I'm sure the investigation leading up to the search warrant was very "thorough", consisting of one guy saying it who was getting a reduced sentence or let go specifically for saying it.

Wouldn’t his refusal to personally certify all government documents have now been returned be grounds for another round of search warrants for every Trump property, owned or rented? We know his lawyers can’t be trusted, we know he mixed them in with personal files, and we know he’s taken multiple boxes of files with him when he travels.
Really, another round of warrants is needed (and likely coming) whether he certifies or not, it’s just a way to hold him more accountable when they find more.

Good news Bob, in something of an anomaly, you've got an opportunity to read the truth about this incident on foxnews(I know, it's opposite day in the world):

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-mar-a-lago-search-justified

Link is above, but choice quote from FOX themselves follows:


If this were a mere issue of simply recovering unclassified presidential records, though, there likely never would have been a criminal element to this matter. But buried into those boxes were countless properly marked classified documents. Those documents lacked any markings indicating that Trump had ever declassified them. No actual substantiated evidence indicates Mr. Trump ever declassified them. No one viewing those records would have any reason to view them as anything other than properly classified documents.

The government tried to recover the documents peacefully and quietly. They spent one year discussing the matter with Trump’s staff, and 15 boxes were sent back to NARA in February.

After identifying more missing records, the government returned in June with a subpoena and found more boxes of records that should have been returned. Both times, properly marked classified documents – up to and including documents marked as Top Secret and requiring Sensitive Compartmented Information access eligibility – were located within the boxes.

A Trump lawyer swore out an affidavit promising there were no more documents. The government gathered evidence that the Trump lawyer was not being truthful, and on August 8, 2022, a court-authorized search warrant was executed that, sure enough, located several more classified documents.

That is not an abuse of law enforcement processes. That is how the law works.


Now I'm going to repeat the last statement there for emphasis, but even FOX stated it: That is not an abuse of law enforcement processes. That is how the law works.

sometimes the truth reveals itself at the most unexpected moments.

but it wasn't wholly one man that launch the [redacted] war against Saddam. it was the work of many.

SIDEBAR: recall during those times, the administration tried five 'slogans' to sell the war. wasn't until WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMDs) that they found a 'winner'.

Colin Powell forever gave up his chance at the US Presidency when he tried to sell the UN on the idea. Remember it well. Watch it live, at work, with w/boss. We saw nothing to warrant a war.

Remember it well, indeed. Hunter S. Thompson was a guest on Letterman the following night and said something to the effect of "you couldn't get a search warrant for a known mobster's house w/that kind of evidence". (have looked on YouTube for it but can't find it)

Also, remember Angela Merkel saying she couldn't ask her people to go war w/info given. A comedian remarked later that when you can't Germany to agree to invade a country - there has to be something terribly wrong w/the idea.

Sadly, this was the moment the Republicans must have believed they could sell any lie, anytime, anywhere, about anything.

They might be correct.

Your video, When You Serve A Search Warrant Against A Sheriff, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Trump represents himself as the opposite of everything wrong with Washington DC and Hillary Clinton and the last 8 years.

His agenda to to MAGA. and to drain the swamp.

He is bring jobs back and lowering unemployment. The tag line "Its the economy stupid. " rings true. After 8 years of poor growth and leadership indicating 2% growth is the new norm, Damn right people want someone who promises better. And Trump is delivering on the economy. Hillary really didn't have a message.

World affairs-- Tentative , promising ? still evolving, but hopeful. Got 3 prinisors out of NK, alive. It's a start.

Draining the swamp, dozens not seeking reelection or just leaving.
DOJ, FBI, Fired,resigned , compromised
Anthony Weiner laptop search warrant was unsealed today. Now more bad news for HRC and many more.
But the wheels of justice moves slowly.

Also The Inspector General final Draft is nearly completed--

Also noted that the FBI had a snitch placed in the Trump camp and was feed bogus information -- A total FBI scam.


If Obama delivered solid growth Hillary would have been a shoe in, as repulsive as she is.

Like how you blame Republicans for destruction in 2008. BS but ok lets go with it and take ownership. Obama took ownership in 2008 and was responsible for fixing the mess and he failed.

Clinton stood for what ? LBGTQ and universal healthcare.

I never get tired of this movie. Back in high school in the 70s my film class teacher let us watch this, it was unheard of. He said if he heard any sniggering during any of it he would shut it off right then so we kept quiet.

He pointed out some symbolism that I didn't get at first, about Callahan and Scorpio on the 50 yard line in the stadium. And the processing plant representing the justice system during the final chase, with Scorpio escaping. He also pointed out that even without a search warrant they would have charged Scorpio for shooting Chico and beating Callahan.

One thing I noticed, the violence in this 1971 movie was unheard of a year earlier. I can't think of any movie from 1969 or 1970 that had anything close to it.

The rest of the franchise got progressively worse for me, although Magnum Force made an effort. ("Me and Smith and Wesson", oh brother. He would have been shot 10 times over before getting to that line)

If they served her a search warrant at her home they may have taken her into custody the way she was dressed at the time. Also she says there are other woman in the same situation so regardless of the reason this is a massive fail on the part of the jail (county i assume). Treating all people with dignity is important if you want a healthy society.

It is a common tactic with police, i believe everywhere in the world that not complying when you have every right to do so will lead to an escalated action.

Here in Finland, they have to have a search warrant for entering and searching your home. But the trick here is, there is an exception in the law. Basically it says that in special circumstances, they don't need a warrant. Refusing a search can be considered as suspicious, a special circumstance and hey presto: they can now search your home. The loophole is there originally to stop destroying evidence or to give possibility to stop domestic abuse. As such, it is logical but how it is being used in conjunction with non-compliance, is just wrong.

Search warrants just got more quiet.

You need a court order to conduct a raid like that.
Anyone ask the judge what his reasoning was for signing the search warrant?
Oh, I forgot, judges are the be-all and end-all for justifying the law.

I'm no lawyer, but I think the citizens in this case didn't properly understand the law. Normally, they are right--the 4th amendment states that the police need a warrant to search a private residence. However, there are several exceptions to that rule including two that are applicable here--the plain view exception and the emergencies exception (see this link).

The plain view exception states that if the police have a clear view of what they believe to be illegal activity, they may enter a private premise without a warrant. And those airsoft guns, which from a distance do indeed look like real firearms, are in plain view from the street.

The emergency exception states that police may search a premises without a warrant if the evidence can be easily destroyed or moved before a warrant can be issued. In this case they had an anonymous tip that illegal activity was taking place at the location? If the citizens were actually selling guns, by the time the cops could secure a search warrant the sellers could have packed up all their stuff and left town.

I think in this case the fact that the guns were on sale in the driveway in plain view coupled with the anonymous tip gives police all the probable cause they need to search the premises without a warrant. I think if these people decided to be assholes and file a lawsuit claiming their civil rights had been violated or something, they'd be up shit creek without a paddle.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'big think, kevin, mitnick, troll, fbi, search warrant, donuts' to 'big think, kevin mitnick, troll, fbi, search warrant, donuts' - edited by xxovercastxx

(continued conversation from http://videosift.com/video/Democracy-Now-A-Massive-Surveillance-State-Exposed. Feel free to join in.)

@enoch - Specifically, what new power has the government gained here? (this is not a rhetorical question)

I'm with you on torture, warrantless wiretaps, illegal wars, assassinations (in general, thought I think Al Alakwi was justified considering the body count he had racked up), persecution of whistleblowers, persecution of journalists

The current NSA scandal encompasses none of these things. If they want to record your phone calls, they need a warrant. They didn't under Bush - but they do now - and PRISM can't go after your internet data at all.

Even if they did want to grab everyones' information, can you see how difficult it would be to pull off? How many phone calls are made in a day? (millions?) How many warrants would it take to get access to all those calls? How many man hours would it take to record and listen to all those calls? Even if the NSA were full of villainous mustache twirlers, doesn't that seem like a futile task? 99.9999% of the information would be useless.

I believe that the NSA genuinely works to stop terror attacks. I know there has been much bullshit done in the name of the "war on terror", but I believe there is a genuine need for an Agency that deals with National Security. I would imagine most countries have some kind of similar body.

I don't have a problem with information gained through search warrants. My major complaint is that this stuff is not better explained to the public. I know that there is plenty of specific information that needs to be kept secret in order to not blow the cover of agents who are wiretapping suspects, but I think the broad strokes should be put out there. Here's what we are doing. Here's why. Here are the problems we've had. Here are the successes we've had. How are we doing? How can we improve this?

I also think there would be far less need to monitor if drugs were legalized and the war on terror ended.

Anyway, I think this kind of surveillance is going to become status quo, will not be overly problematic and will be completely uncontroversial in a few decades. As far as abuse goes, you don't need any of these high tech contraptions to listen to people's phone calls and track internet usage. These things can be done fairly easily with comparatively primitive tech that can be bought legally at spy stores.

http://www.spy.th.com/audiocat.html

@criticalthud I don't disagree with what you say. My point is that judge approved wiretaps and internet surveillance should be a legal part of the law enforcement/National Security arsenal. How to do it best is beyond me. I think warrants and constitutional protections are decent checks and balances, but I know they are not infallible. As I mentioned to enoch, if someone wants to listen to your calls, be that person a high ranking government agent or your grumpy neighbor, it can be done easily with low tech. Killing these guidelines would do nothing to protect you from a rogue agent or personal vendetta.

If all this leads to a real discussion on the war on terror or the war on drugs, I'd be thrilled. My prediction is that it will just be used as a politicians electoral bludgeoning device until everyone gets sick of hearing about it and it slides off the radar screen.

@enoch - Specifically, what new power has the government gained here?

I'm with you on torture, warrantless wiretaps, illegal wars, assassinations (in general, thought I think Al Alakwi was justified considering the body count he had racked up), persecution of whistleblowers, persecution of journalists

The current NSA scandal encompasses none of these things. If they want to record your phone calls, they need a warrant. They didn't under Bush - but they do now - and PRISM can't go after your internet data at all.

Even if they did want to grab everyones' information, can you see how difficult it would be to pull off? How many phone calls are made in a day? (millions?) How many warrants would it take to get access to all those calls? How many man hours would it take to record and listen to all those calls? Even if the NSA were full of villainous mustache twirlers, doesn't that seem like a futile task? 99.9999% of the information would be useless.

I believe that the NSA genuinely works to stop terror attacks. I know there has been much bullshit done in the name of the "war on terror", but I believe there is a genuine need for an Agency that deals with National Security. I would imagine most countries have some kind of similar body.

I don't have a problem with information gained with search warrants. My major complaint is that this stuff is not better explained to the public. I know that there is plenty of specific information that needs to be kept secret in order to not blow the cover of agents who are wiretapping suspects, but I think the broad strokes should be put out there. Here's what we are doing. Here's why. Here are the problems we've had. Here are the successes we've had. How are we doing? How can we improve this?

I also think there would be far less need to monitor if drugs were legalized and the war on terror ended.

Anyway, I think this kind of surveillance is going to become status quo and will be completely uncontroversial in a few decades. As far as abuse goes, you don't need any of these high tech contraptions to listen to peoples phone calls and track internet usage. These things can be done fairly easily with comparatively primitive tech that can be bought legally at spy stores.

@criticalthud I don't disagree with what you say. My point is that judge approved wiretaps and internet surveillance should be a legal part of law enforcement/National Security arsenal. How to do it best is beyond me. I think warrants and constitutional protections are decent checks and balances, but I know they are not infallible. As I mentioned to enoch, if someone wants to listen to your calls, be that person a high ranking government agent or your grumpy neighbor, it can be done easily with low tech. Killing these guidelines would do nothing to protect you from a rogue agent or personal vendetta.

If all this leads to a real discussion on the war on terror or on the war on drugs, I'd be thrilled. My prediction is that it will just be used as a politicians electoral weapon until everyone gets sick of hearing about it and it slides off the radar screen.