aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

You know I love you, but your arguments are all emotion on this latest ruling.

---

Maybe, maybe not. There is still so much we do not know. That the judges don't even know. So many redactions and misdirections.

I think it is entirely possible that Judge Jackson's and Judge Ellis' rulings contradict each other in certain respects. Ellis is old school, letter of the law. Jackson, not so much. When presented with the same question, they easily could reach opposite conclusions. We'll see.

You can grant me that point, at least?

---

Completely agree there's a ton we don't know about all this. (But that has nothing to do with this particular ruling)

The two judges could reach different rulings of course. Certainly interesting for use law nerds. (And you know someone here will claim Ellis is part of the swamp or corrupt if he sides with Mueller)

Quote:

---

The two judges could reach different rulings of course. Certainly interesting for use law nerds. (And you know someone here will claim Ellis is part of the swamp or corrupt if he sides with Mueller)

---

I'd be dismayed but wouldn't go that far.

But while we are on Manafort, the search warrant for his storage unit was based on a "consensual" pre-search by the FBI where they took notes (or photos) of the labeling on the boxes contained therein and then got a specific warrant a few hours later based on the fruits of the "consensual" search. A (former) employee who had access to the storage site, whose name appeared on the lease but the lease also said only Manafort had authority to access the unit, let the Feds into the unit.

SCOTUS just issued the Byrd opinion involving rental cars and the 4th Amendment. Based on that opinion discussed here I think Manafort loses on that challenge. (Which I didn't until this opinion.)

I read Orin Kerr's piece (haven't read Byrd opinion yet) and I respectfully dissent.

My analysis starts with the reality that the privacy and possessory interest in a storage unit is greater than "someone's name is on the lease."

My take is that if a person can decline a search, they can similarly agree to a search. Nor do I think that a possessory interest in a leased storage unit is that distinguished from a rental car.

First take. I'm all about the 4th and less intrusion but I'm having a hard time distinguishing the "right to refuse" from the "right to consent."

I haven't read the opinion, and may be way off base (I'm not a criminal attorney), but I can see a difference between the right to consent and the right to decline. The default of the 4th is that the government does not have the right to search absent consent or a warrant. (I recognize there are times when neither is required, but for the case at hand, a warrant or consent is needed.) A declination of a request to search is simply maintaining the status quo. If there is another person with equal or greater authority to consent to a search, the government can still seek consent from that person. On the other hand, consent to search changes the status quo and would require the consent be from a person with actual authority over the property to be searched. Once consent is given, you can't get the proverbial cat back in the bag.

TxLawDawg said:

---

I haven't read the opinion, and may be way off base (I'm not a criminal attorney), but I can see a difference between the right to consent and the right to decline. The default of the 4th is that the government does not have the right to search absent consent or a warrant. (I recognize there are times when neither is required, but for the case at hand, a warrant or consent is needed.) A declination of a request to search is simply maintaining the status quo. If there is another person with equal or greater authority to consent to a search, the government can still seek consent from that person. On the other hand, consent to search changes the status quo and would require the consent be from a person with actual authority over the property to be searched. Once consent is given, you can't get the proverbial cat back in the bag.

---

Good points. Valid arguments. I just don't think that 4th Amendment has been strongly asserted enough in the past to get where you are. I agree with you but I'm not on SCOTUS.

We are not final because we are infallible. We are infallible because we are final.--Justice Jackson.

Lately a number of tweets from Barnes Law have been posted on our thread. This evening Barnes hosted a "Ask Me Anything" thread on Reddit...the thread is now locked. You can access it and read his answers. Lots of questions related to areas of interest on our thread. I have no idea how good a lawyer he is, but one thing for sure, he certainly doesn't lack self confidence.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/996595440173887493.html

A thread on Papadopoulos.

Is Obama trying to hide documents?

I really don't see how the government can justify just locking away evidence of crimes every 4 years. Who gives an ex president the authority to just hide everything associated with their administration?

Write your congressman

Speculation as to why Strzok was kept on while Page/Baker let go two weeks ago.

Sounds like a case for pausing the statute of limitations on some crimes as was just discussed yesterday. Or just unsealing the documents.

Over 2000 pages of documents surrounding the Trump Tower meeting released, downloading them all now, sort through them and see if there is anything of significance or just more white noise

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/releases/materials-from-inquiry-into-circumstances-surrounding-trump-tower-meeting

NPR is talking about this right now. Really spinning this into anti trump noise as best they can. This is serious nonsense. At best.

Is there already case law on it?

I'm asking because the way you worded it sounds like "it's always been done that way", but no one has ever challenged it.

Yep CNN is pushing it hard. Isn't this just opposition research and totally ok? How is this different than paying Steele? Except here there was no money exchanged and no dirt given.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Yep CNN is pushing it hard. Isn't this just opposition research and totally ok? How is this different than paying Steele? Except here there was no money exchanged and no dirt given.

---

It was also a set-up by the Obamites, who have a lot of explaining to do, and I am sure they are coordinating the assault by NPR (defund those *******) and CNN and the rest of the leftist trash media.

fasthorses05 said:

---

Is there already case law on it?

I'm asking because the way you worded it sounds like "it's always been done that way", but no one has ever challenged it.

---

The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2209

context

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/trump-tower-meeting-interview-transcripts.html

Quote:

---

The bulk of records released are transcripts of the committee's interviews with that meeting's participants,

---

...

Quote:

---

Excerpts from the transcripts released by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat of California who is the committee's ranking minority member, highlight how lawyers for the Trump Organization tried to manage the fallout by coordinating the statement of Mr. Goldstone and others.

---

I would hope they tried to coordinate the talking points.

biobioprof said:

---

context

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/trump-tower-meeting-interview-transcripts.html

Quote:

---

The bulk of records released are transcripts of the committee's interviews with that meeting's participants,

---

...

Quote:

---

Excerpts from the transcripts released by Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat of California who is the committee's ranking minority member, highlight how lawyers for the Trump Organization tried to manage the fallout by coordinating the statement of Mr. Goldstone and others.

---

---

So, again, Feinstein is releasing things she shouldn't be releasing in order to undermine the president and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Oh, and to protect the coup attempt and the other traitors who are trying to overthrow a duly elected president. I hope she hangs with them.

My hope is one of the Dems come out and say some Trump team misled Congress and should be held accountable. That would be awesome

backintexas2013 said:

---

I would hope they tried to coordinate the talking points.

---

Isn't that their job?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

So, again, Feinstein is releasing things she shouldn't be releasing in order to undermine the president and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

---

The good thing is that Feinstein is too stupid to know that releasing certain documents will amount to repeated own goals. Just like last time.

Quote:

---

...
The Intelligence Community (Brennan/Clapper):

• knew of the Dossier from the start.
• helped in the Dossier's creation.
• directly leaked information including Clapper himself.
• relied on the Dossier in obtaining the FISA Warrant.
• relied on the Dossier at least in part in the IC Assessment Report.
• repeatedly lied about doing so.

...

---

This is an article about Obama's requested 'Intelligence Community Assessment' (ICA) which was presented to him at the January 5, 2017 intel meeting, a meeting belatedly memorialized in the infamous Susan Rice email. The ICA Report subsequently was used to push the entire Russian Narrative story to which our country has been subjected.

So, a gentlemans' agreement amongst the political elite to protect eachother from retribution for crimes committed against the larger public?

backintexas2013 said:

---

Yep CNN is pushing it hard. Isn't this just opposition research and totally ok? How is this different than paying Steele? Except here there was no money exchanged and no dirt given.

---

Must not be much there given the absolute silence from our res libs, or else the talking points are running late today.

https://truepundit.com/the-hill-withheld-mueller-bombshell-for-months-shielding-special-counsel-and-hillary-from-publicity-disaster/

The True Pundit (Thomas Paine) has now released the details of the cover-up incident he threatened to reveal several weeks ago about a major publisher. It was the virtually unknown Mueller-Levinson-Iranian deal that went south in the end because of HRC's reservations. True Pundit initially exposed it months ago but received little to no recognition. Then "The Hill" sat on the story for 5 months, not releasing it for fear of embarrassing Mueller & HRC. You can read about it in the above article.

The True Pundit has contacts in the FBI & WH.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/996765012944478211.html

Quote:

---

Judging by the testimony of participants in the Trump Tower meeting, the whole thing was a nothingburger. Veselnetiskaya said she had dirt on illegal Clinton contributions, Trump Jr. asked for proof, she had none, and everyone lost interest in what she had to say.

The "dirt" Veselnitskaya offered was that a bunch of money from an illegal Russian tax scam was being illegally funneled to the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Trump Jr. asked how that money ended up with the DNC/Clinton. Veselnitskaya's response: "Hell, I don't know."

At that point, according to testimony from Rinat Akmetshin (not at all a fan of Team Trump), Donald Trump, Jr., "instantly lost interest."

---

Quote:

---

To recap: a shady Russian lawyer working with Fusion GPS set up a meeting with Trump officials to share dirt (which was really just an excuse to whine about the Magnitsky Act). She had no dirt, the Trump officials sniffed that out pretty quick, and everyone moved on....

---

This all amounts to probably close to two million dollars worth of wasted tax money on this garbage alone they just released. Mueller I'm sure it up to twenty million easy. All these other multiple congressional investigation into political farce is the biggest crime of all.

Horowitz has a budget and limits, I'm betting there will be a much better use of the money, regardless of the outcome.

Menwith Hill is GCHQ's Ft Meade

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/989243767084503041.html

More revelations of GCHQ & other Brit intel agencies involvement with the Steele dossier. Top British government officials (Theresa May) had to be aware.

Tried to be Hoover without Hoover's extreme tight control and intimidating gravitas.