XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,    
   lt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars   
   XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,   
   alt.politics.guns, alt.politics.usa   
   XPost: alt.politics.org.fbi   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 8/9/22 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:   
   > The opinion on last night’s FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago around which many in   
   > the media seem quickly to have coalesced is that it was, indeed, a   
   > “dramatic” and “norm-breaking” event, but that this fact implies that   
   > it “must” therefore have been warranted. On CBS last night, Major   
   > Garrett confirmed that such action “is without precedent in American   
   > history, a former president of the United States now subject to a   
   > search of his primary residence by the FBI.” This morning’s Politico   
   > Playbook describes it as “the most aggressive law enforcement action   
   > ever taken against a former American president.” The BBC notes that   
   > “there has never been a search warrant quite like this in American   
   > history.”   
   >   
   > In response, the most prominent among our pundits seem to have   
   > responded, “. . . and that’s _just how bad Trump is!”_ On CNN this   
   > morning, George Conway said that “they’ve crossed the Rubicon here. Not   
   > even Richard Nixon’s house in San Clemente was searched by the FBI, as   
   > far as I know.” Then he said, “You have to conclude there’s something   
   > behind the curtain that would surprise us.” On Twitter last night,   
   > David Axelrod said, “One thing is very clear. Garland would not have   
   > authorized this raid, and no federal judge would have signed off on it,   
   > if there weren’t significant evidence to warrant it.” This seemed to be   
   > the takeaway on most of the cable news shows, too.   
   >   
   > Missing, though, was the second part of the thought. Namely: What if   
   > that isn’t true? George Conway says that the FBI has “crossed the   
   > Rubicon,” but that this must be because there’s “something behind the   
   > curtain that would surprise us.” Okay, but what if there’s not? _Then   
   > what?_ I’d like to hear his thoughts. David Axelrod says that “Garland   
   > would not have authorized this raid, and no federal judge would have   
   > signed off on it, if there weren’t significant evidence to warrant it.”   
   > Okay, but what if they did? _Then what?_ I’d like to know what Axelrod   
   > thinks that means. If this was obviously justified, Conway, Axelrod,   
   > and co. will be able to sit back and say, “see!” And I’ll join them! As   
   > I’ve written before, there’s nothing per se wrong with investigating   
   > presidential candidates, so long as it’s done even-handedly, and if   
   > Trump has committed a crime for which others in a similar position have   
   > been prosecuted, then he should be charged. But if it wasn’t justified,   
   > and the FBI “crossed the Rubicon” without cause, what happens next? Do   
   > we just move on — as if nothing ever happened?   
   >   
   > Politico Playbook quotes a lawyer on this point:   
   >   
   > 	“If they raided his home just to find classified documents he   
   > 	took from The White House,” one legal expert noted, “he will   
   > 	be re-elected president in 2024, hands down. It will prove to   
   > 	be the greatest law enforcement mistake in history.”   
   >   
   > This is a useful yardstick. It contains a specific and testable   
   > definition of “unjustified”: “just to find classified documents he took   
   > from The White House.” It contains a judgment that utilizes that   
   > standard: “It will prove to be the greatest law enforcement mistake in   
   > history.” And it contains a prediction: “he will be re-elected   
   > president in 2024, hands down.” I would like to hear a similar   
   > specificity from others who have suggested that the raid must have been   
   > justified. What, in precise terms, does “justified” look like? And if   
   > the raid was unjustified, using those terms, then what should happen to   
   > the people who enabled it? Should Merrick Garland resign? Should the   
   > judge who signed off on the warrant be impeached? Should the FBI be   
   > reformed? Should Joe Biden — who is at the head of the executive branch   
   > — be blamed? What would it say about the federal government? Let’s   
   > define terms here.   
   >   
   > I know nothing more about the details than anyone else, but I’ll lay   
   > out my own views on this as best I can. They are:   
   >   
   > • that the warrant must immediately be made public   
   >   
   > • that as the head of the executive branch, Joe Biden must explain to   
   > the country what happened today (yes, it’s Biden’s concern: progressive   
   > wishes to the contrary, the DOJ is not some free-floating fourth branch   
   > of government, it is under the president’s purview)   
   >   
   > • that, for the raid to be justified, the warrant and the explanation   
   > must clearly reveal (a) that there was an urgent need to obtain   
   > evidence that pertained to a serious crime, (b) that this evidence   
   > could not possibly have been obtained by other means, or on another   
   > occasion, or without a surprise visit, and (c) that, if the target was   
   > not named Donald Trump, a similar operation would have been launched   
   >   
   > • that if this standard is not met, Merrick Garland must resign or be   
   > impeached, as must the head of the FBI   
   >   
   > • that the FBI must be examined and reformed as a matter of utmost   
   > priority   
   >   
   > There will be more George Conways and David Axelrods on TV and on   
   > Twitter today. Any hot takes from them that omit the crucial “then   
   > what?” part of the equation will be next to useless.   
   >   
   > --   
   > Let's go Brandon!   
   >   
   Time to sue the FBI to have the Judiciary shut them down....   If   
   Congress/President won't then maybe the Justices will?   That's why we   
   have 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT WITH checks and balances.   
      
   Maybe it's as simple as a restraining order against the FBI and/or   
   Democrat lawyers... that bars them from going after and harassing TRUMP.   
     Or   
   It might be a MANDATORY contempt of Court against any Democrat or FBI   
   charge against TRUMP that doesn't have the actual verifiable facts to   
   support it in court making it a case of either TRUMP is guilty of the   
   accused crime or the accuser is guilty of FAKE accusations and criminal   
   abuse of the justice system.  Let the prosecution and the people filing   
   charges risk as much as the person being charged.   
      
   That would make it equal jeopardy which is as sound as the idea of NOT   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)