Comments by "David Ford" (@davidford3115) on "WFAA" channel.

Just because the Judge points out that those seized documents are fruit of the poisoned tree. Just because you disagree with the judge? It is people like you that result in Banana Republics that we mocked.
12
@orockzman8757 The president has final declassification power. In fact, ALL declassification authority comes from the POTUS as invested in him by the US Constitution, Article 2.
8
@angiedelap6831 Just because you disagree with her? The FBI violated the 4th amendment, unlawful search and seizure. Their warrant violated that because it was NOT specific and was unconstitutional for being too vague and broad.
7
@orockzman8757 How do you know they were declassified? The fact that the FBI took pictures with cover letters doesn't mean anything. You are trying to prove a negative (logical fallacy). For the sake of argument, if they were classified, by taking pictures and releasing those images, the FBI agents themselves violated Federal Statues on the handling of classified materials. And no, the Archives DID'T lose access to those files, they were in fact COPIES of the originals still held in the Federal archives. I love how you people think that original copies can just be removed. That is NOT how the national archives works and if it did, it defeats the whole purpose of the institution. Yes, the president CAN wave his hands because he has ultimate authority under Article 2 of the US Constitution. This whole garbage about "didn't follow procedure" is a red herring because the president IS the final authority and sets the policy on how declassification occurs; if he chooses to declassify, he doesn't have to get permission from anyone. And this may surprise you, but the president DOES have the power to reveal secrets that could supposedly endanger national security. JFK did it when he revealed the extend of the Jupiter missiles in Turkey to Khrushchev. He revealed that information as part of the USSR removing their missiles from Cuba.
4
@SGTsnick3 The catch is, you have to provide that initial evidence to the court to get a warrant for further searches. The point of the special master is that the redacted affidavit failed to meet that standard. Censorship is NO justification for violation of civil rights, particularly against unconstitutional searches.
3
@SGTsnick3 Except, it wasn't. The SCOTUS has said time and again that Warrants have to be SPECIFIC and TARGETED. And the agents cannot take materials not spelled out in the warrant. Warrants that fail these two points and are too broad are incantational. If during a search they find something outside of the original warrant, they go back to the judge and get a SECOND warrant. In short, the whole reason WHY there is a special master being approved is BECAUSE the warrant was unconstitutional; the government failed to prove to the court that their actions met the legal standard. In effect, the judge has declared all of the documents "fruit of the poisoned tree".
3
@deplorablefederalist7908 No joke. When they can't win the debate on the merits, they deflect with red herrings and strawman arguments.
1
@deplorablefederalist7908 Well, I am going to surprise you. I am a John F. Kennedy Democrat. Only Jim Webb is anywhere close to the positions of JFK in the Democrat side. But I agree with you that most of the people who call themselves Democrat today are no better than lemmings. I know this because they have said that the party has "moved past JFK". And as you point out, there is not a single original idea in their heads.
1
Same could be said about the Biden appointees. Just because a judge does not agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong. Look up the meaning of "fruit of the poisoned tree".
1
@jackode7923 The Constitution doesn't apply? Dude, Trump could have declassified them on the very day he left office! If he said they were declassified on that date, the burden of proof is on the feds to prove he didn't declassify them. They can't because it is trying to prove a negative.
1
Judges don't need clearance to review. Security is no justification for denying judicial oversight of the executive branch. "The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning” -President John F. Kennedy; 27 April 1961, Waldorf Astoria, New York City.
1