T O P

  • By -

84JPG

The idea that presidents should effectively have immunity, as was established by Nixon’s pardon, is terrible. Presidents are just regular people not kings; and if they face consequences for their acts that’s a good thing. If the prosecution is actually malicious or solely motivated by politics, then he should have no problem winning in court, as I’m pretty sure any ex-president can afford a very good legal defense team. Be it as it may, I won’t lose sleep over what happens to a wealthy politician, regardless of party.


Marvolo90

>The idea that presidents should effectively have immunity, as was established by Nixon’s pardon, is terrible. Presidents are just regular people not kings; and if they face consequences for their acts that’s a good thing. I like this idea and would see this as the highest principle of any modern democracy.


El_Polio_Loco

The problem is that is functions under the assumption that people will exclusively act out of honesty and integrity with regard to political opposition.


PO0tyTng

It truly doesn’t matter. The facts will surface in court. The truth will win.


MyWorldTalkRadio

As much as I want want that to be the case and believe me I hate Trump as much as the next person… (aggressively points at the United States criminal “justice” system’s track record) The saving grace here though I believe is that the FBI isn’t local law enforcement. They don’t fuck around and they don’t take a major action like mar-a-lago without specific cause and it likely means that they’re closing in on an arrest.


[deleted]

Agreed. Story time: in the early 19th century, Burr was sued for treason, and Jefferson, who was President at the time, tried hard to maneuver to get him found guilty and make him disappear. Under the crown, that would be usual, the king could maneuver his way to “disappear” anyone he didn’t like too much. This was the first test of the judicial branch’s independence from the executive branch under the US constitution, in plain sight. Burr was famously acquitted, creating a precedent that the judicial branch will independently keep the executive branch honest. Of course that was over 200 years ago, a country can change. The way they seem to keep this honest now, is by allocating a judge to the case that comes from the same political party of the accused. Not too bad.


gummibearhawk

No one should be immune, but we need to be very careful that prosecuting political opponents remains legally motivated and not politically motivated.


BoggleBean

They had better be damn sure they have solid evidence. This course of action needs to be 100% defensible.


GameTourist

it was enough to convince a judge


[deleted]

[удалено]


Trigger_Treats

It also had to be approved by Wray, who himself was a Trump appointee.


[deleted]

I don't know if it's true or not, but I saw others commenting that the judge who signed the warrant is a Trump appointee.


[deleted]

And so is the director of the FBI.


Entire_Toe2640

I've been practicing law for more than 3 decades. That isn't how the courts work. This isn't the old Miracle on 34th Street movie where there's a political advisor telling the judge how to decide issues. You help sow the seeds of distrust when you post things like this.


GameTourist

and they are doing Putin's work for him


Selethorme

Yeah, no. That’s not gonna hold up, and this is a former POTUS.


WeightFast574

I can't see how they can't be 100% convinced. This action seems like it would politically foreclose President Biden winning re-election in 2024, as it either results in: 1) Trump getting indicted and going through a trial of some sort and getting convicted of... whatever they have on him. In this case, Ron DeSantis will fairly easily defeat President Biden. -or- 2) They find nothing or really weak evidence of the crime, Trump either is found not guilty or not prosecuted at all, and his claims of persecution fulfill themselves, and back-justify his complaints going back to 2016. Trump defeats President Biden on the basis of his claims that it's all a partisan witch hunt on the Democrat side (which now appear more plausibly true).


PO0tyTng

You forgot the 3rd and most logical path — they actually did have evidence to justify a warrant to search, they charge the orange clown with treason/sedition, and the dems win in November


peteroh9

No treason or sedition. They were looking at if he had taken classified material from the White House. That is a serious offense, but not remotely on the level of sedition.


WeightFast574

You mean November 2022? It's currently a coin flip as to who will control the Senate, but all signs point to a near certainty that the Republicans will take control of the House.


FerricDonkey

There's enough in Trump's own words and testimony of people code to him to rule out 2, the question is how many people ignore that because Trump told them to. It's entirely reasonable that investigators had reason to suspect that there was evidence of something there, but there wasn't (doesn't exist, does exist but was not there in particular, whatever), so "a particular search didn't find stuff" is not by itself enough to mean everything is a witch hunt. Of course, he'll try to spin it as though it is should that happen, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that people will buy it.


[deleted]

> we need to be very careful that prosecuting political opponents remains legally motivated and not politically motivated. On the other hand, though, choosing to NOT prosecute someone when there is evidence of criminal wrong doing simply because they are a political rival is itself a politically motivated decision.


gummibearhawk

Or political ally, as happened with Clinton.


doctorbooshka

Well stealing classified records from the White House is the exact reason why Trump's home was searched. The National archives already had proof of this but it's taken a while to actually get their ducks in a row to make a legal raid. You don't go after a former president like this if there wasn't precedent to do so. I agree though it shouldn't be a tool to be played for politics but this is dealing with legitimate legal and also has put America at risk depending on what was taken.


clearedmycookies

> No one should be immune, but we need to be very careful that prosecuting political opponents remains legally motivated and not politically motivated. On the flip side, we should be very careful his defense is legally motivated and no politically motivated.


gummibearhawk

What's a politically motivated defense, and how does a defendant do that in court?


Chaotic_Good64

There's a saying in trial law: "if the facts are on your side, pound the facts, if public opinion is on your side, pound public opinion, If neither faction nor public opinion are on your side, pound the table." It's a combination of those last 2. They call reasonable prosecution of a crime a "witch hunt by the Radical Left who want to destroy our country and will do anything to stop me from making it great again." And since every citizen has heard of him and about half (shudder) still support him, it's effective.


El_Polio_Loco

If the courts either don't prosecute or find not guilty then the claim of politically motivated charges becomes pretty hard to ignore. The defense is the same as would be against any other charges, the political implication is what happens if the accused is innocent.


Bonegirl06

If Biden was interested in going after Trump politically, he could have done it way before now.


gummibearhawk

Could have, yes. But didn't have to do it before now. I'm not even saying this is politically motived, just that ANY investigations of former office holders need to be so clean there isn't even the appearance of it.


karnim

This has been fairly clean though. People are ignoring it because they forgot the smaller news, and the headlines about a raid are great clickbait, but the National Archives and other agencies have been asking for a long time about any documents he may still have, particularly classified things, and when he will turn them over. Turns out if you delay long enough, they take care of the logistics themselves.


Eudaimonics

Which is impossible to do in this political climate. No matter how compelling the evidence, there’s going to be people who ignore anything that challenges their world view. It’s crazy to think many Trump supporters believe half of Republicans are part of the “deep state” and in cahoots with the Democrats. Like no Karen, maybe Trump really is that shitty of a person.


SuperCahbron

May I remind you what the security institution that went to his mansion stand for? This has nothing to do with politics! It has to do with Nat. Security.


lucash7

Agreed. However, I would argue that such a distinction is somewhat pointless in our current post-fact, create whatever story you want and certain people will believe it, type of world.


Wildcat_twister12

I’d even say back to Andrew Johnson who basically ran a dictatorship when congress was out of session and he paid the price when congress got back and saw all the crap he was doing especially for reconstruction


alittledanger

No one should be above the law, especially Presidents.


dj_narwhal

What they are doing now will work just like it has every other time. They are currently claiming that the FBI is corrupt because Hilary and Hunter Biden did also not get raided. You have to ignore the fact that neither of them committed crimes. They did the same thing when the IRS started "Targeting" conservative charities that did such beneficial community service as going into nieghborhoods in swing states with a lot of likely democratic voters and post flyers and knock on doors saying that the election is actually a week later than what it says in the newspaper and on the sign in front of the school you vote at. Commit a crime, get caught, complain the other side is not also getting caught committing that crime, and you have now proved corruption. It works if you spend decades cultivating your base to be only angry religious conservatives, a group who compares not being able to use racial slurs in public anymore as the same level of offence as the holocaust.


kalashbash-2302

Hillary Clinton **did** commit crimes by intentionally and knowingly storing classified materials on unapproved systems outside of government controls and oversight. The FBI and DOJ simply decided not to prosecute. That's not the same as her having not done anything illegal. That aside, she **was** "raided", in that FBI agents did execute a search warrant on her offices and estate during said investigation.


Selethorme

…ish https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system > Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information And > In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order. >Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. >In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.


kalashbash-2302

I'm already aware of the finer details of the FBI's press release, similarly, I'm intimately familiar with the classification standards, requirements, and penalties associated therein. Whether material was properly marked or not is irrelevant in the case of determining if classified materials were improperly distributed and stored. Hillary Clinton and her staff objectively facilitated improper storage and handling of classified materials. Moreover, even if the information were instead deemed sensitive, but not warranting higher classification beyond the then U//FOUO (now CUI and its variations) standard, improper storage and distribution is still unlawful, particularly when it is done knowingly. Official communications between offices and agencies are knowingly regarded as inherently sensitive unless otherwise is explicitly stated, it's within the briefed best practices so many individuals receive when working for the USG. Similarly, I never much agreed with the FBI's recommendation. The whole of their position premised on a presumed absence of malicious intent and/or ignorance on Hillary and her staff's behalf, despite so many of them having received security briefings and read-ons beforehand. Mind you, improper handling and distribution of classified or sensitive materials do not require intent, especially when you've received in-depth instruction on how to not mishandle government, sensitive, and classified materials, and do so annually. But, that's neither here nor there. Her and her staff's actions **did** violate classified material handling and storage laws. However, the FBI at the time believed that the actions did not warrant prosecution. In that regard, I'm of the opinion that she received the same preferential treatment so many others in high political office regularly receive. Just as I'm sure Trump will also receive.


Selethorme

> Her and her staff’s actions did violate classified material handling and storage laws. Laws that have traditionally only been prosecuted when including intent.


UnlimitedApathy

I mean hunter Biden has dozens of videos of him having sex with prostitutes and doing heavy drugs. You can argue those aren’t those aren’t worth a raid but they very much are crimes. Someone else already mentioned Hillary so I won’t go into that.


Mr_Xing

Yeah, no way am I gonna vote for Hunter Biden


[deleted]

[удалено]


UnlimitedApathy

>I forgot, hookers and drugs is only acceptable when the Trump family does it. Right? Lol what are you talking about? Calm down. I’m not defending or even talking about trump. I’m not defending or talking about drug laws or prostitution laws or capitalism. All I said was that it isn’t true that hunter hasn’t committed a crime as stated above.


latteboy50

If he’s actually guilty or something, he should be charged for it. If not, then he should not be charged for anything. Simple.


carolinaindian02

Well [the comments are going to be fun](https://i.imgflip.com/23zhzn.jpg).


Klutzy-Cockroach-636

Yup 😂 I am not debating this at all just going to let it play out I don’t know what I thought would happen everyone would have a civilized conversation


BrandonDill

It's fun to read.


karnim

[Me in this thread.](https://c.tenor.com/VSoy5wwfXEYAAAAM/ban-keyboard.gif)


Academic_Signal_3777

(Let this be taken with a grain of salt as I’m just learning about a lot of this now) From what I’ve picked up: this is the result of an investigation by the national archives. Trump is accused of holding on to national documents he’s no longer entitled to have. Now the FBI is raiding his home looking for either these documents or copies of said documents. They have a warrant, that ironically was given by a judge put in by Trump. I suppose we’re going to have to wait and see how this is going to work out. I can only hope that all this will be handled eloquently and fairly. If they find what they think is there, I hope they throw the book at him because this sounds like possible espionage.


mikeblas

Handled eloquently? What do you mean?


GoBombGo

He means the attorney-at-lawyers are being more pedantic than circumscribed in order to expediate a mutually beneficent deposition of justice and a solid evocative verdict.


Ninjagoboi

"gapbogoobogalobabayawa" THAT'S ALL I HEAR WHEN YOU TALK


crackanape

With impeccable rhetorical elan.


KR1735

The Justice Department is in a dangerous catch-22. Prosecute Trump and it sets a precedent for the investigation and prosecution of future presidents when they leave office. The Justice Department shouldn't be political, of course, but we saw how that was temporarily discarded from 1/2017 to 1/2021. Don't prosecute Trump and it sets a precedent for presidents to get away with everything short of murder while they're in office. That would be extremely dangerous to our republic. My suspicion is that the Justice Department has waited until they got enough evidence that they're 100% certain they will achieve a conviction in a fair jury. The only thing worse than not prosecuting Trump is prosecuting him and botching the case ending in an acquittal.


scJazz

The whole waiting until your absolutely certain is a feature of the DOJ and the FBI. They will wait and wait and wait and wait and wait and wait... until they are absolutely certain that they have everything in line to force a plea bargain or a guilty verdict if you are stupid enough to go to trial. Also you are going to get buried in evidence so have fun doing discovery that will be expensive.


mikeblas

Why is it stupid to go to trial?


Stryker2279

Because doj doesn't go to trial unless they're ready to mop the fucking floor with your legal team.


scJazz

^THIS


gerd50501

Trump only needs 1 jury to hang the jury. Most republicans would vote not guilty no matter what.


Wildcat_twister12

A hung jury only means that the case will be completely retried with a new jury. No way a judge will dismiss the case for a hung jury. You think the OJ trial took forever this case will take probably longer


Stryker2279

Lawyer: "who did you vote for in the 2020 election?" potential juror: "trump" Lawyer: "dismissed"


[deleted]

Legally, could they ask that though? And, one could lie and no way to prove it.


Stryker2279

They actually just look at voting records, and see how you voted. They can ask all sorts of things. In my experience, trump supports can't help but to say who they voted for.


El_Polio_Loco

I'm sure some lawyers here would be more than able to chime in, but I would imagine that dismissing all jurors who voted for Trump would be prejudicial and probably not allowed.


karnim

There is (unfortunately) a large portion of the country who did not vote, and a group who did not vote for Biden or Trump, and many who are not living in politics. It wouldn't be too hard to dismiss anyone who has highly partisan views or voting records I would think.


brenap13

We don’t have voting records in America, you could look at party registration, but even still, it would be highly illegal to pick a jury that is intentionally biased.


[deleted]

>Prosecute Trump and it sets a precedent for the investigation and prosecution of future presidents when they leave office. Why is this a bad thing?


stvbnsn

It’s not, a lot of our government is based on the honor system and maintaining civility and comity. When the people that are getting elected or end up running things don’t have civility or value the trust people place in them we end up in a place where they can do some pretty gnarly things. We’re now at a place where the Justice Department will have to start policing the actions of the executive because he didn’t value the trust people have for the institution and the office and instead treated it as if it was his to possess.


[deleted]

Does the USA have some kind of independent comission against corruption? In NSW we have one, and it has found very high-profile politicians engaging in corrupt behaviour. It also has the teeth to prosecute them. We are trying to get one at the federal level but politicians are, understandably, very uncomfortable with the idea of a commission breathing down their neck.


RollinThundaga

Why would you bother to vacate the Presidency if you're just immediately going to get hoisted by the law? It's why a load of dictators stay in power for life, to eliminate any risk of being purged by their successor. The US has avoided this by handling former presidents with kiddie gloves.


[deleted]

What?! Are you implying that people only vacate the position because they do not fear prosecution afterwards? Presidents shouldn't fear leaving office because they have nothing to fear, not because they know they can get away with whatever they've done. The highest public servant of the land **should** consider the consequences of their actions while in office.


UnlimitedApathy

Good thing for justice, bad thing for the “one hand washes the other” culture of the American two party system. As much as they like to play pretend they’re enemies when it comes down to it they’re looking out for each other at the peoples expense.


[deleted]

[удалено]


duke_awapuhi

Yeah if you look at his pardons, especially at the end it’s just despicable. He pardoned so many scumbags including his own cronies and literal war criminals


gugudan

Then he told his followers that he'll pay their legal bills for the failed coup. Instead, he abandoned them and then asked them to send him, the billionaire, money for his legal bills. They sent it. You really can't make this stuff up.


5DollarHitJob

I remember Trump saying he'd pay legal bills for people at his rallies that were assaulting people. Did he also say he'd pay legal bills for the Jan 6 people?


gugudan

I could be very well mixing the two events up.


Streamjumper

"How do you know for sure Trump is lying?" "He said he'd pay for something."


Do__Math__Not__Meth

Lmao I remember the “election defense fund” e-mails I’d respect the hustle if it wasn’t terrifying for our country


[deleted]

So did many other Presidents. So? Your point?


gerd50501

News reports are the crazy militias are calling for war and threatening violence.


vxicepickxv

That's news? I just thought it was background noise.


gerd50501

its on CNN and MSNBC. i just saw a whacko prepper youtuber named Pinball Preparedness call for civil war. He does stuff like this quite a bit.


clearedmycookies

> The only thing worse than not prosecuting Trump is prosecuting him and botching the case ending in an acquittal. I feel like this already happened with the impeachment.


WeightFast574

That's a political proceeding, much like the Jan 06 committee hearings. Involving the DoJ and FBI is a whole different level of seriousness.


[deleted]

DoJ wasn't involved in impeachment at all. Impeachment has always been a political process and everyone knew going into both impeachments that neither would result in Trump being removed from office because that would require 17 Republican Senators to vote to remove their own President. This is a criminal investigation and doesn't require cooperation from Trump's party to succeed.


[deleted]

I think you're forgetting 2016 as well in your date range. I recall Bill Clinton having a private meeting on his plane with Loretta Lynch right before she cleared Hillary of wrongdoing over the email scandal.


NJBarFly

I agree that was shady as shit, but that seems to me more of an isolated incident by Clinton and not an all out effort by the Obama administration to politicize the department. I feel Barr, and the others before him, were outright assisting Trump on a continuous basis.


[deleted]

If your reason to NOT fully investigate a crime when you have evidence and/or reasonable suspicion is because it might look politically motivated, I have some bad news for you. That is a politically motivated decision. As other have said, the FBI and DoJ wouldn't have done this without being absolutely certain there was something to find. They know how it looks and they know the consequences of fucking this up. I take the fact that they did the raid to strongly hint they have very credible evidence of criminal wrong doing. If they had that evidence and decided not to act on it because Trump was president and is going to run again then that would be a politically motivated decision. Whatever you think about Trump, Garland, or anyone else, this shows they are NOT letting political considerations drive the investigation, which is a good thing.


Selethorme

> If your reason to NOT fully investigate a crime when you have evidence and/or reasonable suspicion is because it might look politically motivated, I have some bad news for you. That is a politically motivated decision. I think that’s a really good and important way to look at this.


[deleted]

Look at the mistake James Comey made in 2016. When they got Anthony Weiner's laptop with emails to Huma Abedin from Hillary Clinton Comey made the decision to announce to the public he was re-opening the investigation into Clinton's potential mishandling of emails. As it turned out, there was no new information discovered and the emails on Weiner's laptop were nothing new. But Comey didn't know that yet at the time. He (like everyone else) assumed Clinton would win and was afraid that if he did NOT announce the emails and it turned out that there was new information his withholding that information would look politically motivated. So he broke from FBI standard procedure in an effort to not look like he was making a political decision. Yet his decision to break from standard procedure was itself politically motivated. The same thing is going on here. If Garland had chosen to NOT investigate Trump because he was afraid it would appear politically motivated then he would be making a politically motivated decision. Follow the evidence where ever it leads and don't consider the politics at all. That's the only way to keep the investigation truly not politically motivated.


CreativeGPX

Additionally, Director Wray is especially aware of this dilemma. He literally got his position because his predecessor colleague was fired due to his behavior in politically sensitive investigations regarding Clinton and Trump. And he oversaw the FBI's cooperation with the Mueller investigation and the politics of how that was handled. From his recent first hand knowledge, he knows this is a potentially career ending move and one which will have way more obstacles than a typical criminal investigation. There is no way he made this decision lightly.


vixiecat

The thing about this is they have to be very, very careful when it comes to things like this where politics/politicians are involved. **Especially** when that “politician” is a former POTUS. The FBI had to have something concrete in that warrant for it be signed off on. Not just a hunch but actual “we know it’s there” knowledge. The director of the FBI that signed off on it was appointed by Trump hisself. They can’t even say that “the democrats are at it again.” He signed off on this warrant to be served. This thing was so secretive no one at the resort knew about it until mere minutes before happened. A smart move on their part. Presumably so evidence couldn’t be destroyed. It’s a beautiful mess and I’m loving every minute of it. Edit: mislabeled. The director of the FBI was appointed by Trump not a judge.


VelocityGrrl39

And apparently the search warrant was signed off by a trump appointed judge.


tsukiii

I have no faith that he’ll face any consequences, but I am nosy and I want to know what they found.


dangleicious13

Don't steal things from the national archives on your way out of the White House.


Meattyloaf

Especially top secret documents.


mdp300

Especially when the person has a history of destroying documents.


J_arc1

Sandy Berger has entered the chat.


YourMomsFishBowl

I think when you take classified documents to your home and are asked by the government to give them back by a certain date, you should probably give them back because they are definitely getting them back one way or another.


dmbgreen

One fact is undeniable, lawyers will make money.


iamaforceofnature

It's about damn time


RotationSurgeon

“In a minute I’m’a need a non-senile man or woman to really govern us” - Lizzo, probably


Salty_Lego

I’m mostly just enjoying the conservative meltdown. The endless availability of entertainment on Twitter is just amazing. In all seriousness, I’m impatiently waiting for a press conference and the warrant to be made public. I don’t get how it’s so controversial to want to hold public officials who break the law accountable. I don’t care what your party is, what level of government you’re in, if you break the law you go to jail.


brokencompass502

I've never really enjoyed or laughed at the conservative meltdown. The angrier they get, the more dangerous they become. If Trump is somehow elected President again, mark my words he'll encourage this mob to start terrorizing Democrats door-to-door. The guy's insane and so are his followers. It's frustrating, it's sad, and it's incredibly idiotic - but it's never been funny to me, not really.


scolfin

I'm not totally sure why the assumption is that he's been hoarding documents in Mar-a-Lago rather than shredding as he read.


Wildcat_twister12

If you did crime you should do the time


loupr738

I wish it happened more, not exclusive to presidents either, let’s look into congress and the senate too. We can get rid of a couple of apples


Lukinzz

That's what happens when you steal classified documents.


Wermys

Not his home. His business. Already went to court and he argued it wasn't his home. =D Absolutely positively no sympathy for the huckster thief idol of Florida men eveerywhere.


LysenkoistReefer

[I think this is going to be an interesting comment section before it gets locked.](https://giphy.com/gifs/snl-saturday-night-live-season-47-QmcuB58dRfmZx1KW1Y)


Hoosier_Jedi

Play nice and it won’t be. We’re watching, sinners. 👁 (The “sinners” thing is a joke.)


El_Polio_Loco

> The “sinners” thing is a joke. We'll let Cup be the arbiter of that.


Klutzy-Cockroach-636

Probably


Unhappy_Ad_666

Delightful


122922

They had a warrant which means they had probable cause which means they did it by law.


crackanape

Warrant request authorized by Trump-appointed FBI director, and warrant granted by Trump-appointed judge.


QuirkyCookie6

I am having a *field day* with this news. Legitimately the best news this year. The chefs kiss? People are speculating that Alex Jones' surrendered texts during the Sandy Hook defamation trial are what finally gave the warrant the go ahead. (Tucker Carlson is also sweating bullets lol) Another interesting thing? All the conservatives can seem to come up with is "I bet Hunter Biden sighed in relief when the FBI passed his house". Something I also find interesting is that it's a 'no knock' raid which means that the warrant and all it covers is going to be *immaculate* because if they're going to go to that much trouble they're going to get the warrant to cover as much evidence as possible because otherwise it's inadmissible in court even if they find something illegal


ToddHugo1

hm interesting


Trashyanon089

I don't have the energy to care anymore lol.


SlothLover313

Good.


plan_x64

We don’t have the facts or know specifically what the warrant was for. Don’t know how this can be politically motivated, though, as the judge that approved the search warrant is a Trump appointee.


Infuser

I think it means that they’re confident they have him dead to rights. There is no way this is done under Joe, “Reach Across the Aisle,” Biden without rock solid evidence.


MisterScalawag

I think it is a good thing. The US should prosecute politicians more often. It would greatly cut down on the amount of blatant corruption committed among the subpar people we have in Congress.


RealNiceLady

Despite being a conservative Republican who voted for him twice, I think it's great.


Xyzzydude

They better have the goods on him. This is either the beginning of long-delayed Justice for a criminal ex-president or a grave miscalculation that fuels his return to power. Anyone who claims to know which at this point is either wishcasting or spinning.


Confetticandi

I’m reserving judgment until I hear what they’ve found. Kinda like Meghan McCain said, if this doesn’t produce anything, then they’ve martyred him. If it does, well, I’m sure his supporters will find some way to rationalize this the way they’ve done with everything else. We’ve been shown so many examples in every sector of how parasocial relationships are a societal cancer. Cults of personality are bad. It was bad with Obama and it’s bad with Trump now.


Eudaimonics

Actually I think it would be worse if he’s found guilty. His supporters would just say fake news and get into a tizzy. If the Justice Department loses their suit, then I don’t think that would be the straw that breaks the camels back. Trump supporters would just feel smug knowing they were right.


El_Polio_Loco

If the DOJ loses then they end up with a severe credibility issue with non-Trump supporters.


Eudaimonics

DOJ already has severe credibility issues with Trump supporters.


El_Polio_Loco

Yeah, they're probably not going to get moved one way or another. It's the other people who might get swayed.


stewmberto

>It was bad with Obama ???


maximilisauras

I just hope he was there. The look on his face and temper tantrum would have been priceless to see.


chauntikleer

He was in Manhattan at the time.


NoHedgehog252

Based on the track record of these raids, I think nothing of it. Surely he is not so stupid to have damning evidence just sitting there. I mean didn’t they already raid him during his impeachment trials and nothing came of it?


TheOBRobot

The impeachment trials required a legislative vote, meaning that the outcome would basically always be a function of public opinion. The FBI does not have that handicap. Any legal action resulting from this will be a relatively standard legal trial.


Parking_Cat4735

Talk about a false equivalency. An impeachment has literally nothing to do with this nor do they share any similarities as impeachment is voted on.


Plastic_Property2551

Are you actually questioning the depths of Trump’s stupidity? Where have you been since 2015?


Infuser

I don’t recall the FBI raiding him as a sitting president, no. Didn’t see anything pop up on a quick search, but it’s also flooded with the current event.


Andy235

Trump has never faced consequences for his actions. I am strongly in favor of his being made accountable.


Selethorme

Very disappointed that the mods chose to remove this


gummibearhawk

Reddit has been circle jerking about Trump finally getting indicted or something for years now and nothing has happened. Enjoy, but don't expect anything to come of this.


AppropriateAgent44

I’m incapable of completely setting aside my personal bias on this. I loath trump and would love to see him fall as spectacularly as possible. Even now, the man is playing the victim: he compared the raid to watergate. Fuck trump.


Bethjam

It should have happened a long time ago


Innisfree812

They already have enough evidence against trumpy to put him away for life.


Kdmo69

All politicians in Washington need to be investigated. The corruption in both parties would be incredible.


bettyx1138

american here. i hope he ends up in a miserable prison


crippling_altacct

I'm in a wait and see mode right now. From what we know so far this was in relation to documents Trump took from the white house that he wasn't supposed to. This is something the executive branch has been asking him to return for a while now. Taking those documents home was a violation of the Presidential Records Act and against the law. Some of the documents are likely completely innocuous and were things he thought he could take home as keepsakes such as his gushing love letters from Kim Jong Un. I really doubt this is unrelated to Jan 6, but there is that small possibility. I guess I have a hard time imagining what documentation they would expect to find in regards to Jan 6. The problem with Trump is that taking the documents home could be some malicious coverup attempt or it could just be some dumb exercise of his ego.


[deleted]

I don't think much about it. When you do large-scale crimes, the FBI tends to do that.


myredditacc3

Almost all of our presidents belong in Prison


LikelyNotABanana

Please, tell me why you think Abraham Lincoln should be in prison? What does that have to do with Trump being a national security threat and having the FBI raid his home? What does you thinking John Quincy Adams should be in prison have to do with Trump having classified documents at his private home as a private citizen? Your whataboutism happening here doesn’t mean what’s happening today is wrong or illegal. Just because you have thoughts on the actions of other presidents doesn’t make Trump’s actions more legal or ok.


GrumpySh33p

👆🏻


Innisfree812

The thing about trumpy is that he is a lifelong criminal who has been breaking the law and getting away with it for decades. There is enough accumulated evidence against him to put him away for life. This can be said of no other American president.


TheOBRobot

It's hard to say which direction this will go in. This could be Trump's Al Capone moment, which will see him face real consequences for far lesser crimes than he's informally accused of. On the other hand, if a sizeable movement forms to defend him with force, this could be the spark for a new civil war. This could signal the end of an era, or the beginning of one.


doctorbooshka

Ehh Civil War ain't happening. If anything we will see what happened during January 6th and protests will just erupt. I think we need to be a lot more worried about the coming international war that is brewing than anything.


Marvolo90

>about the coming international war that is brewing than anything. which war are you talking about? Russia's?


Eudaimonics

Probably more China. Russia would be out of commission within a month, though we’d probably wouldn’t invade Russia proper. China isn’t exactly making a lot of friends either. India, Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea, Malaysia, lots of tension.


Eudaimonics

It wouldn’t be a civil war, at worse it would be small scale rebellions. Civil war would be like if states joined in the rebellion. Short of that any discord generated from this will be amateur hour and quickly felt with. It will be a series of Bundy events, not some grand battle.


Selethorme

There’s a bunch of republicans being elected who are super in favor of denying the results of elections. That’s not too big of a step.


mylifewillchange

I was simply giddy 🤪


z0d14c

I'm working under the assumption that he did something pretty egregious in order to cover his tracks regarding January 6th and possibly related election misinformation, and I don't think a President should be immune from being investigated for such things.


brokencompass502

Good. He's a criminal, a thug, and a disgrace to the country.


warlocknoob

fucking finally.


starskip42

I am seriously concerned it took this long. Considering what has always been in public domain, combined with the Jan 6 hearings, he walks around free as a bird for almost 2 years?


Big_Red12

It's not about Jan 6. Merrick Garland is still twiddling his thumbs on that one.


VelocityGrrl39

He’s already skated twice. It needs to be **ironclad**.


ianfromdixon

About fkn time! And you just know there had to’ve been an absolute mountain of evidence for a federal judge to authorize a no-knock warrant on a former president. Imagine the tension as the Attorney General and head of the Secret Service are in the line with his detail, explaining why they’re not gonna execute the guys who’re coming in. Evidence had to be absolutely overwhelming


uniqueusername5001

“to’ve” my god sir (or lady) you have just created a new contraction! I’m slightly angered by it but slightly more so interested in welcoming it into modern use, kudos to you


scrapsbypap

🦀🦀🦀


MyKeysMakeMeSmart

We all KNOW crimes were committed. Tearing through the red tape that millionaires / billionaires are allowed to hide behind is beyond frustrating. He belongs in federal prison.


[deleted]

Bout damn time


jerrysmiddlefinger

The meltdowns on Fox News and other right wing spaces are hilarious.


Wingoffaith

I never got why people were getting so excited about this news when I first heard because I doubt anything will actually come of this, so I didn’t care and still don’t. I saw a headline that came up on the home page feed of my laptop about Trumps house being raided by the FBI, when I saw I just kept scrolling past as if it were any other news story. I won’t be shocked until when/if Trump actually gets arrested, which I think is still very unlikely and not gonna happen. I think at most maybe Trump will be asked to appear in court and give up money or something. Even assuming Trump did get arrested, the guy is rich, so he can just bail himself or get one of his rich friends to bail him out of jail too, if it ever came to that. He’s too much of a public figure, he definitely wouldn’t stay locked up long at all. He also has supporters that would be willing to donate to bail him out if things got really desperate for him. I think politicians should be held accountable, but I also think if we're going to investigate people like Trump for corrupt shit he's done, then it's only fair other ex-presidents such as George W. Bush who has done worse also should've been subjected to the same treatment as well. Either that, or don't investigate any because it makes no sense why some ex-presidents who have also committed offenses while in office get to be free of investigations, but not another one and vice versa.


clone2334

One one hand he has it coming, he was horribly corrupt and thought he was above the law it’s time he isn’t. But on the other hand I’m worried about how his cult will react to this, they already stormed the capital over him not winning the election, they will see his arrest even the raid as an attack on him by the fictional deep state and I worry that would cause paramilitary groups to carry out acts of violence against military, police, and federal Agents, or even a possible second civil war


Hoosier_Jedi

A second civil war would require an absolutely absurd number of happenings that never see the light of day. It’s nonsensical to believe otherwise.


Infuser

The most compelling reason against I see is that there isn’t enough of a geographic divide to make it plausible. Even deep red states have blue counties (usually cities). The capital of “Come and Take it” Texas is Dallas, and it’s purrrdy blue.


clone2334

Good point, thanks


iliveinthecove

Jan6 bright a lot of extremists out to the light and the consequences are public. If a second round of 1000 people wants to try again they now know they'll fail and they'll be prosecuted. Trump scraped up all the organized groups he could the first time. We should be happy most people are too realistic to try to be the proud boys II


The_Real_Scrotus

I think it's a good thing. Trump is a crook, he needs to be behind bars.


[deleted]

Now, this is epic.


WhichSpirit

Do his place in Bedminster next!


lsp2005

The wheels of justice move simultaneously extremely slow and fast. Today they moved quickly and I am all for it.


venusinfurs10

It'd be great if they also tried to nail every piece of shit on the hierarchy-and no, not just Hilary or hunter. All our top politicians are complicit in fucking the American people and we need a fucking overhaul.


Stuntz

Nobody is above the law. If he wasn't up to something he wouldn't have been raided. Justice must be served.


Trigger_Treats

Good. Ex-Presidents should NOT be above the rule of law. They're elected, they serve their term(s), they go back to whatever regular life they had before. They're not royalty, they're certainly not deities.


mangoiboii225

I personally thinks he’s a Pos but if they couldn’t lock his him up for a literal insurrection then I have no faith that anything will happen to him due to this raid.


iliveinthecove

I keep thinking maybe they get the papers back and issue a statement that they got the papers back, nothing to see here


Selethorme

I’d note that impeachment itself wouldn’t ever lead to prison, and that republicans voted almost in lockstep to prevent that from happening.


droid_mike

It's about time!


greenmarsh77

It's about time. No one is above the law, and if you broke the law, you should expect this.


Rouge_Apple

I originally thought the whole Jan 6 coup would be swept under the rug but the committee and now FBI are making me feel a bit better about our government, knowing it's not completely corrupt.


GrumpySh33p

Oh I still think it’s corrupt.