Trump's Home Raided by FBI


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Vort said:

One of the many reasons I hate emojis is that they have become an excuse to insult people and use unsociable language, then place any blame for offense on the lack of intelligence or simple oversensitivity of the offended party. "Nice pic. Your makeup looks like you got jumped by a violent gang of kindergarteners armed with colored Sharpies. 😀 Also, your mother is ugly and smells awful. 😁"

Come on. The power to insult others and get away with it! This is a reason to like emojis. Not hate them.

It reminds me of the Southern, "bless your heart" sentence suffix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Here's the scorecard as far as I see it.  This is only based on the reports thus far.

Accusation Against Trump:

  • He took classified documents to his home after he left the office of POTUS.  He was an ordinary citizen then.  He is not allowed to have possession of such.
  • May not be true.
    • While he still held the office, the POTUS can declassify anything at a whim.  That is one of the powers of the POTUS.  It doesn't have to be formally done.  He can just decide.
    • If the current POTUS decided to re-classify them, then there is a process by which anyone in possession of such documents must be notified before accusation of any crime.

Accusation Against TPTB:

  • The warrant gave free rein on taking ANYTHING in the entire building.  This kind of broad authority is almost NEVER given without a great deal of probable cause combined with suspicion of a VERY serious offense.  @Just_A_Guy please, correct me if I'm wrong.
  • The judge had openly criticized Trump in very public forums at a level that he should have recused himself.  But he didn't.
  • By all reports no one (incl the White House) even knew anything was going on. This was kept very close to the vest of the AG's office.

As of yet, we have not heard a whimper from the AG.  So, as far as we know, it has nothing to do with the classification of the documents.  It could be a completely different matter that the documents were connected with.  But if the people serving the warrant didn't explain anything, I wonder what the warrant was for.

Doesn't a warrant need to state the nature of the accusation and the purpose for which the warrant was served?  Yet, we have a bunch of people from Trump's team that don't seem to have any idea.  The Feds just came in broke open a safe and took a bunch of stuff because they could.

That's the story we've got so far.

I want to be careful about what I say here.  I deal with warrants out of state juvenile court—mostly civil investigative warrants and child custody warrants.  I don’t know how much of that translates over to federal/criminal procedure.  I know that with the warrants I handle, we submit a sworn “probable cause statement” to the judge explaining why we want the warrant; the judge then grants (or declines) the request.  The warrant is served on the property owner at the time of execution, but the PC statement is not—it remains confidential for a brief period of time in order to give the investigators time to lock in their case, get witnesses on the record and take steps to ensure their safety, etc.  So it strikes me as at least plausible that the agents who executed the Trump warrant did not tell Trump the basis for their search, or precisely what they were looking for.  That information should come out in due course.

As far as a warrant covering an entire building:  I suppose that breaks down into the question of whether the owner of the building could reasonably be said to be in current control of the entire premises.  That could get dodgy really quickly with an apartment complex/hotel/private club; and I have no idea how that will shake out in Mar-o-Lago’s case.

The only other observation I’ll make is that I don’t believe for a minute that Biden wasn’t told about this.  I recognize the importance that the DOJ be able to independently go where the evidence takes them without White House micromanaging; but this wasn’t just a law-enforcement decision.  It was a political decision, and the White House simply has to be involved; a president can’t lead the country effectively if his AG is going around prosecuting political opponents all willy-nilly.  Biden’s a fool if he didn’t explicitly tell Garland, some time ago, to not raid Trump without explicit White House authorization.

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 8/10/2022 at 7:55 AM, Vort said:

Unless there's a big revelation of real, substantive malfeasance by Trump, I will vote for him if he receives the Republican nomination. I'm not a huge fan of his, except when compared with my feelings toward any national-level Democrat.

On 8/10/2022 at 1:32 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree.  I think God will start sending us better candidates, when we show Him that we are actually faithfully waiting for them.   

@Vort for President!! :) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my observation it seems Trump angered many people in the District of Columbia and they want to get him at any cost to prevent him from running again for President.  It appears federal law enforcement is being used as a weapon to selectively target those who will not bow to the wishes of people running the District of Columbia.  The corruption is exposed more and more as time continues. 

It is sad to me that those with the majority in Congress and the current executive branch do not care about the common good of American citizens.  They want to raid the public treasury and get what they can while they have their time in office.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Basically, the entire chain of everything from the decision to make the raid to the actual conduct of the raid itself needs to be investigated by neutral third parties in order to determine if it was legal and done properly. 

The longer it takes for this to happen, the more time conspiracy theories have to circulate and the more potential they have to cause unrest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, mirkwood said:

For an answer to #3, they did send a subpoena.  But it apparently wasn't enough.  We don't know the details.  I could be that Trump's legal team used delaying tactics or some such to avoid compliance, or it could be that the FBI thought the information wasn't enough.  Whatever.   

As for the rest... yup.

16 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

Basically, the entire chain of everything from the decision to make the raid to the actual conduct of the raid itself needs to be investigated by neutral third parties in order to determine if it was legal and done properly. 

That's not really going to solve anything.  The real problem is that the government now has so much power that it is capable of doing all that conservatives fear happened, and it was all legal.  There's nothing we can do about it.

The idea of a federal government was to have a power to check the power of the states.  They really aren't supposed to have such power over individuals.  But everyone who ever wanted more power given to the feds instead of the states has asked for this very thing to be allowed to happen to ANY individual.

After January, we'll have months of hearings and not a single person will be sanctioned, fired, fined, or imprisoned.  That's right.  Not a single person will have any penalties.  Everything they did will be deemed perfectly legal (and they will be right).  Millions of people will cry foul (and they will be right).  But nothing will be done to curb such power.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Vort said:

:) If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

But I bet I would make a better US President than Joe Biden.

I feel like the job of president should be given to someone who doesn't want it and that would be the secret of a good presidency. The fellow who does the bare essentials of the job without bias because he has to and just wants the tasks out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Vort said:

:) If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

But I bet I would make a better US President than Joe Biden.

Good.  That's the kind of president I want.  Sit at home and ignore us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share