Contradiction... I almost didn't catch it.

[MissMillie]

TFG's lawyers made this statement in their filing on Wednesday:

“It is the reasonable expectation of privacy in one’s home that triggers the obvious standing of the homeowner to contest a search on those premises,” Trump’s lawyers said.

TFG appointed 3 of the 6 SCOTUS justices that ruled that there is no right to privacy.

[mopinko]

1. and it's not his home, it's his hotel

[brooklynite]

4. It isn't his HOUSE but it is his HOME.

Its his registered address in Florida.

[sanatanadharma]

7. A mailing address, neither a house nor a home makes

Mar a Lago is a mailing address like a PO box.
Mar a Lago is like an Air B&B. It can not be a 365/24 house, home, or resort.
He breaks the legal agreement, to which he committed, if he lives there rather than simply visits.

Breaking laws, contracts, covenants, and countries is not justification for breaking laws, contracts, co.venants, and countries.

[brooklynite]

8. Wrong...

The question of whether he could live there full time came up in 2021. The municipal Government decided that he could.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/us/trump-palm-beach-mar-a-lago.html

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. Wonder what the public opinion, including town is now!

[allegorical oracle]

16. Hit link's paywall. Last I read recently stated he must leave MAL for some portion of the

year and that's when he heads back up north to other properties. It was a compromise with the municipal govt.

[onenote]

19. That limitation was rescinded last year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/05/07/trump-can-legally-live-at-mar-a-lago-palm-beach-says/?sh=3adc5026046c

[iemanja]

20. A home need not even be a physical dwelling

It is legally his home. That, however, doesn’t mean he can conduct criminal activity in that home without consequence.

[csziggy]

22. Even more, it is a club with limited occupancy

By the contract TFG signed when he converted Mar-A-Lago from a private residence to a club, no one, mombers or TFG (and family) is supposed to stay there for any serious length of time:

Trump agreed to convey the title of the property from his personal possession to a corporate entity he controlled named Mar-a-Lago Club, Inc. He promised he wouldn’t put up condominiums or co-op units. He also took care of a worrisome issue for some council members: the question of what would happen if the club failed. In that event, Trump agreed in writing to the same provision his attorney had promised: “The use of the Land shall revert to a single family residence.”

The deal he struck made it clear that no one could live permanently at the property. It stated that the guest suites could be used only by members for a maximum of three times a year for no longer than seven days at a time, and that those seven-day stays couldn’t be strung together consecutively.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-made-florida-his-official-residence-he-may-have-also-made-a-legal-mess/2020/05/07/17d53fb2-849c-11ea-878a-86477a724bdb_story.html

Now he's claimed he is an "employee" of the club and can live there indefinitely.

The 1993 agreement allowed Trump to convert the private residence into a private club.

Randolph also advised that under the town's zoning code, private clubs can provide living quarters to a "bona fide employee."

Under evidence provided to the town, Trump is a bona fide employee of Mar-a-Lago, Randolph concluded.

The town defines "employee" as "any person generally working onsite for the establishment and includes sole proprietors, partners, limited partners, corporate officers and the like."
https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/story/news/2021/05/07/trump-maralago-florida-employee/4944038001/

[mopinko]

23. i've heard it called his club a few times, but his hotel only once.

[csziggy]

25. A hotel would be allowed to have unlimited occupancy

A club is limited to the number of members and how often and long the members can stay.

[Yonnie3]

2. Scotus decisions don't appy to the Orange Furor aka FPOTUS

I'll include the sarcasm thingy here

[FakeNoose]

3. Perfect point with devastating irony

[Hermit-The-Prog]

5. MAGAts still haven't figured out they lost their right to privacy, either.

[Warpy]

12. Oh, the women dimly realize they've lost something

I think men still have a right to privacy. Women don't have rights to anything, not even their own bodies.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

13. We need the House and grow the majority in the Senate...

Battle cry of this election: Roe your vote, up and down the ballot!

Roe, Roe, Roe your vote
against theocracy!
Republicans revoke your rights
and kill democracy!

Donate to 38 House candidates: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217067267
Stick 'em up for a blue wave: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217078977

[SergeStorms]

6. Not if that homeowner....

has stolen state secrets, for whatever purpose, and refuses to return them to the National Archives where they belong.

Such a homeowner is to be considered a criminal whose rights are suspended until the situation is adjudicated.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Yes, don't care if you lived in a monastery, if it's a crime scene! nt

[Thomas Hurt]

9. The Pig an expectation of privacy in Mar a Quid Pro Quo but it was set aside for the search.

The FBI had a search warrant issued by a judge after the judge was shown probable cause to search.

[ashredux]

10. Grasping at Straws.....

[justhanginon]

11. Not what the swine says he is used to grasping at!

[onenote]

17. The SCOTUS did not rule that there is no right to privacy.

What they said was that Roe "conflated" two different concepts of privacy: the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference.

The former, spelled out in the Fourth Amendment, was not impacted by Dobbs.

[pnwmom]

18. His un-justices ruled that women have no right to privacy IN THEIR BODIES.

Their ruling wouldn't affect Trump's situation.

[Red Pest]

21. I think that this is covered by the Fourth Admendment to the US Constitution

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

With the above in mind: 1) Was there a warrant issued that particularly described the place(s) to be searched and the things to be seized? YES
2) Was this supported by an affirmation? Again YES.

Privacy? Privacy is a given until the government does what is described in the 4th Amendment to obtain a warrant. This is NOT rocket science. This is just a case of the government providing evidence to a judge that the person (TFG) is likely to have something to which he is not entitled/which he has stolen and that it is being kept in a certain place or places. Then armed with that warrant the government goes to that place(s) and presents the warrant and goes in a does the lawful search and seizure.

Guess what, all that was done and Orange Pustule was found to have these very things...and he lied about having them, but then he compounds it by saying that he is entitled to have them.

It is time to assemble the case and indict the schmuck.

[Joinfortmill]

24. Suck on that, Traitor.