FBI Raid On Trump's Mar-A-Lago Had No Valid Legal Basis

[Care4all]

Yes, violation of the PRA is not a crime...therefore a search warrant is never valid. Obvioiusly, this was all pretextual to get into Trump's home, and gather private material, including attorney-client priv material...as well as distract from the horrible job Xiden and the Dems have been doing...this was all political

Not one of the 3 felonies on the subpoena had anything to do with the PRA.

 

[surada]

The cross dressing faggots leaked "Trump has nuclear secrets!" which got zero traction. Even the msm soviet politburo couldn't sell that one.

I almost feel sorry for these mouth breathing simians as they contemplate their demise. Trump is just owning them now....

Donald Trump sues justice department over Mar-a-Lago search

Donald Trump wants to temporarily stop the FBI from reviewing material seized from his home.

www.bbc.com

 

[struth]

You think Trump has security cameras in Melania's bedroom and dressing room so Secret Service agents can watch her? Trump is a liar and you're an idiot. You think they watch her dressing and undressing, getting out of the bathroom and putting on her makeup?
,

Likely cameras all over the place, and obviously federal agents....very well guarded and secure place. Which Garland knew...sort of undermines one of their arguments for the raid. Thanks for highlighting that for us

 

[struth]

Not one of the 3 felonies on the subpoena had anything to do with the PRA.

Nor did they have to do with the documents in question....they were all pretexual

 

[CowboyTed]

The Wall Street Journal lays out the reasoning as to why the FBI raid was illegal.

The Presidential Record Act (PRA) of 1978 (Link) grants former presidents complete access to all records created under their admin.

"The PRA explicitly guarantees a former president continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public, but in the meantime—unlike with all other government documents, which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive-branch officials—the PRA establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five-year restriction on access applicable to everyone (including the sitting president, absent a showing of need), which can be extended until the records have been properly reviewed and processed. Before leaving office, a president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years.

The only exceptions are for National Archives personnel working on the materials, judicial process, the incumbent president and Congress (in cases of established need) and the former president himself. PRA section 2205(3) specifically commands that “the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative,” regardless of any of these restrictions.

Nothing in the PRA suggests that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based. Yet the statute’s text makes clear that Congress considered how certain criminal-law provisions would interact with the PRA: It provides that the archivist is not to make materials available to the former president’s designated representative “if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records of the Archives.”

In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified."

Opinion | The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis

A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.

www.wsj.com

One I can't see a link where the former President has access... saying that access and taking it are two different things...

The PRA doesn't give former presidents custody... When is doesn't mention it , it doesn't mean the President can just take custody... That is not how the law works..

there is multiple laws around presidential documents and reading one and ignoring all the others is not how law works..

 

[surada]

Likely cameras all over the place, and obviously federal agents....very well guarded and secure place. Which Garland knew...sort of undermines one of their arguments for the raid. Thanks for highlighting that for us

Do you think there are cameras in Melania's bedroom and dressing room?

 

[CowboyTed]

I'm not an expert in the law, but the opinion makes sense to me.

It explains why we never had this during previous ex-presidents.

But the real question is that if this opinion is correct, what should happen to the FBI agents involved in the great Mar-a-Lago Panty Raid? Fired and having their pensions lifted? Or should they be sent up the river for this?

Other Presidents didn't take boxes and boxes of documents home with them...

It like an ex employee complaining that other ex employees weren't arrested for stealing stuff... By he stole stuff..

 

[Care4all]

Nor did they have to do with the documents in question....they were all pretexual

Huh? They had everything to do, with the search warrant and what could legally be taken in the search

 

[Nostra]

The Dimstapo overplayed their hand on this one.

 

[struth]

Do you think there are cameras in Melania's bedroom and dressing room?

Do you think that's where they keep these boxes?

 

[CowboyTed]

The article is hogwash!

The presidential records are REQUIRED under law to be kept by the National Archives.

The former president has free access for the 5 years, before the public has access.

But the current president, and congress, and doj can access them during that 5 years, if there is a need. They can't get access, when in need, if Trump has them.

And under no condition, none, zip, zero....can a former president store TOP SECRET SCI national security compartmental documents at Mara Lago Resort, or anywhere outside of their secure place in the government safe.

The presidential records were never his records to take with him.

The presidential records act is CLEAR on that.....

Mixing up custody and access...

It is laughable...

 

[dudmuck]

The Wall Street Journal lays out the reasoning as to why the FBI raid was illegal.

The Presidential Record Act (PRA) of 1978 (Link) grants former presidents complete access to all records created under their admin.

"The PRA explicitly guarantees a former president continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public, but in the meantime—unlike with all other government documents, which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive-branch officials—the PRA establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five-year restriction on access applicable to everyone (including the sitting president, absent a showing of need), which can be extended until the records have been properly reviewed and processed. Before leaving office, a president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years.

The only exceptions are for National Archives personnel working on the materials, judicial process, the incumbent president and Congress (in cases of established need) and the former president himself. PRA section 2205(3) specifically commands that “the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative,” regardless of any of these restrictions.

Nothing in the PRA suggests that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based. Yet the statute’s text makes clear that Congress considered how certain criminal-law provisions would interact with the PRA: It provides that the archivist is not to make materials available to the former president’s designated representative “if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records of the Archives.”

In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified."

Opinion | The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis

A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.

www.wsj.com

The PRA requires the President to ensure preservation of records documenting the performance of his official duties (44 U.S.C. § 2203(a)), provides for the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to take custody and control of the records (44 U.S.C. § 2203(g)), and sets forth a schedule of staged public access to such records (44 U.S.C. § 2204).

So the NARA has custody of the records, but the former president is given access to them. If the former president takes custody away from NARA, then its a violation, unless NARA releases them.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Wall Street Journal lays out the reasoning as to why the FBI raid was illegal.

The Presidential Record Act (PRA) of 1978 (Link) grants former presidents complete access to all records created under their admin.

"The PRA explicitly guarantees a former president continuing access to his papers. Those papers must ultimately be made public, but in the meantime—unlike with all other government documents, which are available 24/7 to currently serving executive-branch officials—the PRA establishes restrictions on access to a former president’s records, including a five-year restriction on access applicable to everyone (including the sitting president, absent a showing of need), which can be extended until the records have been properly reviewed and processed. Before leaving office, a president can restrict access to certain materials for up to 12 years.

The only exceptions are for National Archives personnel working on the materials, judicial process, the incumbent president and Congress (in cases of established need) and the former president himself. PRA section 2205(3) specifically commands that “the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative,” regardless of any of these restrictions.

Nothing in the PRA suggests that the former president’s physical custody of his records can be considered unlawful under the statutes on which the Mar-a-Lago warrant is based. Yet the statute’s text makes clear that Congress considered how certain criminal-law provisions would interact with the PRA: It provides that the archivist is not to make materials available to the former president’s designated representative “if that individual has been convicted of a crime relating to the review, retention, removal, or destruction of records of the Archives.”

In making a former president’s records available to him, the PRA doesn’t distinguish between materials that are and aren’t classified."

Opinion | The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis

A former president’s rights under the Presidential Records Act trump the statutes the FBI cited to justify the Mar-a-Lago raid.

www.wsj.com

This was a pretext raid. They were fishing for anything to keep Trump from running in 2024. Those who approved of or enabled this raid to take place should be put in prison for a very long time. That list starts at Biden himself.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

The ONLY reason anyone knows about the search is because Trump wanted YOU to know, so he could get you to do his dirty work for death threats and harm to our Nation and so he could make millions in donations by milking you for your last dime!

LOL, I can't believe you spun this illegal raid to be a fund drive for Trump!

More likely is that the Biden Admin alerted the media to this raid to ensure Trump got plenty of negative news coverage.

 

[Care4all]

Likely cameras all over the place, and obviously federal agents....very well guarded and secure place. Which Garland knew...sort of undermines one of their arguments for the raid. Thanks for highlighting that for us

They subpoenaed Trumps security tapes in late June and found security breaches with the government documents he took illegally.... It's one of the reasons they got the search approved by the judge, is my understanding.

 

[CowboyTed]

Likely cameras all over the place, and obviously federal agents....very well guarded and secure place. Which Garland knew...sort of undermines one of their arguments for the raid. Thanks for highlighting that for us

It has been reported that room which they were held was unlocked...

 

[Care4all]

This was a pretext raid. They were fishing for anything to keep Trump from running in 2024. Those who approved of or enabled this raid to take place should be put in prison for a very long time. That list starts at Biden himself.

For what crime?

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL, I can't believe you spun this illegal raid to be a fund drive for Trump!

More likely is that the Biden Admin alerted the media to this raid to ensure Trump got plenty of negative news coverage.

In doing so it backfired on them, BIGLY!

 

[Billy_Bob]

It has been reported that room which they were held was unlocked...

The lock was placed and SECURED. The video evidence show that it was secured, and that the FBI had to CUT THE LOCK OFF to get access to the room. Do you idiots ever think about what your spewing before posting?

 

[CowboyTed]

The Trumpsters are going through another desperate stage...

They will get through this...

Search Warrant was legal... Judge signed it...
Evidence was the security camera footage of them moving Top Secret documents...

They found the documents. The documents are the property of the US people. If nothing else, they are getting there stuff back.