Demoncrats raid Mar-A-Largo to stop Trump because they do not have a candidate

TreeFrogTrader said:
The elephant in the room that you like to go out around is why the government did not just issue a subpoena for the known boxes and material. There are many, many, many pundits and lefty legal commentators that know and acknowledge that that is the normal go-to approach. Even with Nixon and the tapes they issued a subpoena rather than do a raid. You want to earn your potato by arguing that he was about to destroy or abscond with them and all of that, but no one believes that. But have at it anyway. Your instructions require it.

It was just another Roger Stone or Paul Manafort swat team type of home invasion with helicoptors flying overhead and fifty police cruisers with flashing lights. With Roger Stone they even had a patrol boat in the river in case he tried to swim across or something. It is all political theater and bullshit. If you just issued a subpoena to either one of them their lawyer would have contacted the FBI and made arrangements for their surrender. We will see a lot of this type of theatrics coming up with the army of IRS going out to audit the lefts political enemies.
More...

Well we do not know what the initial round of collection involved outside of Trump’s team handing over 15 boxes of “classified national security information.” Is he cleared from that first round, I don’t know.

The Nixon fiasco led to the presidential records act so they really cannot be viewed the same. If anything the Nixon matter informed how to handle the matter with something stronger than a subpoena.

Interesting that Newsweek is reporting that a grand jury has already determined Trump violated the law, aka Trump is already indicted for something. I would take this story with a grain of salt because if haven’t seen this corroborated.

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-informer-told-fbi-what-docs-trump-was-hiding-where-1732283
 
UsualName said:
Well we do not know what the initial round of collection involved outside of Trump’s team handing over 15 boxes of “classified national security information.” Is he cleared from that first round, I don’t know.

The Nixon fiasco led to the presidential records act so they really cannot be viewed the same. If anything the Nixon matter informed how to handle the matter with something stronger than a subpoena.

Interesting that Newsweek is reporting that a grand jury has already determined Trump violated the law, aka Trump is already indicted for something. I would take this story with a grain of salt because if haven’t seen this corroborated.

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-informer-told-fbi-what-docs-trump-was-hiding-where-1732283
More...

No, the Nixon scenario was an instance of getting required information with a subpoena that worked just fine. Just as it does in most similar situations and has been the norm for all sorts of high level cases. They piled on for show and punishment. All the related investigation and legislation has nothing to do with that point.

Also, since you are not familiar with how the American legal system works, I will point out - with reference to your comment above, that it is not the role of the grand jury to determine that Trump or anyone has violated the law- anymore than it is the role of a judge at a probable cause hearing to determine whether a person has violated the law. Only that there is probable cause and ditto for the grand jury. Many an attorney has seen their case dismissed or a mistrial declared for even suggesting that a grand juries actions mean that they reached a determination that the defendant violated the law. You are welcome.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
No, the Nixon scenario was an instance of getting required information with a subpoena that worked just fine. Just as it does in most similar situations and has been the norm for all sorts of high level cases. They piled on for show and punishment. All the related investigation and legislation has nothing to do with that point.

Also, since you are not familiar with how the American legal system works, I will point out - with reference to your comment above, that it is not the role of the grand jury to determine that Trump or anyone has violated the law- anymore than it is the role of a judge at a probable cause hearing to determine whether a person has violated the law. Only that there is probable cause and ditto for the grand jury. Many an attorney has seen their case dismissed or a mistrial declared for even suggesting that a grand juries actions mean that they reached a determination that the defendant violated the law. You are welcome.
More...

Yeah thanks but take your beef up with Newsweek, I qualified the statement as indicted. I get it’s been a rough day and a half. Save your remedial motions for dismissal for a later date. They may actually be needed.

0CE2480B-EB62-403E-B5D4-9172C547B009.jpeg
 
UsualName said:
Yeah thanks but take your beef up with Newsweek, I qualified the statement as indicted. I get it’s been a rough day and a half. Save your remedial motions for dismissal for a later date. They may actually be needed.

View attachment 291687
More...

Nope. Newsweek is wrongly stating it but so did you:

Your statement clearly implies violating the law is a/k/a being indicted.

Wrong.

"Interesting that Newsweek is reporting that a grand jury has already determined Trump violated the law, aka Trump is already indicted for something."
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Nope. Newsweek is wrongly stating it but so did you:

Your statement clearly implies violating the law is a/k/a being indicted.

Wrong.

"Interesting that Newsweek is reporting that a grand jury has already determined Trump violated the law, aka Trump is already indicted for something."
More...

That’s how I’m reading it. You can take issue with it if you want. You need to feel good about something. Possibly it is “wrongly stated” too. As I said, Id take it with a grain of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top