8 ms·

FBI Searches Trump’s Home in Florida

60 points by koolba 4y ago

tamaharbor 4y ago
Probable cause?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Whatever evidence was presented, it’s damning, based on a the approval chain to execute such a search (DOJ + a federal judge). Most likely it was the National Archives. Federal law bars the removal of classified documents to unauthorized locations.
  - leereeves 4y ago
    Surely the President has the power to authorize locations and/or declassify documents.
    - decebalus1 4y ago
      Probably (not a legal scholar) but I'm sure it applies to sitting presidents, not former presidents.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        But wasn't he President when he took the documents to MAL, or at the very least, when he packed them to go to MAL? Or did he somehow take them after leaving the White House? I don't know what charges the FBI will bring in this case, but for the sake of the nation, I hope they are something more serious than just failing to write a note saying "I authorize myself to take these documents."
        joezydeco 4y ago
        @renato_mariotti: "James Comey was right when he testified that the DOJ typically does not prosecute cases involving the mishandling of classified material unless that material was deliberately transferred to a third party. That suggests to me that there is something we don't know here."
        decebalus1 4y ago
        > but for the sake of the nation It honestly does not matter at this point. Remember when Trump said “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters"? Still holds up today and he's not even running for anything. The feds can find the most damning evidence of the most heinous crimes and will still not change the minds of the MAGA crowd. We're in the post-reason context right now.
    - croon 4y ago
      For example, from the Presidential Records Act: > Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing. (emphasis mine) > Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office. https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-ac... I'm hesitant to entertain the idea of a chief executive who could do anything with impunity.
      - leereeves 4y ago
        Yeah, I'm not surprised if Trump didn't follow proper procedures. Disdain for proper procedures is very on-brand. But the PRA [1] doesn't appear to contain any penalties. What happens when someone disobeys a law that doesn't specify a penalty? (One section, 2209, does specify a penalty for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts, but that penalty is limited to suspension or reduction in pay, and doesn't apply to the President, only his staff.) I suspect that all they can do based on the PRA is take the records, and we won't see any further action based on that. 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-22 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-22
        croon 4y ago
        > Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. > Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2012-title18/html/USCODE-2012-title18-partI-chap101.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2012-title18/html...
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Nuclear related documents: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-08-11/fbi-sought-nuclear-documents-in-search-of-trumps-home-washington-post https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-08-11/fbi... > U.S. federal agents were looking for documents relating to nuclear weapons when they searched former President Donald Trump's home in Florida this week, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.
honkkong420 4y ago
- BMc2020 4y ago
  Like you I'm still on the fence, but lately I'm leaning that the Titanic was unseaworthy.
  - aaron695 4y ago
- bediger4000 4y ago
  January 6 wasn't enough? Just for fun, what would convince you? "Profound wrong" is a great phrase, but what specifically?
  - koolba 4y ago
    > January 6 wasn't enough? And what exactly is his alleged crime or wrongdoing? Here’s the full transcript from his speech that day: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-s... Here’s a sample (emphasis mine): > I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
    - d23 4y ago
      Watch the January 6th hearings if there is any doubt in your mind. The evidence is laid out quite clearly.
      - koolba 4y ago
        > Watch the January 6th hearings if there is any doubt in your mind. The evidence is laid out quite clearly. If you can’t even summarize a crime in one sentence then it’s anything but “quite clear”.
klyrs 4y ago
https://archive.ph/uwk68 https://archive.ph/uwk68
notch656a 4y ago
I strongly believe there is probable cause to be found that Trump committed crimes, but I can't help but ask if these hunts against former presidents are positive for the future peace and prosperity of America.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  South Korea seems to be doing OK despite being ahead of the US in this particular domain.
  - yongjik 4y ago
    Yep, South Korea sent four ex-presidents to prison (three were pardoned, one is still in prison). It's not a perfect solution (obviously we'd prefer if we had presidents who didn't commit crimes), but I think it's a net positive. Surprisingly, when you throw an ex-president in jail, the society doesn't break down. The stock market barely even notices.
- joezydeco 4y ago
  All we can hope is that we keep enough people with integrity and apolitical viewpoints as a buffer between the political parties and the White House. This raid was certainly signed off by Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI. Wray was appointed by Trump. Feel free to call it a witch hunt, but you don't go into a warrant like this unless you are fairly certain of the outcome.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I just hope this doesn't turn into a trolley problem where one side of the tracks is justice dying and the other side is mass violence and instability.
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    - 4y ago
anigbrowl 4y ago
@dang, while this is getting flagged because the nature of the story is contentious, I think it's absolutely legit for HN given that it's exceptionally newsworthy (as an unprecedented event), sits at the intersection of privacy vs police power (a perennial topic on HN), and raises questions about the consistency of the legal system (ditto). Also, it's just going to keep getting posted if people keep trying to flag it out of existence.
- cmurf 4y ago
  I've given up. HN considers any serious discussion of politics anti-intellectual to the degree HN avoids intelligent discussion about politics. It's so risk averse it's become 180 degrees from, and thus manages to be even worse than, Reddit. Like how could you possibly be worse than Reddit?! I know! Flag controversial political discussions! It's a great way to coddle those most needing accountability as if the mere existence of the topic is the problem! Imagine people so disturbed by a topic they want to ensure everyone else avoids it.
  - krapp 4y ago
    It's not risk aversion. Hacker News doesn't avoid intelligent discussion about politics, rather this community has proven time and time again that it isn't even capable of it, especially where Trump is concerned, and people are pre-emptively flagging what's likely to be a very high noise, low signal thread. This is a community whose education on computer science comes from MIT and Stanford, but whose education on politics comes from 4chan and the Unabomber manifesto. I mean, I would love to see intelligent political discussion on Hacker News, politics is one of the great intellectual pursuits. But it just isn't going to happen here.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      but whose education on politics comes from 4chan and the Unabomber manifesto Being very familiar with both I wish it rose to the level of the worthwhile political content in those examples, but instead seems to sink to the least interesting aspects of both. C'est la vie.
spoils19 4y ago
- Doubtme 4y ago
  you forgot what happened to Chinese during pearl harbor or what
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  We no longer live in a democracy when a President can commit crimes and brag about how they can get away with them.
- decebalus1 4y ago
  > investigated for crimes not committed How do you know? Are you part of the investigation?
xqcgrek2 4y ago
- idnfus 4y ago
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Anybody who uses the term RINO unironically favors autocracy, in direct opposition to every last letter of the constitution. Americans in name only.
  - decebalus1 4y ago
    The term RINO has a distinct fascist flavor and I would avoid using it. It pretty much dismisses any disagreement from the groupthink.
- kadoban 4y ago
  > similarly weaponizes the FBI This is a big, fairly bad assumption, seemingly based on nothing. Biden has been, if anything, too unwilling to push for any investigation into Trump's misdeeds. The DOJ did essentially nothing to look at J6 until the House committee shamed them into it, for instance.
- croon 4y ago
  The current FBI director (Christopher Wray, a republican) was appointed by Trump in 2017 after he fired James Comey (also republican), ostensibly for also investigating potential crime.
RealPlastic 4y ago
Distraction to divert attention away from the controversial "Inflation Reduction Act", perhaps?

60 points by koolba 4y ago

tamaharbor 4y ago

Probable cause?

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Whatever evidence was presented, it’s damning, based on a the approval chain to execute such a search (DOJ + a federal judge). Most likely it was the National Archives. Federal law bars the removal of classified documents to unauthorized locations.
- leereeves 4y ago
  Surely the President has the power to authorize locations and/or declassify documents.
  - decebalus1 4y ago
    Probably (not a legal scholar) but I'm sure it applies to sitting presidents, not former presidents.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      But wasn't he President when he took the documents to MAL, or at the very least, when he packed them to go to MAL? Or did he somehow take them after leaving the White House? I don't know what charges the FBI will bring in this case, but for the sake of the nation, I hope they are something more serious than just failing to write a note saying "I authorize myself to take these documents."
      - joezydeco 4y ago
        @renato_mariotti: "James Comey was right when he testified that the DOJ typically does not prosecute cases involving the mishandling of classified material unless that material was deliberately transferred to a third party. That suggests to me that there is something we don't know here."
      - decebalus1 4y ago
        > but for the sake of the nation It honestly does not matter at this point. Remember when Trump said “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters"? Still holds up today and he's not even running for anything. The feds can find the most damning evidence of the most heinous crimes and will still not change the minds of the MAGA crowd. We're in the post-reason context right now.
  - croon 4y ago
    For example, from the Presidential Records Act: > Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing. (emphasis mine) > Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office. https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-ac... I'm hesitant to entertain the idea of a chief executive who could do anything with impunity.
    - leereeves 4y ago
      Yeah, I'm not surprised if Trump didn't follow proper procedures. Disdain for proper procedures is very on-brand. But the PRA [1] doesn't appear to contain any penalties. What happens when someone disobeys a law that doesn't specify a penalty? (One section, 2209, does specify a penalty for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts, but that penalty is limited to suspension or reduction in pay, and doesn't apply to the President, only his staff.) I suspect that all they can do based on the PRA is take the records, and we won't see any further action based on that. 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-22 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-22
      - croon 4y ago
        > Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. > Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2012-title18/html/USCODE-2012-title18-partI-chap101.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2012-title18/html...
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Nuclear related documents: https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-08-11/fbi-sought-nuclear-documents-in-search-of-trumps-home-washington-post https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2022-08-11/fbi... > U.S. federal agents were looking for documents relating to nuclear weapons when they searched former President Donald Trump's home in Florida this week, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.

honkkong420 4y ago

BMc2020 4y ago
Like you I'm still on the fence, but lately I'm leaning that the Titanic was unseaworthy.
- aaron695 4y ago
bediger4000 4y ago
January 6 wasn't enough? Just for fun, what would convince you? "Profound wrong" is a great phrase, but what specifically?
- koolba 4y ago
  > January 6 wasn't enough? And what exactly is his alleged crime or wrongdoing? Here’s the full transcript from his speech that day: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-s... Here’s a sample (emphasis mine): > I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
  - d23 4y ago
    Watch the January 6th hearings if there is any doubt in your mind. The evidence is laid out quite clearly.
    - koolba 4y ago
      > Watch the January 6th hearings if there is any doubt in your mind. The evidence is laid out quite clearly. If you can’t even summarize a crime in one sentence then it’s anything but “quite clear”.

klyrs 4y ago

https://archive.ph/uwk68 https://archive.ph/uwk68

notch656a 4y ago

I strongly believe there is probable cause to be found that Trump committed crimes, but I can't help but ask if these hunts against former presidents are positive for the future peace and prosperity of America.

anigbrowl 4y ago
South Korea seems to be doing OK despite being ahead of the US in this particular domain.
- yongjik 4y ago
  Yep, South Korea sent four ex-presidents to prison (three were pardoned, one is still in prison). It's not a perfect solution (obviously we'd prefer if we had presidents who didn't commit crimes), but I think it's a net positive. Surprisingly, when you throw an ex-president in jail, the society doesn't break down. The stock market barely even notices.
joezydeco 4y ago
All we can hope is that we keep enough people with integrity and apolitical viewpoints as a buffer between the political parties and the White House. This raid was certainly signed off by Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI. Wray was appointed by Trump. Feel free to call it a witch hunt, but you don't go into a warrant like this unless you are fairly certain of the outcome.
- notch656a 4y ago
  I just hope this doesn't turn into a trolley problem where one side of the tracks is justice dying and the other side is mass violence and instability.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  - 4y ago

anigbrowl 4y ago

@dang, while this is getting flagged because the nature of the story is contentious, I think it's absolutely legit for HN given that it's exceptionally newsworthy (as an unprecedented event), sits at the intersection of privacy vs police power (a perennial topic on HN), and raises questions about the consistency of the legal system (ditto). Also, it's just going to keep getting posted if people keep trying to flag it out of existence.

cmurf 4y ago
I've given up. HN considers any serious discussion of politics anti-intellectual to the degree HN avoids intelligent discussion about politics. It's so risk averse it's become 180 degrees from, and thus manages to be even worse than, Reddit. Like how could you possibly be worse than Reddit?! I know! Flag controversial political discussions! It's a great way to coddle those most needing accountability as if the mere existence of the topic is the problem! Imagine people so disturbed by a topic they want to ensure everyone else avoids it.
- krapp 4y ago
  It's not risk aversion. Hacker News doesn't avoid intelligent discussion about politics, rather this community has proven time and time again that it isn't even capable of it, especially where Trump is concerned, and people are pre-emptively flagging what's likely to be a very high noise, low signal thread. This is a community whose education on computer science comes from MIT and Stanford, but whose education on politics comes from 4chan and the Unabomber manifesto. I mean, I would love to see intelligent political discussion on Hacker News, politics is one of the great intellectual pursuits. But it just isn't going to happen here.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    but whose education on politics comes from 4chan and the Unabomber manifesto Being very familiar with both I wish it rose to the level of the worthwhile political content in those examples, but instead seems to sink to the least interesting aspects of both. C'est la vie.

spoils19 4y ago

Doubtme 4y ago
you forgot what happened to Chinese during pearl harbor or what
encryptluks2 4y ago
We no longer live in a democracy when a President can commit crimes and brag about how they can get away with them.
decebalus1 4y ago
> investigated for crimes not committed How do you know? Are you part of the investigation?

xqcgrek2 4y ago

idnfus 4y ago
- klyrs 4y ago
  Anybody who uses the term RINO unironically favors autocracy, in direct opposition to every last letter of the constitution. Americans in name only.
- decebalus1 4y ago
  The term RINO has a distinct fascist flavor and I would avoid using it. It pretty much dismisses any disagreement from the groupthink.
kadoban 4y ago
> similarly weaponizes the FBI This is a big, fairly bad assumption, seemingly based on nothing. Biden has been, if anything, too unwilling to push for any investigation into Trump's misdeeds. The DOJ did essentially nothing to look at J6 until the House committee shamed them into it, for instance.
croon 4y ago
The current FBI director (Christopher Wray, a republican) was appointed by Trump in 2017 after he fired James Comey (also republican), ostensibly for also investigating potential crime.

RealPlastic 4y ago

Distraction to divert attention away from the controversial "Inflation Reduction Act", perhaps?