• 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

Napoleon said:
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?
Click to expand...
What makes you think his recusal related to Trump...maybe it was Cinton he had issues with?
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Personal bias.
Impartiality reasonably called into question.
Click to expand...
As I said I response to Napolean....maybe he had issues of impartiality related to Clinton
 
tres borrachos said:
Why doesn't your crush Trump release it, counselor?
Click to expand...
???

What makes you think he has it?

Jesus...quit wasting my time, will you?

You are dismissed.
 
Callen said:
What makes you think his recusal related to Trump...maybe it was Cinton he had issues with?
Click to expand...
Social media posts like “Donald Trump doesn't have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis's feet."
 
MrNiceGuy said:
So, the section on personal bias seems to apply. As does the general section about "impartiality reasonably called into question."
Click to expand...
So why isn't Trump suing over that....he isn't exactly shy when it comes to law suits. Facts are he has taken no actions whatsoever.. Maybe he knows such actions would end up hurting him more than helping.
 
Mycroft said:

The Trump Mar-a-Lago search was justified​

yawn...

We've heard this before from judges, only to find out, way after the fact, that those judges were lied to.

Only by knowing exactly what the DOJ told this judge, will we ever be sure that he wasn't lied to, as well.
Click to expand...

What is the real reason for the raid was Trump has been holding on to Obamas real birth certificate?

Man, it'd be pretty worth it then right?
 
Napoleon said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's only 1 of the 5 reasons under 28USC455.

WW
 
Callen said:
As I said I response to Napolean....maybe he had issues of impartiality related to Clinton
Click to expand...
Maybe, but his personal bias in his public comments was on full display not too long ago. It's not particular conducive to the appearance of impartiality that a judge would hold the opinion of a Republican defendant that the defendant did not have the moral authority to kiss a Democrat lawmaker's feet. Put the shoe on the other foot? What if it was Joe Biden, and the Judge was Republican who said that Joe Biden didn't have the moral authority to kiss John McCain's feet? Does that sound like there is no personal bias, or that his impartiality cannot reasonably be called into question?
 
ElChupacabra said:
So the article confirms what I suspected in terms of adhering to the standard document review process:


Had this been followed, I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened.
Click to expand...
Because Trump's plans didn't include leaving the WH. FGS, we all saw what he tried to pull off to stay in power. No one was interested in any pesky rules and regulations regarding document retention. They were mostly all involved in the attempted coup.
 
Mycroft said:

The Trump Mar-a-Lago search was justified​

yawn...

We've heard this before from judges, only to find out, way after the fact, that those judges were lied to.

Only by knowing exactly what the DOJ told this judge, will we ever be sure that he wasn't lied to, as well.
Click to expand...
What judges? The article didn't mention judges.
 
WorldWatcher said:
That's only 1 of the 5 reasons under 28USC455.

WW
Click to expand...
If any one of them is present, recusal is proper. And, it doesn't have to be any of those specific reasons. The catch all is in the first paragraph - any reason why the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
 
Napoleon said:
The same reason he recused himself from another Trump case - bias.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence the bias as against Trump**?

In that case the bias might not have been against Trump, it may have been against Clinton.

Since Clinton is not a part of the case, the previous bias is not present.

WW
 
Napoleon said:
The same reason he recused himself from another Trump case - bias.
Click to expand...

Post a link to back up your claim that he recused himself from the Trump/Clinton case because of "bias". I'll wait. And you'll run away, because there is no evidence of that.
 
Jetboogieman said:
What is the real reason for the raid was Trump has been holding on to Obamas real birth certificate?

Man, it'd be pretty worth it then right?
Click to expand...
There is no important document which Trump was holding that would have helped him any significant way. If there was such a document, it would have easily been leaked in the 18 months since he left office. Moreover, all the national security hand-wringing is total and complete bullshit and everyone should know it - whatever documents he had have been there for 18 months and Trump has plenty of copy machines and scanners. Anything in there that would be of any use or help to Trump would already have been scanned.

This is clearly a big nothing.
 
Napoleon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because that is the district he handles?
I know craaaaazy

And no Garland isn't sloppy
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Maybe, but his personal bias in his public comments was on full display not too long ago. It's not particular conducive to the appearance of impartiality that a judge would hold the opinion of a Republican defendant that the defendant did not have the moral authority to kiss a Democrat lawmaker's feet. Put the shoe on the other foot? What if it was Joe Biden, and the Judge was Republican who said that Joe Biden didn't have the moral authority to kiss John McCain's feet? Does that sound like there is no personal bias, or that his impartiality cannot reasonably be called into question?
Click to expand...
If the shoe was on the other foot and I truly thought there was bias I would move to have the judge removed and all evidence garnered through the warrant squashed. As I say Trump is no stranger to using the courts to his favour and he has done nothing about the judge, the warrant or the affidavit.....nothing. When he moves in that direction I will pay attention. Until then it's just a bunch of conspiracy theorists trying to grab on to something.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
There is no important document which Trump was holding that would have helped him any significant way. If there was such a document, it would have easily been leaked in the 18 months since he left office. Moreover, all the national security hand-wringing is total and complete bullshit and everyone should know it - whatever documents he had have been there for 18 months and Trump has plenty of copy machines and scanners. Anything in there that would be of any use or help to Trump would already have been scanned.

This is clearly a big nothing.
Click to expand...
You literally don't have a clue as to what Trump hadn't besides the France stone thing.
Beyond that it's all speculation at best.
Gp back to the dumb idea they are gonna assassinate trump because....no wait it's equally as dumb
 
Napoleon said:
He cited 28 U.S.C. § 455 so the reason is that he could not be impartial.
Click to expand...
Maybe it was not Trump he could not be impartial about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom