Mediaboss Marketing

Fox News and other right-wing media outlets have claimed that the FBI and the Justice Department violated former President Donald Trump's Fourth Amendment rights during the August 8 search of his Mar-a-Lago residence, but legal experts dispute this claim.

On August 8, the FBI executed a judge-approved search warrant as part of ongoing investigations into Trumps possible mishandling of classified documents and presidential records. Earlier this year, reports surfaced that the National Archives and Records Administration had retrieved 15 boxes of White House records from Mar-a-Lago in January, some of which contained classified materials. After months of back and forth between the FBI and Trump which includedFBI and DOJ investigators visiting Mar-a-Lago and the issuance of a subpoena to Trump in pursuit of documents that federal investigators believed he had failed to turn over earlier in the year the agency finally got a search warrant approved by a Florida judge, which led to the August 8 search.

In response to these events, right-wing media have downplayed the seriousness of Trumps potential wrongdoing, pushed false claims and baseless conspiracy theories, fearmongered that the Justice Department and the FBI have been weaponized against Trump, and now are claiming that law enforcement violated the former presidents Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, despite the fact that the FBI had a warrant for the search.

Read the original:
Right-wing media claim Trump's Fourth Amendment rights were violated in Mar-a-Lago search - Media Matters for America

(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Two weeks ago, the FBI executed a search warrant at the former presidents private club to retrieve government property wrongfully retained after American voters sent Donald Trump packing. Since then, weve seen conservative group Judicial Watch sue to gain access to the search documents, followed by every major media outlet in the country piling on to successfully kick loose the warrant, inventory, and soon a redacted version of the underlying affidavit.

What we havent seen is Donald Trumps lawyers do anything at all besides yell on TV and make wild accusations that the FBI planted evidence. But last week Fox Newss Laura Ingraham seems to have lit a fire under Team Trump, so now were getting a major motion pertaining to the Fourth Amendment.

As usual, the former president is vague on exactly which statutes the scammers supposedly violated. Nor is he clear how this grievous wrong will be vindicated. But hes sure that his rights, together with the rights of all Americans, have been violated at a level rarely seen before in our Country. And hes not going to put up with it!

Trumps lawyer Lindsey Halligan, whose primary practice area appears to be landlord-tenant disputes, promised that Trumps illustrious legal team was taking the matter seriously if not expeditiously but said she was not going to talk about it until its actually filed.

Dr. Gina has neither a medical degree nor a degree in psychology, and shes not a licensed therapist. She does have a PhD in human and organization systems from an online university, though, and she did write a book claiming Trump was the most sound-minded person to ever occupy the White House. So you know this conversation was on the highest level all ways round.

James Trusty, a former federal prosecutor and one of Trumps only attorneys with relevant experience, was more specific on Fox this weekend.

The Fourth Amendment requires particularity. It requires narrowness to the intrusion on the persons home, he said, going on to describe the warrant as authorizing the functional equivalent of a general search.

How fun for Fox viewers to discover that civil liberties are good, actually!

Were going to come out swinging and say, look, you know, this cannot be just with a wink and a nod from DOJ that we are supposed to trust them, he went on. Under these circumstances, were going to have to get court involved, judicial intervention at the District Court level, to get somebody in the mix here that can help vindicate the Fourth Amendment rights of the president.

Simply as a matter of linear time, it is already too late for the former presidents legal team to come out swinging. But if he wants to file a Rule 41 motion for the return of property, as his former lawyer John Eastman did recently, he may have a bit of a bit of a problem since the FBI went in there to seize government property wrongly retained, and most of the stuff taken doesnt belong to him.

In fact, as Politico notes, while Trump threw a massive online tantrum about agents seizing his three passports, he appears to have been unaware that they were even taken and only alerted to the fact when the FBIs filter team flagged them as improperly seized and returned them.

In later comments to conservative host Mark Levin, Trusty elaborated on his theme of government overreach and promised to seek a special master to intervene to protect documents which are attorney-client privileged, although it appears that the Department is already employing its own filter team. The irony of a lawyer going on television to broadcast Trumps legal strategy while complaining that the government is illegally prying into his Trumps legal strategies appears to be lost on Trusty. But his client appears to be far more concerned with what goes on in front of the camera than in the actual courtroom.

And PS, while Trusty promised Levin that he would be filing within hours, as of this writing, nothing has hit the docket.

United States v. Sealed Search Warrant [Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Read the rest here:
Trump Lawyers Promise To 'Come Out Swinging' And It Only Took Them Two Short Weeks! - Above the Law

The execution of the search warrant at former President Donald Trumps home in Florida caused consternation for some who think the warrant was politically driven. Serving a search warrant on Trump has political implications, but that does not mean it was done without a proper constitutional basis.

As an initial matter, the individuals seeking the search warrant made a determination that Trumps home contained evidence of a crime or items that were illegally possessed. In other words, officials with the FBI, in conjunction with attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice, concluded that such evidence probably was inside the home. Given that this search warrant was unprecedented, it is hard to imagine those officials and attorneys made the decision lightly.

Even if one believes those officials and attorneys engaged in rampant political misconduct, an external check exists. For federal law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant, they had to get authorization from a neutral U.S. magistrate judge. The FBI agent had to present an affidavit, swearing under oath and penalty of perjury to all the details in the affidavit that supported the assertion there probably is evidence of crime. There cannot be any vague assertion that some crime happened. Instead, the affidavit must have information that describes the expected evidence in support of the allegations related to the specific crime.

In order for the magistrate judge to sign the search warrant, that person had to find that probable cause existed based on the totality of the circumstances. Federal magistrate judges are not political nominees; they are highly trained legal experts who are selected to work for a federal court based on merit.

As a former U.S. magistrate judge, I signed countless search warrants, but never one as high profile as this one. Each time I reviewed an application for a search warrant, I read and analyzed all the documents carefully, ensuring there was full compliance with the Fourth Amendment before I signed the warrant. I can only imagine if I were reviewing a warrant application for a former president that my high level of diligence would have somehow been even higher. I would expect whoever signed this search warrant exercised a similar exacting level of legal analysis.

If somehow the oversight and review by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the magistrate judges analysis all failed, Trump still had options. He could have gone to federal court seeking to quash the search warrant with arguments that it violated the Fourth Amendment. Another federal judge would have reviewed the search warrant to ensure it complied with Fourth Amendment requirements. Trump, with his legal resources, did not choose to have a federal judge immediately review the warrants constitutionality, which likely indicates nothing readily appeared to be unconstitutional.

As search warrants are a law enforcement tool in criminal investigations, the Fourth Amendment authorizes their issuance provided they meet a number of parameters, including particularity and reasonableness. The execution of the warrant may not lead to any charges against any individual, including Trump, as there is no certainty that the FBI agents will find evidence of a crime. Probable cause based on a totality of the circumstances is the standard, as opposed to certainty.

However, if Trump is charged with a crime based on any evidence obtained from the search of his home, he will have another chance to challenge the search warrant. He can file a motion to suppress with the federal judge overseeing the charges against him that could challenge the allegations and information in the agents sworn affidavit, any shortcomings in the magistrate judges review of the warrant application, or any problems with the execution of the warrant at his home. Finally, Trump can appeal any unsuccessful motion to suppress to the federal appellate court, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many of Trumps supporters decried the execution of the search warrant. None of these supporters, however, pointed to any concrete Fourth Amendment violations in the warrant. Trump chose to forgo filing a motion to quash. A number of constitutional safeguards exists. Ultimately, the search warrant, while shocking given its target, appears to comply with the Fourth Amendment based on what we currently know.

Brian L. Owsley is an associate professor of law at UNT Dallas College of Law, where he teaches, among other topics, federal criminal procedure, which concerns the Fourth Amendment. He served as federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas from 2005 until 2013.

See more here:
Commentary: 'I signed countless warrants. Search of Trump's house is shocking and constitutional.' - San Antonio Express-News

Three Arkansas police officers have been suspended pending an investigation by state police after a video taken by a bystander showed them brutally beating a shoeless man outside of a convenience store.

The video, first posted Sunday afternoon on Twitter, shows two Crawford County sheriff's deputies and an officer with the Mulberry Police Department holding down and battering a man later identified by state police as Randal Worcester, 27, of Goose Creek, South Carolina. The officers knee, punch, and slam Worcester's head into the ground.

Arkansas news outlet KSFM-TV reports that, according to Crawford County Sheriff Jimmy Damante, officers were dispatched on Sunday after receiving a call about a man threatening and allegedly spitting on a convenience store employee:

Sheriff Damante says Worcester then traveled on a bike to Mulberry, near Exit 20, where the Mulberry officer and the deputies met with him. The conversation began calm and Worcester handed them a pocket knife, but the sheriff says Worcester then began attacking one of the deputies by pushing him to the ground and punching the back of his head, leading to what was seen in the video.

Worcester has been charged with second-degree battery, resisting arrest, refusal to submit, possessing an instrument of crime, criminal trespass, criminal mischief, terroristic threatening, and second-degree assault.

There is no bright-line test for when legal use of force by police crosses over into excessive force. Rather, excessive force claims are evaluated under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, which judges incidents based on individual factors and from the perspective of a reasonable police officer on the scene. However, slamming a person's head into the pavement is not a standard technique to gain compliance.

"Certainly the blows to the head at the same time you're trying to get a person to put their hands behind their backthink about it," former Philadelphia police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told CNN. "It doesn't make sense. If you're getting hit in the face, you're going to lift your hands to try to protect your face."

"In reference to the video circulating on social media involving two Crawford County Deputies, we have requested that Arkansas State Police conduct the investigation and the Deputies have been suspended pending the outcome of the investigation," Damante said in a Facebook statement. "I hold all my employees accountable for their actions and will take appropriate measures in this matter."

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson has confirmed that the Arkansas State Police are investigating the incident, and in a statement to The New York Times, the agency said its investigation "will be limited to the use of physical force by the deputies and the police officer."

The incident is just the latest video of apparently excessive force to go viral and lead to police being investigated. In April, bodycam footage of Tulsa police violently arresting an elderly woman with bipolar disorder drew widespread outrage. Last month, a video went viral of a 2016 incident where a Colorado police officer chased and tased a man for holding a "fuck bad cops" sign.

See the article here:
Arkansas Cops Suspended After Video of Beating Goes Viral - Reason

On August 1, 2022, RPM International Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries amended the Company's revolving credit facility by entering into a Fourth Amendment to Credit Agreement with the lenders named therein and PNC Bank, National Association, as administrative agent for the Revolving Credit Facility Lenders, which amends the Credit Agreement dated as of October 31, 2018. The Credit Agreement Amendment increases the size of the revolving credit facility from $1.3 billion to $1.35 billion and extends the term of the revolving credit facility for five years, until August 1, 2027. Pursuant to the Credit Agreement Amendment, U.S. Dollar revolving loans will bear interest at either the base rate or an adjusted term SOFR rate, at the Company's option, plus a spread determined by the Company's debt rating.

Foreign currency loans will bear interest at either an adjusted daily simple SOFR rate or an adjusted term SOFR-based RFR rate or Eurocurrency rate plus, in each case, a similar spread. At the closing of the Credit Agreement Amendment, the applicable spread for (a) base rate and adjusted daily simple SOFR loans was 0.10% per annum, with possible future spreads ranging from 0.0% to 0.450% per annum, and (b) adjusted term SOFR, adjusted term SOFR-based RFR and Eurocurrency rate loans was 1.10% per annum, with possible future spreads ranging from 0.90% to 1.450% per annum. The Credit Agreement Amendment also replaces the commitment fee payable under the Credit Agreement with a facility fee based on the aggregate outstanding commitments at an initial rate of 0.15% per annum, which, like the interest rate spreads, is subject to adjustment thereafter based on the Company's debt rating, with possible future rates ranging from 0.10% to 0.30% per annum.

Amendment to Term Loan Agreement: On August 1, 2022, the Company and one of its subsidiaries entered into a Fourth Amendment to Credit Agreement with the lenders named therein and PNC Bank, National Association, as administrative agent for the Term Loan Lenders, which amends the Credit Agreement dated as of February 21, 2020. In connection with the Term Loan Agreement Amendment, and on the date thereof, the Company prepaid $50 million in principal amount of the outstanding term loans, resulting in a reduction in term loan commitments and outstandings to $250 million in the aggregate. The maturity date was extended to August 1, 2025.

Term loan borrowings will bear interest at either the base rate or an adjusted term SOFR rate, at the Company's option, plus a spread determined by the Company's debt rating. At the closing of the Term Loan Agreement Amendment, the applicable spread for (a) base rate loans was 0.0% per annum, with possible future spreads ranging from 0.0% to 0.50% per annum, and (b) adjusted term SOFR was 1.00% per annum, with possible future spreads ranging from 0.75% to 1.50% per annum.

Original post:
RPM International Inc. Amends its Revolving Credit Facility by Entering into Fourth Amendment to Credit Agreement - Marketscreener.com