Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The 4th Amendment and the Raid
The Fourth Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I’ve read that the FBI resisted showing Trump’s lawyer the warrant. How is this legal? I don’t trust the FBI or DOJ. Unless proven otherwise, I assume that they’re partisan Democratic hacks. Can anyone explain their reluctance to show the warrant?
Published in Law
I am sure some lawyers can come tell us how the law has to be interpreted to not mean what it says.
I heard that it was because many of the FBI agents didn’t want the public to know how excited they were to explore Melania’s closet …
I don’t know about the FBI resisting, but I’m pretty sure they were given a copy of the warrant.
What do you believe the facts to be, regarding the warrant being shown or not?
I have no idea why you would believe any news reports about such things, at this time. I have no idea what your source or sources might be fore this claim about someone “resisting” showing a warrant or being “reluctant” to show a warrant. If it’s a news story, what are the story’s sources.
Please provide some details. Who wanted to see the warrant? When? Where? If there was a request to see the warrant, to whom was it directed? What was the response, if there was such a request? Did someone refuse to show the warrant, or delay, or what, exactly?
Just about everything surrounding the search of President Trump’s residence seems like a typical, hysterical media circus.
Yes, a media circus. Blame the ‘raiders’ rather than the victim. They have been in constant contact with President Trump’s lawyers, who have been cooperating. If they wanted the documents, they would have been given them. They did not need to initiate this hysterical media circus with this stunt of a raid on a former President’s home. I am baffled that an attorney is so cavalier about basic legal rights being trampled upon.
OK. But somewhere along the line they apparently were given the warrant, as they should have been. There have been reports from the Trump that they won’t be releasing it.
I think that it’s very appropriate to question the decision to conduct a search of a former President’s home, especially if, as the Trump people claim, there were ongoing discussions about documents. I’m not sure why this didn’t start with a subpoena.
What if the documents they wanted were embarrassing to them?
Asking for, or demanding these documents would not be feasible.
Just like the Sandy Berger event where he stole documents, it’s quite possible that they knew some document(s) were incriminating or embarrassing.
Or, perhaps they knew there was exculpatory evidence once their intended charges were levied against Trump.
In either case, they could not demand them.
I would also imagine that someone could have 16 boxes of papers and not know the entirety of the contents, but could discover them once the subject is raised. That’s pretty much how it always works.
Hoyacon:
I don’t know about the FBI resisting, but I’m pretty sure they were given a copy of the warrant.
Ya which they wouldn’t show to Trump’s attorneys:
From the Epoch Times:
“About two dozen FBI agents entered Trump’s Palm Beach resort of Mar-a-Lago around 9 a.m. on Aug. 8 and left about 10 hours later with “a handful of boxes of documents,” one of Trump’s attorneys on scene, Christina Bobb, told The Epoch Times.
“I didn’t actually get to oversee the search, they wouldn’t let anybody see what they were doing,” she said.
It isn’t clear what legal basis the FBI had for the raid. The agents had a search warrant signed by a judge, however, the affidavit explaining the basis—its probable cause—was filed under seal and Trump’s lawyers weren’t allowed to examine it, Bobb said.”
Nothing there say anything about not showing the warrant to Trump’s attorney. She has been recently interviewed and stated that she was shown the warrant before the search and given a copy after it.
Yeah, and now I’m hearing that there was a “spy” in the Trump household. Would like to hear more about that.
You will. That’s from Newsweek initially.
Yeah, Jesse is talking about it now.
You’re the person who believed the administration a year ago about how many Americans were left behind in Afghanistan. You don’t have standing to quiz me about skepticism.
That’s not what I read. I read that she got nothing before the raid and only got to look at it afterwards. No copy provided.
Mark Levin agrees
The zerohedge article I read said that the lawyer was shown the warrant, but was not allowed to read it. They never gave her possession of it.
Yeah, on this point, I’m thinking wait it out. Like playing telephone here.
It does seem consistent that the lawyer was not provided with the ability to review the warrant before the raid.
There’s a comment here somewhere about it, but a lot of threads. I’ll see if I can find it.
Eric Trump has commented about the raid too. He was either there or reviewed tapes from Mar-A-Lago security cameras. He said that the attorney was denied seeing the subpoena before the search and only allowed to flip through it afterwards.
There’s apparently no reason to get upset about anything at all ever. All of us are just emotional and nowhere near the rational calm brilliant mind. We should all be ashamed of having any emotional reactions to anything that happens at all.
See here for a comment based on a Dinesh d’Souza interview.
It is said that ‘ignorance is bliss’. You’re right, lots of that going on around here. Sad.
Kane at CFP has a link to the Newsweek story.
Bobb, Trump’s lawyer said, on video, that she was refused the warrant, and then they held it up for her to see from a distance of 10 feet.
In the video I saw, she states simply that “they let me see it.” No mention of “10 feet.”
See here.
This is not the interview that I watched. She said they held it up to see it, and from ten feet.
Not doubting you, but that video is pretty straightforward.
Sure. But she said pretty close to using these words, as far as I remember, “they showed it to me, they held it up, ten feet away.” Now apparently someone is reporting that they did finally let his lawyers read it, and maybe have a copy, but they sure didn’t show it to her during the search, and I’m betting they didn’t even need to show it to the SS but were just let in.
And Bobb arrived an hour after the search started. I don’t know who the “lawyers” were who refused to turn off the security cameras, but they were either there from the beginning, which I doubt, or they arrived at the same time or after Bobb. Who knows if the searchers we unaccompanied or not for the first hour.
I think that there was another attorney present, but she arrived after Bobb.