The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Three Prosecutors Who Are Investigating Their Political Opponents
Trump announcing his candidacy would not end Garland's investigation. Rather, it would likely result in the appointment of a special counsel.
At present, there are at least three prominent investigations in which a prosecutor is investigating his or her political opponent.
First, District Attorney Fani Willis, of Fulton County Georgia was investigating republican State Senator Burt Jones. After the 2020 election, Jones had signed an electoral certificate stating that Trump won the Peach state. Jones is now running for state Lieutenant Governor. Willis, a Democrat, hosted a fundraiser for Jones' Democratic opponent in the LG race. Due to this conflict of interest, a superior court judge disqualified Willis from questioning Jones. The judge said that decision to host the fundraiser was "a 'What are you thinking?' moment with 'horrible' optics." Yet Willis apparently saw nothing wrong with fundraising for the opponent of the person she was investigating.
Second, in Michigan, Matthew DePerno is the presumptive Republican nominee for Attorney General. There are allegations that after the 2020 election, DePerno told election clerks that he needed to inspect election equipment. Now, Dana Nessell, who will likely face DePerno in the general election this fall, has begun an investigation against DePerno. According to the New York Times, the Attorney General's office "requested that a special prosecutor be appointed to continue the investigation and pursue potential criminal charges." You can read the petition here.
The statute does not explain if the Attorney General retains any supervisory authority over the special prosecuting attorney. But if the federal special counsel regulations are any indication, these investigations tend to take on a life of their own. Even Robert Mueller became Inspector Javert.
Speaking of special counsels, let's talk about the third prosecutor who is investigating his political opponent. Of course, I speak about the raid on Mar-A-Lago. According to early reports, the investigation concerns Trump's handling of classified documents. I have no doubt that Garland weighed this decision at some length before he signed off on the search. Will this search lead to an indictment? Who knows. But the optics here are stark: the chief law enforcement officer of the Biden administration is searching the home of the front-runner for the 2024 Republican ticket.
Several commentators have suggested that Trump should announce his candidacy early--before the midterms--to pre-empt any indictments. The thinking goes that DOJ would not prosecute President Biden's opponent in the run-up to the election. I think this thinking is flawed. The fact that Garland signed off on this search, even as Trump is signaling he will run, suggests that the election would not halt a criminal investigation. There is no statute that would bar a prosecution of Trump, even as he goes through the nomination process. The most likely outcome is that Garland would appoint a special counsel to investigate, and even prosecute Trump, as Biden runs for re-election. If you thought the Mueller investigation was unwieldy, this special counsel prosecution would be far, far more unconstrained.
We are veering into uncharted territories if the incumbent president is prosecuting the former president who is running for re-election. And even if Trump is convicted, he still would not be disqualified.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The problem with prosecuting Trump is if a judge tosses the charges or he gets acquitted then its just a disaster for the democrats.
If they're going to do it, it better be a slam dunk.
Omg, no. Democrats haven’t even investigated Trump so far…every FBI investigation including this one has been initiated by Bush Republicans. The first impeachment even included Bush Republican because they were supplying text messages and testimony that got Trump impeached. And for Bush Republicans it is a “win win” because Fox News will just characterize the investigators as Democrats just like in 2022 Republicans believe Lizard Cheney is a Democrat mere months from her fellow Republican congressmen voting her into GOP leadership!?!
Sebbie, Baby. Stop gaslightin'. This is Dem douche lawfare. Payback is coming. Do not worry about impeachments, investigations, and prosecutions. Those will be the least of the worries of all Dem douches.
Wray is the love child of Comey and Mueller—he’s a Bush Republican and Trump was a moron for appointing him.
Trump was a weak leader. He was totally played by the scumbag lawyers. He should have had the Secret SErvice roughly expel them from the White House. On Inauguration Day, he should fire the FBI, the DoJ, the State Department. Replace them with real police, real street prosecutors, and patriots.
Replace them with those Nazi generals.
Which "Nazi generals"?
fwiw - very few of the german generals during WWII were actually nazi's,
fwiw - very few of the german generals during WWII were actually nazi's,
Well, not many of them joined the party, I guess, but they did work hard, diligently and, in most cases, skillfully, to advance Hitler's aims.
So, de facto, they were in fact Nazis. The "clean Wehrmacht" is a myth.
Didn’t the ones that weren’t sympathetic to Nazis participate for one of two reasons? Either sense of duty to country (one that had an enormous chip on its shoulder) or to save their own ass?
Did they? Or is that conjecture?
Anyway, duty to country? To advance the most shameful, criminal agenda in the country's history and bring national disgrace the memory of which, unlike the Third Reich, will last one thousand years or more?
To save their own asses? What would have happened had they resigned? Do you know, or are you imagining, under the (unwarranted) assumption that they were somehow decent human beings?
Why should we assume they weren't sympathetic to Hitler's military objectives? Maybe some of the generals disliked him personally, but BFD. They did his bidding, enthusiastically. The crimes of the Nazi regime would not have been possible without these accomplices, who had to know what was going on.
fwiw - second point - those german generals were significantly more competent than Milley, austin and the rest of the Woke generals that have moved up the ranks through progressive woke policies beginning in the obama administration.
Guess the opposite of 'woke' is 'Nazi' after all.
the opposite of woke is competent.
The use of green energy by the woke in the military means slower moving offense , slowing moving defense.
Competent, like Nazi generals are competent, yeah.
The US military is merely a machine for transferring trillions of taxpayers dollars to the pockets of private corporations, while at the same time being one of the most polluting institutions on the entire planet. 'Green' indeed.
Thank goodness we have Joe_Dallas, arbiter of military competence, here to opine on America's recent and current Secretaries of Defense!
What will we do without his clear and objective expertise.
You think the architects of the Afghanistan withdrawal are competent?
Boomer generals have been screwing things up since 2002.
Good thing we have Sarcastro who provides us with freedom from reality.
Sarcastro - You might have noticed the flawless execution of the afganistan withdrawal.
Remind me who was in charge of that - was it Milley, or was it Austin?
You're raging at wokeness in the military because you're a puritain asshat, and you cloak it in ipse dixit about individuals, because you're a partisan asshat.
Except it's got nothing to do with the Democrats.
lol horseshit
Oh, from your point of view evil pedophile blood drinking Satanic Democrats are behind everything, sure, but not really.
Do you think there was any coordination between the Democrats on the J6 committee and the DOJ on any actions the DOJ has taken against American citizens for the J6 misdemeanors?
Do you think the fortuitous timing was just a coincidence?
Why would there even need to be?
Because the J6 committee has been a public ratings dud?
Now answer the question. Do you think the timings were coincidence or coordinated?
Have they? Is that important to you? How would the be co-ordinated?
J6 committee has been a public ratings dud?
First, 17.7M in Primetime.
Second, TV ratings aren't really necessary to drive a narrative. Ask OAN about their outsized influence.
But you appear to be arguing that this timing is somehow significant. Because the Jan 06 hearings, which have been going on for a while, are going on.
Go back to thinking of gay guys doin' it and getting super...mad over it.
You think it took the DOJ 18 months to figure out seditious conspiracy charges against those groups?
Are any of these statements true:
98% of Pride Pox cases are in homosexual men.
Little boys are the largest outgroup of Pride Pox sufferers.
Pride Pox has been declared a public health concern in local, national, and worldwide contexts.
Yeah, I do think when you're doing a search on a former President's residence, you do want to take some to vet the documents both internally and judicially.
Correlation may not be causation, but if you think about gay sex enough, it sure does feel like somethin'!
When COVID was ravaging the country, where you think about people who were spreading COVID?
P.S. I was referring to the Proud Boys charges that coincided with J6 hearings. Pay attention.
Still the cult members can't figure out the difference between governing and infotainment. Hint: this isn't an episode of The Apprentice; "ratings" aren't at issue.
But even on its own terms, it's wrong.
No.
The fortuitous timing of what?
Two of these cases are literally elected Democrats investigating their opponents. The third is someone appointed by an elected Democrat. And you claim "it's got nothing to do with the Democrats"?
You might want to do a reality check, friend.
All three cases involve Republicans accused of crimes. That seems like a more plausible candidate for the common denominator: Criminal Republicans don't get prosecuted by other Republicans.
William of Ockham was English, so I guess they never exported his razor to the Continent.
Look at you with all your high-fallutin' book learnin'! Bless your heart...
No, they just exported incorrect applications of it.
These people are why there can be no reconciliation, ever, with the Federals and their bootlickers.
They love the power being exerted by the Federals now against their political opponents. They love the torture being done to Gran and Oppa in DC gulags. They think it's totally fine for Hunter to be on video molesting children and snorting crack and walking free, because he's an Elite Federal after all and they love licking the boots of them.
Hunter to be on video molesting children
How does this guy keep coming up with these banger hot takes?
It's on video.
I could go to prison for watching certain videos of Hunter Biden.
Sure, dude.
Really good proving there.
They are out there on the internet. I guess some of us just know more about current events than others. hashtag shrug emoji
They are out there on the internet.
Holy living fuck the Internet? That's a zone of nonstop truthtelling.
Well, I sure do sit corrected, now that you've cited The Internet.
It's not all about Hunter. Hunter Biden is simply the most ridiculous face of it. The others at least try to hide their corruption, but Biden's parenting failure makes it so obvious.
Hunter Biden has a notorious cocaine addiction. He has tested positive multiple times, and even lost his job in the Navy over it. When his laptop information was published, there were numerous photographs and videos of him doing this stuff. Please note the man has had 24/7 federal police guarding him for 15 years, since his dad was announced as VP candidate.
How is is getting his cocaine? Are the federales watching him commit felonies or commiting them for him? There are no third options here.
It's just like Al Capone couldn't deny the self-obvious fact that he was rich and clearly made more than he paid taxes on. There is no answer that relieves the Secret Service of culpability here.
Well, an obvious third option is that he has not had 24/7 secret service protection for 15 years.
Like those face-carving videos of Hilary, so.
I am not a fan of Hunter Biden; he appears to be quite a scoundrel. But the absence of links in this discussion is conspicuous.
Not the one in the comment I was replying to, y'know, the one everyone's talking about.
The problem is they need real evidence of a real crime, preferably a crime that they themselves cannot be accused of committing or excusing even worse versions of when it's one of their own. If they don't have that they will only earn the contempt if not active items of roughly half the nation.
Also
- DeSantis is a much better candidate than Trump
- these sorts of KGB-style actions against Trump raise GOP voter intensity and
- they cement the understanding that Federal workers and Federal law enforcement are enemies of regular Americans.
The statement that "federal workers are enemies of regular Americans" is literally the stupidest statement I've ever read in this comment section.
Yeah, if you want people to understand that you are an enemy, that’s the type of thing you might say.
We’re all used to ignoring your trolling here though.
More effective ignoring of my trolling would probably involve not replying to me. Just for future reference with future trolls. We enemies of regular Americans like nothing more than having our trollish remarks answered.
Have you ever told anyone the truth, even once, in your entire life?
It's not even the stupidest thing in that comment. Calling a search conducted pursuant to a warrant granted by a federal magistrate judge a "KGB-style action" is far dumber.
That's not to say that pretending that Trump is a representative of "regular Americans" isn't incredibly stupid.
When there is no legal recourse, violence has full justification in formal logic. Formal logic has more certainty than the laws of physics.
I'm not following. Is your complaint that the special prosecutor isn't independent enough, thus subjecting the prosecution to the control of the subject's opponent? Or is it that the prosecutor is too independent?
What does Merrick Garland have to do with "special counsels", and in what possible sense is he Donald Trump's "political opponent"?
If Garland were abusing his power and going after political opponents then the Trump appointee Wray would probably resign. Remember Comey and Wray almost resigned together when Bush was president.
You live in a fantasy world where the Federal Class & Uniparty does not exist.
Neither of those things exist, dumbass.
"Remember Comey and Wray almost resigned together when Bush was president."
I think that was Comey and Mueller.
I look forward to rational comments which totally won't try to bring up Hillary or Hunter, and instead will focus on the facts of this situation for once.
Yes, we will bring it up, because Josh appears to be arguing that only Democrats are required to defer to special prosecutors whereas Republicans investigating opponents can do it themselves.
The OP doesn’t even deal with the facts of the case(s) beyond “This person is a democrat and the person being investigated for criminal activity is a Republican. Crazy, right?”
People like you view the justice system the same way the Chinese Communist Party leaders view their justice system.
"I look forward to rational comments which totally won't try to bring up Hillary or Hunter, and instead will focus on the facts of this situation for once."
Are you sure you're on the right blog? Here tu quoque is a frequent Trumpist substitute for argument.
We have, for the first time in American history, the home of a former President, and presumptive challenger to the current President in the next election, having his home raided and documents seized. And what is the alleged grave crime that justified this unprecedented, extraordinary action? A possible violation of the Presidential Records Act. Good God, could they have found a flimsier pretext or a more Mickey Mouse violation?
The current regime is raiding the home of the opposition leader. Before yesterday, I would have expected to hear that about Vladimir Putin or some Central American dictator, but I never have dreamed of the possibility of it happening in the United States.
Remember all that bullshit these KGB-wannabes were saying about "norms" a few years ago?
One conclusion is that they executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago on flimsy grounds. Another is that you're mistaken about what they executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago for.
The "what for" is clearly an attempt to keep Trump from being re-elected.
Well yes. People are really funny about corrupt criminals being elected President. Weird, that.
When someone uses the term "clearly" it is usually anything but.
Probable cause has nothing to do with your conspiracies. Nice touch.
You can be credulous if you like, but the Justice Department and FBI forfeited any benefit of the doubt long ago when it comes to their endless investigation of Trump.
What do you think they were looking for? The answer is anything. It's a fishing expedition. Of course, you can't tell a judge that, so you need a pretext, which is why all the news agencies are citing the Presidential Records Act, which is likely the pretext they used.
Do you think Trump has been storing incriminating documents in his house for 20 months because he just hasn't gotten around to destroying them? Or perhaps he's just begun a new criminal venture since he left office that the FBI just got wind of?
Everybody knows what's going on. Even the Trump-haters know, but they just don't care. Like Thomas More's son-in-law, they'll gleefully trample every law, every institution, every norm in this country to get at their devil, long-term damage to the country be damned.
We know how the FBI works, they plant the stories they need for the pretext.
the Justice Department and FBI forfeited any benefit of the doubt long ago when it comes to their endless investigation of Trump.
Most people think Trump did an extra amount of crimes, which also fits those facts.
Do you think Trump has been storing incriminating documents in his house for 20 months because he just hasn't gotten around to destroying them?
Have you considered Trump is lazy and/or stupid (at least when it comes to stuff like this?)
Not stupidity. Arrogance. Take Alex Jones. He knew he had Sandy Hook texts, he knew he withheld them, and he knew he’d have problems if they were discovered. But he kept them likely because he assumed nobody would ever find out. Giuliani, Meadows, etc., all the same thing. They could not imagine any of this ever getting as far as it has and keep getting surprised when it all gets even farther along.
Arrogance.
The issuance of the search warrant represents a finding (albeit ex parte) by a United States Magistrate of probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found at Trump's residence. The nexus between the Act and the search of Mar-a-lago may be traceable to Eric Trump in an interview with Sean Hannity. https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-trump-got-the-call-fbi-search-mar-a-lago-2022-8
Lots of impeachment hearing coming starting in January. More-or less guaranteed now.
Ben_, if McCarthy were to find himself defending against a well-founded felony charge before January, would that make you less certain of your prediction, or would it make you more enthusiastic about it?
Same. McCarthy is one of many.
Yes, I think Congress will steadily drift towards more showboating and less interest in actually getting something useful done. When the GOP is in charge, that seems like a good thing.
It is a good thing with both parties. A little more gridlock and maybe we'd have dodged that last $6 trillion of gasoline on the inflationary fire.
Sure, if you don't mind setting fire to the planet literally and metaphorically, a permanently gridlocked Congress seems like a great idea, particularly at a time when the Supreme Court keeps inventing new reasons for striking down executive action.
Wow, you're on a roll today. Heavy night of drinking?
Jesus, get out of here with the “planet on fire” panicky garbage. Biden is giving you want you want good and and hard, and in a few years you’re going to hate it.
And you keep bellowing about all of the crimes Trump has committed, but somehow the man has been under investigation for several years by people hostile to him (don’t forget the state of NY) and somehow he’s never indicted. I can’t stand Trump either, but facts are facts even if you won’t acknowledge them.
Congratulations, what you've discovered is that in the US it is very difficult to successfully prosecute rich people. Not sure why that was news to you, but you do you.
And forgive me if climate change has been a little bit more on my mind recently, given that we're currently going through heatwave after heatwave, with literally record-breaking temperatures.
Well nothing is going to mitigate climate change like balls to the wall panic.
Bald-faced denial isn't working, except inasmuch as the people making money off it get to keep doing that.
Good thing there's not a single cent to be made off climate panic. /s
Cents, yeah, compared to billion-dollar-a-day profits.
"And forgive me if climate change has been a little bit more on my mind recently, given that we're currently going through heatwave after heatwave, with literally record-breaking temperatures.
...and what will you say when you are freezing your ass off this winter and the power is curtailed?
'Shoulda listened to the warnings and started the transition from fossil fuels decades ago, fuck the deniers for causing this mess.'
"Should have started feeding those unicorns beans years ago!"
You don't quite get that wanting to transition away from a technology doesn't magically make alternatives practical, do you? If the left had really wanted to get away from fossil fuels, nuclear was there all along, the only real alternative, and you rejected that with a passion.
I get that if you invest money and resources into developing something, or preparing for something, or mitigating something that thing developes, is prepared for or mitigated and if the money and efffort had been put in decades ago, then those things would have been decades further along by now.
Nobody wants fucking nuclear power plants in their backyards as the world enters a period of climate instability, mass migration and resource-driven conflict.
Nige, throwing money at solar decades earlier would have resulted in blackouts decades earlier, only worse, because today's solar panels actually benefit from a lot of material science that they didn't have back then, and couldn't magically create by burning piles of money.
They needed to Manhattan Project or Moon Shot it, and they didn't, so we're facing a 1.5 degree rise minimum, and if you think a few blackouts are bad you're basically pampered and complascent. They could start it now, if they wanted, but one side prefers to keep shovelling obscene profits to the same fossil fuel companies that spent decades denying climate change and delaying action on the climate change they knew they were causing.
Nige, Germany did that, with Energiwinde, and they ended up with the highest per-kwh electricity in Europe, heavily dependent on Russian gas supplies, and reduced the CO2/kwh intensity of their electrical grid by a paltry amount.
Saying "we need a moonshot" doesn't work here because NASA knew what technologies needed to be invented and roughly how to do it. The current technologies simply cannot support a renewable-only grid outside of a few locations with large scale, reliable hydro and geothermal power plants, and there is no viable product that can change that for the foreseeable future.
The fossil fuel companies succesfully delayed transition - thanks Republicans - they're still making billions, countries are basically energy hostages to corrupt authoritarian regimes, huge portions of the world are in serious drought, thousand year flooding every year all over the place. Really doesn't matter what you think can or can't be done, time to fish or cut bait.
But that’s ok with them because their #1 objective is to make life worse for us, and they’re already celebrating their success at that.
Get back to me when we have another Elfstedentocht. It isn't exactly a coincidence that we haven't had one since I was in high school.
An event that has only occurred 15 times in more than 110 years hasn't occurred recently, therefore this winter will not be cold for the people that won't be able to afford the heating bill?
I'm sure the poor people suffering this winter will be glad to know you don't believe in them.
Weather is not climate you fucking dummy.
Yeah if the climate changes you can expect the weather to stay exactly the same, nothing to worry about except the ongoing years-long droughts and such.
I love how you Warm Mongers talk out of both sides of your mouth.
When weather doesn't support your fear-mongering, you trot out "weather isn't climate", when it does, you go "look at all the proof!".
Zealots should be put in prison.
I'm so sorry you don't understand what climate change is and how it works, your inability to grasp it is leaving you angry and confused.
To clarify, for years and years, scientists cautioned against attributing any individual weather event to climate change, since the effects were too diffuse and unpredictable. They don't do that any more. Those droughts and floods are definitely climate change.
lol "last year weather wasn't climate, this year it is!!!"
lmao good grief.
See? You just don't understand it, you poor wee thing.
To quote Popehat:
The GOP argument "if you try to hold us to the rule of law we will abuse our power when we get more" is kind of empty when everyone knows they'll abuse their power no matter what, so why not uphold the rule of law?
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1556809330594234368?s=20&t=FdQ9oViaMLkSh08gUAqxfw
Only Democrats believe that. Republicans believe exactly the opposite, and can point to a boatload of recent cases as evidence. Remember the Navy submariner who was sent to prison for mishandling classified information, and lost because the court didn't accept the Clinton defense for a non-Clinton?
No court accepted it for a Clinton either. Those conspiracy theories are eating away at your brain.
You're right! The Obama administration decided to prosecute the schlub, and to give immunity to everyone in Clinton's circle.
But politicians and bureaucrats being responsible does not help your case any.
You didn't spot the consistent pattern of high-ranking politicians of all parties getting a free pass no matter who is in the White House? That's the whole point of the OP, that Josh desparately wants for justice to be done without political interference.
No, I spotted a pattern of Republican appointees (like Gen. Michael Flynn) and functionaries (like Steve Bannon and Michael Cohen) getting prosecuted, and Democrats getting off the hook (like all those Clinton people getting immunity agreements, Michael Sussman getting jury nullification, etc).
But then, most of us are more observant than you.
Or maybe they just committed more crimes.
The word you're looking for is "patsy".
Michael P going with the 'Why do things that happen to criminals keep happening to Republicans?'
Kristian Saucier was not sent to prison for mishandling classified information. As Comey explained in his ill-advised announcement about Hillary:
But they did see those things in Saucier's case. Saucier willfully took pictures of classified information, and then lied to the FBI and then destroyed several electronic devices in an attempt to cover up what he had done.
Also, he did not "lose because the court didn't accept the Clinton defense for a non-Clinton." He pleaded guilty; he didn't lose. He tried to cite Hillary's situation as an argument why he deserved probation. The judge did not buy that argument, but nevertheless sentenced him to a much lighter sentence than the government was seeking.
You guys really like telling yourselves stories.
Not that it matters to Republicans -- recall Newt Gingrich's admission that Bill Clinton was impeached "because we could" -- but what officials are potentially subject to impeachment, and what factual grounds do you posit?
“But the optics here are stark: the chief law enforcement officer of the Biden administration is searching the home of the front-runner for the 2024 republican ticket.”
The Washington Post labels this a “Fact-free claim”.
Now that we are creating the appearance of a banana republic, does the US just follow down the same path of a strong-man dictatorship, similar to what we see there?
Or do we take the other path of revolution like some of the banana republic faced?
I never thought people talking about some sort of “national divorce” or worse, civil war, was remotely possible. Honestly, this crap by the DOJ is like lighting a fuse, IMO.
I fear the outcome of this.
At this point I think a 'national divorce' is the best case, but unlikely scenario. The fracture line runs through every state, it's urban center vs everywhere else, not state vs state.
It would be like the cement divorcing the aggregate in a hunk of concrete.
You could just leave too.
That's an option.
If there were someplace better to leave to, I would have already.
I thought Peter Thiel was going to create his own libertarian paradise somewhere in the middle of the ocean? Whatever happened to that?
I thought 75% of Hollywood was leaving after Trump was elected. That is, of course, adjusted for those that left when Bush was elected.
What do you know, turns out one way political zealots are every bit as full of shit as the politicians they admire. May I suggest that you apply that knowledge to your own thinking?
As observed above, rich people in the US don't really have to worry about what happens in Washington. The law doesn't really apply to them anyway.
“The country is in such disarray that secess- er, national divorce is the best option available.”
“You can relocate if you want.”
“What, and leave paradise?”
I don't. I welcome it. The Federals deserve a lot more than they've been getting.
They need to start getting what they deserve.
What exactly do they deserve, BCD?
As in, what do I deserve, since I am one of these Federals?
Farther down he adds the families of “Federals” to the list of folks who will get what they deserve.
It's the same path:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." (John F. Kennedy)
That sounds like an excellent reason to undermine US democracy by rigging all the election laws.
P.S. The last time the US had a "peaceful revolution" (aka a democratic change of power), your lot went and did a violent revolution anyway.
So what you're telling me is that Republicans should be allowed to break the law and interfere with elections without repercussions? Because when I saw the title of this post I assumed it would include at least one example of alleged lawbreaking by a Democrat. Isn't the lesson here that the Republican party has lost all ethical restraints, that it is full of people who don't mind breaking the law, and that the Party seems to defend them rather than kick them out? How is it possible that any of the people you mentioned are still candidates for office representing the GOP? And why does that not give you a moment's pause? Exactly how blinkered and partisan are you?
Hunter Biden is on video having sex with children.
Ghislane Maxwell is the only sex-trafficker in the history of the world to sex-traffic children to no one.
Clinton destroyed records under subpoena of Congress.
The thing about you throwing shit at your walls to try and get something to stick is your walls are already covered in shit.
As Nige demonstrates, They. Just. Don't. Care.
We. Just. Know. You. Lie.
How many of Maxwell's customers have been charged?
Connect that with the story under discussion, or esle you're just throwing shit.
The story is about two standards of justice.
How the fuck do you not get that?
So you want Trump to get away with any crimes he might have committed because other mysterious unidentified figures have succesfully evaded justice so far? What else should we do, not bother prosecuting suspected murderers while there are completely different and unrelated unsolved murders on the books?
What we want is one standard. At this point I'm not terribly particular about what standard, just that both parties have to live by it.
You or I or any of us would be rotting in a prison cell by now on the basis of a fraction of what's public information about Hunter Biden, and you know it. "Important" people get immunity from the law in this country, and Democrats are always importanter than Republicans.
I'm sorry, the standard we're going with is that stuff must be true and there must be evidence. For example, if this warrant fails to turn up evidence of a crime, then nobody should be indicted. Your standard is: if we claim stuff then it must be treated as true and the fact that the lack of evidence keeps leading to lack of indictments proves that there's a double standard, like with the election fraud thing.
I know. And the one standard you want is "Heads Republicans win, tails Democrats lose."
Brett, you just uncritically took what BCD said as true and ran with it.
Freaking BCD.
This is a cognitive fail. Try again, with more critical thinking even towards stuff you want to believe.
You say we don't care. No, it's that your facts, as is often the case, are not actually established, just received wisdom on the right.
This is jut like getting disgusted at how little ze libs care that Barack Obama's farts are nutritious but he won't share his secret and solve world hunger.
Is it a true statement that none of Maxwell's customers have been charged?
Lol even you know which of your statements are lies.
No.
Epstein was Maxwell's customer. He was charged.
Trump’s house was raided on the grounds of mishandling of classified documents. Trump, at the time those documents were created was the primary classifier in the government. He had the absolute power to declassify anything that he wanted. How do they get to mishandling of documents that he controlled the classification on? And then there was Clinton who mishandled classified documents on her illegal private server, where she conducted the entirety of her business when she was Secretary of State. Thousands of mishandled classified documents, many coming from other parts of the government, where she didn’t have declassification authority (while Trump had it for very likely every document he retained). Where was the raid on Clinton? My memory is that the FBI didn’t even bother with a subpoena - they just took whatever her lawyers were willing to give them.
He may have declassified documents but that doesn’t mean he gets to keep them. And I wager he thought it did mean that and that at least some if not all of the declassified documents should never have been declassified in the first place.
And the biggest question: What is in those documents that he felt the need to abscond with and stash them in his safe at Mal da Lardo? I doubt it’s a list of his favorite Thanksgiving Turkey names and recipes given to him by Chairman Kim.
You don't know that.
1) That Trump had declassification authority when he was president does not mean he could just do whatever he wanted with classified documents. It means he could declassify them, and then handle them as if they were unclassified.
2) He's not allowed to keep the documents even if they're not — even if they never were — classified.
There was no "illegal private server." No law forbid the use of a private server
No. Not unless you count documents that were retroactively designated confidential by the department. But of course there are no ex post facto laws in the U.S.; you can't punish someone for having a non-classified document just because someone later decided to relabel it classified.
Hillary turned over her server to the FBI.
One might think that the guy that was incessantly belching out "lock her up" might take extra care about handling classified documents. Or not using private email accounts or personal cell phones for government business.
But he didn't really care about any of that stuff. Or how much his predecessor played golf. Because if he did really care, he wouldn't have done all the same stuff that he complained about.
This search was a bad idea. But any revenge that will be sought will be worse. It all seems trivial now, but this sort of stuff can bring the system down. Most here think that would be a great result. But a government full of loyalists and yes men is how autocracies work.
"One might think that the guy that was incessantly belching out "lock her up" might take extra care about handling classified documents. Or not using private email accounts or personal cell phones for government business."
I was talking with my son about this: The need to start inserting the word, "allegedly" into news accounts where they inexplicably omit it. How the hell do you know he didn't take care about handling classified documents? All you know is what's been alleged, after all, not what the underlying truth is.
It ain't just classified documents, Bellmore. It's all of them. For very good reasons, the president is charged with preserving classified and unclassified documents alike. And news photos of documents in the toilet kind of speak for themselves—unless you think those are alleged documents in an alleged toilet.
For all I know they were; Who the hell flushes documents down a toilet when they have paper shredders and matches? That's kind of theatrical, if you ask me.
Look, on the one hand the President is charged with preserving classified and unclassified documents. On the other, he has the same right as anybody else to his own papers and effects. Kind of a tension there. I think it's pretty clear that no prior President has turned over to the National Archives the entire contents of the White House.
What I'm saying is, what's announced in a press release incident to a search, and what's actually found, can be two completely different things. Like I said to my son last night, learn to add the word "allegedly" where news accounts inexplicably omit it.
That's kind of theatrical, if you ask me.
Have you ever seen Trump on TV?
Speaking of the National Archives, anyone remember this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Unauthorized_removal_and_destruction_of_classified_material
Who the hell flushes documents down a toilet when they have paper shredders and matches? That's kind of theatrical, if you ask me.
An idiot?
Appealing to incredulity that Trump can't be that stupid....
The President has absolute declassification authority. Absolute.
But not the power to ignore statutes.
Some yes, and some no. Trump had absolute discretion what to declassify, as long as he was President. He is the only one to have that power, unless he delegates it, as GW Bush did to VP Cheney.
You're right about the President's power to declassify. Of course the real question is did Trump actually declassify the documents in question while he was President. If he is in possession of classified documents now, how much do you want to bet he and his folks overlooked that little detail?
Guess who isn't President right now? Unless absolute includes some kind of time travel, that's not relevant today.
Remember when he ordered those Russia hoax documents declassified and everyone just ignored him?
good times
As with many of the things you say, I don't actually recall that.
The pardon power is absolute too. But like the declassification power, it ended at noon on 1/20/21
It’s cute that you think you’re absolutely right.
He still has to follow the laws, and there are procedures for de-classification. He is also not the President.
No - the President does not have to follow the established procedures for classifying (and declassifying) documents. They are promulgated under his plenary authority as the Executive, delegated to government officials.
I missed your response to him following the laws and not being the President anymore.
I also missed when, precisely, the documents allegedly recovered were in fact de-classified.
"The President has absolute declassification authority. Absolute."
When, if at all, did President Trump declassify the documents he removed from the White House?
In any event, 18 U.S.C. § 2071 applies generally to willful and unlawful removal of documents -- whether classified or unclassified.
Please, you only like the word “allegedly” because it’s a great jumping off point for whatever strained conspiracy you choose to push next.
What about executing a search warrant apparently related to withheld classified documents was a “bad idea”?
If I shared right-wing biases voiced by other commenters, I would discount to near zero Attorney General Garland's judgment and integrity, and arrive at conclusions exonerating Trump. Unwilling to apply that discount, and expecting Garland to make wise decisions while using extreme caution, I expect Trump is in deep trouble. Given interviews Garland has already had with Trump insiders, I expect Garland knew before the search that Trump took from the White House documents capable of delivering disastrous damage to the national security of the United States. Given Trump's propensity for transactional thinking about everything, it will not be surprising to discover that Garland has evidence Trump viewed possession of those documents as blackmail material to be used against any attempt to rein him in legally. Or worse.
I suggest Trump's defenders are far too optimistic about the extent of Trump's legal peril. It is hard to imagine Garland ordering this search without near-certain evidence that Trump is involved in—or at least on record as contemplating—some act which can implicate him in crimes such as espionage or treason.
Perhaps I misjudge Garland, and he will be shown actually to be the irresponsible hack the right-wingers wish to portray. If so, I will eat my portion of crow with appropriate humility. I suggest Trump's defenders would be wise to back off until we all know more. Nobody at this historic juncture can serve the interests of the nation by too-certain or too-vociferous allegations one way or the other.
Yes, this is about the former President, but not in the way you're assuming. Garland is the guy who signed off on treating unhappy parents at school board meetings as "domestic terrorists". He's not a hack, he's a hatchet man -- an enforcer. He's the one who applies pressure until the victim does what the machine wants him to do.
What the machine wants is for Trump to run again, and that's the correct context for this action. They believe it is their only hope for retaining power.
No such event ever happened, and there isn't any such thing in law as "domestic terrorists."
Federal statute defines domestic terrorism as:
[A]ctivities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of
the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.[4]
Although defined in federal law, there is no federal criminal provision expressly prohibiting “domestic terrorism,” as the terms defining domestic terrorism are not elements of criminal offenses.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46829
Is that very last part strictly true? (A) requires that the act be a violation of federal or state criminal law. There might not be a separate federal crime of "domestic terrorism", but by federal law, any incidents of domestic terrorism is already a criminal act.
Did you bother to read the next sentence?
"Although defined in federal law, there is no federal criminal provision expressly prohibiting 'domestic terrorism,' as the terms defining domestic terrorism are not elements of criminal offenses."
How would you describe what Garland did?
https://apnews.com/article/merrick-garland-school-boards-violence-daaff3f659981354b7a9a536db5cf2e2
He didn't use the words "domestic terrorism", but the National School Boards Association leveraged his letter -- with direct coordination with both the White House and DOJ -- to use those words. That's how he endorsed the idea.
After that, at least 29 the states disavowed the letter, and 20 or so fully cancelled their membership.
Right-wing conspiracy theory!!!
How did his statement "endorse" something that happened after he made it?
The NSBA worked with the White House and Garland's DOJ to create the letter. As I said, that's how he endorsed the language.
Garland is the guy who signed off on treating unhappy parents at school board meetings as "domestic terrorists"
No. He didn't. Not close.
You, and whatever RW grifter you got this from, are lying. Do you people ever stop lying?
Yeah he did. Not even close.
Your fact check denies a specific individual used specific words. Did anyone here say those specific words were said by that individual? No.
Also "fact checks" are just another propaganda format to spin news. Might as well be a Slate opinion piece or a CNN report.
Yes. DaveM did. He said:
Garland is the guy who signed off on treating unhappy parents at school board meetings as "domestic terrorists".
“I suggest Trump's defenders would be wise to back off until we all know more.”
That’s not really the theme of their program.
Garland is the guy who set the FBI on parents protesting at school board meetings in the guise of fighting terrorism. His “judgement and integrity” is poor and nonexistent, respectively.
Nope! He said "while spirited debate about policy matters is protected under our Constitution, that protection does not extend to threats of violence or efforts to intimidate individuals based on their views." But thanks for playing.
So then yes, he did. And you want to excuse it, which says a lot about you, none of it good.
Nope! Violence and intimidation != protesting. But thanks for playing.
So BLM is a terrorist organization by your definition. Orders of magnitude more violence than at any school board meeting.
I don’t think they are, but you do.
And “thanks for playing” is terminally arrogant in an insipid way.
You have evidence of BLM endorsing violence and intimidation somewhere around here, I'm sure.
At any rate, since Garland said the FBI would investigate without calling any protesting groups/parents terrorists, your BLM whataboutism is hilariously off point.
You are embarrassing yourself, Bevis.
Garland didn't call parents terrorists, and he didn't say their protests were terrorism.
It's a lie. The fact that you resort to some crap about BLM to defend yourself is telling.
Bernard I saw a fucking letter signed by him that did exactly that. Unless you’re going to maintain it was phony.
You say I’m lying, I say you’re altering recent history to lessen bullshit from your team.
Either way Garland better have it right this time. There are Trump advisers saying that he formally declassified those documents. Are they lying? I don’t know. Nor do you. But if Trump did so and the DOJ missed it Garland just made Trump the mother of all martyrs and destroyed the reputation of yhe DOJ for a generation.
Do you have, you know, a link to the text of the Garland letter you refer to?
No, you didn't see any such fucking letter signed by him that did exactly that. You heard about some fucking letter on Fox News (or maybe Newsmax or OAN) that did that, but they were lying to you, and you gullibly believed them.
There was indeed a memo — not letter — issued by Garland, but it did not say what you think it said. For instance, it never once mentioned the word 'terrorism' (or any variant, such as 'terrorist' or 'terror'). For another, it said nothing at all about 'protests.'
https://www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download
It makes a nice change from Democrat presidents just blanket pardoning or waving away all the crimes of preceding Republican administrations. Remember when fake intelligence was deliberately cooked up to justify a war that killed millions and cost trillions but made some rich people even richer? I'd rather have seen all those guys in jail than Trump. Maybe then there never would have been Trump.
You're forgetting the war crimes.
Some cans of worms should be ripped open.
It's pretty obvious they're trying to make ztrump run again. Duh.
The only thing worse than Trump being president for another term is a dangerous populist who isn't incompetent. If Trump doesn't get the nomination, it's almost guaranteed that that's who the GOP will nominate.
Well lucky for you you don't live here.
If only that protected me.
Strewth.
This is simultaneously about stopping him from running AND making him run, all bases covered there.
Given open season on speculation, here is a speculative question for Blackman. Is it an important safeguard for American democracy to let a candidate campaign for the presidency from another nation? Suppose the candidate has an established U.S. residence, in Florida, for instance, but for reasons we can only guess at feels it would be safer or more efficacious to do his campaigning from some other nation, Hungary, for instance? Anything wrong with that?
But the optics here are stark: the chief law enforcement officer of the Biden administration is searching the home of the front-runner for the 2024 republican ticket.
Oh, but leveraging security aid to a foreign country that had already seen its territory annexed by a hostile neighbor in order to get that country to announce an investigation into a likely rival is not a big deal, I assume?
Didn't you hear? It didn't happen, and if it did happen it's no big deal and something that everybody does.
You mean like threatening to withhold a billion-dollar loan unless they target of recent annexation drops an investigation into your son's boss?
Like that, only not a complete lie.
Dude. The Biden bribery was so transparent that it would be rejected in a novel for being unbelievable. It's gone past reasonable doubt and into beyond any "rational doubt" territory.
It is unbelievable because it's a lie, a transparent one at that. It never happened. You're groping for things to justify demanding special treatment for Trump.
Nige talked about pardoning a few comments above which got me thinking. . . Biden should pardon Trump right now for these allegations concerning classified documents.
Even if Trump is guilty (and I'm sure he is), it won't disqualify him.
In the big scheme of things, these are relatively light charges and because of the security at "Del Boca Vista" I doubt the documents were compromised in any way.
And even if they're classified, I'm sure they have some sort of political slant (Hunter Biden, Trump visit with Kim Jong-un, Trump discussions with Putin, etc.), and are not nuclear submarine launch codes or spy satellite COMSEC keymat, etc.
President Biden, pardon (former) President Trump now - for these SPECIFIC allegations - and let's move on.
That’s not happening ever at all at any time in any reality, not even the reality you dopes occupy.
You make your country proud, comrade.
Locker Her Up crowd suddenly super whiney about innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not offended by random people thinking someone is guilty of a crime before the trial happens; fair opinion there.
But the hypocrisy of the right on this stinks.
Huh -- where's that Sarcastr0 guy who routinely parachutes into threads tut tutting about whataboutery?
Looks to me like my post was regarding your hypocrisy, and not deflecting from anything.
Your response of invoking a fallacy that isn't applicable, now *that* is deflecting.
Ah, so now that you're trying to flail your way out of a corner it's suddenly my personal hypocrisy?
Paste here for all to see a single time I said "lock her up" or anything remotely similar, or crawl back into your little troll hole.
Locker Her Up crowd suddenly super whiney about innocent until proven guilty.
So, to be clear, you are now claiming you disapproved of the lock her up chants during the 2016 election?
What I said above is crystal clear to all except those trying to manufacture a distraction.
Here's the bottom line, bucko. You always claim you want to debate substance. I made a substantive argument about tradeoffs between election ease and election security. You're now desperately trying to change the subject to anything -- anything -- other than what I argued. So give up the pretense and move on. For my part, I'm done troll-feeding.
Dodged the question.
Disingenuous again, it seems.
And no, your off-topic discussion was not substantive; it was nonresponsive.
Hillary Did Nothing Wrong Crowd suddenly super concerned about proper handling of sensitive documents.
The hypocrisy is so thick on the part of the teams on this one that my 4 yo grandson could see it.
The Clinton Commiited The Worse Crime In History crowd suddenly cavalier about it. Which, to be fair, you also were when it turned out the Trumps were using unsecure phones in the White House.
Except the Clinton accusations were laughably proven. It was so obvious that there was no possible explanation that didn't constitute a host of crimes on the part of Clinton and her comrades. Expressing skepticism before we even know what was being looked for, much less what was found, isn't inconsistent.
If you're the first one who exploits a hole in a system, you are at a tremendous advantage. Once you've shown people that the hole exists, it will take time to close it. You were able to take advantage of the hole, but your opponent won't be. It will be closed to them. Congratulations!
In the software world, we call this a "zero-day exploit". It's an exploit that's out there that no one has yet taken advantage of, so it hasn't been plugged yet.
2020's "Zuck bucks" funding scheme is a good example of a zero-day political exploit. Who knew that you could spend half of a billion dollars funding election administration programs in targeted districts and call that a "charitable contribution"? Many states immediately banned the practice, but that only keeps the next zillionaire from doing it, not Mark Zuckerberg and his cronies.
Raiding the home of a political opponent is another zero-day political exploit. The FBI's reputation, as bad as it is, is going to go right into the dumpster in the aftermath. There will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. After all is said and done, we will have new procedures that limits the FBI to non-political crimes. But that will only impact the next administration, not this one. This one gets all the first mover advantage.
Well played, Democrats. Well played, indeed. That's at least twice now in the last two years.
Who knew that you could spend half of a billion dollars funding election administration programs in targeted districts and call that a "charitable contribution"?
Yeah! How dare they undermine the fairness of our elections by funding programs to make voting easier and more convenient for the people? I used to walk 5 miles uphill both ways in the snow to cast my ballot - in person! - and then stand in line for 3 hours! If people working two jobs have a hard time getting to the polling places that remain after those currently in power have reduced them, that's their problem! There's laws that employers have to give employees an hour or two off on Election Day. If the lines are longer than that and the polling place is 30 minutes each way from their work, well, that's just the price of having our elections be secure!
Of course, I no longer have to spend that much time going to a polling place to vote in person. Ever since I started living primarily in suburban communities, I've never had to wait more than 5 minutes to get to the worker that would give me a ballot. But hey, those poor, urban voters should put up with longer lines because that is where the cheating is most likely to occur, right?
I have yet to understand the complaints about Zuckerberg and his "cronies."
They spent money to make it easier for voters to vote. WTF is wrong with that?
From the GOP POV, I suppose the problem is that they don't like people voting - at least certain people - but that hardly seems legitimate. Of course, they've found the solution - stop that from happening and keep control of votong in the hands of Trumpist zealots and liars.
Should giving someone a ride to the polls be illegal?
All systems dealing with valuable and/or private information have an inherent tension between ease of use and security. My bank account certainly would be a lot easier to access with all the pesky password requirements, two-factor authentication cycle, and so on. Your question is unanswerable without understanding what is being traded off on the security side.
To save some time, the magical "nothing at allz, experts say!" meme we've been treated to over the past couple of years is not a serious answer.
Some facts, as opposed to Fox News drivel.
The donations came at a time when election offices were trying to transition to mail voting. The money helped pay for material and services such as equipment to process mail ballots, protective equipment to curb the spread of the coronavirus, and drive-thru voting locations, The Associated Press reported....
“The federal election rules have nothing to do with any of this,” said Barry Burden, founding director of the Elections Research Center at University of Wisconsin-Madison. “These were not campaign donations. These were grants to governments, mostly county and municipal governments that run elections across the united states.”
Ben LaBolt, a spokesperson for Zuckerberg and Chan, described the online claims as “not accurate.”
“Mark and Priscilla provided funding to two non-partisan organizations that helped cities and states ensure that residents could vote regardless of their party or preference,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “Nearly 2,500 election jurisdictions from 49 states applied for and received funds, including urban, suburban, rural, and exurban counties.”
...
But election officials have said there is no indication of favoritism in how the money was distributed, according to previous AP reports. The board of the Center for Tech and Civic Life also includes Pam Anderson, a Republican and former elected clerk of a suburban Denver-area county. Republican election officials have also vouched for the program’s impartiality, including Brian Mead, a Republican election director in Licking County, Ohio.
Grr. Edit function?
All but the first paragraph is from the AP site.
That's all very nice I'm sure, but equitable distribution has no bearing on security so I'm not sure why you'd think it responsive to my point (or your original question, for that matter).
It's responsive because there is no reason to believe the contributions made the election less secure. I suppose there is some case to be made that they actually made them more secure, since they were aimed at making the election offices more efficient.
IOW, you really have no basis whatsoever fro your claim that security was compromised. It's just some RW BS.
I really thought you and I were getting to a point where we could have a civil conversation, but maybe not.
I didn't "claim security was compromised" -- I said something completely different: that secure systems that need to stay secure will always compromise usability, and designing for more usability will in most cases compromise security.
So when someone is trying to sell how awesome it is to make something more usable, it's incumbent on them to show how it's not going to diminish the security under the original scheme.
That didn't happen here.
Clearer?
So when someone is trying to sell how awesome it is to make something more usable, it's incumbent on them to show how it's not going to diminish the security under the original scheme.
And it is incumbent on those making changes in the name of election security to show that it won't make voting more difficult unnecessarily. In other words, a) that it actually improves security, and b) that security was inadequate before the change. I can continue to add more and more security measures to make it harder to break into my apartment, while also making it more annoying and time consuming to get in myself, but how much would having more than a simple deadbolt do to actually reduce the risk of burglary? If there hasn't even been a break in at my apartment complex in the last 10 years, why should I think that I need to add more security?
So when Republicans want voters to have photo ID, possibly have their registration purged if they skip an election cycle or two, limit drop boxes to a single location per county, regardless of the geographic size or population of the county, if drop boxes are allowed at all, write their signatures in more precise and consistent ways or have it fail to meet high "signature match" standards, reducing early voting hours, and whatever else, are you challenging those governors, legislators, and other officials to provide proof that their changes are both necessary and not just targeting voters likely to vote for their opponents?
All systems dealing with valuable and/or private information have an inherent tension between ease of use and security. My bank account certainly would be a lot easier to access with all the pesky password requirements, two-factor authentication cycle, and so on. Your question is unanswerable without understanding what is being traded off on the security side.
Ease of voting and security do not have to be in tension. Making voting easier doesn't inevitably result in less security. Simply buying more of the same equipment and hiring more personnel would shorten lines and processing time without doing anything to make the election less secure, for instance. Just like innovative people designing banking security can find ways to improve ease of use and security, so can election officials find ways to make voting more pleasant, less time consuming, and still maintain security.
Your personal take on the proper risk mix for elections has nothing to do with these grants.
Your 'I reject your complete lack of evidence and replace it with my own feelings' is just sad.
Fascinatingly, that's why I was speaking to Bernard's broader question of "WTF is wrong with making it easier for people to vote?" rather than anything about the funding itself.
I take it you're opting for the straw-man distraction since you have nothing cogent to say about my point.
You seem to have read in some additional statements than 'made it easier to vote' that I still can't seem to find. Something about ease and security always being diametrically opposed? Because I seem to recall some other thing in 2020 making it hard to vote that wasn't related to security.
Especially following bernard's longer post, explaining what these grants did, you're strawmanning hard.
Not reading in anything -- that's my position why "make it easier, yo" may not always (or even often) be a good thing. Debate it if you like or move on, but it's directly on point with the original question.
The original discussion was about the grants to states.
You made no such indication your scope was broader than that.
Nice new goalposts; I am not fooled by your attempt to hide your backpeddaling. Neither, looking above, is bernard.
Glad you realized your original argument was not exactly supportable. Unfortunate you don't have the stones to openly say you overstepped.
They spent money to collect ballots from people who were mentally incompetent to vote, people who were dead, etc.
There's proof this happened, of course, though it always evaporates somehow before reaching a court of law.
I'm sure they have affidavits.
Who gets to decide whether a particular voter is mentally competent to vote? Could you cite any state election laws that address this? In the four states I have served as an election worker, there has never been a requirement in this regard.
Poll workers, of course, do not do that. Same way poll workers do not determine if people have felony records that make them ineligible to vote.
I'm curious about an actual legal question here: The FBI opted for a fairly destructive forced entry, rather than serving a subpoena. They "breached" house AND safe.
I expect they caused a huge amount of expensive damage in doing that, and unnecessarily so.
Do they have to pay for that damage?
They "breached" the house?!?
The Secret Service let them in!
They didn't breach anything.
"Ken Dilianian shares new reporting from NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell that the FBI notified the Secret Service that a warrant would be executed at Mar-a-lago, and that Secret Service facilitated access to the Florida Trump property as fellow federal agents but did not take part in investigation or search."
Going by early news accounts. Glad to hear they didn't break down the door, then. Did they also get the combination to the safe from the SS?
This raises an interesting additional question: Did the SS pass that notification on promptly to Trump? I could see this driving a wedge between the SS and future Presidents if not.
“This thing I’ve completely imagined could be real trouble the road!”
"Did the SS pass that notification on promptly to Trump?"
Why would they?
That's not their job.
If anything, it could be considered interfering with an official investigation if they did notify Trump.
"Did they also get the combination to the safe from the SS?"
Reports are the FBI used a safecracker.
And that they recovered boxes the GSA mailed to Trump and had access to for months.
They gave "Fingers" Mahoney a sentence reduction to help out.
While amusing, the FBI does keep professional safecrackers on hand for these types of situations.
Point being, the safe was not voluntarily opened for the FBI.
Because the FBI saw to it that there was no opportunity to voluntarily open it. Just like they'll tell people they like to drop by at their convenience, and show up to handcuff in front of coincidental reporters people they don't like, if they like you you get a subpoena, if they dislike you you get your safe blown.
So?
Point being, this was not a subpoena and documents being turned over. As would have been appropriate, according to previous precedent. This was quite literally, breaking and entering.
It is a dramatic escalation. For what is reportedly, a relatively minor issue (confidential documents), with which Trump and associates were cooperating.
This is a problem....
Trump is always the best with subpoenas. I can't imaging the exigency that required a warrant on this one!
I actually can't imagine any such exigency that required such a raid.
Trump wasn't on the grounds. He wasn't going to suddenly destroy them when he wasn't even there. And they were paper copies. Not like Russia could access them via the internet.
So...no...I can't imagine any exigency that would overrule previous precedence.
No new goalposts. You wondered why a subpoena wasn't used. I responded. I guess you agree with me because you pivoted hard.
Statute of limitations spring to mind as an exigency.
In other news, Sarcastro believes if you directly respond to his point, you are now "moving the goalposts".
Nonsense.
As for "statue of limitations"....Look up what the statue of limitations is, before guessing.
He complied with a subpeona just weeks ago - in fact, he went above and beyond and volunteered to show them the same space they just raided.
You keep talking as if you know anything at all about the period between January, 2022, when the Archives retrieved the 15 boxes of stolen documents, and yesterday when the FBI went in to apparently reclaim the remaining documents Turnip refused to turn over. But you clearly know nothing about that period because there were efforts to get the documents returned. And Turnip probably enjoyed far longer grace periods to comply than your average not former president would.
The real point being that nobody is executing a search warrant against a former president without everything being in perfect order and all efforts to do otherwise have been exhausted. Except possibly because they received word that the documents are there but won’t be for much longer. After all, somebody told them the docs were still in there or they likely wouldn’t have gotten the warrant.
Uh, execution of a validly issued search warrant is not "quite literally, breaking and entering." (Unless the occupant of the premises authorized to be searched resists the execution, whereupon forcible entry may lawfully be effected.)
"Early news accounts?"
Going by early news accounts.
Let that be a lesson to you.
And to me; I have a hard time resisting the media's dumbass first to the scoop hot takes myself.
Yes, we all do. But Brett is next level because even “There are rumors that Mal da Lardo has been raided by the FBI” quickly becomes “Obviously Joe Biden ordered Garland to arrest Turnip or resign and Garland is such a wimp and Clinton-lover that he did what he was told and always wanted to do anyway” in Brett’s hands.
I don't think we'll ever get Brett to stop spicing up the stories he reads with his own speculation about Democratic motives and behind-the-scenes moves.
But media literacy is a broad and nonpartisan skill we could all use reminders of.
Nope. You made it up because you wanted it to be true.
Do they have to pay for that damage?
Does the police have to pay for that damage any of the thousands of times each day (made up statistic) that they do that? I think they ought to, but then clearly my views on criminal justice are some distance away from that of the median American voter.
Who is the audience for doing this? It would seem that the hard part about proving the charge to the public is that the charging party gets to decide the crime but never has to show the evidence ie these documents are classified because I say so but you can't actually see the documents because they are classified. They make the documents classified and that makes someone "guilty" of a crime. The point is not proving the crime in court but in the court of public opinion. Because the documents are classified there will never be enough evidence in public to win that and in this case the only way not to be a banana republic is to win public opinion. If all that exists is a mishandling documents case then this is inane. Either there has to already be more or people are desperate because they haven't found more.
Except that very likely the documents they found had been declassified by the primary declassifier at the time they were removed or earlier - Trump.
I'm curious why you find that "very likely." But I guess since we don't know at all what documents are relevant or what the grounds are for the subpoena, we can theorize any number of scenarios.
The President cannot mishandle classified information - he has the ultimate authority over all classification rules and requirements.
If the President declares something unclassified so he can hand it to a stranger on the street - or have the GSA ship it to his resort - , there is nothing anyone can do about it.
Hayden, what happens to the public status of a document if it gets declassified? Can the press get at it?
Suppose Trump has a bunch of intelligence community dirt on Republican congresspeople, all classified. Maybe he wants to use it to keep them in line during his next election bid. If he declassifies that stuff and it goes public, he loses his lever.
There is no end to hypothetical scenarios where Trump would not want to declassify, but would want to keep the document for some nefarious future purpose. None of us has any idea what is going on, except that a judge found probable cause of a crime.
Query: Is the warrant and the supporting affidavits/declarations use to support this raid available for public review?
BL....That is exactly my question.
Trump can release it at any time. That he has chosen not to is curious, if it’s as flimsy as some are saying.
Do you know anything about warrants and how they are obtained and used? The warrant is served, not the supporting affidavits. That's where GIGO comes in.
Well, then, the warrant was served. Let’s see it!
The warrant itself (including the attachments detailing the property they had probable cause to search for and seize) should have been left at Mar-a-Lago and presumably could be shared by Trump at any time: to my knowledge he has not done so.
The warrant application and supporting affidavit would not have been left and are almost certainly sealed.
Right, they are likely sealed. That's SOP. But here in the public interest they should be released.
Unlike some here, I do not automatically assume this was politically motivated. Nor do I assume it was not.
Brandeis' famous quote about sunlight comes to mind.
Seems a lot like you have an extraordinary ask so you can be grumpy about something that isn't on Trump's plate.
I don't know what you are trying to say. If you don't see that there is a potential for abuse of power, or at least the appearance thereof, then you are a blind partisan hack. Raiding the home of a former president and possible future candidate is unprecedented. That requires a degree of openness that the run-of-the-mill criminal case does not.
Now why are you against finding out the maximum information we can, to ascertain whether this action was politically motivated?
Does it? Or does it require a tight ship with no leaks and no grandstanding?
A "tight ship" is fine when you are talking about internal DOJ workings.
The minute you go to a Magistrate and ask for a warrant, you are going well outside the "ship," to a separate branch of government, and putting someone's Fourth Amendment rights at issue, on an ex parte basis.
If my house were raided, I would be monumentally ticked off. If I were then told, sorry, the basis for the judge allowing that is going to be kept secret from you and your lawyer, I would be outraged.
That's the thing. THe fact that I think Trump is a scumbag does not mean I agree with running roughshod over the Constitution.
Presumably all relevant things will be aired in court and shared with counsel when appropraite, when it actually matters. Not leaking shows probity and commitment to whetever case they're making, not the inevitable public shitshow. I can see how Trump supporters would find that scary.
A search and seizure effected pursuant to an invalid warrant can be challenged by a person aggrieved thereby by a motion for return of property under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) (a civil proceeding with the attendant discovery), or in the case of criminal prosecution involving fruits of the search, the accused's motion to suppress under Rules 12(b)(3)(C) and 41(h). An aggrieved owner of real property would have standing under either theory.
I am not a lawyer, but in this situation, isn't that a question considered by the judge who decides on granting the subpoena? Even if there is a political motivation, sufficient legal grounds for the subpoena have to be shown, right? The fact that this is such high profile and high stakes would lead me to believe this wouldn't have been done unless they were pretty sure of their grounds. But maybe I'm just naive.
The way all warrants work is that the prosecution submits one or more declarations setting out why the Govt. thinks a crime has been committed, and why there is reason to believe that the warrant will yield evidence of that crime. Both judged on a probable cause standard.
The magistrate has not clue whether these facts are true or not. And there is no opposition -- it's done ex parte, which is fancy lawyer-Latin talk for, the other side is not there.
So there is potential for abuse, if not outright lying. Which we saw in some of the FISA warrants.
That's why I keep saying that reviewing the underlying declarations is so important. The warrrant itself will not tell you much.
Makes sense. It seems like a case that prosecutors in general can get warrants and subpoenas too easily, rather than an indictment of this particular situation. I'd also like to see as much of this as possible made public.
It has been reported that the warrant was sealed by the Judge who issued it.
A copy of the search warrant is required to be left upon the premises searched. Trump has the ability to disclose it publicly.
Dark times.... Biden and the Democrats are guilty of everything they accused Trump of.
You can tell that’s true because every time they gather evidence against yet another Republican in the Democrats’ plot to overturn the last election they cross out the word “Democrat” and wrote in “Republican.” And everybody pretends like they don’t see it. But it’s so obvious!
At the risk of stating the obvious, the identity and inclinations of "they" matter a great deal.
Why, so you can threaten and intimidate them?
Well, no. As I imagine you know, my point presumed knowledge of their identities and went to how that identity tends to influence 1) what they look into in the first place, and 2) what they consider to constitute evidence of wrongdoing once they look into it.
But switching gears to your inflammatory response -- however unwisely -- are you seriously suggesting that prosecutions of political figures by opposing parties should be able to proceed via unverifiable assertions from anonymous sources?
No, I've just noticed a few comments here and there threatening violence against the judge, the Feds, their families, etc. Thought I'd check.
As for the rest, wait'll you hear about institutional racism.
Which institutions are racist and why are they filled with Democrats?
Ask someone who's actually experienced racism some time.
So you know all about institutional racism except which institutions are racist?
That doesn't make much sense to us Normals.
Institutional racism, aka systemic racism, refers to racism being in the fibers of our national frock. Racism runs through our criminal Justice, housing, employment, education, etc.. systems. It does not mean any literal institution the way you, a moron who thinks and posts stupid things, wish it to so you can claim some rhetorical victory.
So the criminal justice system, but not the criminal justice institution?
I don't think anyone has ever called you "Einstein". Probably something-stein, or something-berg. But definitely not "Einstein".
Why are Biden's DOJ and other agencies so racist? You'd think he would fix that.
The Republicans won't even let him cap the price of insulin and improve health care for vets, why would they let him do something that might piss off their white nationalist base?
Dark times.... Biden and the Democrats are guilty of everything they accused Trump of.
Fact free; posting from a realm of pure emotion.
The life of an Armchair Lawyer.
To use a Sarcastro-ism....
"Just google it".
That's your MO right? "Just Google it. Don't show your ignorance"
Take your own advice. Until then, let the adults talk.
So you want me to Google 'All the crimes Democrats are guilty of and accuse Republicans of?'
Next time someone asks me to cite a source, I'll just cite the Internet.
As a reminder, I asked you to Google a transcript I was quoting from, and you're still bent out of shape.
"Next time someone asks me to cite a source, I'll just cite the Internet."
You normally do that anyway, or just avoid citing anything.
So...business as usual for you.
Y’know who else signed off on the search, Josh? A judge.
But whatevs. The important thing here is innuendo and speculation. And you met the challenge you set for yourself. Kudos.
Oh, and the incumbent president isn’t prosecuting anyone, you tit.
First of all, it was likely a magistrate judge. Who in my experience, are generally not too swift. And often rubber stamp warrant applications.
But even assuming that this one was smart and gave the application attention, the result is only as good as what goes in. GIGO applies here, especially as warrants are almost always issued ex parte.
That's why I want to see the warrant and supporting affidavits. If someone lied to get the warrant (not saying it happened, but it has been known to happen), then all hell will break loose, and right so.
I’ve read you before. Accordingly, I don’t care what you want to see and am far less interested in your opinion.
Well he better not post on this public forum then, since you aren't interested in his opinion!
Your judgement of his is so important to everyone. Thanks for sharing, Bootlicker.
Thanks for the temper tantrum. Stand in the corner until it blows over.
No tantrum, just fact. You’re a moron and you think and post stupid things. That’s all.
Keep standing there in that corner. You'll grow up, eventually.
No he won't.
And you keep being moron who thinks and posts stupid things. Everybody wins!
A judge signed off on the raid that killed Brianna Taylor. So I guess that makes that one ok as well.
Great point. A tragically faulty application of a warrant leading to someone’s death and the legal and, afaik, proper application of a legally issued search warrant are exactly the same thing! Are you sure you’re not Butthead? He was always the smart one.
“One warrant I’ve never seen was good and another warrant I’ve never seen was bad. I know this because that’s what fits my preconceived political opinion”
Goodbye Otis.
One warrant led to the death of an innocent women, one warrant led to a residence being searched with no reported incidents, both of these are just as bad
Nice summation of what I didn’t come close to saying.
Piss off, bevis.
bevis - this is federal. According to some lawyers I trust, that apparently makes a big difference in the quality of the review.
Impeachment hearings coming starting in January.
The wait until November crowd is getting a little nervous
You think Democrats will declare martial law and suspend elections? Because otherwise there's nothing to be nervous about.
Personally, I'm looking forward to September 1, when the student loan payment suspension expires. Biden can either tell his greedy deadbeat voters he lied to them or tell the vast majority of Americans that they're on the hook for their wealthy neighbors' student loans. Seems like a no win situation for Biden on a major issue. ... 22 days left.
Ha ha yeah, overruling Roe won't be a factor, but that will. We'll see.
Forgiving student debt would be amazingly popular with everyone, except, obviously, the ones who supported massive tax cuts for the wealthy that helped drive up inflation, but there's no accounting for them.
Does anyone know which judge or magistrate issued the search warrant? I surmise it was one from the Southern District of Florida, but which one?
Will Trump release a copy of the warrant that was left on the premises?
Did anyone ever figure out what excuse the FBI and DOJ were using to harass Project Veritas over Ashley Biden's diary? Or was that just another case of Biden administration lawfare to cover up the First Family's dirt?
If you ask the Federal Bootlickers around here, that's just another conspiracy theory.
The Federals that the DOJ would NEVER do anything untowards. They are America's Best!
On the Georgia case: In Massachusetts prosecutors sometimes hand a criminal case over to a different county's prosecutor when there is the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Georgia order of disqualification applies only to investigation of Senator Burt Jones, the Republican candidate for Lieutenant Governor in the upcoming 2022 election. Eleven other bogus electors were unsuccessful in seeking disqualification of Willis, and she is free to continue her investigation. Per the order of disqualification, any decision as to whether any charges should be brought against Senator Jones, and what they should be, will be left to a different prosecutor’s office, as determined by the Attorney General. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22120804-order-disqualifying-da-fani-willis-office
The Federals at the FBI will get what they deserve. Hopefully, their families will get it too.
Families? Like, kids too? What do they “deserve”?
Did anyone ever figure out where Hunter Biden's handgun went after the Secret Service collected it from a garbage can? Or was that just another case of Federal Class misprision of felony to cover up the Biden family's dirt?
Yeah, keep beating the Hunter drum all the harder; that's the ticket!!
https://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2019-03-29.html#02
“We are veering into uncharted territories if the incumbent president is prosecuting the former president who is running for re-election.”
Not that much different from Trump ordering his Justice Department to investigate Hillary Clinton.
Did I miss a raid on Hillary Clinton's home? Or is that included in your euphemism "not that much different."
Isn't it different because Trump tried to get the DOJ to investigate his political opponent and was refused, while, so far as we know, Biden has had absolutely nothing to do with this? That seems very different.
Well given that so far Biden has seemed not be even be able to put on his own jacket, that might be true.
See? Even your own mythology informs against it.
Not what happened.
You talk like this raid was ordered by Garland (or Biden). It wasn’t.
So, since you are so in the know, who ordered it?
Have to be a pretty ballsy low level dope to do this on their own.
I would surmise that the decision to seek a search warrant was approved by the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General.
They had to convince a judge that there was probable cause.
Of course, after the determination to apply for the warrant was approved by personnel at the DOJ.
There's no dispute here. Trump's people freely admitted that he brought classified documents to Mar-a-lago after leaving office and the FBI already picked some of them up. He's already violated the law on its face. The only question is how sensitive the documents are.
"Not that much different from Trump ordering his Justice Department to investigate Hillary Clinton."
Did Trump actually order that? As opposed to "tried to order"? Or "requested". Or "called for".
There's a difference, and it's pretty important.
They investigated and found nothing. Look it up.
I have... Didn't find anything about Trump "ordering" a investigation and the FBI following through on it.
Perhaps you can cite something?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-winds-down-clinton-related-inquiry-once-championed-by-trump-it-found-nothing-of-consequence/2020/01/09/ca83932e-32f9-11ea-a053-dc6d944ba776_story.html
Took me about 7.5 seconds to find it.
Did Trump actually order that? As opposed to "tried to order"? Or "requested". Or "called for".
This is some impressively pathetic hair splitting about the President of the United States.
There are very important differences. That you fail to grasp them...well, it's obvious that the adults are talking and you need to upgrade your intellect.
Declassification? A President can do that any way he wants, even without saying anything or even retroactively.
Starting an investigation? The President better invoke the magic words or it's just a request!
No, the President requesting and ordering is not much of a distinction, you desperate dingbat.
What is supposed to happen if the justice department had probable cause to think that Trump had broken the law? Should they wait until after the next election? Give him a pass altogether?
What we're seeing here is that the Trumpsuckers really do believe that Trump is above the law, because they are indifferent to whether he broke it.
Are you at all curious to see the supporting affidavits/declarations for the warrant? Or do you just enjoy throwing out hypothetical questions that you can use to smear your political opponents.
Trump can release the warrant at any time. That he has chosen not to is curious, if it is indeed as flimsy as you imply.
See my comments above. It's the supporting affidavits that are important. Trump does not have those.
You’re not getting those. But you can get a list of what statutes they were searching under which is on the warrant. The warrant that Big Baby still hasn’t released. I wonder why?
Both.
I suspect that practically everyone is curious to see the supporting affidavit for the warrant, which likely remains under seal. I am also curious to see whether Trump will challenge the validity of the warrant and supporting affidavit via a motion for return of property under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g). I will be surprised if he does so.
Nothing about Trump would surprise me at this point. Including that he is really an alien lizard person in disguise.
Maybe give everyone in his orbit immunity deals then refuse to prosecute using the "No Reasonable Prosecutor" standard.
Unfortunately you have a boy who cried wolf problem after 6-7 years of deranged Trump haters foaming at the mouth, making wild claims, conducting endless tedious investigations of unprecedented scale and thoroughness, brazenly lying and covering up, inventing new levels of double standards, and always coming up short.
You claim: "Even Robert Mueller became Inspector Javert."
That is about as partisan a claim as I have seen you make (and you have made many.)
The FBI will regret declaring itself the enemy of 74 million voters and their families.
They're betting they won't, and I can't say it's a bad bet.
On a slightly different tact - the Dem AZ Secretary of State has been credibly accused of participating in election fraud and violating election laws in 2020 to give Biden his narrow victory in her state. She is now running for Governor as the Dem nominee, but will continue to be in charge of elections throughout her own election for higher election.
Cite needed.
You sound like QA. What part needs citation?
Wasn't Arizona the Cyber Ninjas state?
Yeah, figuring out exactly which stream of right-wing nonsense this allegation came from would be a good question to ask, actually.
For what? That Hobbs is the current Sec of State? That she has the Dem nomination for Governor? That there have been accusations that she was instrumental in allowing voter fraud in 2020? And, I should add, was partially funded by George Soros in 2018 when she was elected as Secretary of State, and that Soros funded election officials have been alleged to have either engaged in or facilitated voter fraud.
hat there have been accusations that she was instrumental in allowing voter fraud in 2020?
There have been accusations!! Well, one thing we know about GOP accusations of vote fraud is that they are 99.9% certain to be completely made up bullshit, that only fools like you believe.
Lest we forget, Bruce was the commenter who confidently predicted that the cyber ninja "investigation" was going to expose massive election fraud in the Arizona 2020 election.
And instead it found even more Biden votes.
Guys, he said SOROS.
It's game over; he figured it out. Might as well surrender and turn the Presidency over to Trump.
Sarcastr0 laughs while Soros DAs let criminals free to hurt or kill innocent people.
Pretty telling how many denizens put party before country here in the comments. This is potentially classified national security info, being stored in boxes in the basement of a not exactly secure resort in Florida (anyone remember Ms. Zhang?) They might have put a simple padlock on the door when the archives lawyers visited months ago. This is not good! And yet here we have the ranking member of the senate intelligence committee complaining that the FBI is investigating the suspected large scale theft of highly classified material. Kevin McCarthy says the AG should be prosecuted for even looking into this! Mike turner, ranking member on house intel, admits he hasn’t even yet had a briefing on this but minimizes the seriousness of a large scale breach of classified info. Party before country.
I say release the warrant so we can all see what’s in it. Cmon trump! You can do it anytime!
Just imagine if he had set up his own insecure private email server and conducted government business on it!
Country before party, amiright?
Oh my word the Hilary stuff is just so tiresome. Here’s little marco on that whole meshugaas:
“The FBI concluded what many Americans have known for quite some time, which is that Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State and her mishandling of classified information was disgraceful and unbecoming of someone who aspires to the presidency. There is simply no excuse for Hillary Clinton's decision to set up a home-cooked email system which left sensitive and classified national security information vulnerable to theft and exploitation by America’s enemies. Her actions were grossly negligent, damaged national security and put lives at risk.
"Hillary Clinton's actions have sent the worst message to the millions of hard-working federal employees who hold security clearances and are expected to go to great lengths to secure sensitive government information and abide by the rules. They don't take their oaths lightly, and we shouldn't expect any less of their leaders.
"Hillary Clinton’s reckless and thoughtless mishandling of classified information is not the end of the story however. It’s only a matter of time before the next shoe drops and the nexus of corruption and controversy that has surrounded Hillary Clinton throughout her time in public office produces yet another scandal for the American people to endure. Given the consequential and challenging times in which we live, America simply cannot afford any more Clinton drama."
Feel free to compare and contrast, keeping in mind the conduct here is potentially far worse.
Did the FBI do anything to Clinton remotely similar to what they just did to Trump?
And I don't give a flying fig what some Uniparty Federal Class Republican says about anything.
Maybe they'll do the same thing to Trump as they did to Clinton whenever they find out he was using an unsecured server.
So grant everyone in his orbit immunity than do nothing?
Or investigate to see if a crime was committed, and if there wasn't. do nothing.
In the You Can't Make This Shit Up department, the Democrat judge who signed and sealed the warrant against POTUS '47 was an Epstein lawyer.
lmao, just like the Maxwell judge and that FBI agent in charge of Whitmer's Fednapping. Do the dirty work for the Federals, get promoted.
You want more corkboard and string to tie this all together, or you good?
I’m stealing that. Won’t stomp on your copyright here tho.
Maybe the headline should be “FBI raids home of Epstein-linked Clinton donor”
Stolen from some wag on twitter, I confess.
Which judge or magistrate issued the warrant?
Apparently the warrant was issued by Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, who while in private practice represented some of Jeffrey Epstein's employees in a 2007 investigation. https://nypost.com/2022/08/09/judge-who-approved-fbi-raid-on-mar-a-lago-once-linked-to-jeffrey-epstein/
Cocktail napkins and dinner menus are national security issues guys! Trust the Institutions!
You left out the sentence before:
“The inventory of unclassified items in the boxes that were already recovered from Mar-a-Lago is roughly 100 pages long, according to a person familiar with the unclassified inventory.“
That's covered by the "and more." part.
Why do non-native English speakers spend so much time on American forums?
What does the stuff that got back to the archives months ago have to do with a search warrant from yesterday?
You’re one. Why do you?
OK, now confirmed: The Mar A Largo warrant was indeed issued by a magistrate judge. Bruce E. Reinhart.
An Obama donor whose previous paying gig was representing Epstein's employees.
I'm reminded of Twain's famous remark, "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t." Incidents like this are so over the top you'd never get away with them in a work of fiction.
Lovely.
The warrant was sought for a location in Palm Beach. A magistrate judge whose district includes Palm Beach signed the warrant. Maybe one of the Volokh Conspirators would explain this to their bigoted, delusional, downscale fans if the bloggers here weren't such low-grade, partisan hacks.
It would work in a publishable work of fiction it just doesn’t work in yours. Especially since FBI Director Wray was appointed by Big Baby you have to work in an entire narrative about how Wray is a secret deep stater who washes Clinton’s feet Friday nights and has been caught on tape — which has gone missing! — saying he can’t wait to frame Turnip for the crimes of democrats. Then you have to layer in a bit about how the FBI is rife with EV driving hippies with tattoos of Marx on their backs, followed by some standard Soros-Pelosi-Schumer love triangle, some stuff about Hunter, etcetera ad vomitum.
Did he tell them to breach the door at Mar A Lago, too?
Was the door in fact breached? What is your source of information?
Brett Bellmore.
The DOJ started with this search warrant over mishandling of presidential records, a comparatively small matter which they judged to be to be a slam dunk. DOJ does not need to explain/address anything as the FBI likely got what it was after (at the searched location anyway) and it is their policy not to comment. The right will sputter in impotent rage but that will subside, especially if DOJ does not engage. This is wise. Trump's superpower was to normalize previously unthinkable behavior, which was often a gradual process. This raid will begin the process of normalizing the concept that the laws will be enforced against Trump, notwithstanding his status as a former POTUS and possible future candidate, and regardless of the political reaction.
"laws will be enforced"
For crimes that are totally not completely imaginary this time, unlike all the other times.
I watched the series Gaslit which is about Watergate.
The early episodes were quite comedic, as the bumbling characters plotted to spy on their political opponents. It reminded me of the Get Trump gang at the FBI, the spying on Trump, and the steamy texts between lovers Lisa and Peter.
The other interesting thing was that in Watergate, one side spied on their political opponents, and ended up getting caught and the President was taken down.
In Trumpgate, again one side spied on their political opponents, and although they got caught again, they didn't face any repercussions. And again there was an effort to take down the President, only this time the effort was mounted by the same side that did the spying! And it ended up being based on nothing but lies and innuendo and failing spectacularly, though they were somewhat successful in derailing the presidency.
This is your audience, Volokh Conspirators.
Congratulations to those of you who managed to be hired for work on legitimate law faculties before the Volokh Conspiracy diminished the reputations of its contributors.
Trumpgate
Stop trying to make fetch happen.
Huckleberry denizens! Donald needs you! This went out last night:
“I need every single red-blooded American Patriot to step up during this time,” read the email. “Please rush in a donation IMMEDIATELY to publicly stand with me against this NEVERENDING WITCH HUNT.”
Donations go to the save america joint fundraising committee, cash on hand as of June 30 approximately $7.5 million. Donate early, donate often!
Link please.
Careful now bumble, don’t spend your whole paycheck at once!
Problem providing a link?
Too many comments to sift through. Would be nice if there was some kind of filter to help wade through>
This is not uncharted territory, but it is highly dangerous territory. The left, for whatever reason, it trying to stoke civil war here before 2024. Politically their goose is cooked as of now. All their harebrained schemes have put us drastically close to a depression and even middle class Americans are broke. Their hatred for Trump still runs deep even almost two years after he left office. The rage is so powerful and blinding still.
I fear for what will come if Biden's DOJ actually tries to indict Trump. It is not going to be pretty and many, who already think the powers of a self-governing people simply cannot be vested in anyone who identifies with the modern left, are going to believe they are correct.
We can watch Fox News ourselves, if we want.
'My side will get violent. We will purge anyone who is liberal. This will be the other side's fault, of course.'
That's our Jimmy!
Yeah that is something I never said, but nice try with the gaslighting.
Once again, not gaslighting. Is he trying to manipulate you through psychological means into doubting your own sanity. Are you Ingrid Bergman to his Charles Boyer?
Sarc - do you also beat your dog and wonder why it hates you? Or whenever you see a bear are you tempted to poke it then shocked that it lashes out? (I think we all know the answers to these questions).
" Politically their goose is cooked as of now. "
Democrats control the White House, the Senate, and the House (as well as most of our educated, economically productive, modern, accomplished communities and states).
Republicans seem well-positioned to take control of the House in a few months, but not the Senate.
Republicans are becoming increasingly uncompetitive in national elections (because of the bigotry and backwardness) and seem inclined to nominate a candidate who was a giant loser a few years ago and has done nothing but play a clown for a disaffected, gullible, downscale audience with unpopular ideas.
I believe there just aren't enough bigoted hayseeds left in America to support much chance for Republicans to succeed, and that our nation becomes less racist, less homophobic, less rural, less religious, less misogynistic, less backward, and less xenophobic daily.
Carry on, clingers . . . but only so far and so long as your betters permit.
Playing a clown like the guy who literally reads the teleprompter prompts, can't remember where he is, clearly is suffering from dementia, has to change the definitions of economic terms on the fly to avoid reality, and many more similar examples?
'We are the victims, Trump deserves special treatment and immunity from the law, by extension that treatment and immunity applies to us, if you dare deny us, we reserve the right to be violent!'
I mean in theory I agree with you, but in practice that was totally the line that was used to justify, if not demand acceptance, of BLM looting and violence in 2020 and 2021.....
Special treatment for whites: let Trump break any laws he wants.
Special treatments for blacks: not wanting to get shot by cops.
I mean, Republicans could stop nominating criminals? Have you considered that?
Republicans didn't nominate Hillary and Brandon.
Neither of whom have ever been fined for money laundering, stolen from charities, associated with New York mobsters, was probably a Fed informant, and notoriously loves to stiff subcontractors and lawyers. No wonder they didn't appeal to you.
Well they nominated McCain and Romney, who at their respective times were labelled the reincarations of Adolph Hitler.
In your opinion, were they criminals?
How about just not using the DOJ for political persecution purposes? Let's start out with that and go from there....
Did a bit of research. It is not unheard of to try to get warrant application documents, which are often under seal, at least until there is an indictment.
Here is a case from the S.D.Fla:
https://casetext.com/case/patel-v-united-states-19
To summarize:
1. Many courts hold there is a First Amendment or common law right of access to documents filed with a court, including these documents. This can be raised by both the press and the target of the warrant.
2. To justify keeping the documents under seal, the Government has to show a compelling interest to do so, and that the sealing is the narrowest way to accomodate that interest.
3. The Govt. almost always argues that unsealing the warrant will compromise the investigation, and the court almost always buys that, and denies the sealing.
Nevertheless, I would think some press organization would try to get the warrant application, given its enormous newsworthiness.