The search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago compound, as seen through the eyes of a veteran FBI agent

HUSKERinLA

Nebraska Legend
Gold Member
Nov 25, 2007
27,908
37,629
113
Do you really think the Feds are against him because of Trump's corruption? When have they ever gave a flying shit about corruption? This is the Federal Gov we are talking about.

It's ultimately about power and control. Question is, what are they willing to do to get it?
You just get dumber and dumber.
 

rgrachek

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
14,424
15,154
113
Frank Montoya Jr. is a retired FBI senior official who served as the national counterintelligence executive, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and special agent in charge of two FBI field offices. Excellent collection of facts and clearly makes a point.


"Let me start by stating the obvious.

The execution of a federal search warrant at the residence of a former U.S. president is more than an extraordinary occurrence.

Fact is, things like that just don’t happen.

Pick a presidential scandal in our history —Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra or Whitewater. It just doesn’t happen. Not until Monday, anyway, when a host of FBI special agents, lawful warrant in hand, rewrote the history books forever.

Now, let me tell you why the FBI search of the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida on Monday is such a big deal.

The former president of the United States is suspected of committing a crime. As obvious as that may seem given all that has transpired over the past seven years — yes, you would be spot on for thinking “duh” — the fact of the matter is that, as a nation of laws, we’ve never had a president who has been so antipathetic towards them.

Still, while no one, not even a former president, is above the law, the presumption of innocence is an important tenet of American jurisprudence. We, all of us, even corrupt former presidents, are afforded the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution when it comes to things like searches and seizures, protections against self-incrimination, and the right to trial by jury.

Two centuries of justice under a constitutionally established rule of law ensures that.

Which is why the criticisms coming from the supporters rushing to the former president’s defense in the wake of the search make no sense. Those supporters, many of whom are lawyers, know what due process and the rules of evidence are. They claim to be well-versed in the Bill of Rights. What’s more, their phony outrage directly undermines that long tradition of American jurisprudence.

The FBI executes search warrants all the time. Contrary to the fearmongers and conspiracy theorists amongst us, they are not political acts. Not even when directed against a politician. The reason for their use is simple and straightforward — to find evidence of a crime.

The process to obtain a warrant is also straightforward (though not always simple). Investigators and prosecutors working together set forth facts obtained during an investigation to establish a “reason to believe” (also known as probable cause, or PC) that a crime was committed. In the case of a bank robbery, for instance, those facts might include a detailed description of the robber, a license plate of the getaway car, fingerprints, the amount of money stolen, and other information of an evidentiary nature from witnesses, confidential human sources or technical means. Those facts are then presented to a magistrate who reviews them and decides whether or not to authorize the warrant. If a warrant is authorized, investigators proceed to the location to be searched and execute it.

In the matter of the search executed on the former president’s residence, all these steps were surely followed. And then some. I speak from experience that a search like this, especially in the current political environment, would have been scrutinized at all levels of the FBI and DOJ before it even went to the magistrate. From a practical perspective, standard PC determinations — like those in a bank robbery — would not have been sufficient. Like it or not, the former president’s status as a former president would not have allowed it.

Instead, given his privileged status (not to mention the aforementioned political environment), the information supporting the PC in the warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago would have had to go way beyond the norm. It wouldn’t be enough, for example, for a source to say, “I believe the smoking gun is in the safe.”

He, she or it would almost certainly have had to provide a specific and timely first-hand witness that they knew it was in the safe. A high-definition picture of the smoking gun would have helped, too.

Put another way, the evidence supporting the PC would have to be good enough to get a warrant and be trial worthy, which is to say, beyond a reasonable doubt (a much higher standard than “reason to believe”).

Yes, that kind of thing drives investigators nuts, but there it is.

What’s more, the basis for a warrant such as this one would had to have been approved all the way up to the U.S. attorney general himself before it went to the magistrate.

It’s a rigorous process, and rightly so. To diminish it as the former president’s supporters have attempted to do (by calling it a “Third World” act) is a reprehensible offense not only to the rule of law, but to the Constitution itself. That’s a Constitution that they loudly pretend to support and defend until it won’t do their bidding.

But I digress. Much more important than the mendacity coming from the former president’s supporters is what happens next in the investigative process.

Despite all the hoops investigators have had to jump through to get it authorized, and in spite of the fact that the target was a former president, Monday’s activity at Mar-a-Lago was still just the execution of a search warrant. An investigative step. While the former president’s own attorney has already indicated “paper” was seized — which means investigators got something — it must be reviewed and determined if it can support further investigation. And even if it is something of significant value (for instance, the elusive “smoking gun”), there will still be much more work to do before criminal charges can be brought.

That said, I can’t help but think about what happened to Paul Manafort (the former president’s campaign manager) and Michael Cohen (his former personal attorney) after their residences were searched. The PC standards for them were very high, too, and yet look at what they yielded.

Indictments. Arrests. Convictions.

True, the former president is not them. He has proven himself adept at dancing between the raindrops without getting his hair wet when it comes to questionable actions in and out of office. He beat two impeachments and a wide-ranging investigation involving Russian interference in our national elections. He has, thus far, also avoided consequences for allegedly fomenting an insurrection and perpetuating baseless lies about an election he lost, by a lot. And while we continue to struggle with a pandemic that won’t go away and supply chain problems that affect everything from electronic devices to automobiles to baby formula, nobody in his sphere mentions the disastrous trade war with China that exacerbated all of it.

But the FBI and its DOJ partners know what they’re up against. They know what’s at stake. And they know what they must do to serve justice. The well-executed search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was just the beginning. Now it’s about bringing charges and proving them. It’s never an easy task, especially with a subject as wily (and lucky) as the former president, but this time I can’t help but feel like they are finally onto something that will stick.

What’s more, despite all the accusations the minority leader of the House of Representatives leveled at DOJ and the FBI in the aftermath of the search, the simple truth is that it was a direct result not of “weaponized” law enforcement out to “persecute” a politician, but the crass incompetence and blatant disregard for American values that have marred the former president’s cult of personality since its inception.

The cult, it seems, is finally collapsing under its own gross obesity. As it does, we may be getting to the point that the myth the former president could shoot someone on Fifth Ave. and not lose any votes is about to be shattered."
Can one of you guys articulate in a cogent manner any serious crimes that Trump is even alleged to have committed?

Sure, we can make up anything that we think he could have done, just like for anyone else. But what are the "crimes" here? Just look at the above. The guy above writes an entire article and has nothing, just a bunch of baseless policy slams that are frankly an embarrassment to the writer.

This guy is trying to convince us us that this was all on the up and up and underwent a rigorous process. What a load of crap!

Seriously, anyone want to take a shot at that and not fear the embarrassment of the beat down you'll get for doing so?
 

rgrachek

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
14,424
15,154
113
Georgia call, Ukraine call
And what were the "crimes"? To my knowledge, a President can talk to a foreign leader about some corrupt shit that one of our citizens is committing in their country. No crime here. Also, it's not illegal for a President to inquire to a State when there is suspicion of voter fraud here in Georgia (there was clear fraud). No crime here.

Aren't you just a little embarrassed calling a call that 20 other people were on a crime? Do you understand that this is why now that 60% of the population thinks that you guys are a freaking joke? You can only gaslight people so long before they eventually turn on you.

Try again!

Oh, BTW, is the President telling the public that we have zero inflation on the same day that the government reports 8.4% inflation a crime (lying to America)? Is it not a crime if you're incoherent?
 

ScarletNCream

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Jan 4, 2007
17,000
29,924
113
And what were the "crimes"? To my knowledge, a President can talk to a foreign leader about some corrupt shit that one of our citizens is committing in their country. No crime here. Also, it's not illegal for a President to inquire to a State when there is suspicion of voter fraud here in Georgia (there was clear fraud). No crime here.

Try again!

Oh, BTW, is the President telling the public that we have zero inflation on the same day that the government reports 8.4% inflation a crime (lying to America)? Is it not a crime if you're incoherent?

So you’re fine with a president leveraging foreign aid to try and get dirt on a potential political opponent? You’re also ok with the president pressuring officials in states to try and find illegal votes for one side? Jfc
 

ScarletNCream

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Jan 4, 2007
17,000
29,924
113
Fact check

Even Zelensky didn't see it as a quid pro quo.

Fair, but anyone who reads those transcripts knows full well what he was trying to do and the leverage he had. But yeah, I’m willing to concede that the quid pro quo was never specifically outlined
 

Jim14510

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
21,190
44,754
113
Fair, but anyone who reads those transcripts knows full well what he was trying to do and the leverage he had. But yeah, I’m willing to concede that the quid pro quo was never specifically outlined
That and the aid was held up for like 2 days (don't know exactly but it wasn't very long). The call about the corruption was more than just Joe and Hunter too.

Edit: Was actually a couple of months.
 

Jim14510

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
21,190
44,754
113
Fair, but anyone who reads those transcripts knows full well what he was trying to do and the leverage he had. But yeah, I’m willing to concede that the quid pro quo was never specifically outlined
Main point is if someone insults another person and the other person sees it as a compliment. Is it an insult or a compliment?
 

rgrachek

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
14,424
15,154
113
So you’re fine with a president leveraging foreign aid to try and get dirt on a potential political opponent? You’re also ok with the president pressuring officials in states to try and find illegal votes for one side? Jfc
I'm not fine with that. Problem is that that is NOT what happened and you good and well know it.

Trump was talking to the Ukrainian President about corrupt Americans doing dirty deals with corrupt Ukrainians. It just happened to be Hunter Biden, the POS son of the then democratic candidate. For some reason, you guys seem to think that if you're running for President, then you and your family get a pass from scrutiny. The President is fully allowed to legally threaten to withhold aid if they don't respond. For God's sake, this is precisely why we give foreign aid, for leverage. Also, Joe Biden is on tape as Vice President boasting that HE threatened to withhold foreign aid unless they stopped investigating Hunter. This is such a made up issue, it's nauseating.

What the hell is the matter with you people!? The Biden family have used Joe's position in the Government to illegally make money around the world for decades, and since Joe Biden is so compromised by China and Russia, they can do what they want with them. And you jackasses go after Trump for trying to bring this to light? Really? Trump was essentially trying to save us from the mess we are in now, and you guys are too freaking stupid to understand what's going on and has been going on now since 2008. Hillary Clinton did the same thing that Joe Biden did and has never paid the price. Same for Obama and many of his close circle.

As far as Georgia, I live here and understand a lot of things that you don't. They shut down counting votes in Fulton County for many hours overnight on election day because of a "water pipe leak" that was never verified. During those hours, a lot changed, and the remainder of the votes counted after that went around 90% for Biden. This kind of thing happened all over the state and Trump call them out on it. The congressional elections generally mirror the presidential election, but not Georgia 2020. Regardless of whether this is all true (it is), Trump did NOTHING that can even remotely be construed as a CRIME. He simply called them to get their shit together. We've made changes. This crap won't happen this November.

You are lost, or just a troll.
 
Last edited:

rgrachek

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
14,424
15,154
113
Fair, but anyone who reads those transcripts knows full well what he was trying to do and the leverage he had. But yeah, I’m willing to concede that the quid pro quo was never specifically outlined
Do you even understand what Foreign Aid is for? It's specifically so we can have leverage over other countries. It's been that way for a century, and all administrations have used it. It's not against the law to exercise that leverage, even if it's centered on Hunter Biden. What a farce!
 

dragonraider1

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 24, 2012
5,300
4,710
113
Frank Montoya Jr. is a retired FBI senior official who served as the national counterintelligence executive, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and special agent in charge of two FBI field offices. Excellent collection of facts and clearly makes a point.


"Let me start by stating the obvious.

The execution of a federal search warrant at the residence of a former U.S. president is more than an extraordinary occurrence.

Fact is, things like that just don’t happen.

Pick a presidential scandal in our history —Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra or Whitewater. It just doesn’t happen. Not until Monday, anyway, when a host of FBI special agents, lawful warrant in hand, rewrote the history books forever.

Now, let me tell you why the FBI search of the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida on Monday is such a big deal.

The former president of the United States is suspected of committing a crime. As obvious as that may seem given all that has transpired over the past seven years — yes, you would be spot on for thinking “duh” — the fact of the matter is that, as a nation of laws, we’ve never had a president who has been so antipathetic towards them.

Still, while no one, not even a former president, is above the law, the presumption of innocence is an important tenet of American jurisprudence. We, all of us, even corrupt former presidents, are afforded the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution when it comes to things like searches and seizures, protections against self-incrimination, and the right to trial by jury.

Two centuries of justice under a constitutionally established rule of law ensures that.

Which is why the criticisms coming from the supporters rushing to the former president’s defense in the wake of the search make no sense. Those supporters, many of whom are lawyers, know what due process and the rules of evidence are. They claim to be well-versed in the Bill of Rights. What’s more, their phony outrage directly undermines that long tradition of American jurisprudence.

The FBI executes search warrants all the time. Contrary to the fearmongers and conspiracy theorists amongst us, they are not political acts. Not even when directed against a politician. The reason for their use is simple and straightforward — to find evidence of a crime.

The process to obtain a warrant is also straightforward (though not always simple). Investigators and prosecutors working together set forth facts obtained during an investigation to establish a “reason to believe” (also known as probable cause, or PC) that a crime was committed. In the case of a bank robbery, for instance, those facts might include a detailed description of the robber, a license plate of the getaway car, fingerprints, the amount of money stolen, and other information of an evidentiary nature from witnesses, confidential human sources or technical means. Those facts are then presented to a magistrate who reviews them and decides whether or not to authorize the warrant. If a warrant is authorized, investigators proceed to the location to be searched and execute it.

In the matter of the search executed on the former president’s residence, all these steps were surely followed. And then some. I speak from experience that a search like this, especially in the current political environment, would have been scrutinized at all levels of the FBI and DOJ before it even went to the magistrate. From a practical perspective, standard PC determinations — like those in a bank robbery — would not have been sufficient. Like it or not, the former president’s status as a former president would not have allowed it.

Instead, given his privileged status (not to mention the aforementioned political environment), the information supporting the PC in the warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago would have had to go way beyond the norm. It wouldn’t be enough, for example, for a source to say, “I believe the smoking gun is in the safe.”

He, she or it would almost certainly have had to provide a specific and timely first-hand witness that they knew it was in the safe. A high-definition picture of the smoking gun would have helped, too.

Put another way, the evidence supporting the PC would have to be good enough to get a warrant and be trial worthy, which is to say, beyond a reasonable doubt (a much higher standard than “reason to believe”).

Yes, that kind of thing drives investigators nuts, but there it is.

What’s more, the basis for a warrant such as this one would had to have been approved all the way up to the U.S. attorney general himself before it went to the magistrate.

It’s a rigorous process, and rightly so. To diminish it as the former president’s supporters have attempted to do (by calling it a “Third World” act) is a reprehensible offense not only to the rule of law, but to the Constitution itself. That’s a Constitution that they loudly pretend to support and defend until it won’t do their bidding.

But I digress. Much more important than the mendacity coming from the former president’s supporters is what happens next in the investigative process.

Despite all the hoops investigators have had to jump through to get it authorized, and in spite of the fact that the target was a former president, Monday’s activity at Mar-a-Lago was still just the execution of a search warrant. An investigative step. While the former president’s own attorney has already indicated “paper” was seized — which means investigators got something — it must be reviewed and determined if it can support further investigation. And even if it is something of significant value (for instance, the elusive “smoking gun”), there will still be much more work to do before criminal charges can be brought.

That said, I can’t help but think about what happened to Paul Manafort (the former president’s campaign manager) and Michael Cohen (his former personal attorney) after their residences were searched. The PC standards for them were very high, too, and yet look at what they yielded.

Indictments. Arrests. Convictions.

True, the former president is not them. He has proven himself adept at dancing between the raindrops without getting his hair wet when it comes to questionable actions in and out of office. He beat two impeachments and a wide-ranging investigation involving Russian interference in our national elections. He has, thus far, also avoided consequences for allegedly fomenting an insurrection and perpetuating baseless lies about an election he lost, by a lot. And while we continue to struggle with a pandemic that won’t go away and supply chain problems that affect everything from electronic devices to automobiles to baby formula, nobody in his sphere mentions the disastrous trade war with China that exacerbated all of it.

But the FBI and its DOJ partners know what they’re up against. They know what’s at stake. And they know what they must do to serve justice. The well-executed search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was just the beginning. Now it’s about bringing charges and proving them. It’s never an easy task, especially with a subject as wily (and lucky) as the former president, but this time I can’t help but feel like they are finally onto something that will stick.

What’s more, despite all the accusations the minority leader of the House of Representatives leveled at DOJ and the FBI in the aftermath of the search, the simple truth is that it was a direct result not of “weaponized” law enforcement out to “persecute” a politician, but the crass incompetence and blatant disregard for American values that have marred the former president’s cult of personality since its inception.

The cult, it seems, is finally collapsing under its own gross obesity. As it does, we may be getting to the point that the myth the former president could shoot someone on Fifth Ave. and not lose any votes is about to be shattered."
Have you ever heard of Robert Mueller & James Comey? I am sure you have. They had Donald J Trump in prison until their "evidence" was exposed as fabricated paid political opposition. It is a crime how many tax dollars have been spent by Democrats for one party rule. The cult seems to be collapsing under wokeness not MAGA and Her Constitution.
 

red rover 70

Nebraska Legend
Gold Member
Sep 11, 2011
27,538
17,299
113
The Georgia election phone call and the Ukraine withholding aid phone call
0/10
The Georgia election was rigged and stolen. Trump asked him to do the right thing and find him some of his votes they stole from him. And the Ukrainian call was fine.
 

c3o

All-American
Apr 24, 2018
4,465
8,843
113
Fair, but anyone who reads those transcripts knows full well what he was trying to do and the leverage he had. But yeah, I’m willing to concede that the quid pro quo was never specifically outlined
So it’s a crime to use leverage? You’re a moron. And a pussy ass bitch.

omfg, the president used leverage!!! I’m outraged”
 

gra8scot

Sophomore
Gold Member
Nov 25, 2001
1,017
209
63
I was a federal agent for 40 years. What this guy talks about is a world before Trump and conservative mania the last 7 years. Ask him about the false info in fisa warrants by the FBI. Ask about letting Hillary off the hook for worse violations than this latest witch hunt. How about Comey who leaked info to start Russia Russia Russia. Ask him about Peter Strock and Lisa Page. Ask him about the former deputy director who resigned for false statements
This is all about an hysteria to stop a guy who isn’t a part of the establishment. The street FBI agents are fine. I worked with them for 40 years. This is different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3o

Laner2

Offensive Coordinator
Dec 27, 2007
8,843
6,657
113
The Hurtling Moons of Barsoom
I was a federal agent for 40 years. What this guy talks about is a world before Trump and conservative mania the last 7 years. Ask him about the false info in fisa warrants by the FBI. Ask about letting Hillary off the hook for worse violations than this latest witch hunt. How about Comey who leaked info to start Russia Russia Russia. Ask him about Peter Strock and Lisa Page. Ask him about the former deputy director who resigned for false statements
This is all about an hysteria to stop a guy who isn’t a part of the establishment. The street FBI agents are fine. I worked with them for 40 years. This is different.
Mic drop.
 

Jim14510

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
21,190
44,754
113
Opee is top 5 worst posters on this board. That's a real accomplishment.
 

Jim14510

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
21,190
44,754
113
So it’s a crime to use leverage? You’re a moron. And a pussy ass bitch.

omfg, the president used leverage!!! I’m outraged”
I mean it is a crime if you're using the leverage for personal gain. Just not sure how it's leveraging if the guy you're leveraging doesn't know he's being leveraged.
 

c3o

All-American
Apr 24, 2018
4,465
8,843
113
I mean it is a crime if you're using the leverage for personal gain. Just not sure how it's leveraging if the guy you're leveraging doesn't know he's being leveraged.
Personal gain and leverage are inseparable. What crime?
 

Jim14510

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
21,190
44,754
113
Personal gain and leverage are inseparable. What crime?
When the leverage is government assets it's abuse of power. Is it a crime in the sense of FBI or police coming to arrest you and put you in jail? No. Is it a crime with the punishment to be removed from that position of power? Yes.
 

biscuitbagger3

Recruiting Coordinator
Gold Member
Aug 9, 2009
6,826
7,886
113
Main point is if someone insults another person and the other person sees it as a compliment. Is it an insult or a compliment?
Generally under the law it’s an insult. Said another way the intent of the person breaking the law is all that’s important. However, the damage to the victim is important for the punishment or award.
 

nordakotahusker

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Nov 2, 2001
3,735
4,532
113
Frank Montoya Jr. is a retired FBI senior official who served as the national counterintelligence executive, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and special agent in charge of two FBI field offices. Excellent collection of facts and clearly makes a point.


"Let me start by stating the obvious.

The execution of a federal search warrant at the residence of a former U.S. president is more than an extraordinary occurrence.

Fact is, things like that just don’t happen.

Pick a presidential scandal in our history —Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra or Whitewater. It just doesn’t happen. Not until Monday, anyway, when a host of FBI special agents, lawful warrant in hand, rewrote the history books forever.

Now, let me tell you why the FBI search of the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida on Monday is such a big deal.

The former president of the United States is suspected of committing a crime. As obvious as that may seem given all that has transpired over the past seven years — yes, you would be spot on for thinking “duh” — the fact of the matter is that, as a nation of laws, we’ve never had a president who has been so antipathetic towards them.

Still, while no one, not even a former president, is above the law, the presumption of innocence is an important tenet of American jurisprudence. We, all of us, even corrupt former presidents, are afforded the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution when it comes to things like searches and seizures, protections against self-incrimination, and the right to trial by jury.

Two centuries of justice under a constitutionally established rule of law ensures that.

Which is why the criticisms coming from the supporters rushing to the former president’s defense in the wake of the search make no sense. Those supporters, many of whom are lawyers, know what due process and the rules of evidence are. They claim to be well-versed in the Bill of Rights. What’s more, their phony outrage directly undermines that long tradition of American jurisprudence.

The FBI executes search warrants all the time. Contrary to the fearmongers and conspiracy theorists amongst us, they are not political acts. Not even when directed against a politician. The reason for their use is simple and straightforward — to find evidence of a crime.

The process to obtain a warrant is also straightforward (though not always simple). Investigators and prosecutors working together set forth facts obtained during an investigation to establish a “reason to believe” (also known as probable cause, or PC) that a crime was committed. In the case of a bank robbery, for instance, those facts might include a detailed description of the robber, a license plate of the getaway car, fingerprints, the amount of money stolen, and other information of an evidentiary nature from witnesses, confidential human sources or technical means. Those facts are then presented to a magistrate who reviews them and decides whether or not to authorize the warrant. If a warrant is authorized, investigators proceed to the location to be searched and execute it.

In the matter of the search executed on the former president’s residence, all these steps were surely followed. And then some. I speak from experience that a search like this, especially in the current political environment, would have been scrutinized at all levels of the FBI and DOJ before it even went to the magistrate. From a practical perspective, standard PC determinations — like those in a bank robbery — would not have been sufficient. Like it or not, the former president’s status as a former president would not have allowed it.

Instead, given his privileged status (not to mention the aforementioned political environment), the information supporting the PC in the warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago would have had to go way beyond the norm. It wouldn’t be enough, for example, for a source to say, “I believe the smoking gun is in the safe.”

He, she or it would almost certainly have had to provide a specific and timely first-hand witness that they knew it was in the safe. A high-definition picture of the smoking gun would have helped, too.

Put another way, the evidence supporting the PC would have to be good enough to get a warrant and be trial worthy, which is to say, beyond a reasonable doubt (a much higher standard than “reason to believe”).

Yes, that kind of thing drives investigators nuts, but there it is.

What’s more, the basis for a warrant such as this one would had to have been approved all the way up to the U.S. attorney general himself before it went to the magistrate.

It’s a rigorous process, and rightly so. To diminish it as the former president’s supporters have attempted to do (by calling it a “Third World” act) is a reprehensible offense not only to the rule of law, but to the Constitution itself. That’s a Constitution that they loudly pretend to support and defend until it won’t do their bidding.

But I digress. Much more important than the mendacity coming from the former president’s supporters is what happens next in the investigative process.

Despite all the hoops investigators have had to jump through to get it authorized, and in spite of the fact that the target was a former president, Monday’s activity at Mar-a-Lago was still just the execution of a search warrant. An investigative step. While the former president’s own attorney has already indicated “paper” was seized — which means investigators got something — it must be reviewed and determined if it can support further investigation. And even if it is something of significant value (for instance, the elusive “smoking gun”), there will still be much more work to do before criminal charges can be brought.

That said, I can’t help but think about what happened to Paul Manafort (the former president’s campaign manager) and Michael Cohen (his former personal attorney) after their residences were searched. The PC standards for them were very high, too, and yet look at what they yielded.

Indictments. Arrests. Convictions.

True, the former president is not them. He has proven himself adept at dancing between the raindrops without getting his hair wet when it comes to questionable actions in and out of office. He beat two impeachments and a wide-ranging investigation involving Russian interference in our national elections. He has, thus far, also avoided consequences for allegedly fomenting an insurrection and perpetuating baseless lies about an election he lost, by a lot. And while we continue to struggle with a pandemic that won’t go away and supply chain problems that affect everything from electronic devices to automobiles to baby formula, nobody in his sphere mentions the disastrous trade war with China that exacerbated all of it.

But the FBI and its DOJ partners know what they’re up against. They know what’s at stake. And they know what they must do to serve justice. The well-executed search warrant at Mar-a-Lago was just the beginning. Now it’s about bringing charges and proving them. It’s never an easy task, especially with a subject as wily (and lucky) as the former president, but this time I can’t help but feel like they are finally onto something that will stick.

What’s more, despite all the accusations the minority leader of the House of Representatives leveled at DOJ and the FBI in the aftermath of the search, the simple truth is that it was a direct result not of “weaponized” law enforcement out to “persecute” a politician, but the crass incompetence and blatant disregard for American values that have marred the former president’s cult of personality since its inception.

The cult, it seems, is finally collapsing under its own gross obesity. As it does, we may be getting to the point that the myth the former president could shoot someone on Fifth Ave. and not lose any votes is about to be shattered."


No anti-Trump bias there.
 

Jim14510

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
21,190
44,754
113
Generally under the law it’s an insult. Said another way the intent of the person breaking the law is all that’s important. However, the damage to the victim is important for the punishment or award.
So guilty of insult with no damages?
 

c3o

All-American
Apr 24, 2018
4,465
8,843
113
When the leverage is government assets it's abuse of power. Is it a crime in the sense of FBI or police coming to arrest you and put you in jail? No. Is it a crime with the punishment to be removed from that position of power? Yes.
What in the actual **** are you speaking of? Checking in on all the dipshit politicians using this shithole country to launder money isn’t a crime. What in the actual **** are you talking about?
 

nordakotahusker

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Nov 2, 2001
3,735
4,532
113
Fair, but anyone who reads those transcripts knows full well what he was trying to do and the leverage he had. But yeah, I’m willing to concede that the quid pro quo was never specifically outlined


You just got done saying several times it was a crime. What was the crime Scarlet?
 

Jim14510

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
21,190
44,754
113
What in the actual **** are you speaking of? Checking in on all the dipshit politicians using this shithole country to launder money isn’t a crime. What in the actual **** are you talking about?
Cmon man. You can't seriously think that was the motivation. You pride yourself on thinking for yourself and you type that out with a straight face?
 

c3o

All-American
Apr 24, 2018
4,465
8,843
113
Cmon man. You can't seriously think that was the motivation. You pride yourself on thinking for yourself and you type that out with a straight face?
Uncovering truth? Why else would anyone dig in? They’re guilty AF and you’re worried about motivation?
 

ScarletNCream

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Jan 4, 2007
17,000
29,924
113
You just got done saying several times it was a crime. What was the crime Scarlet?

Fvck if I know the name of the law but there’s certainly a law that applies to a president acting in the name of congress without congressional approval. It’s probably something simple that I’m just too many old fashioneds in to remember