FBI search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago (Update: Trump Indicted!)

[SN2903]

Also dems managed to unite Andrew Yang, Mike Pence, Larry a Hogan, Andrew Cuomo and Donald Trump. LOL

[Dr. MB]

I can't believe I'm going against the thread grain for once, but by my appraisal, it's perfectly reasonable to demand an explanation when such unprecedented actions are taken.  It doesn't necessarily mean that Trump and friends aren't guilty of criminal actions, but it speaks more to the transparency that should exist.  

Feds are sneaky

[OSR stands with Israel]

I can't believe I'm going against the thread grain for once, but by my appraisal, it's perfectly reasonable to demand an explanation when such unprecedented actions are taken.  It doesn't necessarily mean that Trump and friends aren't guilty of criminal actions, but it speaks more to the transparency that should exist.  

The problem is that people are trying to falsely accuse Democrats have raiding Trump's house over nothing when that simply isn't the case. And with that said the only person owed an explanation immediately was already notified. You all want to blame Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, etc. but you are radio silent on the fact that Trump can release the warrant now. It's not going to hurt anyone to wait for the authorities to detail what all this is about.

No PQG and Larry Hogan in that tweet is just asking for transparency and really that shouldn’t be such a hard demand to agree to

[It’s so Joever]

I can't believe I'm going against the thread grain for once, but by my appraisal, it's perfectly reasonable to demand an explanation when such unprecedented actions are taken.  It doesn't necessarily mean that Trump and friends aren't guilty of criminal actions, but it speaks more to the transparency that should exist.  

The problem is that people are trying to falsely accuse Democrats have raiding Trump's house over nothing when that simply isn't the case. And with that said the only person owed an explanation immediately was already notified. You all want to blame Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, etc. but you are radio silent on the fact that Trump can release the warrant now. It's not going to hurt anyone to wait for the authorities to detail what all this is about.

No PQG and Larry Hogan in that tweet is just asking for transparency and really that shouldn’t be such a hard demand to agree to

As said Trump has the warrant. The FBI is not going to release sensitive information during the process because that’s f**king stupid, so where is the demand for Trump to release the warrant? He was the one who said there was a raid, he has the warrant let’s see what it says.

[Hindsight was 2020]

https://mobile.twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1557117185964785666
I find it more concerning that Trump lied about security docs he had than what the fbi did

[GALeftist]

I can't believe I'm going against the thread grain for once, but by my appraisal, it's perfectly reasonable to demand an explanation when such unprecedented actions are taken.  It doesn't necessarily mean that Trump and friends aren't guilty of criminal actions, but it speaks more to the transparency that should exist.  

The problem is that people are trying to falsely accuse Democrats have raiding Trump's house over nothing when that simply isn't the case. And with that said the only person owed an explanation immediately was already notified. You all want to blame Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, etc. but you are radio silent on the fact that Trump can release the warrant now. It's not going to hurt anyone to wait for the authorities to detail what all this is about.

No PQG and Larry Hogan in that tweet is just asking for transparency and really that shouldn’t be such a hard demand to agree to

OSR, let's imagine that Wray releases a letter, say, a couple weeks before the election, in which, in an attempt to increase transparency, he says that the FBI has "learned of the existence of [documents] that appear to be pertinent to the investigation" in the aftermath of the raid. This fuels existing speculation that Trump was knowingly or unknowingly providing classified documents to enemies of the United States, causing Democrats to overperform in the midterms. November comes and goes and now it turns out that they aren't gonna charge Trump with anything after all. In your opinion, would this be better or worse than the FBI just keeping their mouths shut?

(This is a purely fictional hypothetical. Any similarity to actual events or persons living or dead is entirely coincidental. Unless...?)

[Crumpets]

Personally, if I had to pick between the FBI investigating random low-level political activists or ordinary families and just constantly raiding the houses of former officials and high-ranking politicians, I'd pick the latter any day, and I really can't imagine why that would be controversial with anybody. If we have to have a domestic intelligence agency, let them go raid Chappaqua and wherever the Obamas are living nowadays. Go raid Crawford and heck, maybe check to make sure Jimmy Carter didn't stash any docs from Operation Eagle Claw in the walls of some house he built with Habitat for Humanity. All good with me. If you are elected to assume all the power of the Presidency, you should expect your life to be under constant scrutiny - from the feds, from the media, from everyday citizens, from your own family - from that point until your dying day.

[Badger]

If this is not related to the January 6th investigation then yes this is bad . Otherwise this opens up other presidents for prosecution given pretty much every president probably could be convicted under abuse of power statues and they would every time the other side takes the White House .

Jan 6th was the exception because of how bad it is , but this does not come to meeting that level. Otherwise abuse of power charges could pretty much lead to the prosecution of Bush , Obama and maybe even Clinton as well

Or, and just hear me out now, maybe he violated the law in a way that was unrelated to his ex-erable wrongdoing related to the January 6th insurrection, and the law should apply to him equally as it should any president or ex president. Shocking I know.

[Fight for Trump]

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3594172-clinton-plugs-but-her-emails-merch-after-fbi-raids-trump-home-for-records/

Hillary Clinton is poking fun at Donald Trump, highlighting her “But Her Emails” merchandise in the wake of the FBI executing a search warrant on the former president’s Florida home.

“Every ‘But her emails’ hat or shirt sold helps [Onward Together] partners defend democracy, build a progressive bench, and fight for our values,” the former secretary of State wrote on Twitter on Tuesday.

“Just saying!” Clinton said.

[Badger]

If this is not related to the January 6th investigation then yes this is bad . Otherwise this opens up other presidents for prosecution given pretty much every president probably could be convicted under abuse of power statues and they would every time the other side takes the White House .

Jan 6th was the exception because of how bad it is , but this does not come to meeting that level. Otherwise abuse of power charges could pretty much lead to the prosecution of Bush , Obama and maybe even Clinton as well

If Trump stashed national security secrets in his home safe and hasn't complied with surrendering them resulting in the FBI bring involved, should be just be allowed to get away with it?

Of course not. And the same goes for Bush, Obama, and maybe even Clinton. Lock them all up if warranted.

He he gave those to others than yes I’d agree then he should be charged otherwise no . I think these crimes are the ones that presidents really should be charged with :

- Treason
- Trying to illegally overturn elections
- Trying to Physically harm political opponents


Other than that let the political arena and the public  deal the consequences out

JFC that is unconscionable. Literally indefensible. Legally, ethically, morally, or intellectually.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If this is not related to the January 6th investigation then yes this is bad . Otherwise this opens up other presidents for prosecution given pretty much every president probably could be convicted under abuse of power statues and they would every time the other side takes the White House .

Jan 6th was the exception because of how bad it is , but this does not come to meeting that level. Otherwise abuse of power charges could pretty much lead to the prosecution of Bush , Obama and maybe even Clinton as well

Or, and just hear me out now, maybe he violated the law in a way that was unrelated to his ex-erable wrongdoing related to the January 6th insurrection, and the law should apply to him equally as it should any president or ex president. Shocking I know.

I explained how this could harm our foreign policy . Like we done shady stuff since 1945 which could result in the prosecution of any president since then and imo that would be terrible since the good we have done has clearly outweighed the bad .

[OSR stands with Israel]

If this is not related to the January 6th investigation then yes this is bad . Otherwise this opens up other presidents for prosecution given pretty much every president probably could be convicted under abuse of power statues and they would every time the other side takes the White House .

Jan 6th was the exception because of how bad it is , but this does not come to meeting that level. Otherwise abuse of power charges could pretty much lead to the prosecution of Bush , Obama and maybe even Clinton as well

If Trump stashed national security secrets in his home safe and hasn't complied with surrendering them resulting in the FBI bring involved, should be just be allowed to get away with it?

Of course not. And the same goes for Bush, Obama, and maybe even Clinton. Lock them all up if warranted.

He he gave those to others than yes I’d agree then he should be charged otherwise no . I think these crimes are the ones that presidents really should be charged with :

- Treason
- Trying to illegally overturn elections
- Trying to Physically harm political opponents


Other than that let the political arena and the public  deal the consequences out

JFC that is unconscionable. Literally indefensible. Legally, ethically, morally, or intellectually.

This has basically been what we have done for decades anyway

[GeorgiaModerate]

I can't believe I'm going against the thread grain for once, but by my appraisal, it's perfectly reasonable to demand an explanation when such unprecedented actions are taken.  It doesn't necessarily mean that Trump and friends aren't guilty of criminal actions, but it speaks more to the transparency that should exist.  

It is a longstanding DOJ policy to not publish search warrants unless/until an indictment is announced.  This is only fair to those being searched. 

As others have said, Trump is free to publish the warrant if he wants to.  That he chooses not to publish it makes a statement of its own.

[Hammy]

Also dems managed to unite Andrew Yang, Mike Pence, Larry a Hogan, Andrew Cuomo and Donald Trump. LOL

Awful people do tend to stick together. That they're coming to Trump's defense reflects far more negatively on them than it does the FBI.

[Badger]

Astonishing abuse of power. I can't defend this lawless administration anymore.

Obvious sock is obvious

[Badger]

If you want to go criminally after him , just focus on Jan 6th imo and nothing else

We all saw the photos of clear plastic boxes full of documents being packed up from the White House on Jan 19-20, 2021.  Why not try to find out whether or not he was illegally absconding with papers that were subject to the Presidential Records Act?

It'd be nice to hold Trump accountable for literally any of his crimes, but why focus on one specific avenue and ignore all others?

Cause of the precedent you would set . Like I said should Bush have been prosecuted for Guantanamo Bay or Obama for drones

Precedent? You want to talk president? How about establishing a precedent that one doesn't prosecute a president or ex-president for criminal wrongdoing severe enough for your own appointees to sign off and execute a search warrant because... well, to be frank you really aren't offering any sort of particular rule or guideline or other rationale to follow this other than it might make Republicans upset.

Seriously, even you can understand surely that if we're talking about establishing president, that is dead last among those that should be set.

[Badger]

If you want to go criminally after him , just focus on Jan 6th imo and nothing else

We all saw the photos of clear plastic boxes full of documents being packed up from the White House on Jan 19-20, 2021.  Why not try to find out whether or not he was illegally absconding with papers that were subject to the Presidential Records Act?

It'd be nice to hold Trump accountable for literally any of his crimes, but why focus on one specific avenue and ignore all others?

Cause of the precedent you would set . Like I said should Bush have been prosecuted for Guantanamo Bay or Obama for drones

Why not?  If crimes have been committed, they should be impartially investigated and prosecuted if necessary.  Anything else is a deeply troubling excuse for abuse of power.

Maybe this can actually set a precedent that as president you can't just do illegal stuff and let off the hook. Prosecuters should follow facts and the evidence. If a future Democratic president does something unlawful, he or she should be equally investigated.

Do you feel Bill Clinton was guilty of obstruction of Justice during the Lewinsky scandal and should’ve been removed from office? I’m not talking about the lying under oath charge in that case - I am specifically asking about the obstruction charge.

If he was guilty then, should he be prosecuted now?

You’re setting the precedent after all that Presidents can be charged with crimes after they leave office, for things done in office. If we set that precedent, it must be applied retroactively to Clinton and Bush Jr (IE Bush’s lies for the Iraq War).

Well, part of the rationale for the DOJ's opinion that sitting Presidents should not be charged while in office is that they could then be charged after leaving office, even for crimes committed in office.  If you can't charge them while in office or after they're out of office, it means they have carte blance to commit any crimes they want during their terms without fear of consequence.  Is that really what you want?  It would be a complete affront to the rule of law; NOBODY is above the law.  In the case of a sitting President, justice may be delayed to avoid disrupting the functioning of government, but it cannot be denied entirely.

If the DOJ thinks they can make a case against Clinton for obstruction, or Bush for the Iraq War, then by all means they should bring it.  It's worth noting that the DOJ had a draft indictment of Nixon for conspiracy to defraud the United States (the same crime the other Watergate conspirators were convicted of) ready to go after his resignation, but it was mooted by Ford's pardon.

And Ford was right to pardon Nixon

Arguably so. But fine. Leave that to the ominous and waiting decision of the president of the United States whether to do so, not by any means preemptively ignoring, failing to fully investigate, or writing off the option of criminal prosecution to begin with.

[Badger]

If you want to go criminally after him , just focus on Jan 6th imo and nothing else

We all saw the photos of clear plastic boxes full of documents being packed up from the White House on Jan 19-20, 2021.  Why not try to find out whether or not he was illegally absconding with papers that were subject to the Presidential Records Act?

It'd be nice to hold Trump accountable for literally any of his crimes, but why focus on one specific avenue and ignore all others?

Cause of the precedent you would set . Like I said should Bush have been prosecuted for Guantanamo Bay or Obama for drones

Why on Earth are you trying to compare "Guantanamo Bay and drones," to the taking of classified documents?
It's not even apples and oranges. It's more like apples and toothbrushes.
Your argument is silly.

[Badger]

No the reason why we are unable to deal with Trump is cause nobody has found a way to break his popularity with right of center voters in this nation . Do that and he is finished

It probably says a lot about the moral character of right-of-center voters that they still support Trump in spite of/because of everything he's done, no?

Not really , as the people I know who support him are extremely nice and kind people .

Really nice and kind people don't storm the Capitol

Well they did not

But still support Trump having driven a crowd to do so in order to undermine an election result. Tomato tomato. In other words at best that makes them merely treason enablers rather than outright traitors.

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/RealKyleMorris/status/1557124532485427201

Not sure if this is the best place to put this but the feds took Scott Perry's phone

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

https://twitter.com/RealKyleMorris/status/1557124532485427201

Not sure if this is the best place to put this but the feds took Scott Perry's phone

Oh how I would love to have a representative who wasn't a complete disgrace.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/RealKyleMorris/status/1557124532485427201
Not sure if this is the best place to put this but the feds took Scott Perry's phone

I think it's more likely to be J6-related, so I mentioned it in the megathread.

[Ferguson97]

I simply do not care 98%-99% of the time what someone’s politics are when judging whether they are a good person or not.

I fundamentally do not understand how you can think that someone's beliefs are irrelevant to their moral character.

Political beliefs aren't like preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, or liking Star Trek better than Star Wars. They are an inherent aspect of someone's character.

Unless you view ultimately view politics as a hobby or a pastime, and have absolutely zero emotional investment in anything that you're talking about, then you really should view politics as a reflection of one's moral character.

For example: deporting all immigrants, even those who came here legally, is an evil idea. So it would  follow that anyone who supports that idea is an evil person. Banning married same-sex couples from adopting children is an evil idea. So it would follow that anyone who supports that idea is an evil person.

Not trying to overturn elections and respecting the peaceful transition of power are the bare minimum from what we should expect from our elected officials. So if an elected official doesn't meet those expectations, as Donald Trump has, then he is an evil person. So it would follow that anyone who supports him is an evil person.

Like, I know that you're not an absolutist on this. KKK members believe that the white race is superior and that all other races are inferior. This is an evil belief. So it would follow that anyone who holds these beliefs. I would very much hope that you believe that KKK members are all evil, and that this falls under the 1-2% of exceptions that you implied!

So my question to you is, where do you draw the line? When are political beliefs sufficiently evil that you would be willing to call someone who holds those beliefs an evil person?

[wbrocks67]

Might as well post it on each page that the hysterics coming from all sides of the media could be toned down if they just admitted what we already know - that Trump could clean this up and just say what the warrant said but he won't.

But if the reports are true and they had to seize 10 MORE boxes because Trump was essentially hiding it from them and thought he could get it away with it, then MAL deserved to be searched.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I simply do not care 98%-99% of the time what someone’s politics are when judging whether they are a good person or not.

I fundamentally do not understand how you can think that someone's beliefs are irrelevant to their moral character.

Political beliefs aren't like preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, or liking Star Trek better than Star Wars. They are an inherent aspect of someone's character.

Unless you view ultimately view politics as a hobby or a pastime, and have absolutely zero emotional investment in anything that you're talking about, then you really should view politics as a reflection of one's moral character.

For example: deporting all immigrants, even those who came here legally, is an evil idea. So it would  follow that anyone who supports that idea is an evil person. Banning married same-sex couples from adopting children is an evil idea. So it would follow that anyone who supports that idea is an evil person.

Not trying to overturn elections and respecting the peaceful transition of power are the bare minimum from what we should expect from our elected officials. So if an elected official doesn't meet those expectations, as Donald Trump has, then he is an evil person. So it would follow that anyone who supports him is an evil person.

Like, I know that you're not an absolutist on this. KKK members believe that the white race is superior and that all other races are inferior. This is an evil belief. So it would follow that anyone who holds these beliefs. I would very much hope that you believe that KKK members are all evil, and that this falls under the 1-2% of exceptions that you implied!

So my question to you is, where do you draw the line? When are political beliefs sufficiently evil that you would be willing to call someone who holds those beliefs an evil person?

1. I do not necessarily believe someone holding an evil belief on a particular issue makes them evil or supporting an evil person necessarily makes them evil .

2. Yah basically the 1-2% are Neo Nazis , KKK members , or unironically supportive of terrorist groups like ISIS etc .