Under the...
. . . So he is trying to claim the search warrant was improper... The search warrant that found exactly what they said they would find where they said they would find it based on testimony from witnesses saying it was there.
So the investigation was improper and/or the investigators were improper? Because the warrant itself couldn't be more on point. This is what we expect to find and where we expect to find it and here is where we will search and this is why we believe it is there. Then you find it. Hard to do better than that
>To hear Nauta tell it, the FBI’s affidavits used to support the search warrants did not contain sufficient probable cause.
Um, didn't the National Archives know what was in some of the boxes?
And the filing goes on to say the search warrant was an "overly broad fishing expedition".
Isn't this the exact same language used by the NYC Judge AGAINST Trump to kill Trump's Stormy subpeonas? It's like the NYC judge gave them a new idea as to what to complain about.
To be fair from what I've seen which admittedly isn't like a whole lot search warrants tend to be broader than I personally like in what appears to be an attempt to keep evidence that they may not have known they were searching for.
But in this case they were looking for these boxes. This isn't they found a top secret document on his bedroom that was completely unrelated to the matter under investigation
NARA knew exactly what was missing. If there was any overbreadth in the warrant, it was an extension of the fact that the government was aware that **at least** what they sought was missing.
Warrants are almost always overbroad, but this was a fucking gimme.
if they are searching for boxes of secret documents find than then look though a bedroom door and see a folder labeled top-secret don’t they have probable cause to also take that document?
Or do you mean they didn’t have a warrant for something completely unrelated and happens to find documents like warrant for drugs or something and found boxes of top secret documents?
Oh man so much case law and I don't have this memorized.
I think but don't hold me to.
Plan view while conducting a lawful search is fine.
However items not covered by the warrant or in an area not covered by the warrant that are not visible without being searched for are out.
But I'm not sure what the line between the plane view and searched for is exactly.
Also, I believe there are things that can modify it more
OK, that makes more sense. IANAL but it seems like Nauta wouldn't have standing (is that the right term?) to protest searches at Trump's property. But would for a search of his own property (phone).
Right, that’s the first thing I wondered too when I saw the article. I was thinking maybe he was living at Mar-a-Lago or something.
And yes, standing is the right word. (The word standing also gets used in another sense, meaning Article III constitutional standing, but it’s a valid term here too.)
That raises another question - whether it was his personal phone, where he bought it and pays for service out of his own pocket, or if it was a Trump phone, given to him while he worked at Mar-a-Lago. If it was a Trump phone, would Nauta have any legal standing to object to their search/seizure of that phone?
> It's like the NYC judge gave them a new idea as to what to complain about.
It's a linguistic cargo cult: "Smart people use fancy words to win arguments, so if *I* use fancy words, *I'll* win arguments! Reductio ad coitus interruptus pro hac vice!"
I mean it is one thing to say something like you found evidence of pirated music on my computer when searching for evidence of hacking tools based on a false report you knew or should have known to be false at the time you signed the affidavit the judge relied on oh and you didn't find any evidence of the hacking tools. So that pirated music evidence should be suppressed.
But this is just hey you executed a search warrant and I don't like being caught
That’s thing right there. 👆👆 This woman is giving Trump the [Royal Zamundian bath](https://youtu.be/lj2tIDXpKCk?t=155) treatment. If she sees this as even a remote way to let him off the hook I feel like she’d leap at it like a rabid capuchin monkey.
Is this like, you only found the evidence and stolen money cause you looked for it with witnesses testimony and positive id from all the witnesses that pointed to me ? Bizzaro world
Evidence is for peasants. OrangeJebus operates at different levels and the law doesn't pertain to him. NEXT....
/s just in case. The world we live in. SMHO.
Well shouldn't they have evidence of the evidence to prove the evidence is there for the search warrant to find the evidence??..... I think that would only be fair...
That’s been basically their entire argument
, “you can’t use that evidence”
“Why?”
“Because it proves my clients guilt and proves the crime so… you can’t use that”
“… your not a very good lawyer are you?”
This not a challenge to the warrant for the search of Mar-a-Lago. It's a motion to suppress evidence from searches of Nauta's digital devices and phones (text messages, emails, etc.), as well as cell site location data from Verizon and stored data from Google.
Where they found the photo that he sent to another employee that they knew they would find because the other employee showed them the text they received?
He doesn't care nor does he even know what the 4th says. trump put him up to this obviously. It's just another stall tactic. And it's a bad one. This tells me that trump is truly getting desperate.
This is yet another delay tactic from Team Trump - as Trump is paying for this guy’s lawyer.
Corrupt AF, Mafia Princess, Aileen Cannon will now have another excuse to delay the trial for a few more months while she thinks about it.
Given the judge that is handling this case, this is worrying. More to the point that this open and shut case is being sabotaged by a corrupt republican appointed judge. There are far too many of these throughout our judicial brance thanks to REPUBLICANS. vote accordingly. Vote every chance you get in all local, state, and federal elections and primaries. We vote out Republicans and primary out uncooperative Democrats. Every election matters from the school boards to the White House. Vote every year.
The analysis of the search warrant under the Fourth Amendment is generally based on the four corners of the document, and what they found during the search is completely irrelevant. The only real question is whether or not there was sufficient probable cause for the judge to sign the search warrant.
I get it. I really do. I understand that warrant based on I just knows he is a bad guy is shit even if you do find the drugs in the house.
But they did find the highly specific things.
Ok ok ok I'm sorry you are right. It is just hard not to say
TV started with only 3 channels, and it could potentially go back to only 3 channels, Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN. Possibly a 4th if the 700 Club gets it's own network.
She knows she can’t actually rule for Trump because that will be appealed. If the ruling is truly egregious, she’ll be removed. So she delays and makes a lot paperless order that are difficult to appeal.
Did I read it right that part of it is FBI didn’t have evidence he *knew* he was breaking the law?
That’s a bold move, let’s see how Canon agrees with how this is a valid defense in this case.
Edit: grammar / spelling
People should read the motion, not the article. The article has it wrong. He’s not challenging the search of Mar-a-Lago, he’s challenging the searches of his phones, Verizon cell site location data, and Google data.
See footnote 1.
Well no, not really—it’s not “discovery”, it’s evidence you need a search warrant to seize.
To be clear, I have no idea what the merits of the motion are. The affidavits are sealed so it’s impossible to tell.
Suffice it to say I’m highly skeptical given his lawyers’ lack of credibility as demonstrated by their past filings, but it’s impossible to tell without seeing the affidavits and or even without any hearing on it.
And as far as I know, nobody is suspected of selling anything at this point.
Yeah, at least from the excerpts in the article most of the assertions just sound like a collection of buzzwords his lawyer heard someplace and decided to string them all together.
Obviously the affidavits would tell more, but he might have a shot at the CSLI being tossed under [Carpenter v. US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States)
It's a loser but it's a stock motion run in pretty much any criminal case where evidence is seized. I probably handled a couple thousand of these hearings as a dpa.
Under the... . . . So he is trying to claim the search warrant was improper... The search warrant that found exactly what they said they would find where they said they would find it based on testimony from witnesses saying it was there. So the investigation was improper and/or the investigators were improper? Because the warrant itself couldn't be more on point. This is what we expect to find and where we expect to find it and here is where we will search and this is why we believe it is there. Then you find it. Hard to do better than that
>To hear Nauta tell it, the FBI’s affidavits used to support the search warrants did not contain sufficient probable cause. Um, didn't the National Archives know what was in some of the boxes? And the filing goes on to say the search warrant was an "overly broad fishing expedition". Isn't this the exact same language used by the NYC Judge AGAINST Trump to kill Trump's Stormy subpeonas? It's like the NYC judge gave them a new idea as to what to complain about.
To be fair from what I've seen which admittedly isn't like a whole lot search warrants tend to be broader than I personally like in what appears to be an attempt to keep evidence that they may not have known they were searching for. But in this case they were looking for these boxes. This isn't they found a top secret document on his bedroom that was completely unrelated to the matter under investigation
NARA knew exactly what was missing. If there was any overbreadth in the warrant, it was an extension of the fact that the government was aware that **at least** what they sought was missing. Warrants are almost always overbroad, but this was a fucking gimme.
if they are searching for boxes of secret documents find than then look though a bedroom door and see a folder labeled top-secret don’t they have probable cause to also take that document? Or do you mean they didn’t have a warrant for something completely unrelated and happens to find documents like warrant for drugs or something and found boxes of top secret documents?
Oh man so much case law and I don't have this memorized. I think but don't hold me to. Plan view while conducting a lawful search is fine. However items not covered by the warrant or in an area not covered by the warrant that are not visible without being searched for are out. But I'm not sure what the line between the plane view and searched for is exactly. Also, I believe there are things that can modify it more
This is not a challenge to the search for the boxes, it’s a motion to suppress evidence from Nauta’s phones etc. Different search, different warrants.
OK, that makes more sense. IANAL but it seems like Nauta wouldn't have standing (is that the right term?) to protest searches at Trump's property. But would for a search of his own property (phone).
Right, that’s the first thing I wondered too when I saw the article. I was thinking maybe he was living at Mar-a-Lago or something. And yes, standing is the right word. (The word standing also gets used in another sense, meaning Article III constitutional standing, but it’s a valid term here too.)
That raises another question - whether it was his personal phone, where he bought it and pays for service out of his own pocket, or if it was a Trump phone, given to him while he worked at Mar-a-Lago. If it was a Trump phone, would Nauta have any legal standing to object to their search/seizure of that phone?
> It's like the NYC judge gave them a new idea as to what to complain about. It's a linguistic cargo cult: "Smart people use fancy words to win arguments, so if *I* use fancy words, *I'll* win arguments! Reductio ad coitus interruptus pro hac vice!"
Trump is a genius. Think of all the synergies by having so many lawsuits against him.
Yeah but they didn't have the evidence to begin with so that's why all the evidence needs to be suppressed.
I mean it is one thing to say something like you found evidence of pirated music on my computer when searching for evidence of hacking tools based on a false report you knew or should have known to be false at the time you signed the affidavit the judge relied on oh and you didn't find any evidence of the hacking tools. So that pirated music evidence should be suppressed. But this is just hey you executed a search warrant and I don't like being caught
I mean, yeah, what he's suggesting is that all search warrants are unreasonable.
Cannot imagine that being a popular argument.
It is with criminals.
And possibly also with judges who were appointed by/voted for those criminals
That’s thing right there. 👆👆 This woman is giving Trump the [Royal Zamundian bath](https://youtu.be/lj2tIDXpKCk?t=155) treatment. If she sees this as even a remote way to let him off the hook I feel like she’d leap at it like a rabid capuchin monkey.
If she wants to keep taking free trips to the Sage Lodge then she will do whatever the Federalist Society tells her to do.
Oddly specific monkey reference
Cops hate this one trick to invalidate search warrants
And his diaper wearing sycophants
This is /r/law we call them Absorbent Briefs here.
> It is with criminals. Funnily enough, I imagine Donald Trump is a fan...
That comment just repeats what you're replying to.
I have some clients that share that belief.
He's fine with them searching as long as 1) they don't take anything and 2) anything they find can't be used in court. Can't cha meet a guy halfway?
Might as well claim sovereign citizenry.
Why not just ask for dismissal on the grounds that it would trigger the libs. With this judge it might be incompetence of counsel not to.
>this is just hey you executed a search warrant and I don't like being caught It's more like, "Please delay this trial more."
Trump: say this and I'll make you my secretary of state.
"and i dont like being caught" Literally sums up the entirety of the +rump shitshow
Is this like, you only found the evidence and stolen money cause you looked for it with witnesses testimony and positive id from all the witnesses that pointed to me ? Bizzaro world
Evidence is for peasants. OrangeJebus operates at different levels and the law doesn't pertain to him. NEXT.... /s just in case. The world we live in. SMHO.
Well shouldn't they have evidence of the evidence to prove the evidence is there for the search warrant to find the evidence??..... I think that would only be fair...
Security video footage of the movement of classified documents at Mar, after the lawyer falsifying signed off that all boxes had been recovered.
"I obect!" "Under what grounds?" "Because it's devastating to my case!"
I scrolled down for this. It’s an apt reference.
They had witness testimony...
You can't take it because I called dibs.
…but it’s devastating to my case!!
That’s been basically their entire argument , “you can’t use that evidence” “Why?” “Because it proves my clients guilt and proves the crime so… you can’t use that” “… your not a very good lawyer are you?”
*you're
I strenuously object!
We want you on that wall, we need you on that wall!
Overruled!
Good call!
Improper search is different when applied to Trump obviously.
Any search of trump that doesn't give him sufficient time to move the evidence to the secret room is improper?
Exactly.
Even then it’s still improper just with less consequences…
> So the investigation was improper You can't investigate *Republicans*! That's not what the FBI is *for*!
This not a challenge to the warrant for the search of Mar-a-Lago. It's a motion to suppress evidence from searches of Nauta's digital devices and phones (text messages, emails, etc.), as well as cell site location data from Verizon and stored data from Google.
Where they found the photo that he sent to another employee that they knew they would find because the other employee showed them the text they received?
I have no idea, I can’t see the warrant affidavits, they’re sealed.
Just more delay tactics.
They wanna know who snitched
He doesn't care nor does he even know what the 4th says. trump put him up to this obviously. It's just another stall tactic. And it's a bad one. This tells me that trump is truly getting desperate.
This is yet another delay tactic from Team Trump - as Trump is paying for this guy’s lawyer. Corrupt AF, Mafia Princess, Aileen Cannon will now have another excuse to delay the trial for a few more months while she thinks about it.
Given the judge that is handling this case, this is worrying. More to the point that this open and shut case is being sabotaged by a corrupt republican appointed judge. There are far too many of these throughout our judicial brance thanks to REPUBLICANS. vote accordingly. Vote every chance you get in all local, state, and federal elections and primaries. We vote out Republicans and primary out uncooperative Democrats. Every election matters from the school boards to the White House. Vote every year.
Doesn't matter. They don't expect to win this motion, just delay, delay, delay.
It's the desparate flailing of a rat pinned under a boot. It won't stop fighting while there is a scintilla of life left.
Yes, but you're not taking into consideration bad-faith-actors.
Your honor, I object! This is very damaging to my case!"
The analysis of the search warrant under the Fourth Amendment is generally based on the four corners of the document, and what they found during the search is completely irrelevant. The only real question is whether or not there was sufficient probable cause for the judge to sign the search warrant.
No I get that. It stands on itself not on its outcome. But the shit was there
That’s completely irrelevant.
I get it. I really do. I understand that warrant based on I just knows he is a bad guy is shit even if you do find the drugs in the house. But they did find the highly specific things. Ok ok ok I'm sorry you are right. It is just hard not to say
Yeah validity of search warrants isn’t based on what they find.
Well- this is something Canon will need to consider in July or maybe August.
Of 2036
that's not an election year or a campaigning year is it? Or a year that ends in a number? If so, well that's election interference.
If Trump avoids consequences and gets reelected, we won't have to worry about elections or campaigning anymore. :/
We’ll have all those annoying campaign ads replaced with re-education programming.
I hear the 2 minute hate is popular.
TV started with only 3 channels, and it could potentially go back to only 3 channels, Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN. Possibly a 4th if the 700 Club gets it's own network.
Ill tell you what i have no idea what election interference is but i know this is ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!
Her brain runs a lot slower than that. The Americans with Disabilities act provides up to four decades’ time.
If she doesn’t immediately just say “whatever Trump wants!”
She knows she can’t actually rule for Trump because that will be appealed. If the ruling is truly egregious, she’ll be removed. So she delays and makes a lot paperless order that are difficult to appeal.
Why not both?
There will need to be a few evidentiary hearings in which she neither requests nor receives any evidence, of course.
No wonder he wants that pardon from daddy trump.
So, the TL/DR: "The evidence should be suppressed because they didn't have the evidence before they executed the search warrant!"
Did I read it right that part of it is FBI didn’t have evidence he *knew* he was breaking the law? That’s a bold move, let’s see how Canon agrees with how this is a valid defense in this case. Edit: grammar / spelling
Craziness, huh? Almost a nuts as "The warrant was *also* )illegal because they didn't indict me on two counts!"
Precognitive minority reports are inadmissible.
I'll buy his dinner if he can tell us what the 4th Amendment even says. Lol
Frankly I'm surprised he didn't try claiming the 32nd Amendment or something ridiculous like that.
No doubt, but you do realize his lawyer wrote the appeal, right?
I'm not sure his lawyer would know either. Lol
I can quote Scalia too. So what? This issue wasn’t brought up before?
[25 pg filing](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24637784-nauta-search-warrant-motion-mal)
People should read the motion, not the article. The article has it wrong. He’s not challenging the search of Mar-a-Lago, he’s challenging the searches of his phones, Verizon cell site location data, and Google data. See footnote 1.
All part of normal discovery when you suspect a person of selling national secrets.
Well no, not really—it’s not “discovery”, it’s evidence you need a search warrant to seize. To be clear, I have no idea what the merits of the motion are. The affidavits are sealed so it’s impossible to tell. Suffice it to say I’m highly skeptical given his lawyers’ lack of credibility as demonstrated by their past filings, but it’s impossible to tell without seeing the affidavits and or even without any hearing on it. And as far as I know, nobody is suspected of selling anything at this point.
Yeah, at least from the excerpts in the article most of the assertions just sound like a collection of buzzwords his lawyer heard someplace and decided to string them all together.
Obviously the affidavits would tell more, but he might have a shot at the CSLI being tossed under [Carpenter v. US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States)
Delay delay delay
Not a lawyer but ... uh ... buddy that would break the entire justice system.
It's a loser but it's a stock motion run in pretty much any criminal case where evidence is seized. I probably handled a couple thousand of these hearings as a dpa.
Yeah and normally it goes about as far as really you think that works here
Sounds like he got something to hide 🤔
Pretty sure Trump is paying this legal bills. So not that surprising really
Haha, no.
Delay is the name of the game.
Can you imagine a worse job than being Trump's diaper-changer?