If Trump is guilty of something, send him to jail

But the idea that the FBI can raid a former president’s home (and a former president who is very likely to run again) sounds too much like Banana Republic territory, where the regime in power sends the law after its opponents.

Based on what I’ve heard, the FBI only needed a signature from “a federal judge.” That doesn’t sound like a high enough barrier. I would think that separation of powers would require something like this to get approval from SCOTUS.

I know people will say “Trump is not above the law.” No, he’s not. But there’s more at stake here than just Trump the citizen.

It sounds as if the FBI is getting a bit raid-happy as a general matter, which is something Congress should look into. But raiding a former president’s home? That is a big deal.

29 thoughts on “If Trump is guilty of something, send him to jail”

  1. QUOTE: If Trump is guilty of something, send him to jail but the idea that the FBI can raid a former president’s home (and a former president who is very likely to run again) sounds too much like Banana Republic territory, where the regime in power sends the law after its opponents.

    ISTM that before any conversation about jail or guilt can be legitimately had, an investigation needs to be established, evidence gathered, charges filed and then a trial. Based on information currently available, it seems the FBI is following current lawful practices in this matter.

    That said, it’s premature to come to any conclusion about what’s going on. So, it’s likely that every one should keep their powder dry until more information is available. Yet, what we do know is the law currently states that to get a search warrant “probable cause” of a crime needs to be established and approved by a judge. As well, the request for a search must outline the specific evidence in question and where it’s likely to be found. Also, it’s common DOJ practice that before ANY official has such a search executed it’s approved at the highest levels of the department to ensure that it is done circumspectly. So, if Trump’s case met those parameters then indeed the DOJ/FBI were well within their legal authority to conduct the search. Those that have oversight of such actions should do so lawfully and without bias….to confirm if proper legal protocol has been followed.

    Interestingly, when these type of “high profile” searches have occurred in the recent past…the FBI seem to have not only gotten evidence but was able to secure jury trial convictions…Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, and Paul Manifort….to name a few.

    QUOTE: Based on what I’ve heard, the FBI only needed a signature from “a federal judge.” That doesn’t sound like a high enough barrier. I would think that separation of powers would require something like this to get approval from SCOTUS.

    Seems Congress needs to get work in creating laws that provide more guidance if the investigation of a former President is required. Yet, who would have imagined that such a thing would be required…but here we are. Still, if it’s necessary then the rule of law needs to be applied, no matter the person or office. After all, that’s the mantra from Trump et. al….we are country of laws and we must abide by the rule of law.

    1. There are no “current lawful practices” in raiding the home of a former president who is also a presidential candidate. It’s simply dishonest to pretend that they were just following the rules.

      For example, if — as reports seem to indicate — this has to do with disclosure of classified documents, the president (Trump was president when he removed the records) has absolute discretion to de-classify things.

      If he was destroying “presidential documents,” that might be a different matter. I don’t believe he has the authority to destroy them.

      But the FBI has lost its credibility on these matters. They never raided Hillary. They never raided Hunter. They went along with the Russia narrative when they knew it was unreliable. They look, sound, smell, quack, and act like Democratic partisan hacks.

      I would love to see Trump out of the picture, but this situation stinks, and there’s simply no getting around that.

      1. QUOTE: There are no “current lawful practices” in raiding the home of a former president who is also a presidential candidate. It’s simply dishonest to pretend that they were just following the rules.

        Huh??? Did I miss something? When did Trump become a presidential candidate? As far as I understand, he’s a private citizen. As well, being a former president doesn’t exempt one from the law. Isn’t it a shame that the country has to have such a conversation about a former president…but we are where we are. The “current lawful practice” is that if there is evidence of a crime and it can be substantiated that the evidence is in a given place, the FBI can request and conduct a search as long as a federal judge approves.

        QUOTE: For example, if — as reports seem to indicate — this has to do with disclosure of classified documents, the president (Trump was president when he removed the records) has absolute discretion to de-classify things.

        Do you know if the documents were declassified? Do you know what the nature of the search affidavit specified? Do you know why a federal judge approved a search warrant…especially understanding the controversial nature of such an approval? If so, please enlighten us…because it would be really beneficial to know.

        Funny thing, the DOJ hasn’t released an official statement concerning this matter. Yet, the primary information we have is from the target of the search. I wonder if that’s “truly reliable”?…NOT! As well, some media sources. Some believe that initial media reports shouldn’t be believed and should wait for the facts come out. It’s only been 24 hours…so….

        QUOTE: But the FBI has lost its credibility on these matters. They never raided Hillary. They never raided Hunter. They went along with the Russia narrative when they knew it was unreliable. They look, sound, smell, quack, and act like Democratic partisan hacks.

        What was that about “whataboutism”??? Another red herring. I’ll pass.

        1. Not only another red herring, but it becomes all the more ridiculous when one considers 1) that Trump himself said at the outset of his presidency that was not going to pursue Hillary (since there was, after all, no “there” there), and 2) the director of the FBI was appointed by Trump.

          1. When you have a group like the GOP, no wonder Trump is considered Teflon Don. They don’t seem to apply rule of law and democratic norms to him. They find any rationale to justify his behavior…even the point of straining credulity. Facts, truth, evidence doesn’t seem to matter. Maybe that’s why they created a fake syndrome because they are the ones suffering from it?

      2. Well, it seems there is now OFFICIAL information that has come directly from the horse’s mouth (DOJ – AG)…relative to the search of Mar-a-largo and what has come out the donkey’s derrière (Trump). Based on the AG’s official statement, this is what we know:

        *Less obtrusive measures were attempted prior to filing for and executing a search warrant.
        *Trump’s attorney was on property during the search.
        *The DOJ attempted to manage this process discreetly (as the law and policy requires) but it was Trump that announced it and his accolades disclosed aspects of the search.
        *Since Trump, et. al. have made this public and it’s in the nation’s interest, the DOJ has filed for the search affidavit to be made public so the public can see the SPECIFICS of the search.
        *Trump’s team can object and request it remained sealed…but must do so by 3pm on Aug. 12. If they fail to do so, the information can become public based on the court’s ruling.

        So, now that Trump has put it out there he has to put up or shut up. Interestingly, given this was allegedly such an atrocity, he could have released SPECIFIC contents of search affidavit himself so the public could see and have an accurate understanding to FBI’s actions. To date, he’s not done so. So, if he doesn’t contest tomorrow…EVERYONE…will have the opportunity to see and judge for themselves. Yet, if Trump resists it becoming public that will speak VOLUMES about the veracity of his claims.

        So far, it seems DOJ/FBI has done this according to what the law defines within their power. Given the AG’s public statement and willingness for transparency, I don’t see any need for the vitriol that has been expressed by the right thus far. Yet, we’ll see. The ball’s now in Trump’s court…let’s see if he will allow us all to see what the FBI was interested in obtaining.

        1. And you believe that?

          I heard an interview with the lawyer who was “on property.” She wasn’t allowed to observe anything the agents were doing.

          Everything is a lie. Everything is spin. Which is why (unlike the kangaroo Jan. 6 hearings) we have cross-examination of witnesses, rights of the accused, etc.

          1. The most recent defense from Trump is that, while president, he took the documents home after work in order to examine them. While that is a flimsy defense in itself, it kills the narrative of a plant.

            The GOP had an opportunity to set up a large-scale congressional investigation in which they would get every opportunity to engage in cross-examinations. They turned it down.

            As matters now stand we can only hope that Trump gets indicted and will have his day in court. He will then get to plead the 5th out the wazoo while a dream team of lawyers attempt to flim-flam the nation with thousands upon thousands of red herrings.

            “If Trump is guilty of something, send him to jail. But first let all the legitimate powers that can uncover his guilt be rendered fully impotent.” That is the message that we are getting here.

            1. QUOTE: The most recent defense from Trump is that, while president, he took the documents home after work in order to examine them.

              Isn’t it interesting how the defenses keep changing? I can’t help but wonder if Obama had similar circumstances and offered the same shifting defenses if conservatives would have accepted them the way they have with Trump. It wasn’t so long ago they were shouting “lock her up” over mishandling of sensitive government documents. Now, not so much, with Trump.

              The GOP had an opportunity to set up a large-scale congressional investigation in which they would get every opportunity to engage in cross-examinations. They turned it down.

              Seems they conveniently forgot that fact. It makes one wonder “why” they wouldn’t want to investigate the mob that attacked police, illegally stormed the Capitol Building and threatened lives. Imagine that, the very symbol of US democracy and the “law and order” crowd says…”nah, we’ll pass on an investigation”. Oh well, if there’s anything “kangarooish” about the Jan. 6 hearings, it must be because they hopped over the typical GOP male bovine manure to present facts and evidence and allow the citizens to draw their own conclusion. BTW, how would conservative extremists, pundits and GOP congressional leaders know anything about the hearings, they claim they haven’t watched. The way they stick their heads in the ground, they must be suffering from ODS, Ostrich Derangement Syndrome.

              QUOTE: He will then get to plead the 5th out the wazoo while a dream team of lawyers attempt to flim-flam the nation with thousands upon thousands of red herrings.

              Wasn’t it Trump that said…“So, there are five people taking the Fifth Amendment. Like you see on the mob, right? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” Guess that comment didn’t age well.

              1. There are of course fanatics who will remain true to him however untrue he may be.

                But how am I to understand those who concede that he might be guilty of crimes and at the same time deny the legitimacy of any authority the right (indeed, the duty!) to investigate those crimes?

            2. QUOTE: The most recent defense from Trump is that, while president, he took the documents home after work in order to examine them.

              Seems the Trump narrative continues to shift, despite being incredulous. Even hard core conservative, former Trump National Security Advisor, John Bolton says it’s probably a lie.

              “ When somebody begins to concoct lies like this, it shows a real level of desperation.”

              https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3602538-bolton-trump-explanations-on-classified-documents-show-real-level-of-desperation/

          2. QUOTE: And you believe that?

            I BELIEVE:
            *The DOJ/FBI had every legal/constitutional right to do what they did.
            *Trump is a confirmed LIAR. It’s amazing some people give credence to the claims of a man that perpetually falsely states the 2020 election was stolen (without producing evidence that can withstand scrutiny in a court of law).
            *Conservative extremists and pundits are behaving in an egregious, hypocritical and dangerous manner. Trump and they are jeopardizing the safety of law enforcement.

            QUOTE: I heard an interview with the lawyer who was “on property.” She wasn’t allowed to observe anything the agents were doing.

            IF that’s true, the FBI was within legal/constitutional protocol to do such. Having heard some of the statements of the lawyer, I have MAJOR reservations about her reliability.

            QUOTE: Everything is a lie. Everything is spin.

            Glad you recognize Trump’s modus operandi. More conservatives should.

  2. If Trump is guilty of something, send him to jail. And it is looking more and more that he is to any reasonable person.

    1. Interestingly, the Republican “law and order” crowd is fundraising off and speaking out against this “lawful” FBI proceeding. Without the facts being know, there’s a presumption of something untoward being done. Yet, when testimony (under oath) was revealed that Trump wanted to the Justice Department to do potentially illegal activity…crickets from this crowd.

  3. QUOTE: But how am I to understand those who concede that he might be guilty of crimes and at the same time deny the legitimacy of any authority the right (indeed, the duty!) to investigate those crimes?

    Indeed! How in the world could he could be prosecuted, tried and sent to jail, if he can’t be investigated??? Could you imagine the reaction from the “law and order” crowd if the DOJ declared him guilty of crimes and locked him up (without an investigation and due process)??? Of course, that’s what they wanted to do to Hillary so maybe this is becoming a thing?

  4. Hmm…Trump and his supporters intimated the FBI “planted” evidence. Yet, also claimed the documents were his and he declassified them. Interesting! Hope they release “unedited” security camera footage. It might show the FBI planting materials that already allegedly belonged to Trump!

    Relative to declassification, Trump claims he had a standing declassification order. Yet, according to reports, 18 of his former top officials (inclusive of two Chief of Staff) have refuted such a policy ever existed. Curious?!?!

    I still wonder how the “law and order” crowd justifies “Defunding the FBI” and “threatening” them. They deemed people who expressed such rhetoric about law enforcement as unpatriotic…but now those that have made recent threats are true patriots? Another mystery for the ages!

  5. Karl Rove, who served as a senior adviser to former President George W. Bush, said that former President Trump did not have the authority to take presidential documents with him to his Mar-a-Lago residence when he ended his term.

    “President Trump has said several times all they had to do was ask,” Rove said on Friday. “Well, my sense is they were asking for a year and a half.”

    “Why he was holding on to these materials when he had no legal authority to do so under the Presidential Records Act is beyond me,” Rove said during an appearance on Fox News network.

    “The Presidential Records Act is clear,” Rove said on Fox News. A president does not have the right to leave the White House and pick and choose what documents he wants to take with him,” he continued. “He can ask for copies, but those are the property of the American people, and since 1978 no president has left with sort of picking and choosing their own documents.”

    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3617375-karl-rove-beyond-me-why-trump-held-on-to-docs-when-he-had-no-legal-authority/amp/

  6. STATEMENT
    Senator Lindsey Graham said on national TV there would be “riots in the streets” if Trump is indicted. Why would someone who allegedly stands for the “rule of law” make such a statement? Isn’t that irresponsible…potentially instigating threats against the DOJ? If there enough evidence to indict, isn’t that the way the “rule of law” is supposed to work or is there a special class of people that are exempt?

    COMPARISONS
    Graham justified his commentary by making a comparison to Hillary Clinton. Yet, is this an apt comparison? Interestingly, before the conclusion of that investigation conservatives were chanting “lock her up”. They actually “praised” the FBI for conducting the investigation. The allegation alone was enough to convict her (in the minds of MAGA conservatives – no due process required). Yet, in actuality, the “rule of law” was applied in Hillary’s case. There were three distinct investigations and none of them found evidence that would warrant indictment. One of those investigations was conducted by the Trump Administration and they reported, “no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information”.

    So, would it have been the proper execution of the “rule of law” to indict Hillary, given the Trump Administration’s findings? We don’t know the conclusion of DOJ’s investigation in Trump’s case and there’s already “threats of violence”. Yet, if the DOJ finds they have enough to indict Trump, why shouldn’t they do so? Wouldn’t that be the proper exercise of the “rule of law”? As well, why would Trump’s case be contingent upon the outcomes of Hillary’s closed case…especially since there were multiple investigations, all concluding there wasn’t sufficient evidence to indict? After all, it was the Trump DOJ that choose not to indict Hillary.

    QUESTIONS:
    All of this arm waving about the FBI lawfully searching Mar-a-largo seems to be a distraction from some more important questions…

    *Why did Trump have highly sensitive documents that could put national security at risk at Mar-a-largo (in an unsecured location)?
    *Why, after so many attempts over nearly 1.5 years, wouldn’t Trump relinquish the documents?
    *Why did one of Trump’s lawyers sign a legal statement that indicated all relevant documents had been returned in January? Yet, the search found many more highly sensitive documents at Mar-a-largo.
    *Why doesn’t there seem to be as grave of concerns amongst MAGA conservatives about national security in this case as there was during the Hillary Clinton’s situation?

    THE BIG PICTURE: PORTRAIT OF A PATRIOT
    Before the facts of the FBI search of Mar-a-largo could be ascertained the MAGA conservatives immediately came to the defense of Trump, as typical. His supporters rarely call him out for behavior they’ve actively condemned in their political opponents. Interestingly, their support has escalated to the point of threats of violence…taking up “muskets” if he lost the 2016 election, attacking the nation’s Capitol Building on Jan 6 (threatening the life of the VP and other government officials), threats against the FBI for lawfully searching his property and now Graham forecasting there will be “riots in the streets” if Trump is indicted. Why would those who allegedly value patriotism support a man who has consistently flouted their view of patriotism (see below to name a few)?

    PATRIOT Serves in the US military, if called to so.
    TRUMP Avoided multiple military drafts (for questionable reasons).

    PATRIOT Accepts the outcome of the people’s choice in a free, fair and lawful election.
    TRUMP Has consistently lied about outcomes of the 2020 election, actively encouraged distrust in the voting process and even called the Republican Secretary of State in Georgia and asked him to “find votes” for him (in an effort to change the election outcomes).

    PATRIOT Protects national security.
    TRUMP Put national security at risk by storing highly sensitive documents in an unsecured location within his residence. Shared classified information with Russians during US visit.

    PATRIOT Is trustworthy and faithful.
    TRUMP Reported to have uttered 30,000 lies and misleading statements during his presidency. Cheated on his wives (one while pregnant), organizations found legally culpable of defrauding patrons, consistently not paid creditors and lawyers, used bankruptcy (on multiple occasions) to avoid paying debt.

    PATRIOTDefends the US against foreign adversaries.
    TRUMP During Helsinki press conference, refuted official US government position (his administration) to defend Russian president Putin.

    PATRIOT Protect and serve American citizens.
    TRUMP A recording confirmed he had early in-depth knowledge about potential fatal risks of COVID but publicly downplayed the risks and provided misleading information about its duration and treatment.

    PATRIOT Despite legitimate disagreements with political opponents, places country over party. TRUMP Tweeted “Liberate Michigan!”, inciting an armed protest against Democrat state officials (putting their safety at risk and presumably contributing to a plot to kidnap a Democrat governor). Failed to denounce incendiary and potentially dangerous rhetoric amongst his MAGA supporters.

    PATRIOT Obeys US law and supports legitimate exercise of the rule of law.
    TRUMP His organization has been found to employ undocumented immigrants. His rhetoric has incited threats against law enforcement (FBI).

    PATRIOT Desires citizens to receive reliable information from government agencies.
    TRUMP His “sharpie-gate” rhetoric damaged NOAA’s credibility and undercut public trust in the agency’s apolitical weather forecasting.

    PATRIOT Utilize their power in a manner beyond reproach.
    TRUMP Despite being legal, pardoned his “personal friends” after being justly convicted and appointed his “family” in significant government roles in which they had very little experience…giving the appearance of cronyism and nepotism…“swamp-like” for a person that pledged to “drain the swamp”.

    PATRIOT Discourages unnecessary government intervention in private industry.
    TRUMP On multiple occasions, while President, attempted to use his influence to disrupt businesses he disagreed with (e.g., NFL, Nike, CNN, Washington Post).

    PATRIOT Would not threaten to use government authority to persecute a political opponent. TRUMP Threatened to use the government to investigate Hillary Clinton if he won the 2016 election (as is practiced in a banana republic).

    1. I don’t know anyone who thinks highly of Lindsay Graham.

      Based on what we know right now, there should be protests if Trump is indicted. Certainly not riots. But we don’t know much right now, and it’s foolish to commit to any course of action when there’s so little genuine information.

  7. QUOTE: I don’t know anyone who thinks highly of Lindsay Graham.

    People don’t have to like someone to act on their rhetoric…especially when it seems to fit into current reactions. The FBI has already had increased threats and an attempted attack.

    QUOTE: Based on what we know right now, there should be protests if Trump is indicted. Certainly not riots.

    Indeed, people free to protest anything. That’s the American way. Yet, based on what’s currently available it appears that lawful practices have been followed to date by the FBI/DOJ (corroborated by a second branch of government before the search was conducted). We are long way from indictment, so everyone needs to keep their powder until more is officially known. But, “if” there is an indictment, it’s not a forgone conclusion that there should be protests….especially if the FBI/DOJ continues to follow their current trend of lawful practice. I’d say, it’s reasonable (before protesting) let the justice system follow it natural process and the government prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Yet, it would be ironic to see…the law and order crowd protesting the rightful exercise of the rule of law.

    QUOTE: But we don’t know much right now, and it’s foolish to commit to any course of action when there’s so little genuine information

    Agreed! That’s exactly the reason why I thought the initial conservative reaction was curious. Not very much was know before threats were made and accusations recklessly hurled.

    1. PS…I still find it curious that all the questions surrounding Trump’s behavior and national security aren’t be asked by the MAGA crowd (see below). As well, why does the goal post keep moving? First, it was show us the search warrant (which could have been released immediately by Trump). Then it was show us the affidavit. When what was reasonable to show was released, that still wasn’t enough. Interestingly, what has been publicly released doesn’t bode well for Trump.

      *Why did Trump have highly sensitive documents that could put national security at risk at Mar-a-largo (in an unsecured location)?
      *Why, after so many attempts over nearly 1.5 years, wouldn’t Trump relinquish the documents?
      *Why did one of Trump’s lawyers sign a legal statement that indicated all relevant documents had been returned in January? Yet, the search found many more highly sensitive documents at Mar-a-largo.

  8. Lindsay Graham is a perfect example of the MAGA model of the GOP, whether or not anyone thinks highly of him (although I think that people of that violent, anti-Amerrican, pseudo-patriotic mentality that has come into prominence through Trumpism will assuredly take him seriously when it suits them). He frames a threat of violence in hypothetical terms as a predication. If it were not a threat, he would make sure to say in public that people SHOULD NOT react violently to a legal process. As it stands, he was only telling the knuckle-dragging audience of FOX to stand back and stand by.

    As William has pointed out very eloquently, we know enough about the criminality of Trump. I can hardly add anything, except that his flip-flopping in making inconsistent excuses for having the documents gives us every reason to conclude that he a guilty man.

  9. QUOTE: Lindsay Graham is a perfect example of the MAGA model of the GOP, whether or not anyone thinks highly of him (although I think that people of that violent, anti-Amerrican, pseudo-patriotic mentality that has come into prominence through Trumpism will assuredly take him seriously when it suits them).

    So right. Ted Cruz has been considered a turd in a punch bowl by his party. Yet, when he volunteered to argue a bogus SCOTUS case relative to invalidating aspects of the 2020 election, he was greatly supported by the GOP. As well, we have already seen threats of violence against law enforcement. This statement (from an elected lawmaker) seems to be a justification for them to do what they are already primed to do. Maybe they need to follow the guidance of Justice Clarence Thomas…People must “live with outcomes we don’t agree with…”

    1. He blew hot and now he blows cold, saying that he is against violence. But he got his message across when he blew hot. This is another tactic of MAGA (which is most of the GOP, including FOX): Be peaceful (wink, wink).

  10. QUOTE: …we know enough about the criminality of Trump. I can hardly add anything, except that his flip-flopping in making inconsistent excuses for having the documents gives us every reason to conclude that he a guilty man.

    Trump et. al. should quit while they are behind. As they continue to push their narrative, more information is released that credibly refutes it. Be careful what you wish for!

    Based on what it known, it seems the DOJ was acting lawfully, had justification for their actions and attempting to handle this matter with discretion. It was Trump that created all the public drama (not surprising). The GOP/MAGA world has been clamoring for more transparency and creating a trial in the court of public opinion. It will be insincere for them to later claim Trump couldn’t get fair treatment, given their constant drive for public disclosure.

    After seeing the DOJ’s latest court filing, it’s very damning…complete with a photo evidence. No wonder Trump was executing his familiar “flood the zone” ploy yesterday. I hope the Trump team keeps their promise and releases unedited security camera footage of the FBI search. That way we could all see how the FBI “planted” evidence (as once intimated). It’s curious they’ve not already released it. It’s also interesting that Trump didn’t release the search warrant and evidence collection receipt given he made such fuss about it. It was within his power to do so immediately but he waited for DOJ to do so.

    Interestingly, given it’s highly sensitive documents that’s at the core of this issue, there’s little outcry from conservatives about the inherit risks to national security. It took less than this before conservatives were chanting “lock her up” and decrying the threats to national security…it was constant mantra. What happened to national security being such a key priority now that it’s Trump?

    Ironically, “if” the DOJ were to indict Trump and he was found guilty in a court of law, the potential intensity of punishment would be by his own hand. In his effort to protect national security (prompted by Hillary’s email investigation), he increased the punishment for such crimes. If such a thing were to happen, it would remind me of the story of when Haman went after Mordecai and ended up suffering the consequences of his own decree.

    https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3622203-doj-classified-documents-at-mar-a-lago-likely-concealed-and-removed/

  12. Trump said the defendants charged in the Capitol riot were “having their lives totally destroyed and being treated worse than terrorists and murderers…and if I become president, someday if I decide to do it, I will be looking at them very, very seriously for pardons. Very, very seriously”

    These are the words of an American patriot? Is this now acceptable to the GOP? Will Kevin McCarthy and the GOP endorse this view???

    I wonder if Trump would consider the same about Democratic rioters who attempted to disrupt the certification of his re-election and threatened the lives of government leaders?

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3528189-trump-says-he-would-look-very-very-seriously-at-pardons-for-jan-6-defendants-if-reelected/

Comments are closed.