Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Speaker Johnson moves forward with foreign aid package, even if it risks his job
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 18, 2024 5:29 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (3 comments) [91 views]

Anonymous comments regarding the Presidential Candidate Selector
President by Curt_Anderson     March 19, 2024 10:10 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (21 comments) [1034 views]

NPR under fire after it suspends editor detesting newsroom partisanship: 'Hard left propaganda machine'
Media by HatetheSwamp     April 17, 2024 3:46 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (26 comments) [337 views]

I just voted in the Pennsylvania primary...mail-in
Government by HatetheSwamp     April 18, 2024 7:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [107 views]

Trump is daring judge to lock him up by intimidating jurors.
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 17, 2024 9:03 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [39 views]

A Playmate, a porn star, an ex-president and Mr. Pecker. Get plenty of popcorn!
Entertainment by Curt_Anderson     April 14, 2024 3:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (21 comments) [636 views]

Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price Faces Recall Vote After Crime Ravages Blue County
Crime by oldedude     April 16, 2024 1:38 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [135 views]

NPR editor Uri Berliner resigns after essay accusing outlet of liberal bias
Media by HatetheSwamp     April 17, 2024 9:25 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [94 views]

My oral report about the Battle of Gettisberg Gettysburg by Donnie Trump
Education by Curt_Anderson     April 16, 2024 7:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [37 views]

How is your Trump Media Stock doing?
Business by Curt_Anderson     April 4, 2024 11:47 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (20 comments) [514 views]

Law selectors, pages, etc.
National security attorney: Trump Will Be Indicted
By Curt_Anderson
August 28, 2022 5:09 pm
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

(Yahoo, August 26)I have finally seen enough. Donald Trump will be indicted by a federal grand jury.

You heard me right: I believe Trump will actually be indicted for a criminal offense. Even with all its redactions, the probable cause affidavit published today by the magistrate judge in Florida makes clear to me three essential points:

(1) Trump was in unauthorized possession of national defense information, namely properly marked classified documents.

(2) He was put on notice by the U.S. Government that he was not permitted to retain those documents at Mar-a-Lago.

(3) He continued to maintain possession of the documents (and allegedly undertook efforts to conceal them in different places throughout the property) up until the FBI finally executed a search warrant earlier this month.



Trump again is his own worst enemy. He may talk himself into a conviction. He has trotted out various defenses and excuses which contradict themselves. He has protested that he returned "much" of the classified documents. That's like a bank robber saying he returned much of the money.

Even his request for a special master is self-incriminating. Trump wants his stuff separated from the classified materials before the FBI looks it over. Why? The FBI's filter team would have gone through it and returned his stuff. The stuff that Trump doesn't want the FBI to see obviously isn't old magazines. He doesn't want the FBI see stuff that could implicate him in criminal activity.

Cited and related links:

  1. news.yahoo.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "National security attorney: Trump Will Be Indicted":

  1. by oldedude on August 28, 2022 6:31 pm
    YYet again, when I brought in an "Opine", I was chastised. ONE rule for everyone. Please. If it's okay for you, then get off my back. or use them and allow me to use them. YOU chose. If you don't say anything, I'll just use them. Yes, this is one of those things you have a double standard on.

  2. by Curt_Anderson on August 28, 2022 7:07 pm
    I have no problem with referring to opinion pieces, especially informed opinions. They are often predictions, like this one, of what MAY happen. Just don't confuse them with news reports of what DID happen.

  3. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 3:30 am

    Oh, please, please, please, please, please.

    pb hopes "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap's" DOJ indicts his chief rival for reelection!

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE,...PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. by islander on August 29, 2022 8:51 am

    I fully agree that Trump should be and will be indicted. What’s going to be interesting to me will be to see which of the many possible crimes he will he indicted for.

    We all know Trump and his, (thus far bungling and incompetent, in my opinion) lawyers will continue to try and delay and impede in as many ways as they can the inevitable but they are looking more and more like Keystone Cops. Can anybody even tell me the real purpose of their call, for example, for a Special Master since the search is complete and has been over for weeks. It seems kind of pointless except as another tactic to delay and complicate matters...even if granted what can it accomplish?



    “If Cannon grants Trump's request, the special master would be in charge of reviewing documents for issues of privilege, not the highly sensitive records at the heart of the government's investigation. Trump's legal filing also sought protection for documents covered by executive privilege that applies to presidents, but since he's no longer in the White House that legal protection does not automatically apply to these records.”*


    
* NBC News

  5. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 9:12 am

    Being neither, it fascinates me that MAGAs embarrass and frustrate and anger me,...

    ...but you Stage 4 TDSers? You just make me bust a gut laughing.

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh.

    If the current President’s DOJ indicts his chief rival, and, in this case, Trump's doing anything short of funneling Top Secret documents to our arch enemies, we will absolutely be a banana republic.

  6. by Donna on August 29, 2022 9:19 am
    So I guess you're of the opinion that it's perfectly fine to break the law as long as no damage is done.

  7. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 9:26 am

    Donna!

    Read my post!

    If Trump is engaging in espionage, absolutely, indict, convict and execute him!

    But, on an charge much short of that crime, for a current president to use the Gestapo to impair the campaign of his chief rival,...

    ...if that happens, we'll lose something we'll never be able to get back!!!!!

  8. by Donna on August 29, 2022 9:28 am
    I read your post. It doesn't answer my question, which is why I asked, to which you still didn't answer it.

  9. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 9:43 am

    Y'know, Donna, you accuse me often of not answering your question after I was certain that I had answered...clearly.

    I finally figured it out.

    YOU HAVE NO CAPACITY FOR NUANCE.

    Do you understand that our nation's Attorney General is not some garden variety rural DA and that Biden and Trump are not rivals for a Commissioner seat in a small county in Vermont...

    ...ain't!!!!!?

    If a sitting President charges his chief rival of a crime in a Republic or a Democracy, there had better be nothing short national survival at stake!!!!!

  10. by Curt_Anderson on August 29, 2022 9:44 am
    I don't remember anybody accusing Hillary Clinton of funneling top secret information to our arch enemies either. That didn't stop Trump from leading "lock her up" chants at his rallies.

    My guess is that Trump didn't intentionally give enemies secret information, but he was so slipshod in the way that they are handled that the wrong people may have had access to them. Either way it must send a chill down the spines of our international spies and informants.

    If you are a victim of a fire it probably doesn't matter much to you if the fire was caused by arson or somebody's careless smoking.




  11. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 10:00 am

    I don't remember anybody accusing Hillary Clinton of funneling top secret information to our arch enemies either. That didn't stop Trump from leading "lock her up" chants at his rallies.

    At your convenience, Curt, send me links to the publication of Hillary's indictment and, while you're at it, the dates of her trial.

  12. by Donna on August 29, 2022 10:33 am
    So Hts, do you think that Trump, by virtue of being a former POTUS and a possible POTUD candidate in 2024 should be free to commit any crime without being prosecuted?

  13. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 10:55 am

    So Hts, do you think that Trump, by virtue of being a former POTUS and a possible POTUD candidate in 2024 should be free to commit any crime without being prosecuted?

    pb:

    "Read my post!

    If Trump is engaging in espionage, absolutely, indict, convict and execute him!

    But, on an charge much short of that crime, for a current president to use the Gestapo to impair the campaign of his chief rival,...

    ...if that happens, we'll lose something we'll never be able to get back!!!!!"

    Donna,

    You're posting in po style, employing laughable hyperbole and silly "Do you still beat your wife" questions.

    C'mon man. Gimme a break!

  14. by Donna on August 29, 2022 10:59 am
    Whole Foods is a subsidiary of Amazon.

    I'm guessing that most people don't care that much about their privacy. They're content with being bombarded with targeted ads that were derived from Google searches. Many may even see targeted ads as beneficial.

    If you use social media, you probably don't care too much about what corporations or political parties know about you.

    With all the crazies out there in mind, I don't publish much personal info about myself on my Facebook wall. All I give is my name. Someone would have to dig through my posts to uncover what city I live in.

    There's a software company whose name escapes me that was used, I think by the RNC, to gather info about social media users in order to understand how best to convince them to vote for Trump. Reportedly the software was so clever that it was able to find out more about social media users than most of them knew about themselves.

    It's probably inevitable that the US, and probably the world, will eventually adopt a social demerit system like the one in China, except that it'll probably be accomplished surrupticiously without direct involvement from other people.


  15. by Curt_Anderson on August 29, 2022 11:11 am
    Out of 30,000 of Hillary's emails, there were 113 emails which were unmarked or retroactively marked as classified, and low level classifications at that. Politifact called them "information with ambiguous classification markings."

    In contrast, Politifact reported that "Trump took properly marked hard copy classified documents from the White House, shipped them to Florida, and stored them in an unsecured location at his residence."

    "[An} FBI investigation concluded no 'reasonable prosecutor' would bring a criminal case against Mrs Clinton, but that she and her aides were 'extremely careless' in their handling of classified information." --BBC

    Trump's boxes contained top secret/sensitive compartmented information. The affidavit indicates that among the 184 documents were 25 that contained top secret information, including those gained from “clandestine human sources,” information prohibited from being shared with foreign governments, and information obtained by monitoring “foreign communications signals.”

    Also, Hillary unlike Trump, did not physically remove classified information from her office. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 establishes public ownership of all presidential records. Meaning that they were not Trump's to keep, regardless of classification.






    politifact.com
    bbc.com
    poynter.org
    npr.org

  16. by Donna on August 29, 2022 11:22 am
    Hts, as you know, you're still avoiding answering my question. You play the game you're playing now frequently here.

    Indict Trump if there's evidence that he passed classified documents onto anyone, especially enemy nations. Got it.

    That's not what I asked, but actually you've already given me you answer by avoiding answering it.

    So it seems like you're of the opinion that Trump should be able to break the law as long as there's no evidence that it resulted in harm to individuals or the US.

    You do understand, though, that if that were applied in general to everything, most laws on the books would need to be rewritten.

    For instance, driving 120 mph in a 60 mph zone would only be punishable if driving 120 mph caused someone harm. Anyone of us could sit all day and think of laws that would need to be rewritten because probably most of our laws were created to discourage abd punish if violated the potential for harm.



  17. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 11:31 am

    Politifact reported that "Trump took properly marked hard copy classified documents from the White House, shipped them to Florida, and stored them in an unsecured location at his residence."

    The Secretary of State has no right to classified documents. The President, as head of the Executive Branch, as I understand it, has the ability to declassify documents.

    Bottom line.

    If the current president's DOJ charges his leading rival apart from guilt of the most heinous crime, the current president commits an unforgivable sin against our Republic.

    This raid on Trump's wife's undie drawer is already a source of international shame.

  18. by Donna on August 29, 2022 11:36 am
    "The Secretary of State has no right to classified documents. The President, as head of the Executive Branch, as I understand it, has the ability to declassify documents." - Hts

    Right, but there's a procedure for that, and I've heard politicians and pundits left and right who've said that Trump didn't go through that procedure.

  19. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 11:47 am

    Donna,

    pb's been saying that Trump's handling of these documents was unwise, even foolish. pb's not defending Trump. He's only saying that for a sitting President to attempt to convict his chief rival for reelection over documents would be a sin against the republic that the nation probably would never recover from...unless there's treason involved. So far, even the Blue MAGAs here aren't suggesting that, as far as I know.

  20. by Donna on August 29, 2022 11:56 am
    Which laws should Trump be permitted to flout?

  21. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 11:59 am

    Flout?

  22. by Donna on August 29, 2022 12:04 pm
    Of course.

  23. by Curt_Anderson on August 29, 2022 12:13 pm
    HtS,
    Biden promised that his DOJ would not operate like Trump's. That is it would be independent and not a political cudgel. Without any evidence, you believe that Biden directed the FBI and DOJ to got after Trump, a potential political rival. Biden has said he didn't know about DOJ investigation into Mar-a-Lago.

    Even stipulating that Biden (who you claim suffers from dementia) knew and even encouraged the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago are you suggesting that the search warrant was issued for a made-up crime(s)? Even if Trump didn't have any intent to sell or reveal national secrets it would be a crime. Incidentally, Trump's own lawyers have not claimed Trump declassified any of the documents.

    Furthermore, should all potential presidential candidates be immune from prosecution for any crimes they might commit? Can Ron DeSantis kill somebody and claim it's "political" if he is charged with murder? Can Gavin Newsom rob a liquor store because he might run for president? Would it apply to the third party presidential candidates with a criminal bent?
    independent.co.uk

  24. by Donna on August 29, 2022 12:24 pm

    Exactly, Curt. Hence the question I asked Hts.

    Btw, today from WaPost:

    “Boxes of documents even came with Trump on foreign travel, following him to hotel rooms around the world — including countries considered foreign adversaries of the United States.”

    The article goes on to suggest that perhaps it was all just about Trump being highly disorganized and arbitrarily throwing classified documents into boxes while he was packing for overseas trips. But what if it wasn’t just that? This is Trump we’re talking about.

    When this scandal first surfaced, the first thing most of us thought about was whether Trump might have been sharing or selling these documents to Putin or Kim Jong Un, for personal gain. And now we know that, at the least, Trump was indeed taking boxes of government documents with him to enemy nations. The DOJ, the CIA, and others are surely working on trying to piece together just what Trump was really doing with all those classified documents when he took them into enemy territory. As expected, this just keeps getting uglier for Trump.

    washingtonpost.com

  25. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 12:40 pm

    pb doesn't think that anyone should be enabled to flout the law.

  26. by HatetheSwamp on August 29, 2022 12:52 pm

    Without any evidence, you believe that Biden directed the FBI and DOJ to got after Trump, a potential political rival.

    Noop. pb absolutely didn't say that. pb said that "that feckless dementia-ridden piece of crap" is an empty suit and a incompetent political weakling.

    Incidentally, Trump's own lawyers have not claimed Trump declassified any of the documents.

    Clearly you follow the SwampMedia more closely than pb. Have Trump's lawyers claimed anything about the documents?

    Furthermore, should all potential presidential candidates be immune from prosecution for any crimes they might commit?

    Yikes, Bubba! You're riding your hyperbolic high horse today!

    pb has said that, for a sitting President to be seen to use criminal charges against his chief rival for reelection is a greater sin against the republic than any but the most egregious crimes.

    And that you'd support that qualifies you as the best sort of good German. Or, Russian. This is what happens in Moscow, not DC.

  27. by Donna on August 29, 2022 12:52 pm
    OTOH you said

    "If Trump is engaging in espionage, absolutely, indict, convict and execute him!

    But, on an charge much short of that crime, for a current president to use the Gestapo to impair the campaign of his chief rival,..."

    So which is it?

  28. by islander on August 29, 2022 1:15 pm

    Hate is ”only saying that for a sitting President to attempt to convict his chief rival for reelection over documents would be a sin against the republic that the nation probably would never recover from...”

    Wrong. It’s not just about unimportant “documents”, it’s far far more than that and it involves our national security, the peaceful transfer of power and more. Also, there are no candidates running for the future election. Biden might or might not run and the Republicans have yet to nominate anyone, and in my opinion and that of many others, it won’t even be Trump. At any rate, even candidates who are officially running should not be immune from prosecution. The sitting Vice President, Agnew was prosecuted just as he should have been. It’s absurd to think prosecuting a ‘potential’ candidate for crimes far worse than Agnew’s would be a “sin against the republic”.

    The “documents’ in question that Trump has broken our countries laws with are top secret, classified documents, that if put in the wrong hands could put the lives of our undercover intelligence agents and our informants abroad, and the way Trump treated our top secret and classified documents could shake the confidence of our allies with regard to sharing sensitive information with us. 


  29. by oldedude on August 29, 2022 1:37 pm
    "Without any evidence, you believe that Biden directed the FBI and DOJ to got after Trump, a potential political rival. Biden has said he didn't know about DOJ investigation into Mar-a-Lago."
    Interesting. Since I actually read the Washington Post, and decided to look at the John Solomon piece, this just happened to come up in the reading...

    "The memos show then-White House Deputy Counsel Jonathan Su was engaged in conversations with the FBI, DOJ and National Archives as early as April, shortly after 15 boxes of classified and other materials were voluntarily returned to the federal historical agency from Trump’s Florida home.

    By May, Su conveyed to the Archives that President Joe Biden would not object to waiving his predecessor’s claims to executive claims, a decision that opened the door for DOJ to get a grand jury to issue a subpoena compelling Trump to turn over any remaining materials he possessed from his presidency.

    The machinations are summarized in several memos and emails exchanged between the various agencies in spring 2022, months before the FBI took the added unprecedented step of raiding Trump’s Florida compound with a court-issued search warrant.

    On May 10, Acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall sent Trump’s lawyers a letter revealing the Biden White House’s involvement.

    On April 11, 2022, the White House Counsel’s Office—affirming a request from the Department of Justice supported by an FBI letterhead memorandum—formally transmitted a request that NARA provide the FBI access to the 15 boxes for its review within seven days, with the possibility that the FBI might request copies of specific documents following its review of the boxes,” Wall wrote Trump defense attorney Evan Corcoran.

    That letter revealed Biden empowered the National Archives and Records Administration to waive any claims to executive privilege that Trump might wage to block DOJ from gaining access to the documents.

    “The Counsel to the President has informed me that, in light of the particular circumstances presented here, President Biden defers to my determination, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, regarding whether or not I should uphold the former President’s purported ‘protective assertion of executive privilege,’” Wall wrote. “…I have therefore decided not to honor the former President’s ‘protective’ claim of privilege.”

    The memos provide the most definitive evidence to date of the current White House’s effort to facilitate a criminal probe of the man Joe Biden beat in the 2020 election and may face again as a challenger in 2024. That involvement included eliminating one of the legal defenses Trump might use to fight the FBI over access to his documents."

    I think the pedophile king gots sum splainin todo!
    Bold
    thegatewaypundit.com

  30. by Curt_Anderson on August 29, 2022 4:01 pm
    OD,
    I've seen it on rightwing websites, but I don't know the original source of "[Jonathan] Su conveyed to the Archives that President Joe Biden would not object to waiving his predecessor’s claims to executive claims" "Convey" means to give the impression of something. How was it conveyed? Through an expression or body language? "Conveyed" is rather weaker than "ordered", "insisted", etc.

    It's a stretch to say that "15 boxes of classified and other materials were voluntarily returned" by Trump.

    National Archives retrieved 15 boxes of Trump White House documents from Mar-a-Lago
    (CNBC FEB 7 2022)The National Archives and Records Administration last month retrieved 15 boxes of White House records that had been sent to former President Donald Trump’s resort-home Mar-a-Lago instead of the National Archives as required by law, the agency said Monday.

    Biden waives executive privilege for new set of Trump records
    President Biden has authorized the National Archives and Records Administration to hand over an eighth tranche of presidential records from the Trump White House to the House committee investigating the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    In a letter released Wednesday by the National Archives, Biden again declined to assert executive privilege over the records — the latest batch sought by the committee after the Supreme Court rejected former president Donald Trump’s bid to block such releases.

    As for John Solomon, a Trump ally, he is responsible for the release of a letter that legal experts say incriminate Trump:
    “Self-inflicted wound”: Trump's release of “damning” National Archives letter blows up in his face

    cnbc.com
    washingtonpost.com
    salon.com

  31. by oldedude on August 29, 2022 5:56 pm
    The larger part of this is the memos reach back to before pedojoe took over the administration. That would mean he took active step to sway an election. In waiving executive privilege for the new set of Trump records, sight unseen, he said that NONE of them were a part of executive privilege. I find that very interesting considering he didn't know at the time what documents he was talking about.

  32. by Curt_Anderson on August 29, 2022 6:17 pm
    "...the memos reach back to before [Biden] took over the administration. That would mean he took active step to sway an election.". --OD

    So before Biden was inaugurated and Trump was out of office, Biden was taking active steps to sway the election of 2024?!? Is there a time machine involved in this theory?

  33. by oldedude on August 30, 2022 5:31 am
    "So before Biden was inaugurated and Trump was out of office, Biden was taking active steps to sway the election of 2024?!?"

    Thank you for mocking this, bless your heart. Since your pedophile has been a senator for the past 40 years, and those that helped him get elected were also part of the kabala that worked against Trump, it was pretty easy to set up. AND it was to ensure he couldn't run in 2024.

    I still marvel at the lack of understanding of a bureauacy.

  34. by islander on August 30, 2022 5:54 am

    Biden’s actions, waving of executive privilege, make perfect sense. Executive privilege is not absolute by any means and for obvious reasons, it shouldn’t be. In a criminal investigation executive privilege cannot be used to cover up a crime and this is a criminal investigation in which Trump is the subject of that investigation.

  35. by oldedude on August 30, 2022 7:39 am
    You keep harping on a "criminal investigation." IF so, what is the crime he charged with? OR did they break into his house on a "suspicion" there was criminal activity? Was it Thibault that "decided" there was suspicion? Or one of his buddies?

    Looking at the precedence that has already been set, People have done worse and have always been charged with the misdemeanor. And you're saying this is so much more egregious than putting classified material in your socks and underwear to actively steal the classified documents.

  36. by islander on August 30, 2022 8:21 am

    Trump has not yet been charged with a crime. This is the way it works and you know it...a suspect is not charged with a crime first and then investigated after, and it is a judge that decides if there is reason enough to issue a search warrant.

    And if you want to discuss something with me you are going to have to stop claiming I said something that I never said. I never said anything about any other cases or the egregiousness of any crime or crimes.

  37. by oldedude on August 30, 2022 8:25 am
    My point is that in order to get a search warrant, you MUST have predicate acts of a crime to legally get that legal waiver of the 4th and 6th amendment. It is ILLEGAL to break into someone's home and try to find a crime.

  38. by islander on August 30, 2022 8:46 am

    No the suspect does not need to have been shown to have committed a previous crime in order for a judge to issue a search warrant. This is what is needed:

    ”Probable cause: The officer should give reasonable information to support the possibility that the evidence of illegality will be found. Such information may come from the officer’ personal observations or that of an informant. Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004).


  39. by Donna on August 30, 2022 9:38 am
    It seems to me that "probable cause" is another way of saying "predicate acts of a crime".

  40. by islander on August 30, 2022 10:30 am
    I think probable cause means that it is reasonable to suspect that the suspect has committed a crime. If the suspect is convicted of the crime we can say that the suspect did indeed commit the crime. We know what crime Trump is suspected or alleged to have committed and any evidence found in a legal search could be used in court to help convict him.

    ”In the criminal law of the United States, a predicate crime or offense is a crime which is a component of a larger crime. The larger crime may be racketeering, money laundering, financing of terrorism, etc.[1]
    For example, to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), a person must "engage in a pattern of racketeering activity", and in particular, must have committed at least two predicate crimes within 10 years.[2] These include bribery, blackmail, extortion, fraud, theft, money laundering, counterfeiting, and illegal gambling.[3]
    Crimes are predicate to a larger crime if they have a similar purpose to the larger crime. For example, using false identification is itself a crime; it may be a predicate offense to larceny or fraud if it is used to withdraw money from a bank account.

    Predicate crimes can be charged separately or together with the larger crime.[4]    ” *

    * wikipedia

  41. by oldedude on August 30, 2022 10:32 am
    Two different levels. Probable cause is when you "have a pretty good idea." Predicate acts are articulated facts that show a crime has been committed. They are pieces of a crime that actually make it a crime. If you can't prove predicate acts, you can't get a warrant or a court conviction.

    These smaller acts are part of the larger crime that you can articulate to the judge.

    Pretty good idea. "John sells cocaine"

    Predicate act. "The task force bought
    A. On these dates, John exchanged one kilo of cocaine for $1400 each, and
    B. 500gr of heroin for $1000 (see ATTCH 2, 6, 15)
    C. in the span of 3 weeks.
    D. These purchases were completed by UC15 (DEA Nbr 4285)

    You use this to get a warrant. You find that John also sells guns and is a human trafficker. Both of those are fair game if the warrant is good, and it was in the scope of the search.


  42. by Curt_Anderson on August 30, 2022 10:51 am
    OD,
    Wouldn't all this constitute a predicate act?

    May 2021
    An official from NARA contacts Trump's team after realizing that several important documents weren't handed over before Trump left the White House.

    Fall 2021
    NARA grows frustrated with the slow pace of document turnover after several months of conversations with the Trump team.

    January 2022
    After months of discussions with Trump's team, NARA retrieves 15 boxes of Trump White House records from Mar-a-Lago.

    February 9, 2022
    News outlets, including CNN, report that NARA asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump's handling of White House records and whether he violated the Presidential Records Act and other laws related to classified information.

    February 18, 2022
    NARA informs the Justice Department that some of the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago included classified material. NARA also tells the department that, despite being warned it was illegal, Trump tore up documents while he was president, and that senior officials in the Trump administration did not properly preserve their social media messages, draft tweets and deleted tweets.

    April 11, 2022
    The FBI asks NARA for access to the 15 boxes it retrieved from Mar-a-Lago in January.

    April 29, 2022
    The Justice Department sends a letter to Trump's lawyers as part of its effort to access the 15 boxes, notifying them that more than 100 classified documents, totaling more than 700 pages, were found in the boxes.

    May 1, 2022
    Trump's lawyers write again to NARA, and ask again that NARA postpone its plans to give the FBI access to the materials retrieved from Mar-a-Lago in January.

    May 10, 2022
    Debra Steidel Wall, the acting Archivist of the United States, who runs NARA, informs Trump's lawyers that she is rejecting their claims of "protective" executive privilege.

    May 11, 2022
    The Justice Department subpoenas Trump, seeking documents with classification markings that are still at Mar-a-Lago.

    May 12, 2022
    News outlets report that investigators subpoenaed NARA for access to the classified documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago.

    June 2, 2022
    According to a lawsuit the former President later filed, Trump invites FBI officials to come to Mar-a-Lago to retrieve the subpoenaed materials.

    June 3, 2022
    Four investigators, including a top Justice Department counterintelligence official, visit Mar-a-Lago seeking more information about classified material that had been taken to Florida.

    June 8, 2022
    Trump's attorneys receive a letter from federal investigators, asking them to further secure the room where documents are being stored. In response, Trump aides add a padlock to the room in the basement of Mar-a-Lago.

    June 22, 2022
    Federal investigators serve a subpoena to the Trump Organization, demanding surveillance video from Mar-a-Lago.

    August 8, 2022
    The FBI executes a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago -- a major escalation of the classified documents investigation.

    6abc.com

  43. by islander on August 30, 2022 11:25 am

    ”you MUST have predicate acts of a crime to legally get [a search warrant]” ---od

    Being guilty of a previous crime related to the search can certainly be used to help convince the judge that there is a reasonable cause to issue the warrant. But such proof of commission of a previous crime related to the search is not absolutely necessary.

    “Constitutional Basis

    Although the Fourth Amendment states that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause", it does not specify what "probable cause" actually means. The Supreme Court has attempted to clarify the meaning of the term on several occasions, while recognizing that probable cause is a concept that is imprecise, fluid and very dependent on context. In Illinois v. Gates, the Court favored a flexible approach, viewing probable cause as a "practical, non-technical" standard that calls upon the "factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men act".

    Courts often adopt a broader, more flexible view of probable cause when the alleged offenses are serious.” *

    * Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute

    law.cornell.edu

  44. by oldedude on August 30, 2022 2:17 pm
    Welcome to the real world.

    Your PC for an exigent is on PC. I'll grant you that. Anything more is as I told Donna. Period. I've been through this process a couple of dozen times. A warrant is not the willy-nilly thing you believe it is. How I articulate what they are, I was told by an US Attorney for OCDETF cases.

    You do live near Ottawa, don't you... I'll just "assume" that from now on.

Go To Top

Comment on: "National security attorney: Trump Will Be Indicted"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
 SelectSmart.com home page