Thoughts on this from @JoyceWhiteVance, a former federal prosecutor under Obama —>https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/982450753469022209 …
-
-
Manafort has a few obstacles here, like 1) confirmatory search / independent source doctrine (see Murray v US), apparent authority to consent doctrine (see Illinois v Rodriguez) & 3) a factual argument this employee had actual consent authority
-
All the govt needs to prove is, was it objectively reasonable for the Agent to believe that person being asked for consent was the person in apparent control of the premises. The guys name is on the lease as the sole occupant. That pretty much is the ball game.
-
Manafort has offered no evidence (not even an affidavit) that the employee lacked authority.
-
In the eyes of the law wether or not Manafort or anyone else gave him authority is irrelevant. The standard is did the Agent have an reasonable belief that the person granting consent was in apparent control of the premises. The lease clearly says yes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
“We know all the paperwork says he worked for us, and that we’re already in court for lying, but really, he doesn’t work for us”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm not sure this was an actual 'search'. The employeee obviously told them of the existence of the storage locker... plus they probably had financial records it existed, they could have have just gotten a warrant on knowledge alone. M's lawyers have a thin argument.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I have bad news for his lawyers...if the guy who gave consent is listed as the occupant on the lease then he can consent to a search. It also may mean they lack standing to argue against the search.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is the part of "law" that makes me insane. Doesn't matter how illegal an act, lawyers can claim evidence inadmissible over a technicality. Doesn't matter the totality of all the charges. Seems like a loophole and it happens all the time.
-
They aren’t going to win this motion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Oh, remember all indicted or affiliated Trump employees are "low level coffee boys", including Manafort.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
but all jokes aside, this is a hell of a report. Classic, hide the evidence in a storage unit.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Lol, wonder how much they’re getting paid for this idiocy
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
"low-level employee"...sounds familiar. "coffee boy", "low-level" these guys are offensive.
-
covfefe boy. Just what I was thinking
-
you and me are so smart.
-
Great minds think alike
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They seem to have forgotten to tell their front that they were a front and should keep the secrets.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
When will the Judge hear this motion to suppress?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So a low level employee to the coffee boy of the campaign?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.