I understand the arguments related to probable cause but that is a two way street. There was more than enough probable cause in the case of Hillary Clinton and the secret server in her home, and that classified document and emails were located on that server but where was the highly publicized search of her home by 30 FBI agents.
Why was Sandy Berger only convicted of a misdemeanor for stealing and destroy documents from the National Archives related to Bin Laden and the Clinton administration?
This is why there is a very real perception of two standards of Justice in this that is based on political affiliation.
Double standards. And in the case of Mar-a-lago, it's preemptive. In other words, you want to get something on Trump and have a story ready if things heat up for Hunter or The Big Guy.
Merrick Garland (i) is not a good person, (ii) has obliterated the reputation he cultivated over decades on the DC Circuit, (iii) took the AG job to get political payback, and (iv) is clearly being controlled/manipulated/handled by those around him at DOJ. It's like The Faculty.
So I see you presume no bad faith on the part of Garland, the most partisan and intellectually dishonest AG dating back at least to John Mitchell. (See Jonathan Turley’s analysis on Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel in the Biden Family corruption scandal, often mistakenly localized only to the President’s son. Or see the whistleblower giving the lie to Garland’s testimony that the DOJ was not targeting parents at school board meetings. Or see the Grassley letter setting forth the whistleblower evidence relating to the suppression of the Hunter Biden investigation. Etc.) I suspect that when a Republican House majority investigates this dangerous precedent in American political and legal history your presumption will be proven wrong and, if so, I will expect to read here the jurisprudential equivalent of Captain Renault’s exclamation: “I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.” Yes, it is indeed shocking, but it is not surprising.
I will happily admit I was wrong if the hearings unearth such evidence—and I explicitly acknowledge the possibility in my post. But here it appears that he at least got Chris Wray’s buy-in. (I don’t think the other decisions you cite would have involved Wray or a magistrate judge.)
David, several years ago we were lectured incessantly on how we could depend on a FISA Court warrant in what we now know as the Clinton financed Russian Collusion Hoax. Turns out that it was crap. A warrant from a magistrate doesn’t impress me. As for Christopher Wray, the FBI in his time has been exposed as a political cesspool and his promises to clean it up have been ineffective in the extreme. See the Grassley letter or the various communications from Senator Johnson. Wray, I’m afraid, is a tool.
1. If it was a violation of the Presidential Records Act, why not a subpoena? Hillary Clinton destroyed documents, servers, kept a private server with classified documents in her home. Where was the search warrant then? Why immunity for her staff? Did they raid her house? Sandy Berger. Barack Obama. James Comey. No raids. Except for a slap on the wrist for Berger, no consequences The list goes on and on.
2. So a criminal fishing expedition is AOK against a former President of the United States? Wow.
3. They can pick up evidence in plain view. Nine hours to find incriminating evidence “ in plain view”.? In Melanie Trumps clothes closet?
4. Trump voluntarily provided millions of documents to the special prosecutor, but they now think he will hide something?
5. Tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of hours, multiple hundreds of investigators and attorneys over the last five years to find a crime Trump may have committed, and so far they have come up with zero. With those kinds of resources, and the thousand of crimes on the books, they could find a crime committed by virtually any of us. Trump must be purer than the driven snow. They won’t find a crime here either unless it’s a General Flynn crime like the Logan Act.
6. No public comment because of an ongoing investigation, but anonymous leaks to the Legacy media. Us minions have no right to know, only members of the Brotherhood of Saints. If there was nothing nefarious about this, why not be transparent?
At The Guardian, Moira Donegan suggests that Garland's newfound courage might be the result of realizing that, if the House of Representatives is dominated by the GOP, then he and the Department of Justice will be attacked regardless of whether Trump is investigated or not. She writes, "If Garland is going to be punished for upholding the law and for not upholding the law, then the consequences for action and inaction become [difficult] to tell apart. He may as well do his job."
You seem to be implying that unless the search at Mar-A-Lago produces evidence of “serious” crimes - such as those associated with Jan. 6 - the AG shouldn’t prosecute. Given that Trump doesn’t use emails and doesn’t seem to write things down, the evidence of serious crimes is much more likely to come from testimony of those who talked to Trump and the people they talked to, and their texts and emails and written documents. Whatever Mar-A-Lago yields or doesn’t, the AG should use all available evidence in deciding whether to prosecute. Personally, I think that evidence of Trump’s criminality exists, will be obtained by the FBI and DOJ, and will persuade Garland to prosecute.
In my view, the elephant in the room is the mystery of why the former President kept the documents in the first place. George Conway has speculated that Trump kept them because he is a narcissist. I don't buy that. Would he "show off" the retained papers as a mark of status? Would he gold-plate them?
Another poster here (Mark Neuberger) has suggested that the papers might be retained in order to cover up evidence of previous crimes. Again, I do not find this plausible for several reasons: First, Trump was not a big record-keeper, and would have been unlikely to generate such records. Second, if such incriminating records existed, why keep them? Why not destroy them?
Recent reports indicate that among the retained documents are some sensitive nuclear secrets. Keeping these makes even less sense -- seems inconsistent with either of these explanations.
So, inquiring minds would like to know why he retained the documents.
Whether evidence is "strong" is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion Trump could be convicted by juries of all three scenarios if the trial were in the District of Columbia, whereas a fair trial (to both sides) could be held in the Southern District of Florida, venue would also be proper. Want to guess which venue DOJ would pick?
I think someone should conduct a scientific poll in the District of Columbia about political bias when serving on a jury. "If asked to serve on a jury, what would your bias be against a Republican, a Democrat, or a nonpartisan, on a scale of 1-10. 10 meaning conviction irrespective of the evidence." Chances are they'd outdo even New York City.
Why is no one speculating the boxes contain documents pertaining to 1) inappropriate Russian influence 2) incriminating documents regarding Ukraine/ Hunter Biden 3) Illegal dealings with (pick your foreign country including but not limited to Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, etc.). I am.
I know what he was thinking. Something along the lines of “You took away my PRECIOUS. Sneaky little Trumpses. Now you pay!” Thank goodness he was kept off the Court. Dodged one right there. Also, way to go tarnishing a sterling reputation on the DC Circuit. Goes to show people can put on an act for a long time.
I understand the arguments related to probable cause but that is a two way street. There was more than enough probable cause in the case of Hillary Clinton and the secret server in her home, and that classified document and emails were located on that server but where was the highly publicized search of her home by 30 FBI agents.
Why was Sandy Berger only convicted of a misdemeanor for stealing and destroy documents from the National Archives related to Bin Laden and the Clinton administration?
This is why there is a very real perception of two standards of Justice in this that is based on political affiliation.
Double standards. And in the case of Mar-a-lago, it's preemptive. In other words, you want to get something on Trump and have a story ready if things heat up for Hunter or The Big Guy.
Love anonymous posters projecting their own imagined malfeasance onto others with sterling reputations
Merrick Garland (i) is not a good person, (ii) has obliterated the reputation he cultivated over decades on the DC Circuit, (iii) took the AG job to get political payback, and (iv) is clearly being controlled/manipulated/handled by those around him at DOJ. It's like The Faculty.
So I see you presume no bad faith on the part of Garland, the most partisan and intellectually dishonest AG dating back at least to John Mitchell. (See Jonathan Turley’s analysis on Garland’s refusal to appoint a special counsel in the Biden Family corruption scandal, often mistakenly localized only to the President’s son. Or see the whistleblower giving the lie to Garland’s testimony that the DOJ was not targeting parents at school board meetings. Or see the Grassley letter setting forth the whistleblower evidence relating to the suppression of the Hunter Biden investigation. Etc.) I suspect that when a Republican House majority investigates this dangerous precedent in American political and legal history your presumption will be proven wrong and, if so, I will expect to read here the jurisprudential equivalent of Captain Renault’s exclamation: “I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.” Yes, it is indeed shocking, but it is not surprising.
I will happily admit I was wrong if the hearings unearth such evidence—and I explicitly acknowledge the possibility in my post. But here it appears that he at least got Chris Wray’s buy-in. (I don’t think the other decisions you cite would have involved Wray or a magistrate judge.)
David, several years ago we were lectured incessantly on how we could depend on a FISA Court warrant in what we now know as the Clinton financed Russian Collusion Hoax. Turns out that it was crap. A warrant from a magistrate doesn’t impress me. As for Christopher Wray, the FBI in his time has been exposed as a political cesspool and his promises to clean it up have been ineffective in the extreme. See the Grassley letter or the various communications from Senator Johnson. Wray, I’m afraid, is a tool.
Where to begin?
1. If it was a violation of the Presidential Records Act, why not a subpoena? Hillary Clinton destroyed documents, servers, kept a private server with classified documents in her home. Where was the search warrant then? Why immunity for her staff? Did they raid her house? Sandy Berger. Barack Obama. James Comey. No raids. Except for a slap on the wrist for Berger, no consequences The list goes on and on.
2. So a criminal fishing expedition is AOK against a former President of the United States? Wow.
3. They can pick up evidence in plain view. Nine hours to find incriminating evidence “ in plain view”.? In Melanie Trumps clothes closet?
4. Trump voluntarily provided millions of documents to the special prosecutor, but they now think he will hide something?
5. Tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of hours, multiple hundreds of investigators and attorneys over the last five years to find a crime Trump may have committed, and so far they have come up with zero. With those kinds of resources, and the thousand of crimes on the books, they could find a crime committed by virtually any of us. Trump must be purer than the driven snow. They won’t find a crime here either unless it’s a General Flynn crime like the Logan Act.
6. No public comment because of an ongoing investigation, but anonymous leaks to the Legacy media. Us minions have no right to know, only members of the Brotherhood of Saints. If there was nothing nefarious about this, why not be transparent?
This wasn’t political? Right.
6.
6.
.
4.
At The Guardian, Moira Donegan suggests that Garland's newfound courage might be the result of realizing that, if the House of Representatives is dominated by the GOP, then he and the Department of Justice will be attacked regardless of whether Trump is investigated or not. She writes, "If Garland is going to be punished for upholding the law and for not upholding the law, then the consequences for action and inaction become [difficult] to tell apart. He may as well do his job."
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/08/10/doj-source-calls-raid-a-spectacular-backfire-claims-ag-garland-didnt-approve-it-n488788
The FBI being unaccountable and stupid is the Occam's Razor explanation to this whole situation.
“Can we give Kentucky to the Russian Federation?” -- Tim Thibault head of the FBI’s Washington field office
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-the-hell-has-happened-to-the-fbi-chapter-342872/
You seem to be implying that unless the search at Mar-A-Lago produces evidence of “serious” crimes - such as those associated with Jan. 6 - the AG shouldn’t prosecute. Given that Trump doesn’t use emails and doesn’t seem to write things down, the evidence of serious crimes is much more likely to come from testimony of those who talked to Trump and the people they talked to, and their texts and emails and written documents. Whatever Mar-A-Lago yields or doesn’t, the AG should use all available evidence in deciding whether to prosecute. Personally, I think that evidence of Trump’s criminality exists, will be obtained by the FBI and DOJ, and will persuade Garland to prosecute.
In my view, the elephant in the room is the mystery of why the former President kept the documents in the first place. George Conway has speculated that Trump kept them because he is a narcissist. I don't buy that. Would he "show off" the retained papers as a mark of status? Would he gold-plate them?
Another poster here (Mark Neuberger) has suggested that the papers might be retained in order to cover up evidence of previous crimes. Again, I do not find this plausible for several reasons: First, Trump was not a big record-keeper, and would have been unlikely to generate such records. Second, if such incriminating records existed, why keep them? Why not destroy them?
Recent reports indicate that among the retained documents are some sensitive nuclear secrets. Keeping these makes even less sense -- seems inconsistent with either of these explanations.
So, inquiring minds would like to know why he retained the documents.
Whether evidence is "strong" is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion Trump could be convicted by juries of all three scenarios if the trial were in the District of Columbia, whereas a fair trial (to both sides) could be held in the Southern District of Florida, venue would also be proper. Want to guess which venue DOJ would pick?
I think someone should conduct a scientific poll in the District of Columbia about political bias when serving on a jury. "If asked to serve on a jury, what would your bias be against a Republican, a Democrat, or a nonpartisan, on a scale of 1-10. 10 meaning conviction irrespective of the evidence." Chances are they'd outdo even New York City.
Why is no one speculating the boxes contain documents pertaining to 1) inappropriate Russian influence 2) incriminating documents regarding Ukraine/ Hunter Biden 3) Illegal dealings with (pick your foreign country including but not limited to Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, etc.). I am.
I know what he was thinking. Something along the lines of “You took away my PRECIOUS. Sneaky little Trumpses. Now you pay!” Thank goodness he was kept off the Court. Dodged one right there. Also, way to go tarnishing a sterling reputation on the DC Circuit. Goes to show people can put on an act for a long time.
Brain. Next.
I looked you up. Glass houses. Rocks. Don't throw rocks. NEXT.