Sen. Cruz: Senate Should Put AG Garland, FBI on Trial

I KNOW, EB...Good Call...
I was just trying to be as DIPLOMATIC as possible...
To cement My Well-Known, Well-Deserved (and Universally-Accepted) Reputation as PF's Most Charitable and Magnanimous Member...

True, EB...
Hard to argue with that...
An Opinion that is Gospel (much like the Eastern Sunrise)...

 

And yet, when asked by the court to prove that he actually declassified the documents, to authenticate the items seized because he claimed the FBI planted evidence, Trump, in legal court proceedings, you know, due process, has refused to verify those claims. For someone who thinks he is in the right, Trump can easily show the court what he has said publicly meets the legal requirements under penalty of perjury. We can see the same with all the policies that Trump has made. His rhetoric such as Mexico paying for the wall, China paying for the tariffs, etc, did not meet the reality of those policy decisions. He is shortsighted, does not think things through, and when those policies fail, he blames everyone else but him.

 

A search warrant does not violate the US Constitution.

 

The American barbers should put Cruz on trial for singlehandedly ending the fashion for beards.

 

Are you also calling Trump a jackal? Considering you like "policies" and think he is the "best" president since Reagan, you are either using two different sets of standards or you are about as partisan in your thinking as the next next idealogue.

 

And yet, Trump has not challenged the legality of the search warrant at all. Next.

 

We only need four of them and I didn’t mention Arizona or Colorado that could be in play in a wave election

 

The criminal resides now in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC and needs to be frog marched and perp walked out of our House

 

It is if sufficient probable cause isn't present, or the requesting agency uses falsified evidence. It unconstitutional AF, then.

 

It was according to the Affadvit and the list of three possible crimes, 18 USC 793, 2071, and 1519.

 

I'm not a big fan of Trump... I'd like some of his policies in another candidate.

That said, both political parties are rotten at the top, and the Dem Party is rotten top to bottom.

You support all of that rot, and I don't play the he said/she said con game.

As I've told you before, get yourself informed and fight back against the corrupt Establishment.

 

It was according to who? The FBI? They already used falsified evidence to obtain a warrant to investigate Trump.

 

Yeah? Neither of those things is ever gonna happen, primarily because the Chubby Corrupt Cheeto somehow managed to prove that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted...

Ergo, he cannot be perp walked from the WH.

BTW, HOW can you be frog marched AND perp walked at the same time? Or is the plan to rotate those between those two things??

 

Hilarious made up nonsense....

Well, hilarious here on my planet anyway....

 

You're definitely not on planet Earth, if you think Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a legal investigation...lol

 

And yet, 5+ years later, nobody (with credentials) can point to anything ILlegal.... or UNlegal.... or DISlegal...

 

The judge who signed the search warrant. Their job is to determine if probable cause exists. If it does, they sign the search warrant.

 

Witness, here, the way our slide into an authoritarian dictatorship, could potentially begin.

See the true hypocrisy of Cruz, and all Republicans who accuse Democrats of using Congress for witch hunts, though feel their own exceeding of Democratic actions, as described by Cruz, or as were seen in the never ending Benghazi hearings, or in the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton, are always viewed as justified.

A generally untrustworthy lot of S.O.Bs, today's Republicans in Washington (and many other places, besides).

 

A judge signed the Crossfire Hurricane warrant, too. The warrant was still unconstitutional.

Judges don't determine if probable cause exists. They review the evidence presented by the requesting agency. The judge can only take the LEO's word that the evidence is credible. If the LEO lies about the evidence, that immediately renders the warrant unconstitutional.

 

Ancient History...
Besides, the topic of THIS Thread is Ted Cruz's Delusions...
And, totally LMAO at Cruz's remarks about Garland and co.

 

But, it is history. It's the history of the FBI using faked evidence and lying under oath to obtain a warrant to **** with Trump. It's history that can't be ignored.

Besides, I was pointing out an example of an unconstitutional warrant, because the poster I responded to said a warrant isn't unconstitutional.

 

What about the Mar a Lago investigation has violated the Constitution?

The National Archives told Trump to return documents.
Trump did not return all the documents.
The National Archives told the FBI Trump didn't return all the documents.
The FBI took the evidence to a judge.
The judge OK'd a legal search warrant.
The FBI found the documents the National Archives said were their property.
Those documents were taken back.

So, please tell me where this same procedure hasn't occurred thousands of times before.

 

So far, what we know, is that the FBI took documents that weren't covered by the warrant. Basically, violating the 4th and 5th Amendments.

The National Archives doesn't have authority to order anyone to do ****. They aren't any kind of law enforcement agency, not to mention, nobody knows if the documents requested by the NA we're something the NA had reason to have, in the first place.

 

It was not unconstitional but used questionable sources that the Judge did not know about. The Horowitz report stated two of the FISA warrants should not have been signed and two were allowed.

 

Simple search procedure - if you find a box with evidence in it, you take the whole box, because not only were they looking for classified documents, they
were looking for evidence that those documents had been touched by other people - fingerprints and DNA have to be excluded. If Trump didn't want
his stuff taken, he shouldn't have kept it in the same area (box, safe) that included documents with classified jackets. End of ****ing story.