Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
That raid was wrong and contrary to American values in more ways that would fit in a two-word slogan.
First about warrants in general: They are one of the rare times that the constitution allows government to take adverse action against a private individual without due process.
When a government agent seeks a warrant to eavesdrop on a person's home or business, enter and search the person's home or business, or arrest a person, the person affected gets no say, no day in court. If I get a $100 speeding ticket, I can ask for a jury trial before being forced to pay it. If my neighbor reports that I'm cooking crack in my kitchen, police can get a warrant and enter my house, frighten my wife and children, and collect all my cold medicine, with me not having a chance to tell "my side" before they do that.
Therefore, they should be used sparingly, with great caution and only when all other avenues of obtaining the items or persons needed to seek justice have failed. We trust judges, law enforcement, and prosecutors to be absolutely scrupulous in requesting and approving this temporary suspension of the right to be secure in person, house papers and effects. We have to trust them, because there is no opposing counsel to object to any abuse of the warrant process.
So, here are some reasons that this raid did not meet the expectations of law enforcement in a democratic republic:
Untrustworthy law enforcement obtained a warrant from an untrustworthy judge: Can the FBI be trusted to impartially judge information about Donald Trump to determine if a warrant is appropriate? I'll let them answer in their own words:
FBI Agent Strzok: God trump is a loathsome human.
FBI Lawyer Page: Jesus. You should read this. And Trump should go fuck himself
Did they allow this bias, repeated many times, to affect their work on the case against Trump? Again, let's look at their own words:
FBI Agent Strzok: God Hillary should win 100,000,000-0
FBI Lawyer Page: Trump's not ever going to be president, right? Right?!?
FBI Agent Strzok: No. No, he's not. We'll stop it
This is the FBI that we should trust when they have already been caught telling lies and altering government documents in order to obtain past anti-Trump warrants?
What about the judge? First of all, he isn't a judge. Reinhardt is a magistrate. For a warrant of this significance, for them to find a magistrate stinks of forum shopping to obtain a desired result. That they felt the need to do that is unusual, since nearly every warrant application results in a warrant issued due to the fact that there is no opposing counsel to object to it.
Reinhardt recused himself from a previous Trump case, so he should have recused himself from this one. No doubt the FBI talked privately to the magistrate (as is allowed for warrants), and the bias that led him to the past recusal was exactly what they were counting on.
More later . . .
First about warrants in general: They are one of the rare times that the constitution allows government to take adverse action against a private individual without due process.
When a government agent seeks a warrant to eavesdrop on a person's home or business, enter and search the person's home or business, or arrest a person, the person affected gets no say, no day in court. If I get a $100 speeding ticket, I can ask for a jury trial before being forced to pay it. If my neighbor reports that I'm cooking crack in my kitchen, police can get a warrant and enter my house, frighten my wife and children, and collect all my cold medicine, with me not having a chance to tell "my side" before they do that.
Therefore, they should be used sparingly, with great caution and only when all other avenues of obtaining the items or persons needed to seek justice have failed. We trust judges, law enforcement, and prosecutors to be absolutely scrupulous in requesting and approving this temporary suspension of the right to be secure in person, house papers and effects. We have to trust them, because there is no opposing counsel to object to any abuse of the warrant process.
So, here are some reasons that this raid did not meet the expectations of law enforcement in a democratic republic:
Untrustworthy law enforcement obtained a warrant from an untrustworthy judge: Can the FBI be trusted to impartially judge information about Donald Trump to determine if a warrant is appropriate? I'll let them answer in their own words:
FBI Agent Strzok: God trump is a loathsome human.
FBI Lawyer Page: Jesus. You should read this. And Trump should go fuck himself
Did they allow this bias, repeated many times, to affect their work on the case against Trump? Again, let's look at their own words:
FBI Agent Strzok: God Hillary should win 100,000,000-0
FBI Lawyer Page: Trump's not ever going to be president, right? Right?!?
FBI Agent Strzok: No. No, he's not. We'll stop it
This is the FBI that we should trust when they have already been caught telling lies and altering government documents in order to obtain past anti-Trump warrants?
What about the judge? First of all, he isn't a judge. Reinhardt is a magistrate. For a warrant of this significance, for them to find a magistrate stinks of forum shopping to obtain a desired result. That they felt the need to do that is unusual, since nearly every warrant application results in a warrant issued due to the fact that there is no opposing counsel to object to it.
Reinhardt recused himself from a previous Trump case, so he should have recused himself from this one. No doubt the FBI talked privately to the magistrate (as is allowed for warrants), and the bias that led him to the past recusal was exactly what they were counting on.
More later . . .
