# FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [August 8, 2022, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329 "2022-08-08T23:18:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 424
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2024, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8486 "2024-07-31T17:52:55Z")
A review of Cannon’s decision by Cato: [https://www.cato.org/commentary/analyzing-judge-cannons-opinion-was-jack-smith-legally-appointed](https://www.cato.org/commentary/analyzing-judge-cannons-opinion-was-jack-smith-legally-appointed) > [@Sample](#): > > The Constitution requires, as a default rule, that “Officers of the United States” must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Constitution allows only one potential exception to this default rule: If an officer is merely an “inferior officer,” Congress may waive Senate consent. Even then, Congress is limited to only three options for who may appoint the inferior officer: “Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” > > […] > > The most important case for distinguishing between principal and inferior officers is [_Edmond v. United States_](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep520/usrep520651/usrep520651.pdf) (1997). That case held that an officer is inferior only if he is “directed and supervised” by a superior who was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. In _Edmond_ , the Court held that the officer at issue was indeed “directed and supervised” and therefore inferior. The Court identified three factors that weighed in favor of this holding: (1) the reviewability of the officer’s decisions by a superior; (2) the direct oversight of the officer by a superior; and (3) the power of a superior to fire the officer at will, without the need to show “good cause.” Personally, were I before the Supreme Court, I would argue for a basic assumption that should underlie any legal analysis: The Framers and Congress aren’t stupid. If there’s an interpretation for a contradiction between some portion of the laws and another interpretation that suffers no such conflict, then the second interpretation is correct. It’s ridiculous, for example, to say that the Constitution includes impeachment by Congress, but then say that impeachment ruins the separation of powers or goes against the democratic process that the Framers intended. Clearly, they had no such fear or they wouldn’t have written it that way. We’re just inventing problems for the sake of inventing problems. Likewise, if Congress wrote a law allowing a cabinet member to appoint a particular position then, whether they called that position an “inferior officer”, explicitly, or not, there’s no reason to assume that they had any other intention. They’ve described a process that aligns with the appointments clause for how to generate an inferior officer. Why presume that they had some other non-Constitutional intention, when there’s nothing about the position that’s been describes that departs from the parameters of an inferior officer? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2024, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8487 "2024-07-31T19:15:22Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Personally, were I before the Supreme Court You would have to argue on the doctrine of _stare decisis_ as applied to the _Nixon_ and _Morrison_ precedents. That is going to be the big issue, I think. I read Judge Cannon’s opinion, and I think she should have given _Nixon_ more weight. But on the merits, I think she’s within the parameters of reasonable disagreement. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2024, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8488 "2024-07-31T20:05:33Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > You would have to argue on the doctrine of _stare decisis_ as applied to the _Nixon_ and _Morrison_ precedents. That is going to be the big issue, I think. I don’t believe that the Supreme Court runs like a regular court where you list out the arguments that you want to make and they accept/reject some of them for consideration. You can get in there and call everyone in history wrong and idiotic, and if you can convince the court that you’re right to say so, then so it shall be. To be sure, they’re going to be strongly inclined to stare decisis (though, in this case, that runs to Smith’s favor, not Cannon’s) but, technically, any particular argument could be the one that converts them into abandoning history for any particular case. If you have more and better arguments, that likelihood increases. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2024, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8489 "2024-08-01T16:53:48Z")
[In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-schumer-immunity-senate-king-149763b93d62599eac7d0a7c77ff4d4a) > WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s [landmark decision](https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-immunity-2dc0d1c2368d404adc0054151490f542) last month. > > Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied. ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2024, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8490 "2024-08-01T16:59:24Z")
And to make republicans stand up and defend treating the POTUS as a King. ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2024, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8491 "2024-08-01T17:15:11Z")
How would an act passed by Congress differ from a constitutional amendment on the same subject as Biden proposed? Question is moot since neither an act or an amendment has any chance of getting through the current Congress, but I am curious constitutionally. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2024, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8492 "2024-08-01T17:22:04Z")
My non-lawyer guess is that someone would have to challenge the Constitutionality of the No Kings Act, and SCOTUS would have to rule on it. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2024, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8493 "2024-08-01T19:38:52Z")
Glancing through [the Act](https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL24569.pdf) (PDF), it appears to be less an “Act” - i.e. a set of laws - and more just a legal opinion piece saying that Congress gets to decide who is immune from what, not the Supreme Court. You would need to look through the history of SC cases on presidential immunity to see if they’ve already addressed the specific legal viewpoint or if it’s novel. If the latter, they probably should have sent their argument over while Trump’s case was being reviewed. But, in general, I’m relatively skeptical that SCOTUS would accept the idea that Congress gets to decide Constitutional interpretation since like…you know, that’s pretty clearly defined in the Constitution as being exactly what the Court is meant to be the sole arbiter of. The Act, as written, would likely be struck down in entirety on that basis. I think that they would have been on more solid footing if they’d taken their own argument that they get to decide who’s prosecutable and simply adjusted the laws to specifically note that the President is prosecutable. E.g. if we take the murder statute: > Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life And modify like: > Any person, including the President, Vice President, Congressman, Justice, Officer, citizen, or other person under jurisdiction of the United States law, who is guilty of murder in the first degree… The Court has a long history of excluding the President, officers of the government, etc. from collective groups, saying that Congress didn’t explicitly mention them. Once you add the explicit mention, that brings in a lot of historical precedent that sides with Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2024, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8494 "2024-08-01T20:02:18Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > But, in general, I’m relatively skeptical that SCOTUS would accept the idea that Congress gets to decide Constitutional interpretation since like…you know, that’s pretty clearly defined in the Constitution as being exactly what the Court is meant to be the sole arbiter of. It is? Where? Remember, it wasn’t until Marbury vs. Madison that the Court was regarded as being able to overturn unconstitutional laws: Prior to that, it was expected that it would be Congress that would police itself on staying consistent with the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2024, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8495 "2024-08-01T20:13:28Z")
If we ignore that. 😓 It’s well-ingrained into the system, it’s reasonable to say, though. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2024, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8496 "2024-08-01T20:59:57Z")
> [@jsc1953](#): > > How would an act passed by Congress differ from a constitutional amendment on the same subject as Biden proposed? An amendment has zero chance, but a bill has some slight chance (The GOP has a very small majority in Congress). And I disagree- the prez should have immunity for official acts- _but those acts are strictly limited._ I dont want a president arrested and charged for assasination for sending a team to kill some terrorist leader in a foreign nation. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2024, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8497 "2024-08-01T22:46:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It is? Where? Remember, it wasn’t until Marbury vs. Madison that the Court was regarded as being able to overturn unconstitutional laws: Prior to that, it was expected that it would be Congress that would police itself on staying consistent with the Constitution. Prior to Marbury v Madison, all six Justices of the Court, sitting individually on circuit cases, had held that they could hold a federal statute to be unconstitutional. Those six decisions were prior to Marshall being appointed to the Court. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2024, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8498 "2024-08-04T14:15:39Z")
See also Federalist 78, where Hamilton explicitly stated that the federal courts would have the power of judicial review: > If it is said that the legislative body is themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers and that the construction, they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. > **[Federalist No. 78](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78)** > > Federalist No. 78 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the seventy-eighth of The Federalist Papers. Like all of The Federalist papers, it was published under the pseudonym Publius. > Titled "The Judiciary Department", Federalist No. 78 was published May 28, 1788, and first appeared in a newspaper on June 14 of the same year. It was written to explicate and justify the structure of the judiciary under the proposed Constitution of the United States; it is the first of six essays by Hamilton on this... Don’t want to go further here, to avoid a hijack, but there is a thread discussing this point from a few years back; > [@Could congress prevent SCOTUS from invalidating laws?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-congress-prevent-scotus-from-invalidating-laws/923130): > > Here is a clause in the constitution concerning SCOTUS. The previous sentence refers to cases where the court has original jurisdiction. My question is could congress simply remove the court’s jurisdiction over acts of congress? I point out that the court’s right to do so is somewhat watery. As far as I can tell it rests solely on the phrase “In Pursuance thereof” in thesupremacy clause: ---
**Author:** ![MulderMuffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldermuffin/32/2862_2.png) [@MulderMuffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MulderMuffin)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2024, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8499 "2024-08-12T15:33:39Z")
This is absolutely infuriating to me. I’d love to be able to confidently say that such a ridiculous lawsuit will be summarily thrown out of court with extreme prejudice and the lawyers heavily sanctioned, but that was only a certainty in the Before Times. Trump to sue DOJ for $100M over Mar-a-Lago raid, alleging ‘political persecution’ > **[Trump to sue DOJ for $100M over Mar-a-Lago raid, alleging 'political...](https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sue-doj-100m-over-120347273.html)** > > Former President Trump is set to sue the Justice Department for $100 million in damages following the government’s unprecedented 2022 raid on his Mar-a-Lago property in Palm Beach, Fla. > Epstein added that the decisions made by the DOJ and FBI regarding that raid were “inconsistent with protocols requiring the consent of an investigative target, disclosure to that individual’s attorneys, and the use of the local U.S. Attorney’s Office.” Really, they’re supposed to ask the permission of the target before carrying out a search warrant? Seems like that would render a search moot, as they’d immediately move or hide anything they didn’t want the authorities to find. > “Garland and Wray should have never approved a raid and subsequent indictment of President Trump because the well-established protocol with former U.S. presidents is to use non-enforcement means to obtain records of the United States,” Epstein wrote. “But notwithstanding the fact that the raid should have never occurred, Garland and Wray should have ensured their agents sought consent from President Trump, notified his lawyers, and sought cooperation.” You mean they should have asked nicely for several months first? Maybe sent a subpoena asking for all of the responsive documents just to make sure Trump knew they were really for real serious about this? Then asked again a few times? Something like _that_ should have happened before a search warrant was executed? Hmmm… > …given the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the prosecution on grounds that the Special Counsel’s appointment violated the appointments clause and his office was funded through an improper appropriation, there was no constitutional basis for the search or the subsequent indictment," Epstein writes. They totally should have known what the Supreme Court was going to say two years after the search and never searched in the first place, obviously. /s ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2024, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8500 "2024-08-12T17:44:37Z")
I wouldn’t worry about it. This is like the election lawsuits in 2020. It won’t go anywhere, because I doubt Trump wants it to. He just wants the headline that he’s suing during this election. He won’t go through the discovery process, sit for a deposition, etc. I welcome all of that, but I doubt it goes that far. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2024, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8501 "2024-08-12T18:59:13Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > Really, they’re supposed to ask the permission of the target before carrying out a search warrant? All the druggies convicted by evidence collected with a no-knock warrant prick up their ears. ---
**Author:** ![aurora\_maire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aurora_maire/32/328_2.png) [@aurora\_maire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurora_maire)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2024, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8502 "2024-08-13T04:43:39Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > He just wants the headline that he’s suing during this election. There’s also the chance that if he is elected, his DOJ can declare him the winner of the lawsuit and award him a billion dollars. That would be some next level grifting! ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8503 "2024-09-04T20:36:44Z")
Any chance this could work? > **[Legal experts want Judge Cannon removed from Trump's Mar-a-Lago documents case](https://www.npr.org/2024/09/04/nx-s1-5100673/judge-cannon-removal-trump-mar-a-lago-documents-case)** > > Former federal judge Nancy Gertner and two legal scholars say rulings by Judge Aileen Cannon have raised “well-founded concerns that she may be biased against the Government’s case.” > MIAMI — A retired federal judge is among those [asking an appeals court](https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=25091477-cannon-reassmt-brf-as-) to reassign former President Trump’s indictment on charges of mishandling classified documents case to a new judge. > > In documents filed with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, two groups of legal experts and former government officials say U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon should be removed from the case. > > … > > Gertner and the legal scholars were joined in the motion by the government watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government (CREW). They say if the appeals court overturns Cannon’s ruling, it would be the third time it’s reversed her in “a seemingly straightforward case about a former president’s unauthorized possession of government documents.” > > … > > They say Judge Cannon’s ruling ignored the “plain text” of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution which allows the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor. Her dismissal of the charges they say are “in clear defiance of binding Supreme Court precedent and the plain text of Congress’ statutes.” They’re asking the Appeals Court to reverse Judge Cannon’s ruling and to remove her from the case. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8504 "2024-09-04T21:05:40Z")
I think that one is for a different thread. Yes, I know, with all of the legal actions Trump is entangled in, it’s tough to keep track. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8505 "2024-09-04T22:14:04Z")
Damn. I was afraid I picked the wrong one. I did give it some thought. Unsuccessfully, it seems… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329.md?page=423) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329.md?page=425)