"Raid"? "Stasi?" "The end of America"? Good lord, give it a rest before you have a stroke. The search of a former president's home--in this case, Trump's Mar-a-Lago--is unprecedented, but it's not an "insult to our democracy." What part of the Constitution says presidents are exempt from criminal investigation? None. Serving a search war…
"Raid"? "Stasi?" "The end of America"? Good lord, give it a rest before you have a stroke. The search of a former president's home--in this case, Trump's Mar-a-Lago--is unprecedented, but it's not an "insult to our democracy." What part of the Constitution says presidents are exempt from criminal investigation? None. Serving a search warrant on MAL isn't proof of anything except the FBI needed information and a federal judge ruled the request had enough legal merit to proceed.
That's it.
The judge KNOWS this warrant will be scrutinized by hundreds of millions of Americans when it becomes public. I'd bet all the money in my pocket the judge made sure that thing was legally bulletproof before signing it. That made the search legal and reasonable. Since none of us knows what the warrant said, and what the FBI was trying to find, there's no way anyone can call this search "unacceptable." Of course it's acceptable; search warrants are how we gather evidence. FBI will find what it finds, won't find what isn't there, and we may or may not know what that was some day.
Stasi didn't bother with warrants, it just knocked on the door after midnight. This isn't that, not even remotely, except for those using it to chum the waters with outrage fish. "Get ready for Civil War!" screams the right-wing rage machine. Seriously? Over a search warrant? Meth is not your friend.
If Republicans choose to serve Biden with a search warrant for Whatever down the road, fine. If they have the proof of criminality to merit a search, they can knock themselves out.
"Raid"? "Stasi?" "The end of America"? Good lord, give it a rest before you have a stroke. The search of a former president's home--in this case, Trump's Mar-a-Lago--is unprecedented, but it's not an "insult to our democracy." What part of the Constitution says presidents are exempt from criminal investigation? None. Serving a search warrant on MAL isn't proof of anything except the FBI needed information and a federal judge ruled the request had enough legal merit to proceed.
That's it.
The judge KNOWS this warrant will be scrutinized by hundreds of millions of Americans when it becomes public. I'd bet all the money in my pocket the judge made sure that thing was legally bulletproof before signing it. That made the search legal and reasonable. Since none of us knows what the warrant said, and what the FBI was trying to find, there's no way anyone can call this search "unacceptable." Of course it's acceptable; search warrants are how we gather evidence. FBI will find what it finds, won't find what isn't there, and we may or may not know what that was some day.
Stasi didn't bother with warrants, it just knocked on the door after midnight. This isn't that, not even remotely, except for those using it to chum the waters with outrage fish. "Get ready for Civil War!" screams the right-wing rage machine. Seriously? Over a search warrant? Meth is not your friend.
If Republicans choose to serve Biden with a search warrant for Whatever down the road, fine. If they have the proof of criminality to merit a search, they can knock themselves out.