy!

When those on the right arent getting their way, they sure love to compare what theyre going through to Nazi Germany. Last April, GOP governor candidate Scott Jensen decided to invoke Hitler while speaking at a MaskOffMN meeting, making the dumb argument that mask mandates are a slippery slope toward another Holocaust. TC Jewfolk dug up and shared the Jensen clip this morning: If you look at the 1930s and you look at it carefully, we could see some things happening. Little things that people chose to push aside. Then there was a night called Kristallnacht. (Kristallnacht was a multi-day coordinated wave of violence in which the Nazi party tore through Jewish homes, religious sites, and businesses.) Then there was the book burning, and it kept growing and growing, and a guy named Hitler kept growing in power, and World War II came about, Jensen continued.

Basically, Jensen is making the argument that mask mandates during a pandemic are akin the things that lead to actual atrocities against humanity. Gotcha. Jensen, who is also a practicing physician, has been known to say dumb shit in the past, including dismissing Covid as a mild four-day respiratory illness, saying he plans to gut the medical board if elected (because he is frequently under investigation), and claiming that most of the folks whove died of Covid only had a couple years left in them anyway.

Jensen is scheduled to appear at a Republican Jewish Coalition event tomorrow. We sure hope they school him on that guy named Hitler.

Diversion programs are an effective alternative to criminally prosecuting juveniles in Minnesota, the Star Tribune reports in the second installment of its focus on juvenile justice. A childs future can hinge on the path that is chosen, according to the Strib. Those who complete diversion are more likely to stay in school and less likely to commit more crimes than young people who are criminally charged. The big drawback: These programs arent being implemented in every municipality. Though state law requires that such programs exist, it sets few standards or guidelines, so instead, many places continue to use the wasteful, ineffective probation systems, based on the ideological belief that the more punitive an option, the better. Anyway, this is bad news for the where are the parents?/lock em all up crowd: Not only dont you have the solution, but in fact, youre the problem.

A small but possibly important win for unhoused Minnesotans: A state district judge has ruled that cops cant trash all your shit just because its outside in an encampment instead of inside a house. In an ongoing case brought by the ACLU of Minnesota, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, and Ballard Spahr on behalf of nine encamped homeless people against the MPRB, Hennepin County, and the city of Minneapolis, Judge Wilhelmina Wright ruled against the plaintiffs on some big issues. Unhoused people dont have the right to stay in encampments, and the government has the right to remove them, she said. But police trashing an encamped persons stuff is a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. That means the class action suit goes forward, and grants at least some protections to the property rights of the homeless generally.

The longstanding debate over whether to claim Bon Iver is tricky. Eau Claire, after all, is 66 miles from Minnesota. Menomonie sits just 44 miles across the Minnesota-Wisconsin border, and its home to Emmitt Bailey, the eight-year-old tot who won the kid division of the USA Mullet Championships on Sunday.

Take a look, courtesy of the USA Mullet Championships:

As a matter of state pride, were hereby certifying young Emmittwhose sick golden flow beat out 687 contestantsas a Minnesotan, thus locally angling this national story. Emmitt collected almost 10,000 votes en route to his victory, which comes with a $2,500 cash prize. Our rival state to the East may collect taxes on that haul, but nothing will diminish the fact that, per Racket, Emmitt is unquestionably a Minnesotan. Media hoopla surrounding his local mullet has gone beyond our wildest dreams, Emmitts local father, Eric, said last week. (A more widely agreed upon Minnesotan, Callen Steinbrink of Austin, qualified for the final round.) Cayden Kershaw of Wausau, Wisconsin, won the teen division. Considering his hometown is 159 miles away, he simply doesnt meet our editorial definition of local. Sorry, Cayden.

Original post:
Man Who Thinks COVID Regs = Nazism Could Be Your Governor - Racket - Racket

Three days after the FBI descended on former President Trumps Mar-a-Lago home, Attorney General Merrick Garland gave a press conference lasting less than four minutes about the raid. As he was speaking, he excoriated anyone who questions the motives and integrity of the FBI. His intent was clear: You are not allowed to criticize the FBI and its obvious double standards. Any criticism of the institution will be viewed as a threat to democracy. In true Orwellian fashion, the corporate media began parroting the same talking points.

The ruling elite is blinded by their groupthink mentality. The raid on a former president was the culmination of two decades of corruption within the big government apparatus where abuses of power have become increasingly brazen. The loss of trust in the agencies is not the result of conspiracy theories, social media, or millions of Americans simply becoming anti-government. It is a direct consequence of their actions.

The American people believed our institutions were operating in good faith and they took a laissez-faire approach for far too long, even as the evidence of an abusive bureaucracy was mounting. Consider the following:

In 2007, programs that were developed to target terrorists quickly morphed into domestic spying programs. The NSA began capturing and monitoring Americans electronic communications and metadata through the PRISM program. Both John Brennan and James Clapper denied the government was monitoring American citizens and openly lied to Congress. They were never charged with perjury, and not a single person who authorized this program was ever held accountable for this direct assault on the Fourth Amendment.

Journalists have also been routinely monitored by federal agencies making a mockery of the First Amendment. Ironically, many within the media now carry water for the institutions and serve as their private PR firms.

In 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder refused to provide information to Congress on the governments ill-thought-out Fast and Furious program. He was held in contempt of Congress, and there are indications that he may have committed perjury when he denied knowing about the program. Lucky for him, he never received the Steve Bannon treatment.

In 2013, the IRS admitted to targeting conservative groups. Lois Lerner deemed that these conservative and Tea Party groups were guilty of having the wrong political opinion. For her actions, Lois Lerner refused to answer questions, pleading the fifth, and was found in contempt of Congress by the House of Representatives, but the Justice Department declined to prosecute her on contempt charges. Instead, she was allowed to retire, collect her pension, and never be held accountable.

In 2014, it was revealed that John Brennans CIA was monitoring sitting members of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee. Neither Brennan nor anyone else involved in the program was ever held accountable.

In 2015, Hillary Clinton was subpoenaed to preserve her home-brewed email server. Following the subpoena, her email management company Platte River Network wiped the server clean, and employees sent an email with the subject line stating, Hillary cover-up operation work ticket archive cleanup.

In 2016, as the FBI was investigating the server, multiple people in the Hillary Clinton orbit were granted immunity. Cheryl Mills, who was a witness in the investigation, was allowed to claim attorney-client privilege. Compare that to the FBI raids on Trumps lawyers where long-standing norms of attorney-client privilege were thrown out the window.

Hillary Clintons top aide told the FBI that she wasnt aware of the private server, yet she had her own email account on it. We also know that then-FBI Director James Comey already had a draft letter prepared to exonerate Clinton even before she was interviewed. Then, shortly before the 2016 election, it was revealed that Clintons emails were found on a laptop shared by Abedin and her husband, disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner. Not a single person was ever held accountable for the lies, the deceit, and the illegal server.

As if spying on U.S. senators and turning a blind eye to Clintons malfeasance wasnt bad enough, in 2016, the FBI began its infamous Crossfire Hurricane operation where FBI agents would use a dossier paid for by Hillary Clintons campaign to investigate and surveil the Trump campaign, and later, the Trump presidency. They knew the dossier had little basis in fact but presented it to the FISA court anyway. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith doctored another piece of evidence and presented it to the FISA court. Throughout the investigation, FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page would routinely send each other text messages expressing their disdain for Trump and his supporters.

The investigation didnt end when President Trump won the election. In 2017, FBI Director James Comey leaked sensitive information to the press in order to force then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel. Over the next few years, the country would be torn apart, and in the end, the special counsel never found any evidence of Russian collusion.

What about the U.S. Postal Services iCOP program, where postal inspectors were monitoring peoples social media accounts and forwarding posts to the Department of Homeland Security? Again, no accountability.

Federal courts have also admonished the FBI on several occasions for illegally accessing the NSAs repository for information on Americans.

Multiple intelligence and federal law enforcement agencies continue to monitor and collect the data of American citizens, including the FBI, the CIA, and ICE. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has amassed millions of records on legal firearm owners even though a gun database is strictly prohibited by Congress.

What about how the Secret Service reportedly tried to cover up Hunter Bidens firearm incident or how the FBI was used to track down Ashley Bidens alleged diary? What about all the former senior-level intelligence heads stating that Hunters laptop was Russian disinformation in order to manipulate an election? Why havent we heard of any investigations into the current president given that he is directly implicated in the Biden family pay-to-play scheme?

Then you have the Department of Education, the National School Boards Association, and the Department of Justice colluding to target parents and label them as domestic terrorists.

Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, we witnessed repeated lies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other public health institutions, ranging in topic from vaccines to masking to lockdowns. Even worse, Dr. Anthony Faucis emails show his ruthless efforts to target any scientists or medical professionals who disagreed with him in an attempt to destroy their credibility.

The evidence of rampant abuse within the bureaucracy is widespread and illustrates that we should not blindly and obediently trust these institutions. Many of our officials act as if we exist to serve them as opposed to them serving us. They justify their abuses with a sense of righteousness as long as they qualify their wrongdoing with the sentiment of preserving democracy. In their delusional minds, they believe they are guardians of democracy.

Thomas Jefferson once warned, The time to guard against corruption and tyranny, is before they shall have gotten hold on us.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Read more from the original source:
Not Just FBI: How Institutions Across The Board Forfeited Our Trust - The Federalist