How was the 4th Violated?

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

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.

SOUNDS LIKE THE FBI FOLLOWED PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE?!?!?
 
You Trumppers hate it when confronted with the real words of the Constitution.
 
Following the Constitution was their problem.
They should have given Mar-A-Lago the Janet Reno Wako treatment.
I'm completely serious. That would have solved a lot.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Following the Constitution was their problem.
They should have given Mar-A-Lago the Janet Reno Wako treatment.
I'm completely serious. That would have solved a lot.
Click to expand...

What Reno did was perfectly legal


Just climb into Timmy’s grave and stay there
 
Jarod said:
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

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.

SOUNDS LIKE THE FBI FOLLOWED PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE?!?!?
Click to expand...

passports taken not part of the warrant. sure it COULD have been "by accident" or maybe it was not. in any event it is a violation.

hard to say what else without a comprehensive inventory and affidavit.
 
Jarod said:
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

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.

SOUNDS LIKE THE FBI FOLLOWED PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE?!?!?
Click to expand...

For the love of God. Stop trying and pretending you are some sort of attorney. You poor disillusioned left wing idiot.
 
Celticguy said:
passports taken not part of the warrant. sure it COULD have been "by accident" or maybe it was not. in any event it is a violation.

hard to say what else without a comprehensive inventory and affidavit.
Click to expand...

Not a significant violation, silly. Desperate much?
 
martin said:
Taken and returned. Was, say, a planned trip to play golf in Saudi Arabia ruined? The “violation” in this episode is the theft of numerous, sensitive government documents. If their recovery included a two day interruption in the storage of a passport, so fucking what. Secondly, if any harm had occurred who would have been at fault, Trump for taking property that isn’t his or the FBI for taking lawful action in a reasonable way in getting it back.
Click to expand...

Keep collecting your welfare check white boy. Fucking punk ass bitch.
 
martin said:
Taken and returned. Was, say, a planned trip to play golf in Saudi Arabia ruined? The “violation” in this episode is the theft of numerous, sensitive government documents. If their recovery included a two day interruption in the storage of a passport, so fucking what. Secondly, if any harm had occurred who would have been at fault, Trump for taking property that isn’t his or the FBI for taking lawful action in getting it back.
Click to expand...
J-Rod asked what violated the 4th. the public has virtually no knowled gf of what was taken so cant speak to anything else.

but the passports were a clear violation.
 
Celticguy said:
J-Rod asked what violated the 4th. the public has virtually no knowled gf of what was taken so cant speak to anything else.

but the passports were a clear violation.
Click to expand...

They were a violation only if they had not been promptly returned. Otherwise they were part of a reasonable seizure of 20 boxes of documents. Trump assumed the risk of a temporary taking of the passports by storing them in the basement with documents subject to the seizure. But if you have any law that a violation did occur let’s see it. I think you’ll find there is none.
 
Jarod said:
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

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.

SOUNDS LIKE THE FBI FOLLOWED PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE?!?!?
Click to expand...

The ridiculous vagueness of the warrant, basically, "we're looking for some papers"; the seizure of his passports without listing them as taken, the lack of probable cause, and not one single document involving national security, contrary to the lies the FBI/DOJ started with the Fkae News.

And now, the LEAKED STREAM OF LIES to "get the narrative started"...just like the RUSSIA LIES...a violation of equal protection under the law (14th Amendment)
 
Grokmaster said:
The ridiculous vagueness of the warrant, basically, "we're looking for some papers"; the seizure of his passports without listing them as taken, the lack of probable cause, and not one single document involving national security, contrary to the lies the FBI/DOJ started with the Fkae News.

And now, the LEAKED STREAM OF LIES to "get the narrative started"...just like the RUSSIA LIES...a violation of equal protection under the law (14th Amendment)
Click to expand...

How would you know there is a lack of probable cause or that the warrant is vague…

Leaked stream of lies?!?
 
Celticguy said:
you did not qualify your request for violations. dont try and move the goalposts.
its either a legal collection of evidence or its not.
in this case its obviously not.
Click to expand...

Ok, you found a very minor and corrected technical violation.
 
Grokmaster said:
And now, the LEAKED STREAM OF LIES to "get the narrative started"...just like the RUSSIA LIES...a violation of equal protection under the law (14th Amendment)
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment applies to state action. "No state......." Where was the discrimination?
 
Jarod said:
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

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.

SOUNDS LIKE THE FBI FOLLOWED PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE?!?!?
Click to expand...
Warrants have to specific looking for specific things. This warrant was very broad and nonspecific. Also to look in a safe you need a specific warrant to do that. I suspect that is what Trump will challenge. Ans example of how broadly the warrant was written the agents thought they could take Trump's passport because it was a government document.
 
ExpressLane said:
Warrants have to specific looking for specific things. This warrant was very broad and nonspecific. Also to look in a safe you need a specific warrant to do that. I suspect that is what Trump will challenge. Ans example of how broadly the warrant was written the agents thought they could take Trump's passport because it was a government document.
Click to expand...

What did the warrant have to say about FBI agents rifling through female underwear?
 
this is close to a general warrant.
it lacks particularity of items to be seized and is unlimited in term of Trumps time in office.
What did they take? like 20 boxes?? all of that is evidence of a crime??? noooo. it's a grab bag

Particularity
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/09-particularity.html
This requirement thus acts to limit the scope of the search, as the executing officers should be limited to looking in places where the described object could be expected to be found.133
The purpose of the particularity requirement extends beyond prevention of general searches; it also assures the person whose property is being searched of the lawful authority of the executing officer and of the limits of his power to search. It follows, therefore, that the warrant itself must describe with particularity the items to be seized, or that such itemization must appear in documents incorporated by reference in the warrant and actually shown to the person whose property is to be searched.134
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top