The Trump Warrant Had No Legal Basis

In the debate world, the above is commonly referred to as argumentum ad absurdum, aka argument reduced to the absurd.
Got anything else?

 

Yea, thanks for the lesson.

Absurdity was the point.

 

You've yet to show your work.

And, like a fellow poster in this thread, I'm an attorney and have been for over 30 years.

[/QUOTE]

Oh, sure. I unequivocally believe that.

 

Let's see the unredacted affidavit and find out. The FBI past history is extremally questionable on any/all issue fromt eh past...... so yes they are lying until they can prove Trump had SAP documents... we only have the "word" of the FBI.

 

Well its coming up friday chief so take a long deep breath and a xanax or something while you wait.

 

Let Trump speak for himself...

 

Nahhh, no one owes Trump a heads up of how his crimin' is going to finally eat him and his alive. He can find out like every (average) citizen since he was never above the law to begin with.

 

Yeah I will: The judge didn't work for epstein, and he didn't work on epstein's case as a prosecutor either.
He worked in the office that was, amongst its many other responsibilities, handling epstein's case but he did not WORK on that case.
Later when he retired from being a prosecutor and went into private practice, he ended up defending some adjacent defendants to epstein because he was already a known quantity to those persons in his former office. Much of settlement discussions depends on the lawyers trusting and knowing each other to be good for their word. This is why its incredibly common to see someone be a prosecutor for a while then turn around and do criminal defense in the same area of the law and the same locale.

 

There's talk that Biden did know about the FBI's raid on Trump's home.
Of course, this is the same Biden who said he has no knowledge of Hunter Biden's business dealings.

 

Of course you don't it was proven that without the Fabrications they included in it the warrant to spy on his campaign never would have happened. I bet you still believe in the pee pee tapes

 

Yes I do. You seem to think that asserting that no deadline means that the Orange Loofah can keep the government documents for as long as he wants. Which is silly.

 

You admit that you believe the latest echo chamber hype then?

I never wrote that the former president could keep the government documents for as long as he wants. Attempting to assign your words to me is what's silly. Did they teach you this tactic in law school?

 

Said the guy who doesn't understand the law and thinks that Bonespurs can retain documents he has no right to retain because the applicable laws have no "time limits".

No, I didn't admit that highlighted nonsense. Why you guys pull that idiotic Oh, so you admit" stunt is puzzling.

It's the law, not the crazy off-base tinfoil hat stuff some people here consume and regurgitate. That position would be laughed out of court, like the arguments made by the Orange Criminal time and time again.

 

What's the point of this off-base crap?

 

*LOL*

"Well, you just wait!" Isn't an argument, unless you think the Court is dishonest. Which itself is a tinfoil hat argument.

 

It's amusing that numerous people are making these laughable arguments and seemingly don't understand why the arguments are laughable.

 

Oh, sure. I unequivocally believe that. [/QUOTE]
Cite a case to support the facially nonsensical arguments from the OP. I won't hold my breath.

"You see, your Honor, my client can keep the government documents because the statutes he violated---uh, I mean, didn't violate---don't have time limitsd for his possession of documents that don't belong to him."

 

Nice try, but all your Wall Street Journal Opinion piece, proves, is that the authors, Rivkin & Casey, understand less than a "low level... judge, a magistrate," in terms of the law. Just because Trump is assured "access," to his documents, is in no way equivalent to having the right to remove them from the National Archives, & keep them in his own possession. From your SNIP:

Federal law gives Mr. Trump a right of access to them. His possession of them is entirely consistent with that right, and therefore lawful...

Or maybe what is proven here, is that your two writers don't recognize the difference between the words access, and ownership, or possession. Or perhaps they are mentally "logic- challenged." But any civilian understands, implicitly, that having the right of access to something, does not give one the right to possess it, by taking it along with them. Since this warrant's application, was first approved by AG Merrick Garland-- who cannot be thought of as a low level legal judge, but rather, should by all rights, currently be sitting on our Supreme Court-- yours is a laughable contention, that these two bozos who got an opinion piece in the WSJ, are more legally savvy than the Attorney General (who is utterly behind the action).

 

Apparently, the Orange Failure can keep all of the documents in the basement of a golf club event center because he's entitled to "access", but not possession.

Man, what a great argument that's in no way a grotesque misconstruction of the law!

*LOL*

Ridiculous.

 

Hmmm. I wonder why Team Orange hasn't made this fantastic argument in federal court yet!

 

What facts is this FBI compromises the judge with? Do you have some or are you imagining some?

 

you have not been introduced his attorneys. They are about the same calibre as his election law experts. They will not be too embarrassed to, if that's what you are thinking.

 

Except this particular one recused himself from another Trump case because of bias. Did he suddenly lose his dislike of Trump? That alone may bite the DOJ in the ass.

 

You not knowing what you are talking about is not an argument either.