• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Trump Mar-a-Lago search was justified

reflechissez

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
17,480
Reaction score
11,417
Location
Wakanda
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I will agree when we have an indictment. The DOJ allegedly found what they were looking for. If this does not rise to the level of criminality in their minds then this was a publicity stunt. Same result could have been found with a less dramatic move.
Like what?
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
89,942
Reaction score
38,841
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've got some bad news for you. You're going to learn that information, so you might want to start working on your next goal post right now.
Ummm...

From what I've heard, that judge isn't going to require the affidavit to be fully released. So no, nobody is going to "learn that information".
 

reflechissez

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
17,480
Reaction score
11,417
Location
Wakanda
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
He is. Why on earth would you take your warrant application to a judge who recused himself from another case involving the same person just six weeks prior. That was sloppy. And then resist releasing the justification for that application when it could eliminate all question of judicial bias. That’s even sloppier.
You keep repeating this. Can you give some details as to why you think this is a problem? Are trump's people even trying to make this "argument?"
 

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
11,690
Reaction score
6,641
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Ummm...

From what I've heard, that judge isn't going to require the affidavit to be fully released. So no, nobody is going to "learn that information".
Yet. When Trump is ultimately charged with his crimes they will. At that point, they'll have all the evidence they need, and they will no longer need to hide the name of the sources.
 

MrNiceGuy

Symbiotic Pnemonic
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
3,285
Location
The Twilight Zone
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Uh-oh--Fox "News" is finally admitting that the search was justified?

Quick, righties--start calling Fox "liberal media"! :LOL:
That's an opinion piece, not a news piece and not an editorial. FoxNews does present different perspectives, unlike CNN and MSNBC.
 

WorldWatcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
5,976
Reaction score
4,521
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He is. Why on earth would you take your warrant application to a judge who recused himself from another case involving the same person just six weeks prior. That was sloppy. And then resist releasing the justification for that application when it could eliminate all question of judicial bias. That’s even sloppier.

The DOJ didn't take a warrant application to a Judge.

The case was assigned to the Judge based on rotation.

From the Internal Operating Procedures for the Southern District of Florida (which is the jurisdiction where judge presides.)

1661190288388.png


WW
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
21,749
Reaction score
7,709
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The DOJ didn't take a warrant application to a Judge.

The case was assigned to the Judge based on rotation.

From the Internal Operating Procedures for the Southern District of Florida (which is the jurisdiction where judge presides.)

View attachment 67408224


WW
And the Judge should have declined it so that it could be reassigned. Failing that, the DOJ should have requested recusal.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,384
Reaction score
22,264
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
And the Judge should have declined it so that it could be reassigned. Failing that, the DOJ should have requested recusal.
Do you know the basis for his recusal?
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
101,895
Reaction score
80,375
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ummm...

From what I've heard, that judge isn't going to require the affidavit to be fully released. So no, nobody is going to "learn that information".

Why doesn't your crush Trump release it, counselor?
 

MrNiceGuy

Symbiotic Pnemonic
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
3,285
Location
The Twilight Zone
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The trumpkin rubes are not going to like this:



Ever since news broke two weeks ago that the FBI had executed a search warrant on former President Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago, the political world has been aflame with hyperbole, accusations, innuendo, and hysteria.

Every legal pundit and pundits pretending to know something about the law have emerged to try and explain what is really happening here. And the former president and his allies, as is their custom, have sought to flood the zone with political justifications and haphazard legal explanations to deflect from his conduct.

The truth needs to be set forth plainly and simply, and so let’s get down to brass tacks here. What happened on August 8, 2022, was not tyranny. It was not political persecution. It was not a minor dust up over bureaucratic processes blown out of proportion. It was the criminal justice system operating just like it does with any other private citizen on any other given day ending in a "y."
What this article misses or ignores is that a former President is not in the same situation as the average American, and that there are legitimate concerns about this situation being treated differently by the FBI and DOJ than prior situations involving issues of classified documents. It also ignores the obvious extant motives that could play into a raid on the home of a former President, meaning just having an investigation "running its course" over the mid-term elections has a political effect and therefore, the American people have a strong interest in knowing whether this raid was for political purposes or not. Moreover, the article ignores the history of politically motivated hit jobs against Donald Trump, the Russia hoax, and the FBI team lying to a federal judge to get warrants during the Russia Hoax investigation and also the FBI relying on concocted evidence in order to justify their actions.

Also, this attorney keeps stating facts as if he knows them, which he doesn't, such as that all the documents were "properly designated" classified and that there was no indication Trump had declassified them (or that there even had to be that indication in order for Trump to have them).

It may turn out to be a glaring, serious crime committed by Donald Trump, but it is not fair to the American people or the American voter, and it is not conducive to trust in the FBI and DOJ, for these matters to be kept secret until after the upcoming elections.

No, the word of the FBI is not good enough. And, that's not some insult to the FBI. The FBI made this bed by literally lying on warrant applications relative to the Trump campaign and bugging his offices, and also having agents who had specific discussions of "stopping" Trump, as if it's their job to do stuff like that.

I get it, law enforcement has normal processes and the FBI has almost carte blanche to get warrants based on thin probable cause affidavits, and the people have to sit there and take it, and they do their investigations and they never have to answer to anybody, most of the time, unless and until they file charges, and then in that case they overwhelm Defendants with massive FBI and DOJ prosecutorial resources, overcharge the Defendants, and buy witness testimony regularly through grants of immunity and other means, to pressure defendants to settle to avoid lengthy jail sentences. That is the "normal" route of federal prosecutions. But this isn't a normal case.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
101,895
Reaction score
80,375
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
On 28 U.S.C. § 455 - which he cited to recuse himself from another Trump case just six weeks prior to signing this warrant. If he couldn’t be impartial in that case then why is he signing a warrant involving the same person?

I read his recusal for the Clinton/Trump case. He didn't specify any reason. What would be the reason he was not impartial in this case? And be specific. He was next in line for this case. Fact.
 

MrNiceGuy

Symbiotic Pnemonic
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
3,285
Location
The Twilight Zone
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ummm...

From what I've heard, that judge isn't going to require the affidavit to be fully released. So no, nobody is going to "learn that information".
Definitely not. The only information DOJ will suggest be revealed will be that which can be skewed against DJT.

Anonymity needs to stop here. The witnesses against the former President should be revealed, and they can be given proper security.

Frankly, the DOJ saying this raid was "in the early stages of investigation" is nonsense. If this really was the "early stages" then they would not yet have raided the former President's house. If they choose to take unprecedented action at early stages of the investigation, then something is wrong.
 

Callen

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
21,384
Reaction score
22,264
Location
Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
21,749
Reaction score
7,709
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I read his recusal for the Clinton/Trump case. He didn't specify any reason. What would be the reason he was not impartial in this case? And be specific. He was next in line for this case. Fact.
The reason is there:

“…pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455”

Which is a statute requiring recusal for inability to be impartial. It’s also a fact that this judge could and should have recused himself from this case too.
 

MrNiceGuy

Symbiotic Pnemonic
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
3,285
Location
The Twilight Zone
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I read his recusal for the Clinton/Trump case. He didn't specify any reason. What would be the reason he was not impartial in this case? And be specific. He was next in line for this case. Fact.
I would think that when the judge made statements that Donald Trump did not have the moral authority to kiss Representative Lewis' feet, that might call his impartiality into question, and arguably that shows a personal bias.
 

tres borrachos

HoHoHo
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
101,895
Reaction score
80,375
Location
Biden's 'Murica
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The reason is there:

“…pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455”

Which is a statute requiring recusal for inability to be impartial. It’s also a fact that this judge could and should have recused himself from this case too.

Once again, list the specific reason he would need to recuse himself from this case. I'll wait.
 

MrNiceGuy

Symbiotic Pnemonic
Joined
Feb 2, 2022
Messages
7,486
Reaction score
3,285
Location
The Twilight Zone
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
OK.......which article of the many cited?
"He publicly tweeted personal criticism about President Trump’s character in 2017 before he became a magistrate judge in 2018. Magistrate Judge Reinhart just recused from a civil lawsuit from President Trump against Hillary Clinton six weeks ago,” said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project. “How did his bias go away in the last six weeks?”

In one post, the judge said he “generally ignored” Mr. Trump’s tweets, but he responded to the former president’s criticism of the civil rights icon and late Georgia Congressman John Lewis.

“Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet,” Judge Reinhart wrote on his Facebook page, according to Daily Wire. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/12/magistrate-full-authority-search-warrant-trump-mar/
So, the section on personal bias seems to apply. As does the general section about "impartiality reasonably called into question."
 
Top Bottom