On 8/15/2022 11:35 PM, RichA wrote:
> Eeeverything is politics, isn't it?
>
> BBC:
> The US Department of Justice says releasing details about the warrant used to raid Donald Trump's Florida home last week could cause "irreparable damage" to its investigation.
>
> It wants to keep the affidavit, a court document showing the evidence required to obtain the warrant, under wraps.
>
> FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago to find out if Mr Trump improperly handled government records when he left office.
>
> It was the first time an ex-president's home was raided in a criminal probe.
>
> Eleven sets of classified files were recovered from the search one week ago at the estate in Palm Beach, according to the warrant, which was released on Friday.
>
> Now, several news organisations have applied to have the affidavit unsealed.

Where's the part about 'no longer being thrilled to open the warrant?'
You really sound nuts now.

On 8/16/2022 1:38 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 8/15/2022 11:35 PM, RichA wrote:
>> Eeeverything is politics, isn't it?
>>
>> BBC:
>> The US Department of Justice says releasing details about the warrant
>> used to raid Donald Trump's Florida home last week could cause
>> "irreparable damage" to its investigation.
>>
>> It wants to keep the affidavit, a court document showing the evidence
>> required to obtain the warrant, under wraps.
>>
>> FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago to find out if Mr Trump improperly
>> handled government records when he left office.
>>
>> It was the first time an ex-president's home was raided in a criminal
>> probe.
>>
>> Eleven sets of classified files were recovered from the search one
>> week ago at the estate in Palm Beach, according to the warrant, which
>> was released on Friday.
>>
>> Now, several news organisations have applied to have the affidavit
>> unsealed.
>
> Where's the part about 'no longer being thrilled to open the warrant?'
> You really sound nuts now.

The reason given is to protect the identity of witnesses. Reminiscent
of trials against criminal organizations, isn't it?

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 8/16/2022 1:38 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 8/15/2022 11:35 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Eeeverything is politics, isn't it?
>>>
>>> BBC:
>>> The US Department of Justice says releasing details about the warrant
>>> used to raid Donald Trump's Florida home last week could cause
>>> "irreparable damage" to its investigation.
>>>
>>> It wants to keep the affidavit, a court document showing the evidence
>>> required to obtain the warrant, under wraps.
>>>
>>> FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago to find out if Mr Trump improperly
>>> handled government records when he left office.
>>>
>>> It was the first time an ex-president's home was raided in a criminal
>>> probe.
>>>
>>> Eleven sets of classified files were recovered from the search one
>>> week ago at the estate in Palm Beach, according to the warrant, which
>>> was released on Friday.
>>>
>>> Now, several news organisations have applied to have the affidavit
>>> unsealed.
>>
>> Where's the part about 'no longer being thrilled to open the warrant?'
>> You really sound nuts now.
>
> The reason given is to protect the identity of witnesses. Reminiscent
> of trials against criminal organizations, isn't it?

Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to release
the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly they can't do
it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.

Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant and
could release it at any time.

So it looks like we have a case of dueling blowhards here.

On 8/16/2022 2:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 8/16/2022 1:38 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2022 11:35 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> Eeeverything is politics, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> BBC:
>>>> The US Department of Justice says releasing details about the warrant
>>>> used to raid Donald Trump's Florida home last week could cause
>>>> "irreparable damage" to its investigation.
>>>>
>>>> It wants to keep the affidavit, a court document showing the evidence
>>>> required to obtain the warrant, under wraps.
>>>>
>>>> FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago to find out if Mr Trump improperly
>>>> handled government records when he left office.
>>>>
>>>> It was the first time an ex-president's home was raided in a criminal
>>>> probe.
>>>>
>>>> Eleven sets of classified files were recovered from the search one
>>>> week ago at the estate in Palm Beach, according to the warrant, which
>>>> was released on Friday.
>>>>
>>>> Now, several news organisations have applied to have the affidavit
>>>> unsealed.
>>>
>>> Where's the part about 'no longer being thrilled to open the warrant?'
>>> You really sound nuts now.
>>
>> The reason given is to protect the identity of witnesses. Reminiscent
>> of trials against criminal organizations, isn't it?
>
> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to release
> the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly they can't do
> it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>
> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant and
> could release it at any time.
>
> So it looks like we have a case of dueling blowhards here.

That's not my understanding. I thought that the warrant itself was
released, but underlying affidavits remained sealed.

On 8/16/2022 4:07 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/16/2022 2:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/16/2022 1:38 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 8/15/2022 11:35 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>>> Eeeverything is politics, isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> BBC:
>>>>> The US Department of Justice says releasing details about the warrant
>>>>> used to raid Donald Trump's Florida home last week could cause
>>>>> "irreparable damage" to its investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> It wants to keep the affidavit, a court document showing the evidence
>>>>> required to obtain the warrant, under wraps.
>>>>>
>>>>> FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago to find out if Mr Trump improperly
>>>>> handled government records when he left office.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was the first time an ex-president's home was raided in a criminal
>>>>> probe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eleven sets of classified files were recovered from the search one
>>>>> week ago at the estate in Palm Beach, according to the warrant, which
>>>>> was released on Friday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, several news organisations have applied to have the affidavit
>>>>> unsealed.
>>>>
>>>> Where's the part about 'no longer being thrilled to open the warrant?'
>>>> You really sound nuts now.
>>>
>>> The reason given is to protect the identity of witnesses.  Reminiscent
>>> of trials against criminal organizations, isn't it?
>>
>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to
>> release
>> the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly they can't do
>> it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>>
>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant and
>> could release it at any time.
>>
>> So it looks like we have a case of dueling blowhards here.
>
> That's not my understanding.  I thought that the warrant itself was
> released, but underlying affidavits remained sealed.

That's correct. I believe the inventory of what was seized at
Mar-a-Lardo is available too.

On 8/16/2022 1:11 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 8/16/2022 1:38 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 8/15/2022 11:35 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> Eeeverything is politics, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> BBC:
>>>> The US Department of Justice says releasing details about the warrant
>>>> used to raid Donald Trump's Florida home last week could cause
>>>> "irreparable damage" to its investigation.
>>>>
>>>> It wants to keep the affidavit, a court document showing the evidence
>>>> required to obtain the warrant, under wraps.
>>>>
>>>> FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago to find out if Mr Trump improperly
>>>> handled government records when he left office.
>>>>
>>>> It was the first time an ex-president's home was raided in a criminal
>>>> probe.
>>>>
>>>> Eleven sets of classified files were recovered from the search one
>>>> week ago at the estate in Palm Beach, according to the warrant, which
>>>> was released on Friday.
>>>>
>>>> Now, several news organisations have applied to have the affidavit
>>>> unsealed.
>>>
>>> Where's the part about 'no longer being thrilled to open the warrant?'
>>> You really sound nuts now.
>>
>> The reason given is to protect the identity of witnesses. Reminiscent
>> of trials against criminal organizations, isn't it?
>
> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to release
> the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly they can't do
> it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>
> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant and
> could release it at any time.
>
> So it looks like we have a case of dueling blowhards here.

Shockingly you have no idea what you're talking about. The warrant has
been released. I do agree you're one of the blowhards though.

On 8/16/2022 8:58 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 8/16/2022 1:38 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 8/15/2022 11:35 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Eeeverything is politics, isn't it?
>>>
>>> BBC:
>>> The US Department of Justice says releasing details about the warrant
>>> used to raid Donald Trump's Florida home last week could cause
>>> "irreparable damage" to its investigation.
>>>
>>> It wants to keep the affidavit, a court document showing the evidence
>>> required to obtain the warrant, under wraps.
>>>
>>> FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago to find out if Mr Trump improperly
>>> handled government records when he left office.
>>>
>>> It was the first time an ex-president's home was raided in a criminal
>>> probe.
>>>
>>> Eleven sets of classified files were recovered from the search one
>>> week ago at the estate in Palm Beach, according to the warrant, which
>>> was released on Friday.
>>>
>>> Now, several news organisations have applied to have the affidavit
>>> unsealed.
>>
>> Where's the part about 'no longer being thrilled to open the warrant?'
>> You really sound nuts now.
>
> The reason given is to protect the identity of witnesses.  Reminiscent
> of trials against criminal organizations, isn't it?
>

Yeah, that tracks.

no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:

>Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to release
>the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly they can't do
>it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>
>Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
>search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant and
>could release it at any time.

I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it was
incomplete.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Aug 17, 2022 at 1:30:45 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to release
>> the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly they can't do
>> it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>>
>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant and
>> could release it at any time.
>
> I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it was
> incomplete.

That would be illegal and particularly stupid thing to do in such a high
profile case where every action (and inaction) will picked over in a glaring
media spotlight.

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2022 at 1:30:45 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:

>>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to
>>> release the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly
>>> they can't do it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>>>
>>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
>>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant and
>>> could release it at any time.
>>
>> I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it was
>> incomplete.
>
>That would be illegal and particularly stupid thing to do in such a high
>profile case where every action (and inaction) will picked over in a glaring
>media spotlight.

Sarcasm noted.

#WhatLiberalMedia

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 2022-08-17 9:10 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2022 at 1:30:45 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:
>>
>>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to release
>>> the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly they can't do
>>> it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>>>
>>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
>>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant and
>>> could release it at any time.
>>
>> I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it was
>> incomplete.
>
> That would be illegal and particularly stupid thing to do in such a high
> profile case where every action (and inaction) will picked over in a glaring
> media spotlight.
>
>

Oh? Do they have to give the identity of informants to everyone they
serve a search warrant on?

In article <te3p0p$lds$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2022-08-17 9:10 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 2022 at 1:30:45 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> >
> >> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:
> >>
> >>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to
> >>> release the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly
> >>> they can't do it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
> >>>
> >>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
> >>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant
> >>> and could release it at any time.
> >>
> >> I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it
> >> was incomplete.
> >
> > That would be illegal and particularly stupid thing to do in such a high
> > profile case where every action (and inaction) will picked over in a
> > glaring media spotlight.

> Oh? Do they have to give the identity of informants to everyone they
> serve a search warrant on?

What is the mental journey you took from my statement-- "Of course the
government is required by law to give every subject of a search warrant
a copy of it"-- to identities of informants?

Walk us through that step by step.

On 8/23/2022 8:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <te3p0p$lds$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-17 9:10 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Aug 17, 2022 at 1:30:45 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to
>>>>> release the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly
>>>>> they can't do it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
>>>>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant
>>>>> and could release it at any time.
>>>>
>>>> I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it
>>>> was incomplete.
>>>
>>> That would be illegal and particularly stupid thing to do in such a high
>>> profile case where every action (and inaction) will picked over in a
>>> glaring media spotlight.
>
>> Oh? Do they have to give the identity of informants to everyone they
>> serve a search warrant on?
>
> What is the mental journey you took from my statement-- "Of course the
> government is required by law to give every subject of a search warrant
> a copy of it"-- to identities of informants?
>
> Walk us through that step by step.

How will that help you, eunuch?

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2022 at 1:30:45 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:

>>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to release
>>> the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly they can't do
>>> it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>>>
>>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
>>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant and
>>> could release it at any time.
>>
>> I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it was
>> incomplete.
>
>That would be illegal and particularly stupid thing to do in such a high
>profile case where every action (and inaction) will picked over in a glaring
>media spotlight.

Since when have they cared about the legality of their actions, especially
when the liberal media will give them a pass?

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 2022-08-23 7:39 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <te3p0p$lds$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-17 9:10 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Aug 17, 2022 at 1:30:45 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to
>>>>> release the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly
>>>>> they can't do it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
>>>>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant
>>>>> and could release it at any time.
>>>>
>>>> I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it
>>>> was incomplete.
>>>
>>> That would be illegal and particularly stupid thing to do in such a high
>>> profile case where every action (and inaction) will picked over in a
>>> glaring media spotlight.
>
>> Oh? Do they have to give the identity of informants to everyone they
>> serve a search warrant on?
>
> What is the mental journey you took from my statement-- "Of course the
> government is required by law to give every subject of a search warrant
> a copy of it"-- to identities of informants?
>
> Walk us through that step by step.

What Trump is demanding is not the warrant but the affidavit the warrant
was based on.

In article <tfmenq$a9l$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2022-08-23 7:39 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <te3p0p$lds$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> > David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-08-17 9:10 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> On Aug 17, 2022 at 1:30:45 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to
> >>>>> release the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly
> >>>>> they can't do it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
> >>>>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant
> >>>>> and could release it at any time.
> >>>>
> >>>> I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it
> >>>> was incomplete.
> >>>
> >>> That would be illegal and particularly stupid thing to do in such a high
> >>> profile case where every action (and inaction) will picked over in a
> >>> glaring media spotlight.
> >
> >> Oh? Do they have to give the identity of informants to everyone they
> >> serve a search warrant on?
> >
> > What is the mental journey you took from my statement-- "Of course the
> > government is required by law to give every subject of a search warrant
> > a copy of it"-- to identities of informants?
> >
> > Walk us through that step by step.
>
> What Trump is demanding is not the warrant but the affidavit the warrant
> was based on.

So your comment had no actual relevance to what *I* said, then. Glad we
cleared that up.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <tfmenq$a9l$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-23 7:39 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>> > In article <te3p0p$lds$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> > David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2022-08-17 9:10 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>> >>> On Aug 17, 2022 at 1:30:45 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to
>> >>>>> release the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly
>> >>>>> they can't do it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject of a
>> >>>>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant
>> >>>>> and could release it at any time.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it
>> >>>> was incomplete.
>> >>>
>> >>> That would be illegal and particularly stupid thing to do in such a high
>> >>> profile case where every action (and inaction) will picked over in a
>> >>> glaring media spotlight.
>> >
>> >> Oh? Do they have to give the identity of informants to everyone they
>> >> serve a search warrant on?
>> >
>> > What is the mental journey you took from my statement-- "Of course the
>> > government is required by law to give every subject of a search warrant
>> > a copy of it"-- to identities of informants?
>> >
>> > Walk us through that step by step.
>>
>> What Trump is demanding is not the warrant but the affidavit the warrant
>> was based on.
>
>So your comment had no actual relevance to what *I* said, then. Glad we
>cleared that up.

This was never mentioned on Law & Order, so I have no clue: Is it
possible for the target of a search warrant to demand a probable cause
hearing before arrest and indictment in order to quash it and the
evidence found, or does it always have to wait till after?

On 9/12/2022 12:06 AM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-08-23 7:39 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <te3p0p$lds$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>   David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-08-17 9:10 a.m., BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Aug 17, 2022 at 1:30:45 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> no_email@invalid.invalid wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Still doesn't change the fact that they claimed to be 'thrilled' to
>>>>>> release the warrant until Trump called their bluff and now suddenly
>>>>>> they can't do it because of witnesses, case damage, blah, blah, blah.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course the government is required by law to give every subject
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>> search warrant a copy of it. So Trump himself has to have the warrant
>>>>>> and could release it at any time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was under the impression that they either never gave it to him or it
>>>>> was incomplete.
>>>>
>>>> That would be illegal and particularly stupid thing to do in such a
>>>> high
>>>> profile case where every action (and inaction) will picked over in a
>>>> glaring media spotlight.
>>
>>> Oh?  Do they have to give the identity of informants to everyone they
>>> serve a search warrant on?
>>
>> What is the mental journey you took from my statement-- "Of course the
>> government is required by law to give every subject of a search warrant
>> a copy of it"-- to identities of informants?
>>
>> Walk us through that step by step.
>
> What Trump is demanding is not the warrant but the affidavit the warrant
> was based on.

"Eunuch Derp the lawyer" doesn't seem to know that the difference is.