A Deeply Fractured US

[QV]

Unlikely. The people responsible know that if such a gamble fizzled, the blowback would be immense.

I'm not sure it would be. The Russia Collusion hoax was an attempt to influence the course of American history by fraudulent means and was carried out in great part by people trusted to safeguard the very Constitution.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Trump, DOJ, FBI.

Seems like none of them have the moral high ground or above bending rules to get what they want with this on-going drama.

 

[QV]

If the Raid on Mar-a-Lago Was Not Justified, Then What? | National Review

Let’s define some terms.

www.nationalreview.com

"I know nothing more about the details than anyone else, but I’ll lay out my own views on this as best I can. They are:

• that the warrant must immediately be made public
• that as the head of the executive branch, Joe Biden must explain to the country what happened today (yes, it’s Biden’s concern: progressive wishes to the contrary, the DOJ is not some free-floating fourth branch of government, it is under the president’s purview)
• that, for the raid to be justified, the warrant and the explanation must clearly reveal (a) that there was an urgent need to obtain evidence that pertained to a serious crime, (b) that this evidence could not possibly have been obtained by other means, or on another occasion, or without a surprise visit, and (c) that, if the target was not named Donald Trump, a similar operation would have been launched
• that if this standard is not met, Merrick Garland must resign or be impeached, as must the head of the FBI
• that the FBI must be examined and reformed as a matter of utmost priority There will be more George Conways and David Axelrods on TV and on Twitter today. Any hot takes from them that omit the crucial “then what?” part of the equation will be next to useless."

 

[Good2Golf]

Did we forget the FBI/DOJ did in fact falsify information to courts over Trump in the past?

You mean when the FBI wasn’t run by a Trump appointee, like it is now?

 

[QV]

You mean when the FBI wasn’t run by a Trump appointee, like it is now?

Irrelevant to the situation. But it does go contrary to what you and others above are insinuating when say that; that Trump only appointed people completely loyal to him.

 

[Good2Golf]

Irrelevant to the situation. But it does go contrary to what you and others above are insinuating when say that; that Trump only appointed people completely loyal to him.

Where did I ever say that? I was factually pointing out that the FBI is currently directed by a Trump appointee, Christopher Wray. Simple matter of record.

 

[QV]

Where did I ever say that? I was factually pointing out that the FBI is currently directed by a Trump appointee, Christopher Wray. Simple matter of record.

And it is irrelevant.

 

[QV]

Andrew McCarthy, no Trump fan, writes:

The FBI’s Mar-a-Lago ‘Raid’: It’s about the Capitol Riot, Not the Mishandling of Classified Information | National Review

This search was almost certainly about much more than classified documents.

www.nationalreview.com

"This search was almost certainly about much more than classified documents.
There’s a game prosecutors play. Let’s say I suspect X committed an armed robbery, but I know X is dealing drugs. So, I write a search-warrant application laying out my overwhelming probable cause that X has been selling small amounts of cocaine from his apartment. I don’t say a word in the warrant about the robbery, but I don’t have to. If the court grants me the warrant for the comparatively minor crime of cocaine distribution, the agents are then authorized to search the whole apartment. If they find robbery tools, a mask, and a gun, the law allows them..."

 

[dapaterson]

Theft of TSSA material is not a minor crime.

 

[Good2Golf]

And it is irrelevant.

What would be relevant, then?

 

[Good2Golf]

Andrew McCarthy, no Trump fan, writes:

The FBI’s Mar-a-Lago ‘Raid’: It’s about the Capitol Riot, Not the Mishandling of Classified Information | National Review

This search was almost certainly about much more than classified documents.

www.nationalreview.com

"This search was almost certainly about much more than classified documents.
There’s a game prosecutors play. Let’s say I suspect X committed an armed robbery, but I know X is dealing drugs. So, I write a search-warrant application laying out my overwhelming probable cause that X has been selling small amounts of cocaine from his apartment. I don’t say a word in the warrant about the robbery, but I don’t have to. If the court grants me the warrant for the comparatively minor crime of cocaine distribution, the agents are then authorized to search the whole apartment. If they find robbery tools, a mask, and a gun, the law allows them..."

You mean, McCarthy is a Clinton fan?

I just have misread his book…

Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency: McCarthy, Andrew C.: 9781641770255: Amazon.com: Books

Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency [McCarthy, Andrew C.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency

www.amazon.com

 

[Remius]

And it is irrelevant.

It’s relevant because the accusation from the pro trump side is that this is politically driven. The fact that he is a Trump appointee lessens that argument to a degree.

Apparently senior White House and democrat officials only found out when we all found so that also lessens it.

Doesn’t mean it isn’t the case but this looks like a by the book operation that had enough smoke to warrant a warrant. I am sure they are all being very careful about how they go about this.

 

[dapaterson]

Another perspective.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557042679275479046

 

[IKnowNothing]

Theft of TSSA material is not a minor crime.

Yeah, the whole "this is a sham, the completely legitimate warrant for the potential of an offence serious enough to bar one from holding office might have the ulterior motive of also gaining evidence about attempting to overthrow an election" isn't exactly damning criticism.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Theft of TSSA material is not a minor crime.

Still irrelevant. It could have been obtained by other, less intrusive means.
No theft of TSSA documents has been established.
Of course, there is the 'whataboutisms' just to muddy things. Like, why wasn't Clinton charged with wiping and bleaching 33,000 emails after being supeaonaed for said documents.

 

[brihard]

Because they could've got the documents through other, less intrusive, less spectacular legal means. Trump was already working with the National Archives for the examination and possible turn over of disputed documents. There was zero purpose to the raid except to take his private correspondence and sift through it for wrong doing. They have put their own heads in a noose. They opened the door to raiding as high up as a former POTUS. A decision that will haunt them the rest of their days. They'll be held accountable through impeachment, committee hearings and senate oversight. And they will do it whether Trump is allowed to run or not. Mind, as soon as it comes to Biden being nailed, you can expect him to become too mentally frail to understand what's going on and be questioned.

You’re completely unqualified to say this. As am I. As is anyone here. The reason I say that is because none of us have access to the sworn, sealed affidavit submitted to the court to establish grounds to believe the existence of a federal offence, and to believe evidence would be found at that location. This is not a small thing to do; the last one I wrote to go into a residence a few weeks ago was around 65 pages long. This is not an “I suspect and therefore I want”; you have to convince a judge that your grounds to believe are subjectively and objectively reasonable and are well founded on a basis of solid information. You’re way out of your depth trying to speak to this, or trying to claim that they could not have grounds, or that there would be other less intrusive means. Even if there were, the law does not require that.
If the grounds exist to believe evidence will be located, a search warrant can be granted. We cannot know if perhaps there are grounds to believe that not all material was handed over, or perhaps that copies were illegally kept. If information was kept that was classified, particularly if any was TSSA, that’s not a small deal.

If the Raid on Mar-a-Lago Was Not Justified, Then What? | National Review

Let’s define some terms.

www.nationalreview.com

"I know nothing more about the details than anyone else, but I’ll lay out my own views on this as best I can. They are:

• that the warrant must immediately be made public
• that as the head of the executive branch, Joe Biden must explain to the country what happened today (yes, it’s Biden’s concern: progressive wishes to the contrary, the DOJ is not some free-floating fourth branch of government, it is under the president’s purview)
• that, for the raid to be justified, the warrant and the explanation must clearly reveal (a) that there was an urgent need to obtain evidence that pertained to a serious crime, (b) that this evidence could not possibly have been obtained by other means, or on another occasion, or without a surprise visit, and (c) that, if the target was not named Donald Trump, a similar operation would have been launched
• that if this standard is not met, Merrick Garland must resign or be impeached, as must the head of the FBI
• that the FBI must be examined and reformed as a matter of utmost priority There will be more George Conways and David Axelrods on TV and on Twitter today. Any hot takes from them that omit the crucial “then what?” part of the equation will be next to useless."

Not sure who the author of that opinion piece is, but clearly his grasp of the law is limited. None of that he pouts about is how a search warrant or an affidavit to get one work. If Trump chooses to disclose the search warrant he can, but otherwise the warrant and the affidavit to get it are court records subject to certain handling by law. If US law works at all similarly to ours (and for something this rudimentary it probably does), the affidavit is likely sealed at least while the investigation is ongoing and before the matter goes to a grand jury or court. To reveal the specific contents of the affidavit could basically blow an ongoing investigation by virtue of what’s contained within it.

The materials should all eventually become public, but that doesn’t happen on the basis of someone’s tantrum. It happens in the due course of judicial proceedings.

Ultimately either there is evidence to support criminal offences or not. That will most definitely become clear in the fullness of time. Probably not that much longer, as executing a search warrant on a residence is an irrevocable transition of a criminal investigation from a covert to an overt phase, and there’s only so much more you can do once the offence being investigated and some of the investigative steps become extremely public. Investigative avenues become more more limited once a case is in the open. If charges are laid, the accused, whoever they may be, will I’m sure have plenty of lawyer to throw at this and ensure due process continues as it has thus far.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Don’t let any white noise distract from the fact that a federal judge issued the warrant based on a sworn affidavit detailing probable cause that a criminal offence was committed, and that specific, identifiable evidence would be located in the place to be searched. Police don’t get to do this just because they feel like it.

Breonna Taylor might say different, if she could....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Your right on that of course. Im not qualified. However, I've been watching lawyers all morning, including Constitutional ones. I am simply repeating what they are saying. When it comes to US law, I'll side with them for legal opinion. The simple proven facts of the FBI malfeasance in obtaining warrants, using false information, is established. It makes your legal, Canadian way of obtaining a warrant purely academic and irrelevant. Not making light of your knowledge on the subject and while informative, I don't believe it has much to do with this. So thanks for that. I also don't expect any kind of fair reporting by most of the MSM, including cbc, ctv and global.

This is their last full court press before the midterms. If it doesn't come off perfectly for them, they are finished.

 

[lenaitch]

If the Raid on Mar-a-Lago Was Not Justified, Then What? | National Review

Let’s define some terms.

www.nationalreview.com

"I know nothing more about the details than anyone else, but I’ll lay out my own views on this as best I can. They are:

• that the warrant must immediately be made public
• that as the head of the executive branch, Joe Biden must explain to the country what happened today (yes, it’s Biden’s concern: progressive wishes to the contrary, the DOJ is not some free-floating fourth branch of government, it is under the president’s purview)
• that, for the raid to be justified, the warrant and the explanation must clearly reveal (a) that there was an urgent need to obtain evidence that pertained to a serious crime, (b) that this evidence could not possibly have been obtained by other means, or on another occasion, or without a surprise visit, and (c) that, if the target was not named Donald Trump, a similar operation would have been launched
• that if this standard is not met, Merrick Garland must resign or be impeached, as must the head of the FBI
• that the FBI must be examined and reformed as a matter of utmost priority There will be more George Conways and David Axelrods on TV and on Twitter today. Any hot takes from them that omit the crucial “then what?” part of the equation will be next to useless."

"that, for the raid to be justified, the warrant and the explanation must clearly reveal (a) that there was an urgent need to obtain evidence that pertained to a serious crime, (b) that this evidence could not possibly have been obtained by other means, or on another occasion, or without a surprise visit"​

​

I'm certainly no expert in American procedural law, but I'm not convinced that a US federal search warrant has to justify an 'urgency' criteria, or show that the sought after articles could have been obtained by other means. What other means? I suppose they could have asked nicely.

 

[brihard]

Breonna Taylor might say different, if she could....

If the best you have is speculation that police lied in their grounds, in what will assuredly be the single most scrutinized judicial authorization in American history, than I don’t know what to tell you. There’s a difference between the the world that will go into the investigation of a former president and a warrant in federal court, versus what goes into a low level drug file at the state level.

I've been watching lawyers all morning, including Constitutional ones. I am simply repeating what they are saying. When it comes to US law, I'll side with them for legal opinion.

Those lawyers are also unqualified to make the assertion you’re claiming, because they also don’t have access to the sworn affidavit. Only someone who is actually informed about the specifics of the sworn grounds the affiant relied upon to obtain the warrant can comment knowledgeably about this. Republican lawyers getting paid for TV spots have no special authority here. Not them, not me, not you. The affiant, the judge, and the lawyers who reviewed the affidavit are the ones who have this knowledge unless someone leaks the affidavit.

"that, for the raid to be justified, the warrant and the explanation must clearly reveal (a) that there was an urgent need to obtain evidence that pertained to a serious crime, (b) that this evidence could not possibly have been obtained by other means, or on another occasion, or without a surprise visit"​

​

I'm certainly no expert in American procedural law, but I'm not convinced that a US federal search warrant has to justify an 'urgency' criteria, or show that the sought after articles could have been obtained by other means. What other means? I suppose they could have asked nicely.

I don’t believe it does. A search warrant, as you and I well know, is very routine and doesn’t require ‘urgency’ or exhaustion of investigative avenues the way, say, a wiretap might. The words you quoted are those of a pundit who apparently doesn’t know much about judicial authorizations.