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

[Horus]

Soon...

He'll never see one second in a cell. Not that he doesn't deserve it.

[Horus]

This could be the start of the 2nd American Civil War.

Nah, Years of Lead is a better example.

[Horus]

The walls are closing in..

Part 3456.

Yawn.

Yeah, a federal judge signing off on the surprise raid of the home of a former president under criminal investigation is no big deal at all!

Meh..


Trump will continue to be badgered by politically motivated investigations for the rest of his life.. I make no apologies in tuning out of yet another round of the "walls are closing in."

What could Trump do for you to no longer support him?

[Horus]

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

I like Gerald Ford, but no, pardoning Nixon was a terrible idea. The lack of accountability that occurred with Nixon is part of why we're dealing with all of Trump's s***.

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

You are disillusional and so are other "NeverTrumpers" to even think about of that Trumps Popularity can be broken.

IT CAN'T AND IT WON'T!

People have to deal with it!

Yeah, this isn't cult like at all.

[Horus]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1557934998782631936

I’m sure he thinks he’s doing what he pulled with his tax returns — keep saying “I want to release them, but my lawyers…”

Except in this case it’s up to a judge who will immediately see through that.

Or Garland and the DoJ overplayed their hand. Garland doesn't seem like the type to bark with a weak bite but you never know...

[Horus]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

How can you have an honest debate with a person that refuses to acknowledge the rightful winner of the 2020 election? If we can't agree on election results, math and counting how do you expect an honest debate?

[Horus]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

How can you have an honest debate with a person that refuses to acknowledge the rightful winner of the 2020 election? If we can't agree on election results, math and counting how do you expect an honest debate?

Just say you agree to disagree and move on to something else.

In order for a debate to be successful and a resolution to be reached, both parties must agree on basic facts like "the sky is blue" and "Biden won the 2020 election."

[Horus]

I mean I actually think it would be reckless for DOJ not to consider the political consequences of such a decision. Going after a former president is inherently political no matter what anyone says and that's why it should not happen other than the most serious of circumstances.

I do not agree with your belief that the President should be above the law except under extreme circumstances.

The real world isn’t a high school civics class and the fact is it also would result in many many other members of previous administrations being potentially prosecuted given that technically our foreign policy since 1945 probably has resulted in laws being broken by multiple administrators.

Like I said I don’t think Eisenhower or Nixon should have been prosecuted for Their use of the CIA , LBJ for Gulf of Tonkin lie , Reagan/Bush for Iran Contra , W for Guantanamo Bay , Obama for how he used drones etc .

I for one am hoping for a "real world" that is still subject to the rule of law though.

Like I said Trump having nuclear documents is a different story than if they were other ones .

Well then what's the point you're even arguing? You are in agreement with almost everyone here, except some of the Republicans you like to defend tirelessly.

We atlas conservatives may have disagreements and some time strong ones but we stand by each other when they are being harshly attacked and nobody else is coming to their defense.

That's so bizarre and cultish. You are not an election denier or totally out of touch with reality, but you "defend" Trump fanatics who are (people who don't have much in common with you, and utterly nothing on this issue) all because Republicans = good and Democrats = bad and that outweighs everything else.

When I find myself agreeing more with Republicans than Democrats, I just state my opinion and move on. I don't stick around and take up for people I disagree with just for tribalism. We're all adults here and can take care of ourselves. Likewise, I would expect a Democrat who opposes the FBI action to come here and try to "defend" me either.

Did I say Fuzzy was right on this issue, no I did not. I just pointed out how his views are being misrepresented and not being debated honestly.

How can you have an honest debate with a person that refuses to acknowledge the rightful winner of the 2020 election? If we can't agree on election results, math and counting how do you expect an honest debate?

Just say you agree to disagree and move on to something else.

In order for a debate to be successful and a resolution to be reached, both parties must agree on basic facts like "the sky is blue" and "Biden won the 2020 election."

You can have a discussion with Fuzzy on criminal justice reform without talking about the 2020 election

Sure. We're not talking about that though.

[Horus]

This won't change minds. MAGA 100%

This isn't about changing minds.  It's about investigating potential (and very serious) crimes and national security violations.

There is no crime, Trump is the president or ex president according to some Americans, he is right to have those documents. And let's not pretend that any attempt to lock Trump up would not seriously jeopardize the social stability of this country.

Uh ex presidents do not have the right to those documents unless the current president gives them authorization to have them

Well, because of the "circumstances" that put Biden in the oval office, there is reasonable doubt about his authority in this case.

Learn how to count.