Three quick thoughts on what we know about Mar-a-Lago raid so far | Washington Examiner

  
Via:  Just Jim NC TttH  •  4 months ago  •  109 comments

By:   Washington Examiner

Three quick thoughts on what we know about Mar-a-Lago raid so far | Washington Examiner
The FBI raid on Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago is an unprecedented use of federal power against a former president.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

No kidding.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



There is still a lot we don't know about the FBI's execution of a search warrant at former President Donald Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago, but from what little we do know so far, we can already say it is an unprecedented use of federal power against a former president.

The FBI has never raided the home of a former president … until yesterday.

Additionally, it has been widely reported that the search had nothing to do with Jan. 6 and apparently was only related to a possible violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which concerns the proper handling and retention of classified documents.

This would be the same law that Hillary Clinton ran afoul of when she maintained a private email server as secretary of state.

Given these few facts, here are some initial thoughts.

First, given the unprecedented nature of the raid, Department of Justice officials need to be forthcoming with as many details about the raid as quickly as possible. What specifically were they looking for? Why were they looking for it? Why couldn't they have negotiated with Trump's lawyers to obtain what they were looking for?

Second, this has been manna from heaven politically for Trump. After a rough summer of Jan. 6 revelations that had Republican primary voters looking beyond 2020, this raid has the potential to turn Trump into a martyr. When the Department of Justice chooses to ignore Hunter Biden's laptop and lets far-left activists harass Supreme Court justices in their homes, they better have a very good reason to take such a strong interest in a possible violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2071.

Third, no matter what you hear from hack Democratic lawyers, even if Trump was convicted of mishandling documents under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, that would not disqualify him from running for president. The Constitution sets the requirements for who is qualified to run for president, and mishandling classified documents is not listed as a bar to the office.

Yes, 18 U.S.C. § 2071 does say those convicted under the statute are "disqualified from holding any office under the United States," but Congress does not have the authority to change the requirements for who can run for president. That would require a constitutional amendment.

Maybe the documents in question are highly important to national security, and it is worth raiding the home of a former president to secure them. But if they are not, the Department of Justice should expect a lengthy investigation by Congress. In fact, considering how the DOJ has chosen not to investigate other probable crimes, an investigation is surely warranted.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    4 months ago

Let the fun begin..................

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    4 months ago

Interesting info about judge who signed the warrant..and some other articles about the raid

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    4 months ago

Townhall is garbage. 

I read the first article. First of all, right below the article it says

"Editor's Note : Help us defeat the leftist lies about President Trump's tremendous record."

This is supposed to be a believable article? LOL. 

The article has two complaints about the judge who issued the warrant. 

1. He once represented associates of Jeffery Epstein

2. He donated money to both Democratic and Republican (Obama and Bush II) presidential candidates (but not Trump). 

Seriously, that is it. Why do have to put up with this endless drivel from the right? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
1.1.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    4 months ago
Why do have to put up with this endless drivel from the right?

Cuz ya choose to read it maybe?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.2    4 months ago
Cuz ya choose to read it maybe?

I just thank God I dont choose to speak it. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
1.1.4  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    4 months ago

Sorry JR, your go to deflection and denial tactic is well known.

Dispute the the opinions or facts, not the source

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.4    4 months ago
Dispute the the opinions or facts, not the source

If he could, he would have.

Always attack the source when you have no legitimate argument--Democratic Principles #2

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.4    4 months ago

Dispute the facts? I gave you the facts. The articles complaint about the judge is that he represented associates of Jeffery Epstein and he gave money to Obama and W Bush.  That is it. It is ridiculous as an argument that the judge is biased. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.5    4 months ago
If he could, he would have.

I did, [deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.4    4 months ago

Since the sources lie as much as Trump himself, they're fair game.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.7    4 months ago
I did

Surely you jest!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    4 months ago

We shouldn't be having this argument. We should know why this raid was necessary within 90 days of an election?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
1.1.11  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.10    4 months ago

And just what would your timeframe be for alleged crimes to be investigated?  

Sounding a lot like Mitch, without the juice, of course. 

 
 
 
Eat The Press Do Not Read It
Senior Guide
1.1.12  Eat The Press Do Not Read It  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.11    4 months ago

The damage that "Dirty Diaper Don" has done to this country may never be fully repaired. 

Donald J. Trump is a CAREER CRIMINAL, a Swindler, Con Artist, Child Sex Predator, Three Time Married Compulsive adulterer, a self-admitted racist, a constant, non-stop lar, a deeply disturbed Narcissist as barbaric as Nero,, who psychiatrists have described him as "Criminally Insane." 

When Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion there were those who believed that the government had over stepped its authority.

The onion is being peeled, layer by layer revealing four generations of criminal behavior that produced a corrupt empires of self-serving tyrants that flaunted the Rule of Law. 

Today, brick by brick that financial fortress that protected the Uber Rich is crumbling. The extent of it vile exploitation will send shivers up and down the spine of America for generations on how close we came to losing our democracy to looters.

What side of history will you be on...?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Eat The Press Do Not Read It @1.1.12    4 months ago
The damage that "Dirty Diaper Don" has done to this country may never be fully repaired. 

Such melodrama!

Are you for real?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 months ago

violation of  18 U.S.C. § 2071

For those ill informed or don't know how to use google - 18 U.S.C. § 2071

§2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

This would be the same law that Hillary Clinton ran afoul of when she maintained a private email server as secretary of state.

Now with the precedent set with Clinton, I don't see Trump being disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Masters Silent
2.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    4 months ago
Now with the precedent set with Clinton, I don't see Trump being disqualified from holding any office under the United States.

What office has Clinton held since her server incident?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
2.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  SteevieGee @2.1    4 months ago

Luckily none.  But the fact that they ran her for President after the fiasco set the precedent.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Masters Silent
2.1.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.1.1    4 months ago

She would have to be convicted of the crime first.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3  Thomas    4 months ago

Hahahahahahahahahahahah.... 

Wait look over there! It's Hunter Biden's Laptop! 

Squirrel! 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Thomas @3    4 months ago

..... Pay no attention to the liberals behind curtain .....

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Participates
3.2  Sunshine  replied to  Thomas @3    4 months ago
It's Hunter Biden's Laptop! 

Nope...it's "the big guy"

Who is Hunter's "big guy"?  Maybe he calls his private part "the big guy".  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Thomas @3    4 months ago
"Wait look over there! It's Hunter Biden's Laptop!"

Let's see y'all laugh when the Repubs gain control of Congress

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.3.1  Thomas  replied to  Greg Jones @3.3    4 months ago

Why, what are they going to do to me when they gain control? Take away my birthday?  

No. The continuing shit show will then be passed to another party to primp and whine and act all sanctimonious about while democracy slides down the gutter because we are too busy fighting somebody else's dick wars because the people who we get to choose from are driven more and more to the extremes.

"OHHH! You stepped on my pussy!"

"That's right.  And I would have gotten away with it if not for you kidding with my Meddle"

For this we actually have to pay, while elsewhere, the pompous asses are sipping and dining without a care in the world.... 

My lawyers will take care of it. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @3    4 months ago

Seems somebody doesn't know the importance of this particular computer.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.4.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4    4 months ago

They're in denial

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.4.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Greg Jones @3.4.1    4 months ago

I don't think it's denial.  In all honesty I think they are really that ignorant of what's going on.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.4.3  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.2    4 months ago

No. Your lord and savior is going to lick the boots of lady justice.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.4.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @3.4.3    4 months ago

What in the hell are you talking about?  Lord and savior?  [removed]

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.4.5  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.4    4 months ago
What in the hell are you talking about?  Lord and savior?

A try at an "OUCHY" moment. LOL !

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.4.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @3.4.5    4 months ago

I swear people are either day drinking or really have no grasp of what is going on around them.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
3.4.7  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.6    4 months ago

I'll take the later for 400 Jeremy.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.4.8  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.4    4 months ago
[removed for context by charger]

[removed  Let it be known, however, that I just( 5:30) enjoyed my first libation and took a walk with my honey. I will leave it to our readers' (where is Vic, anyways?) imagination just what I drank and what pronouns my lady goes by. Woof!

I am 95.673% positive that the FBI did not run out and just gin up something for the judge to sign. The 4 and change percentage is because, well, stupid people do stupid things everyday, and even smarter people do stupid things occasionally. 

The hunter Biden laptop does concern me,  but only about as much as Grassley's lying ass cares about climate change. Why did the whistle blowers go through Grassley in the first place? (Gosh, I hope I am getting his name right. I hate it when I am trashing the wrong name .... oh,well.  That's just about how much I care about Hunter's laptop.) You know, parenthetically and all! As it relates to trumpkins. Which is to say,  not at all.

Toodles!

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Masters Silent
3.4.9  SteevieGee  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4    4 months ago
Seems somebody doesn't know the importance of this particular computer.

It sure doesn't seem very important to me.  Why all the fuss?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.4.10  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.6    4 months ago

Most people agree that donald should not take documents and hold them.

Why do you all think this is acceptable? And then turn around and accuse others of not knowing what is going on...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.4.11  Ender  replied to  SteevieGee @3.4.9    4 months ago

It's all they have.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.4.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @3.4.8    4 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.4.13  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  SteevieGee @3.4.9    4 months ago
accuse others of not knowing what is going on

Somebody hasn't been paying attention.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.4.14  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.13    4 months ago

So you think it is ok donald took and held government records?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Masters Silent
3.4.15  SteevieGee  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.13    4 months ago

Just kidding.  I don't care.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.4.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.4.14    4 months ago

At what point did I say such nonsense?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.4.17  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.16    4 months ago

At no point have you said otherwise.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
3.4.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ender @3.4.17    4 months ago

So I haven't and you are making shit up as you go.  

Move along [Deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.4.19  Ender  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.18    4 months ago

Nope. Going by what you say or don't say. So with your refusal to say, I will take it that you think it is just fine he took the documents.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
3.4.20  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.4.12    4 months ago

Probably before you,  [removed]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
4  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 months ago
First, given the unprecedented nature of the raid, Department of Justice officials need to be forthcoming with as many details about the raid as quickly as possible.

We all know that this won't happen.

What specifically were they looking for?

They don't know.

Why were they looking for it?

Because well, "but TRRUUUMMMMPPPP".

Why couldn't they have negotiated with Trump's lawyers to obtain what they were looking for?

Then there wouldn't be all this fan fare and drooling by the clueless MAMA supporters.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4    4 months ago
First, given the unprecedented nature of the raid, Department of Justice officials need to be forthcoming with as many details about the raid as quickly as possible.
We all know that this won't happen.

You want to know all the details of an ongoing investigation?  Wow.

        What specifically were they looking for?
They don't know.

Why don't you ask Trump?  He can release his copy of the search warrant which specifies exactly what they were looking for?

               Why were they looking for it?
Because well, "but TRRUUUMMMMPPPP".

Because apparently they had sufficient probable cause to believe that he was still withholding classified and presidential documents, which he was not allowed (by law) to withhold.

               Why couldn't they have negotiated with Trump's lawyers to obtain what they were looking for?
Then there wouldn't be all this fan fare and drooling by the clueless MAMA supporters.

You feel the FBI should negotiate with Trump's lawyers for Trump to stop breaking the law?  Is that really the way you think law enforcement works?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
4.1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    4 months ago

“Is that really the way you think law enforcement works?”

Sad given the ‘law and order’ bent. Situational ethics on steroids with this cult. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
4.1.2  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    4 months ago
Why don't you ask Trump?  He can release his copy of the search warrant which specifies exactly what they were looking for?

No it doesn't

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
4.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.2    4 months ago

No it doesn't

Yes it does.  It must by law.

It must state what they are looking for and where they are allowed to look for it.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5  Mark in Wyoming     4 months ago

Other than the facts that a warrant was served , and a search conducted , everything else is supposition , will just have to wait and see how things flesh out over time .

 2024 is still a long ways over the horizon IMHO.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
5.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5    4 months ago

Sorry, can't help but question the validity of the warrant and the search.  The FBI and Democrats (because this is more than likely a partisan driven hissy fit event) have been all but forthcoming and honest.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1    4 months ago

i was  told to always question everything ,  someone wants to prove their case they will usually be forthcoming with information as it pertains to what they are doing if they found what they were looking for , they will say so , if not they will sorta mumble and not answer questions  , like i said , have to wait until things flesh out .

 dont think anyone wants to be tom cruise on oprahs couch intentionally , unless they are looking for publicity or attention .....

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
5.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.1    4 months ago
someone wants to prove their case they will usually be forthcoming with information

And how forthcoming with information have we seen the FBI and Democrats?  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.2    4 months ago

i ammended my comment to account for that then saw your question ...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.2    4 months ago

And the wheels on the bus go round and around ....

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sparty On @5.1.4    4 months ago

HEHE , unless its an antique bus with crappy suspension , going down a rutted and washboarded dirt road , in that case remove your dentures and tighten the bra straps 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
6  magicschoolbusdropout    4 months ago

The "Library of Congress" ...... DESPERATLY NEEDS........ hmmmmmmmm ..... Something !

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

If the FBI raided the House of an Ex-President and possible political  opponent solely based on archiving issues, we are in really entering into dangerous territory. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
7.1  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Sean Treacy @7    4 months ago
If the FBI raided the House of an Ex-President and possible political opponent solely based on archiving issues, we are in really entering into dangerous territory. 

Well ........ that "Dangerous Territory", actually started in 2016.

Look what took place to try and stop, and get rid of a duly elected President back then. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @7.1    4 months ago

Yes. a lot of this country's problems date back to the refusal of many on the left to accept the results of the 2016 election, most famously by "the resistance."  That led to a reaction by Republicans mad at Democrats....

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
7.1.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.1    4 months ago

Wonder if things will get better ?

Not the Way things look right now, especially how Government "officials" keep "Draaaaaagging" things along to try and make sure, Trump "Can't" run again.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
7.1.3  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.1    4 months ago

Great answer "The Democrats made me do it" /s

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
8  Greg Jones    4 months ago

If they find nothing, Trump becomes a martyr, and the Dems become a laughing stock

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Guide
8.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Greg Jones @8    4 months ago

Aren't they already a laughing stock?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
8.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Greg Jones @8    4 months ago
If they find nothing, Trump becomes a martyr, and the Dems become a laughing stock

Speculating here, but I don't think finding anything is relevant. I think they already have what they wanted from this. To be able to say a former president was raided by the FBI. I think that's the whole enchilada. It's the optics of it that matters most. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @8.2    4 months ago
To be able to say a former president was raided by the FBI. I think that's the whole enchilada. It's the optics of it that matters most. 

If this is simply for the optics, our FBI and the DoJ in general are more corrupt than I would have expected.

-also-

If this is simply for the optics, somebody is not thinking clearly.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
8.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.1    4 months ago

They need to let us know exactly what the warrant was for.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
8.2.3  Thomas  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.2    4 months ago

That is for Trump's lawyers to do 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2.2    4 months ago
They need to let us know exactly what the warrant was for.

There are all sorts of questions that need to be answered.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @8    4 months ago
If they find nothing, Trump becomes a martyr, and the Dems become a laughing stock

Trump's own lawyer stated that the FBI left with cases of documents.

Trump has already returned 17 cases of documents, many of which were deemed classified.  Why is it so hard for you to believe that Trump, who is known to destroy documents, flush documents, and use burn bags on documents, is refusing to return even more documents?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
8.3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @8.3    4 months ago

There's no proof he's refusing to return anything. Everything you say is baseless speculation

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @8.3.1    4 months ago
There's no proof he's refusing to return anything.

Then why did the federal judge sign off on the search warrant, and what did the FBI take with them when they left?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @8.3.1    4 months ago
Everything you say is baseless speculation

The fact that a legal raid was conducted means that the speculation is not baseless.   Speculation, yes;  baseless, no.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
8.3.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @8.3.2    4 months ago

That's how warrants work. He didn't refuse in May, he's unlikely to refuse now.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.3.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @8.3.4    4 months ago
He didn't refuse in May, he's unlikely to refuse now.

His own people stated that he was in "negotiations" with the National Archives to return documents.  Documents, I should point out, that were against the law for him to take and keep in the first place.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.3.6  cjcold  replied to  Ozzwald @8.3.5    4 months ago
that were against the law

Trump's whole adult life has been about flaunting the law.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
8.3.7  Ozzwald  replied to  cjcold @8.3.6    4 months ago
Trump's whole adult life has been about flaunting the law.

And we all are witnesses to his crying and screaming when the law starts catching up.

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Quiet
9  squiggy    4 months ago

"...has the potential to turn Trump into a martyr."

Yea, this has to be a lot bigger than some missing PigglyWiggly shopping notes.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
10  Tacos!    4 months ago

One of the more pathetic things that partisan “journalists” do is ask questions as if someone is refusing to answer. For example:

First, given the unprecedented nature of the raid, Department of Justice officials need to be forthcoming with as many details about the raid as quickly as possible. What specifically were they looking for?

The Constitution actually requires that a warrant state with particularity  “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.“ So all you have to do is look at the warrant, which Trump’s attorney, Christina Bobb did. She said it authorized FBI agents to look for and seize any "presidential records or any possibly classified material."

The warrant will have been based upon a sworn affidavit listing specific reasons why agents felt they had probable cause to believe they would find evidence of a crime on the premises. Anyway, even if it’s not public yet, none of it is really secret. It’s not like those courts they used for that Russia nonsense.

this raid has the potential to turn Trump into a martyr

That sounds like wishful thinking.

even if Trump was convicted of mishandling documents under 18 U.S.C. § 2071 , that would not disqualify him from running for president

Yeah, I think that’s true.

Maybe the documents in question are highly important to national security, and it is worth raiding the home of a former president to secure them.

The feds have previously had to compel Trump to give back things taken from the White House. Apparently, he was not cooperative then, so it maybe should not be surprising that the FBI got a warrant this time.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11  TᵢG    4 months ago
The FBI has never raided the home of a former president … until yesterday.

Trump would be my choice for the most likely former PotUS to legitimately have such a raid.

What specifically were they looking for? Why were they looking for it? Why couldn't they have negotiated with Trump's lawyers to obtain what they were looking for?

Great questions, anxious to get the answers.

After a rough summer of Jan. 6 revelations that had Republican primary voters looking beyond 2020, this raid has the potential to turn Trump into a martyr. 

Probably at this point, worse if nothing of consequence is found.   But if something of consequence is found the tables will likely turn against Trump (except for the irrational die-hards of course).

... even if Trump was convicted of mishandling documents under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, that would not disqualify him from running for president.

Okay ... noted.   

Yes, 18 U.S.C. § 2071 does say those convicted under the statute are "disqualified from holding any office under the United States," but Congress does not have the authority to change the requirements for who can run for president. That would require a constitutional amendment.

Hmmm.   I would like to hear what Tacos! and G2 have to say about that from a US legal perspective.   Seems as though the author is saying that if convicted, Trump could still run but if elected to PotUS he could not be sworn in and hold the office.   

Tacos! @10 believes it is true that conviction would not prevent him from running ... but what about assuming the office?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Freshman Quiet
11.1  afrayedknot  replied to  TᵢG @11    4 months ago

“Trump could still run but if elected to PotUS he could not be sworn in and hold the office.”

The doomsday scenario…there’s the Ft. Sumter too many are itching for. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @11    4 months ago
rump could still run but if elected to PotUS he could not be sworn in and hold the

No. The Constitution  sets the parameters for who can be President. Congress can't alter them by statute. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.2    4 months ago

The full quote is:

TiG@11Seems as though the author is saying that if convicted, Trump could still run but if elected to PotUS he could not be sworn in and hold the office.

Based on my reading the author is mistaken and that a convicted felon, even, could serve as PotUS.   So I think you are correct.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
11.2.2  Thomas  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.1    4 months ago

What about currently serving time?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
11.2.3  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.1    4 months ago

The constitutional requirements to hold the presidency are:

1.  The President must be 35 years old or older.

2.  The President must have been born in the United States, a natural born citizen 

3.  The President must have resided in the United States for at least 14 years.

Someone who is impeached and convicted could be barred from assuming federal office, including the presidency.

The Constitution takes precedence over any statute.

Therefore, under the plain reading of the Constitution, a convicted felon, serving life in prison, could be President.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.2.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @11.2.3    4 months ago
Therefore, under the plain reading of the Constitution, a convicted felon, serving life in prison, could be President.

Now wouldnt that just make a bunch of heads explode .....more like they would have a catiwumpus kaniption fit .....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.3    4 months ago

Thanks G2

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @11.2.2    4 months ago

see @11.2.3

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.7  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @11.2.4    4 months ago

A good reason, right?    Imagine a convicted felon in prison serving as PotUS.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
11.2.8  Thomas  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.3    4 months ago

Yet one more reason to dislike Mitch McConnell. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.2.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @11.2.7    4 months ago
Imagine a convicted felon in prison serving as PotUS.

Ahhh, but nothing says that felon would stay in prison .

 The PotUs has pardoning powers does they not?

 and what would the first presidential act be on swearing in ?

 could it happen ? plausable .. but not probable , but then again , nowdays , who knows .

 biden proved one didnt even have to hit the campaign trail and meet and greet voters to win ...

 now if that were to happen with whom i think it might happen with and they won? i would laugh my effin ass off for a month .

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @11.2.9    4 months ago

Can a PotUS self-pardon?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.2.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @11.2.10    4 months ago

never been done but nothing says they cant . pardons are at the discression of the PotUS.

(just heard many mini explosions ) wait ... that was the dog ....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @11.2.11    4 months ago

Here is part of a discussion on this topic :

Brian Kalt:   [00:04:09] Well, the text is sort of limited in what it tells us. And I think that's the main argument in favor of self pardon ability that  it doesn't explicitly say in the constitution that he can't, and it's a very broad power. But I would say that the text also gives us certain other limits implicit in the definition of what a pardon is and what granting a pardon is. So the argument is granting a pardon is inherently bilateral. You can't grant something to yourself. You can't pardon yourself. The word "pardon" comes from the same Latin root as the words "donate" and "condone." You can't donate something to yourself. You can't condone your own actions. It just, it doesn't make sense. And by analogy, we have the notion that we mentioned before that you can't pardon future ac ts. The constitution doesn't say that either, but it is implicit in just the notion of what a pardon is. And so the textual argument would be a self pardon doesn't make any more sense than a self donation. It just doesn't compute.
 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.2.13  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @11.2.12    4 months ago

and in reality , is there anything that forbids the PotUS from pardoning themselves ?

theory is nice , but reality is real .

 there would need to be a constitutional amendment to change the stated powers of the president and in particular the powers to pardon .

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
11.2.14  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @11.2.10    4 months ago

Just because nothing says a President can't pardon himself doesn't mean he can. 

There is no language in the Constitution that says a President can pardon himself.  The Framers would undoubtedly be horrified by the thought.

A fundamental concept in American jurisprudence is that no one is above the law. 

A President pardoning himself would violate that basic rule and would elevate the President above the law.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.2.15  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @11.2.14    4 months ago
A fundamental concept in American jurisprudence is that no one is above the law.

and by giving any president the power to pardon anyone places the president themselves "above  the law " to be used as they see fit . meaning one can be convicted by the law , but the president can say nope , your pardoned . so your point holds as much water as a spagetti collander .

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
11.2.16  Gsquared  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @11.2.15    4 months ago

The pardon power most definitely does not in any sense elevate a President above the law.  The pardon power is, in fact, an aspect of our jurisprudence, athough, it can certainly be abused.  A self-pardon would violate our most fundamental legal principle and is definitely not contemplated by the constitutional pardon power.

The other fundamental rule it would violate is that no one may be a judge in his own case.  That is expressly recognized in regard to the notion of a self-pardon by the DOJ.

So, your argument is as solid as a wet noodle, to further your analogy.

The matter has never been decided by a court, but my position is the far better and more persuasive argument than your misapprehension that the pardon power elevates the President above the law.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
11.2.17  Gsquared  replied to  Thomas @11.2.8    4 months ago
Yet one more reason to dislike Mitch McConnell.

As if there weren't enough already.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.2.18  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Gsquared @11.2.16    4 months ago

The matter has never been decided by a court, but my position is the far better and more persuasive argument than your misapprehension that the pardon power elevates the President above the law.

 and i have said it has never been decided in court all along , mainly because it has never been done . but i AM open minded enough to think of what AND  how would happen and what would need to happen for it to happen as well as the arguments both for and against no matter how implausable the sitution might be .

 your talk of morals and ethics in the legal community is all fine , but they are individually subjective and depend on the people involved  so what would be a violation of legal theory is entirely up to them , granted they will be taken into consideration of what the majority of the society at that time has agreed to conform to in the end . but the majority can both be fickle and change its mind . and lest we forget , a legal theory can be nullified by the people themselves in a jury box , one can be guilty as hell , but not be convicted and set free by a simple jury of their peers , remember prohibition?

In the case of a president self pardoning , i have mentioned no names , but have stated if this were to come to pass , i CAN see one person trying to do so , but i will say who i think would attempt to now 

IF trump were convicted of anything and sent to jail , AND he ran for office from jail and won , I could see what we are discussing come about  and of course , like i said , many heads would explode  and it wont be the dog  this time , and the matter would end up in the courts for an answer , also remember we would be looking at and experiencing the morals and the ethics of that particular individual in question , can you honestly say , that you cant see trump taking that path if he thought it was open to him and attempting it ?

It would result in a test of legal theory against legal reality and exactly what is written be it constitutionally or within any law or statute .

And that will likely result in another thing i said would need to happen , an amendment to the constitution redefining presidential pardon powers with limitations, because as pointed out , no legislation superceded the constitution or how it is written and the morals and ethics of the players definitely comes into play in such a case  and if they have neither , whats to stop them ? , which started the discussion , if a convicted felon could run for office , and what would happen if they won.

 i thank both you and Tg for the brain exersize , sometimes they can be fun , delving into things others take for granted or have not thought about 

 here is a morning chuckle for you ,

 murphys law says if it can go wrong it will go wrong , OR if it can happen it will happen .

Mark in wyomings law as adopted when heard from dad and grandparents ? murphy was an optimist , so hope for the best but plan for the worst.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
11.2.19  Thomas  replied to  Gsquared @11.2.14    4 months ago

Well, just think about that in context. Trump showed zero interest in prior precedent and anything not denied explicitly by statute or the CotUS he considers he can do... 

He has already shown us that repeatedly.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
12  Dismayed Patriot    4 months ago
given the unprecedented nature of the raid

We've seen recently how useless 'precedent' is so it should certainly not be used as a shield to protect a criminal President.

Also, while this may be "unprecedented", so was Donald Trump and his intentional illegal attempt to overturn the results of the election. While the FBI has "never raided the home of a former president" before, that doesn't mean shit when a President is breaking the law and violating section 18 U.S.C. 1924, "Unauthorized Removal and Retention of Classified Documents or Material." which makes it a crime makes to knowingly remove classified documents with the intent to retain them in an unauthorized location.

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg of Trumps crimes and just because a Presidents home was searched doesn't mean the searching is somehow the real issue, anyone claiming such nonsense is clearly being motivated by their sick depraved loyalty to a personality and not the constitution.

I've no doubt we're going to hear more whining and gnashing of teeth from Trumps loyal ass licking right wing conservative sycophants, but I truly believe justice will prevail in the end and he and his cadre of criminal enablers will be exposed, and their traitorous crimes brought to light.

 
 
 
Diablo Imperius
Professor Participates
13  Diablo Imperius    4 months ago

It would seem entirely appropriate to know what prior efforts were made to obtain, retrieve, identify or disclose the nature of any documents being sought in the search.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
14  Nerm_L    4 months ago

We're still waiting for an indictment.  And, as we've seen, the Biden administration even botches that up.  Are we supposed to believe that Biden wasn't briefed about a raid on a former President's residence?  Who's really in charge?  Who's running the US government?

Democrats no longer have a choice; Trump must be indicted.  Sending the FBI on a fishing expedition won't be enough.  And weaseling out with some sort of petty bogus crime simply won't cut it. 

You know, the world is watching.  Biden is already perceived as a weak, bumbling President around the world.  Building a firewall between Biden and DOJ only tells world leaders that Biden has lost control of his own government.  The stability of the US government is in question.  Democrats are creating a perception among world leaders that the United States is a threat to both adversaries and allies because no one is leading the United States.

Biden's legacy will be a United States in decline.  Turning Trump into a martyr will only worsen the world's perception of Biden.  Democrats are only proving they are the smartest stupid people on the planet.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
14.1  JBB  replied to  Nerm_L @14    4 months ago

IOW, "Whatever you do, don't throw Trump into that briar patch"...

original

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
14.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @14.1    4 months ago
IOW, "Whatever you do, don't throw Trump into that briar patch"...

It's far too late for memes.  There is no choice now.  Trump must be indicted for a crime against the state.  There isn't any wiggle room and there's no way to weasel out now.  The world is watching.

Making Biden appear weaker will only invite confrontation from adversaries and apprehension among allies.  The lack of leadership from a weak President threatens stability of the world order.  You know, Pelosi's little stunt in Taiwan sent a clear message to world leaders that Biden in not in control of his own government.  Biden cannot even exert any control over his own political party.

If Trump is not indicted for a crime against the state then the risk of war grows larger.  Adversaries will be trying to take advantage of Biden's weakness.  And allies will be reticent to depend upon Biden's leadership.  So, giggle all you want.  The world is watching.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
14.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JBB @14.1    4 months ago
"Whatever you do, don't throw Trump into that briar patch".

Love the Uncle Remus connotation  im sure we all remember his story of the briar patch , but the question remains , who is brer fox , brer bear and brer rabbit ?

time will tell

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Sophomore Principal
14.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Nerm_L @14    4 months ago
Who's really in charge?  Who's running the US government?

Well, Biden does defer to Pelosi's permission to answer questions.

"I'm happy to take questions, if that's what I'm supposed to do, Nance. Whatever you want me to do."

 
 

Who is online




Vic Eldred


20 visitors