Posted on 06/09/2023 7:45:53 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
absolutely. Under the radicalized DoJ
Do freepers know it’s the usual group of DOJ dem operative attorneys planted in local jurisdictions for this purpose?
‘dems indict the leading 2024 presidential contender so he can’t win’
Glad you asked Magnum, thank you.
First, the Supreme Law of the Land:
The 4th Amendment begins with confirming that one has the right to be secure in his person and his belongings from government interference (unless there is probable cause (PC) of committing a crime). (The 4A doesn’t grant the right, it simply confirms the right with which the Declaration of Independence (DOI) has declared we are endowed by God upon birth.
The body of the Constitution, in which the states ratified the transfer of certain limited and enumerated powers from the States and the people to the central government, doesn’t transfer that power from individuals to the federal government so the 4A simply confirms that this right of security from the government belongs to the individual - true with all first eight amendments which are wrongly called a “bill of rights”).
So, based on our basic God-given right to security from the government, in order to even start an investigation, the government must have legitimate reasonable suspicion (RS) that a crime was committed. Reasonable suspicion requires articulated and specific reasons why the prosecution believes the defendant committed a crime. “Hunch” or something other than facts that can be articulated are not good enough to detain or investigate.
Probable cause (PC) goes a step further. PC goes from “possible” (RS) to “probable” (PC), again requiring articulation of facts that a crime was PROBABLY committed, enough that prosecution could reasonably believe a judge would issue a warrant.
Next, the facts of the case:
I don’t know the facts or the specific federal law well enough to judge in this case.
However I will say that the Leftist Congress and Biden and his administration including the DOJ & FBI, have broken the law many times in having NO articulated reasonable suspicion BEFORE they begin their investigation, much less PC to formally accuse (”indict” or “impeach”). I think it is safe to presume that these actions of this rogue and corrupt government are also absent RS or PC.
Is Trump In Danger? (Ep. 2027) - (DAn Bongino, Jun 8, 2023)
https://rumble.com/v2sw0dw-is-trump-in-danger-ep.-2027-06082023.html
Thank you. Can you explain how accusations by the national archives is not PC? I am just not sure where the fuzzy line gets crossed between a pure accusation with no facts and probable cause with an assertion of facts in this case. It seems too easy to create the crime by accusation. Hope my question makes sense.
“The Left may not plan to murder Trump”
~~~~~~~
I don’t believe that for a micro-second. There is no one on the planet they want dead, more than our Champion.
(They already removed God from their world. Why wouldn’t they do Trump next?)
An accusation is not evidence of wrongdoing. Valid or invalid accusations depend on what factual evidence they have to support that a crime was committed.
create the crime by accusation.
That's Obama's forte. He treats an accusation as a conviction. But per the 4A, the only exception to our security from government interference in our lives is PROBALE CAUSE NOT "accusation".
Accusation is a charge and by itself carries no legal or constitutional weight. A legitimate charge or formal accusation/indictment/impeachment requires factual evidence that a crime was PROBABLY committed.
I wish more people were out front asking these good questions because the Delusional Lying left spearheaded by the likes of Obama has as you say blurred the lines of very important differences between things like "accusation" and reasonable suspicion and probable cause, much like they're trying to blur the distinction between a girl and a boy. Satanic.
Yet some courts, I don’t know about all courts, use personal testimony of witnesses as facts. That’s where I start to get confused about things. If an accusation is taken as testimony, when is it allowed as evidence? The archives say trump took things and would not return things (I have lost track of details so there may be more or less to that). I am thinking that archive personnel testimony would be used as evidence to point to a statute that was broken. Mind you I still say it’s all wrong, all BS, and all political and applied to only one side. I am just trying to understand the DOJs approach to understand how weak or flimsy it may be.
Personal testimony is definitely evidence. That which is undisputed is probably considered to be a fact. But personal testimony is evidence.
But an accusation is not testimonial evidence. Accusations are a dime a dozen. Anybody can accuse anybody about anything. However, formal, legal accusations like indictments or impeachments REQUIRE PROBABLE CAUSE (PC) to proceed.
Constitutional means of insuring that PC exists include Warrants based on valid Affidavits, Preliminary Exams, and Grand Juries. Failure to show PC results in the case being dismissed.
If an accusation is taken as testimony, when is it allowed as evidence?
When the accuser takes the stand and is sworn in and gives testimony which can be cross-examined by the accused and impeached if the accuser in proved to be a liar.
The archives say trump took things and would not return things (I have lost track of details so there may be more or less to that). I am thinking that archive personnel testimony would be used as evidence to point to a statute that was broken.
Given the above I've laid out, then the question is what statue? Has the statute been named in the accusation? If not, it's not a valid legal accusation/indictment.
If a statute or statutes have actually been named in the accusation/indictment, then you still need the PC that such statues were broken. Law and fact.
I doubt they have either. If they have ID'd the statute (law), they still need to ID the PC (fact). If they actually have both or claim to have both then at least something legal may be going on. If that were the case, I don't know enough about this area of law to judge. But IF BOTH law and fact are NOT in their proper place in the indictment, then we can say right now that these proceeding are unconstitutional and, thus, illegal.
I doubt very much we have a valid indictment.
Thanks for your time, sir
You’re welcome and God bless.
.
... a Republic, if you can keep it.”
I will be voting for Trump even if he is behind bars. It’s clear that our Republic has fallen. My last vote will be for Trump. He is the only living person who has the backbone to stop the evil coming straight from Hell. I will keep President Trump under earnest prayers, daily. I suggest you join me in those prayers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.