Feel free to point out anything I said that is incorrect.

If what you said is correct and has weight behind it, he would be heading toward a trial for this.

I do know how they try to win. In an overzealous manner, blind to how they are shooting themselves in the foot

WRRROOONNNNGGGG. But then again, "due process"........

Some of the things you mentioned are procedural mistakes from my understanding. Doesn't look good but not necessarily going to sink the case.
Some of the other issues really are going to depend on the facts of the case, such as searching the other rooms.

As far as Trump people were "making arrangements" I question this one. Doesn't seem like a lot of prep to call the FBI and tell them come pick the stuff up, but maybe I am missing something there.

So you think the other cases are easier to prove?

SWWOOOOSSSHHHH

Some of the things you mentioned are procedural mistakes from my understanding. Doesn't look good but not necessarily going to sink the case.
Some of the other issues really are going to depend on the facts of the case, such as searching the other rooms.

As far as Trump people were "making arrangements" I question this one. Doesn't seem like a lot of prep to call the FBI and tell them come pick the stuff up, but maybe I am missing something there.

So you think the other cases are easier to prove?

Yeah, there's never ever been a case in history that's been tossed out on the basis of "procedural mistakes," also known as technicalities.

Typically, these “technicalities” are constitutional protections guaranteed to all people in the United States.  When the government fails to comply with the Constitution, and fails to afford people constitutional protections, evidence may be suppressed, and in some situations, cases are dismissed because of that suppression of evidence.

For example, search warrants have specific limits based on their purpose,  If the FBI exceeded the scope of the warrant, the entire search can be deemed unlawful and any evidence found thrown out.  That would qualify as "tanking the case."

So, tell us more about procedural mistakes and how it won't sink the case.  Even if the biased judge and jury ignore the failures of the FBI and convict, those mistakes can easily be used to appeal the verdict not only based on the facts, but also to show how biased the entire court was against Trump.

Yeah, there's never ever been a case in history that's been tossed out on the basis of "procedural mistakes," also known as technicalities.

Typically, these “technicalities” are constitutional protections guaranteed to all people in the United States.  When the government fails to comply with the Constitution, and fails to afford people constitutional protections, evidence may be suppressed, and in some situations, cases are dismissed because of that suppression of evidence.

For example, search warrants have specific limits based on their purpose,  If the FBI exceeded the scope of the warrant, the entire search can be deemed unlawful and any evidence found thrown out.  That would qualify as "tanking the case."

So, tell us more about procedural mistakes and how it won't sink the case.  Even if the biased judge and jury ignore the failures of the FBI and convict, those mistakes can easily be used to appeal the verdict not only based on the facts, but also to show how biased the entire court was against Trump.

Thanks for going into more detail. I wasn't gonna get into it as this case is moot anyways.

WRRROOONNNNGGGG. But then again, "due process"........

So you don't think they are overzealous and shooting themselves in the foot?

If what you said is correct and has weight behind it, he would be heading toward a trial for this.

What makes you think a trial isn't on the horizon?

Yeah, there's never ever been a case in history that's been tossed out on the basis of "procedural mistakes," also known as technicalities.

You are right, that's why I didn't say the case was sunk or wasn't sunk. Depends on what the mistakes were.

Typically, these “technicalities” are constitutional protections guaranteed to all people in the United States.  When the government fails to comply with the Constitution, and fails to afford people constitutional protections, evidence may be suppressed, and in some situations, cases are dismissed because of that suppression of evidence.

True

For example, search warrants have specific limits based on their purpose,  If the FBI exceeded the scope of the warrant, the entire search can be deemed unlawful and any evidence found thrown out.  That would qualify as "tanking the case."

Possibly but it depends on the nature of how the scope was exceeded and what was found when the agents exceeded the scope of the warrant.

So, tell us more about procedural mistakes and how it won't sink the case.  Even if the biased judge and jury ignore the failures of the FBI and convict, those mistakes can easily be used to appeal the verdict not only based on the facts, but also to show how biased the entire court was against Trump.

One example could be that an agent didn't follow a policy dictating how he/she was supposed to do something. So maybe policy says you are supposed to sign your name and print it on the evidence tape but you only signed your name. This wouldn't be a civil rights or a case law violation but a defense attorney could still use it to make the agent look like he didn't know what he was doing. Or take for example a field sobriety test, it goes in a certain order and if an officer did it in the wrong order he would be doing it so against training and policy but the argument could be made that the findings are not changed significantly. So not all procedural mistakes sink cases.

Unless I am mistaken, the jury for the classified documents case hasn't been chosen so how are you saying they are biased?

Unless I am mistaken, the jury for the classified documents case hasn't been chosen so how are you saying they are biased?

Reading comprehension:

Even if the biased judge and jury ignore the failures of the FBI and convict, those mistakes can easily be used to appeal the verdict not only based on the facts, but also to show how biased the entire court was against Trump.

Keyword being ignored.  If the testimony shows the FBI failed to properly execute the warrant and/or failed to follow proper evidentiary procedure, the most logical assumption would be they simply wanted to convict regardless of the FBI's foul-ups -- i.e. bias.

So you don't think they are overzealous and shooting themselves in the foot?

No. SWOOOOSSHHHH

What makes you think a trial isn't on the horizon?

Let me rephrase, a case like this with solid evidence would already have a hearing date set or even be/had been in a hearing.

What you're saying is that this judge might be overruled and a hearing might take place.

Reading comprehension:
Keyword being ignored.  If the testimony shows the FBI failed to properly execute the warrant and/or failed to follow proper evidentiary procedure, the most logical assumption would be they simply wanted to convict regardless of the FBI's foul-ups -- i.e. bias.

So you aren't saying the jury is biased, just the judge?

Your choice of language sure seems that you have already made up your mind about the case.

No. SWOOOOSSHHHH

Then you are wrong.

Let me rephrase, a case like this with solid evidence would already have a hearing date set or even be/had been in a hearing.

You know that based on your legal knowledge of how courts work?

Federal cases are not known for being quick and this is the newest out of all the charges he is facing. This is the one case that is actually proceeding within more standard time frames. The other cases appear to be much more suspicious in their timing and delays.

So you aren't saying the jury is biased, just the judge?

Your choice of language sure seems that you have already made up your mind about the case.

Reading comprehension = fail

The word "if" denotes a conditional phrase.

Figure it out.  I can't open your skull and add basic knowledge and understanding.

Reading comprehension = fail

The word "if" denotes a conditional phrase.

Figure it out.  I can't open your skull and add basic knowledge and understanding.

You said 
"Even if the biased judge and jury ignore the failures of the FBI and convict”

Translation: You have already concluded that if the jury finds Trump guilty then they are biased and ignoring FBI failures. So you have already made up your mind. My reading skills are fine. Your objectivity needs work

You said 
"Even if the biased judge and jury ignore the failures of the FBI and convict”

Translation: You have already concluded that if the jury finds Trump guilty then they are biased and ignoring FBI failures. So you have already made up your mind. My reading skills are fine. Your objectivity needs work

#RCFail

 

some people shoot 6s and 5s but love to argue that it was an X.

even if

idiom

Used to say that if something is the case or not, the result is the same.

You'll still miss your train even if you take a taxi.

Even if the biased judge and jury ignore the failures of the FBI and convict,
those mistakes can easily be used to appeal the verdict not only based on the facts,
but also to show how biased the entire court was against Trump.

translation: 
IF the FBI failed to follow evidentiary procedure
AND IF the judge and jury ignore those failures
AND IF the jury convicts Trump,
THEN the FBI failures will provide ample ground for an appeal of the verdict based on the facts of those failures
           AND based on the reasonable assumption that only a biased jury and judge would have allowed and accepted tainted evidence.

Comprehending complex statements requires higher than average intelligence.  I accept not everyone is capable of following abstract or complicated concepts.

#addingnuance

some people shoot 6s and 5s but love to argue that it was an X.