The Aug 8th FBI SEARCH of MAR-a-LAGO was DUE PROCESS
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 35 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The Aug 8th FBI SEARCH of MAR-a-LAGO was DUE PROCESS
The Aug 8th FBI SEARCH of MAR-a-LAGO is "On August 8, 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago, the residence of former U.S. president Donald Trump in Palm Beach, Florida. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago
DUE PROCESS is "A legal concept where a person is ensured all legal rights when deprived of their liberty for a given reason."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/due_process
BURDEN of PROOF
Wikipedia advises:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
PRO must defend USFG claim of due process
CON must prove that the search of Mar-a-Lago and seizure of govt. documents was unreasonable or unwarranted in the Fourth Amendment sense of those standards.
PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.
No trolls or kritiks, please.
- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. No new arguments in the final round, please
4. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate
- Like every US citizen, Donald Trump enjoys a constitutional right to be secure in his persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures which may not be violated except by issuance of a warrant swearing or affirming probable cause of a crime and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- An unreasonable search and seizure is a search and seizure executed
- But the Aug 8th search of Mar-a-Lago was performed with a legal search warrant,
- a properly formatted A053
- unusually, a copy of the warrant was made public for our scrutiny
- signed by a judge or magistrate
- in this case Federal magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
- Describing the specific place to be searched
- In this case: “The premises to be searched, 1100'S Ocean Blvd, Palm Beach, FI. 33480, is further described as a resort, club, and residence located near the intersection of Southern Blvd and S Ocean Bid. Its described as a mansion with approximately 58 bedrooms, 33 bathrooms, on a 17-acre estate. The locations to be searched include the “45 Office,” all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including all structures or buildings on the estate. It does not include areas currently (i.c., at the time of the search) being occupied, rented. or used by third parties (such as Mar-a-Largo Members) and not otherwise used or available to be used by FPOTUS and his staff, such as private guest suites."
- The specific people to be searched
- In this case, none
- The specific things to be seized.
- In this case: "All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 2071, or 1519, including the following
- a. Any physical documents with classification markings, along with any containers/boxes (including any other contents) in which such documents are located, as well as any other containers/boxes that are collectively stored or found together with the aforementioned documents and containers/boxes;
- b.. Information, including communications in any form, regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material;
- c. Any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20.2017, and January 20, 2021; or
- d. Any evidence of the knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of any government and/or Presidential Records, or of any documents with classification markings"
- In 2021, Trump advised staff that he regarded some presidential documents as his personal property even though those U.S. records legally belong to the US Government and the people of the US.
- From May to Dec 2021, the National Archives and Record Keeping Administration [NARA] negotiated the return of any illegally held documents with Trump's legal team to no effect. Trump simply, consistently refused to comply with the law.
- In Jan 2022, NARA finally arranged to pick up 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago. Alarmed to discover illegally procured classified documents, SAP "need to know" documents, and top secret documents (top secret means "disclosure expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security") within the boxes, NARA referred the criminal evidence to the Dept. of Justice.
- By April 2022, the FBI began interviewing Trump lawyers and staff about the documents. They reported that when Trump's advisers counseled him to return all of the stolen documents, Trump replied "“It’s not theirs, it’s mine”
- On June 3rd, National security officials arrived at Mar-a-Lago with a grand jury subpoena requiring that all documents marked classified or above be produced immediately. At least one Trump lawyer signed a statement affirming that all classified material had been returned. Interactions with lawyers tipped the DoJ that Trump was likely still illegally withholding classified documents.
- ON June 22nd, officials subpoenaed security camera footage showing the hallway outside of the Mar-a-Lago storage room and witnessed some boxes being removed to evade the subpoena.
- This gave the FBI the probable cause to believe that Trump still withheld stolen documents and was not cooperating with the subpoenas.
- No evidence has been produced to show any search beyond the specified places.
- No evidence has been produced to show any seizure beyond the specified documents
- Trump was permitted to watch the search via cc tv
- PRO reminds voters that RULE #1 states " Forfeit=auto loss"
- A May 10th letter from NARA addressed to Trump's lawyer reveals that:
- Trump was actively campaigning NARA to not reveal to the FBI the nature of the documents recovered in January
- NARA denied the request, calling the question of further delay "not a close one."
- Therefore, Trump knew in early May that the FBI had substantial evidence of his ongoing criminal activity
- The letter confirmed that some of these highly classified documents were related to Special Access Programs, potentially containing some of the United States' most highly protected secrets.
- Since Trump claimed executive privilege, the question of such privilege had been referred to the Oval Office.
- Biden preferred not to weigh in and deferred the question to NARA' best judgement.
- It cannot be said that Federal govt. was not extremely deferential and cautious, giving Trump many, many opportunities to desist his felony conduct.
- Extend all ROUND1 arguments
- I look forward to CON's ROUND 2 counterargument
- PRO reminds voters that RULE #1 states " Forfeit=auto loss"
- A judge ordered the Justice Department on Thursday to make public a redacted version of the affidavit it relied on when federal agents searched the Florida estate of former President Donald Trump to look for classified documents.
- The directive from U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart came hours after federal law enforcement officials submitted under seal the portions of the affidavit that they want to keep secret as their investigation moves forward. The judge set a deadline of noon Friday for a redacted, or blacked-out, version of the document.
- The order means the public could soon get at least some additional details about what led FBI officials to search Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8 as part of an investigation into classified documents being retained at the Palm Beach property. Documents already made public as part of the investigation show that the FBI retrieved from the property 11 sets of classified documents, including information marked at the top secret level.
- Extend all ROUND2 arguments
- I look forward to CON's ROUND 3 counterargument
- PRO reminds voters that RULE #1 states " Forfeit=auto loss"
- Federal investigators knew months before the search that Trump had been storing top secret government records at Mar-a-Lago, a private club accessible not only to Trump, his staff and his family, but paying members and their guests, along with a revolving door of attendees at various functions, including weddings, paid political fundraisers and charity galas.
- The affidavit notes that Mar-a-Lago storage areas, Trump’s office, his residential suite and other areas at the club where documents were suspected to still be kept were not authorized locations for the storage of classified information. Indeed, it notes that no space at Mar-a-Lago had been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of Trump’s term in office.
- Yet the affidavit reveals that, of the batch of 15 boxes that the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved from Trump’s home in January, 14 contained documents with classification markings. Inside, they found 184 documents bearing classification markings, including 67 marked confidential, 92 secret and 25 top secret.
- The Archives referred the matter to the Justice Department on Feb. 9 after a preliminary review of the boxes found what they described as “a lot of classified records."
- Agents who inspected the boxes found special markings suggesting they included information from highly sensitive human sources or the collection of electronic “signals” authorized by a court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
- The affidavit lists several markings, including ORCON, or “Originator Controlled.” That means officials at the intelligence agency responsible for the report did not want it distributed to other agencies without their permission.
- “When things are at that level of classification, it’s because there’s a real danger to the people who are collecting the information or the capability,” said Douglas London, a former senior CIA officer who wrote a book about the agency, “The Recruiter.” “
- “It appears, based on the affidavit unsealed this morning, that among the improperly handled documents at Mar-a-Lago were some of our most sensitive intelligence,” Warner said.
- Some of those classified records were mixed with other documents, the affidavit says, citing a letter from the Archives.
- Of most significant concern: “highly classified records were unfoldered, intermixed with other records, and otherwise unproperly (sic) identified.”
- “Even though I was prepared for this because I knew the judge would not approve a search based on something minor, the breadth and depth of the careless handling of classified information is truly shocking,” Priess said.
- The affidavit makes clear yet again that Trump had numerous opportunities to return the documents to the government, but simply chose not to.
- The affidavit makes clear that the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation concerns not just the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces and the potentially unlawful concealment or removal of government records, but says investigators had “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction” would be found in their search.
- Extend all ROUND3 arguments
- I look forward to CON's ROUND 4 counterargument
- PRO reminds voters that RULE #1 states " Forfeit=auto loss"
- PRO must defend USFG claim of due process
- PRO did so in R1 and extends all R1 claims
- CON must prove that the search of Mar-a-Lago and seizure of govt. documents was unreasonable or unwarranted in the Fourth Amendment sense of those standards.
- CON has forfeited four rounds and is likely to forfeit his conclusion
- CON has dropped all arguments
- PRO asks VOTERS to award him full forfeiture.
- PRO thanks CON for going easy on him and thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.
- Please VOTE PRO!
Thx for voting
If whomever reported this debate wants to let us know what in the terms of service it violated, please do so. As is, there's no obvious problem.
full forfeit two days left
full forfeit. zero votes. five days left.
I'm sorry you are feeling so much emotion about this. Are you willing to debate this question? Yes or No?
Denialism. How gen-Z of you.
So show some balls and put a little skin in the game. If your understanding is correct, it should be an easy win for you.
Those are quotes from a legal case you twit.
And your rebuttal is nothing short of a genetic fallacy.
*facepalm*
Well since you're getting your info from questionable sources like Western Journal, I am not surprised you display so much ignorance on the subject. I would be happy to remake this debate and even give you the exact same R1 argument for your advantage if you'd like to debate this.
“Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,” Judge Jackson wrote.
“Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,”
https://www.westernjournal.com/old-case-bill-clinton-hid-sock-drawer-unravel-fbis-mar-lago-raid/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=conservativetribune&utm_content=2022-08-18&utm_campaign=manualpost&fbclid=IwAR1tigLknpAPtY2NmLjgZ_jnXtst63do9D0QCQqyP0684ATmgxVkzDFuE3Q
PRO's ROUND1 SOURCES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_search_of_Mar-a-Lago
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/due_process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unreasonable_search_and_seizure
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22131380-trump-warrant-unsealed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_magistrate_judge
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/us/trump-espionage-act-laws-fbi.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20220211142142/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/10/trump-records-classified/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220816211232/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/trump-cipollone-philbin-interviews-fbi.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20220816211232/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/trump-cipollone-philbin-interviews-fbi.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20220816211232/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/trump-cipollone-philbin-interviews-fbi.html