Coup Coup Catchyou!


Super Anarchist
Sag Harbor, NY
Last edited:

Blue Crab

Outer Banks
Trump warns of ‘big problems’ if indicted, says he’d still run for office
Former president Donald Trump warned that if he were indicted on a charge of mishandling classified documents after leaving the White House, there would be “problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before.”
I think we saw it on the sixth. And now we know.


Super Anarchist
Great Wet North

Washington Post -​

Excerpt -

Trump warns of ‘big problems’ if indicted, says he’d still run for office​

Former president Donald Trump warned that if he were indicted on a charge of mishandling classified documents after leaving the White House, there would be “problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before.”
Like figuring out where to imprison him?

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
Punta Gorda FL
Sorry dummies, but any expectation of privacy upon entry to the U.S. is outweighed by national security. Been that way for a very long time.
"Upon entry" kinda glosses over the fact that my entire state is "the border."

What you say may or may not be true for "papers" (and their modern equivalents for those of us who can develop an opinion and agree with the Supreme Court's Caetano decision).

The exception can be traced to the Collection Act of 1789, which authorized customs officers to search ships that they reasonably suspected to be smuggling dutiable goods. The statute is considered one of the best guides to the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because it was enacted by the same Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights to the state legislatures. In its first decision addressing the exception, Boyd v. United States, the Supreme Court explained that the category of searches and seizures contemplated as reasonable by that Congress was narrow. The Court was especially concerned about private papers, drawing a bright line between what the government may search for and seize—"goods liable to duties and concealed to avoid the payment thereof"—and what it may not—"a man's private books and papers."
In its landmark 2014 decision Riley v. California, the Supreme Court held that "officers must generally secure a warrant before conducting" "searches of data on cell phones." In that case, the state of California argued that officers should be permitted to search electronic devices without a warrant whenever they arrest someone. The Court disagreed. Although it makes sense to search a suspect for weapons that might harm an officer or evidence the suspect might destroy, the same can't be said for searching a suspect's cellphone. The Court concluded that whatever interests the government might have in searching a cellphone would be far outweighed by the violation of a suspect's substantial privacy interests caused by such a search. Cellphones, the Court explained, have "immense storage capacity" and can be used to reconstruct "the sum of an individual's private life." The Court continued, "it is no exaggeration to say that many of the more than 90% of American adults who own a cell phone keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives—from the mundane to the intimate." And the Court's "answer to the question of what police must do before searching [a] cell phone seized incident to an arrest [was] accordingly simple—get a warrant."

But Riley concerned searches conducted in the interior of the country, not at the border. Post-Riley, several federal appellate courts have considered whether the result should be any different for searches conducted at the border, where governmental powers are at their zenith and an individual's privacy expectations are at their lowest ebb. The Supreme Court has never addressed that question, and circuit courts are split on it. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction covers western states including California, and the 4th Circuit, whose jurisdiction covers mid-Atlantic states including Virginia, have held that border agents may perform "manual" searches without even reasonable suspicion, but that reasonable suspicion is required for a "forensic" examination of a cellphone's data—an electronic "strip search," as one court called it. The 11th Circuit, by contrast, whose jurisdiction covers southeastern states including Florida, has held that "no suspicion is necessary to search electronic devices at the border."

The upshot is that if you fly into Miami from abroad, CBP has the right to search your phone, whether that's thumbing through it or copying and storing its contents. And even in the jurisdictions where courts have protected travelers the most, CBP has the right to access your phone; and in order to copy all of its contents, it needs only reasonable suspicion that you are attempting to smuggle in contraband or avoid customs duties. No court has held that searching electronic devices at the border requires a warrant, though some circuit judges have advocated for such a rule in dissenting and concurring opinions.

All this may prompt the Supreme Court to take up a case involving the search of an electronic device at the border.

Our phones, as the Court explained, have "immense storage capacity" and can be used to reconstruct "the sum of an individual's private life." Is that any less true at the border? Does the border create some need to access those details? I like the Riley rule: get a warrant, and think it should apply throughout the country.


YES, IMPOTUS Leaked Secrets [Empty Wheel]

The Department of Justice lawyers working on the appeal and stay in the “documents case” of Mar-a-Lago and Donald J. Trump for the 11th circuit are smart. The ones trying for a stay from Cannon were smart, too, and smarter than she is.

Marcy Wheeler, at Empty Wheel blog, notes that, in their appeal, they drop a note that Donald Trump has leaked top secret material. I’m going to add emphasis:

Aileen Cannon’s order only permitted the government to review the classified documents for hypothetical risk of future disclosure. It notes that that would prohibit the government from investigating whether these documents have already been disclosed. It then raises the empty folders as a problem that must be solved, in part by identifying the patterns of Trump’s theft to identify what else he may have stolen.
The injunction also appears to bar the FBI and DOJ from further reviewing the records to discern any patterns in the types of records that were retained, which could lead to identification of other records still missing. See A42 (describing recovery of “empty folders with ‘classified’ banners”). And the injunction would prohibit the government from using any aspect of the seized records’ contents to support the use of compulsory process to locate any additional records.
Disregarding a sworn declaration from a senior FBI official, the court dismissed such concerns as “hypothetical scenarios” and faulted the government for not identifying an “emergency” or “imminent disclosure of classified information.” A11. But the record makes clear that the materials were stored in an unsecure manner over a prolonged period, and the court’s injunction itself prevents the government from even beginning to take necessary steps to determine whether improper disclosures might have occurred or may still occur.
As she says,

The government came very close to saying that Judge Cannon has prohibited the government from preventing leaks in process.
This is short for Empty Wheel, so think it through for a moment. Justice, on behalf of FBI, is saying that the materials were held for months without security. There are empty folders. The empty folders MUST be investigated, but Cannon prohibits the investigation, since those would be “hypothetical” and of things in the past. She is only allowing a security review of future harms.

So, a Fake Rothschild, someone looking for a towel and opening the wrong closet, or just K$$$ and John Solomon evacuating the good stuff but leaving the wrapper? The jackets without files tell us that there are Top Secret goods that HAVE leaked. They may or may not have been transmitted, but they have escaped containment and governmental control.

The Espionage Act case has already been proved.



Super Anarchist
Legal Jeopardy
I’ll take going down for 500 Alex……..
There are supposedly 17 people who have already been notified as being not just witnesses but targets. I'll take Sidney and Guiliani as the first big hits - here's hoping. Whose bidding were they criming for?