Trump v. FBI

Here are my current thoughts on the FBI thing.

(1) Obviously, Trump is a piece of sh*t.

(2) Obviously, the left is OBSESSED with Trump to a shocking degree, even for them.

(3) Politically, this raid by the FBI is a cluster of epic proportions. Why? This makes the FBI look terrible. This reeks of a politicized hit. It is the sort of thing the FBI needs to be above to have any credibility. Add the fact that (1) it was exposed that their last investigation of Trump (Russian election interference) was conducted by two lovers who were anti-Trump and wanted to bring him down and the FBI did little to stop them. (2) The former FBI director harassed Trump and then went on an anti-Trump talk show and book writing bender after being removed from office. (3) It's funny how they never seem to be able to find any crimes committed by Democrats even when it is beyond clear those Democrats committed crimes. Hillary's emails are just one example. So was Hillary's campaign hacking into White House computers -- far far worse than this. Yet, the FBI turned a blind eye. And look at Hunter Biden. It is clear/certain that he was taking bribes from foreign powers for favors done by his father who was getting part of the bribes. It is clear he was doing drugs with hookers as he carried around a laptop with top secret documents he could only have gotten from his father... and then lost the laptop. Yet, again, the FBI does nothing. In fact, it tried to cover it up. It is clear the FBI will pursue those who are politically out of favor but will protect those who are not. They have no credibility anymore.

(4) The left is falling all over themselves to explain how this wasn't biased, but they are lying. Look at the following quotes from an article rushed out by "legal experts" and my comments below that. My comments come from reality as an attorney who has dealt with these things:

"Former FBI agents, including one who’s already investigated Trump, and ex-federal prosecutors told Yahoo News that obtaining a search warrant is a lengthy, difficult process, designed to be immune to political pressures."

Not true. You can get one in minutes and it takes almost nothing. I've seen them gotten over the phone with the agent talking about vague conclusions based on years of experience.

"The bureaucratic, box-ticking process by which the FBI obtains a warrant under ordinary circumstances is complicated enough, they maintain, without factoring in the enormity of sniffing around an ex-president’s digs."

Ha.

"'To obtain a search warrant, you need two things,' according to Barbara L. McQuade, the former U.S attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. 'You have to have conducted a sufficient investigation beforehand to demonstrate probable cause that a specific crime has been committed, and you need to show convincingly that evidence of that crime will be found at the location. These are not blind fishing expeditions.'"

True, but false. Probable cause is all an officer needs to get one and it can be manufactured with any statement by a witness including the agents themselves swearing that in their experience this search will likely yield results. Once the National Archives said Trump turned over documents but not all of them, that gave the FBI enough to find probable cause anywhere they want to search. All the words this woman uses are meant to distract. A specific crime means you can point to the code book to name the crime, e.g. Speeding. "Convincingly" is double speak, it just means your probable cause makes sense to the judge. A "sufficient investigation beforehand" means nothing at all, just that you looked and saw or heard something to give you probable cause. "I saw him unload boxes on television" is "sufficient investigation." Probable cause here is no different than what it takes a cop to pull you over and search your car. He crossed the white line. He was driving erratically. I smelled a substance I believed was drugs. He was driving in the part of town where drugs are sold (I've seen that one work). Probable cause simply means rational reason to believe there is evidence of a crime here. Only the dumbest of cops can't find probable cause, especially when you can judge shop to find a friendly one like the FBI does.

"Political affiliation, as a matter of Department of Justice policy, cannot have any influence on that process."

And yet, it does routinely. This is also contradicted by the very next statement in the article:

"Given the sensitivity of this case, McQuade said, Wray will have almost certainly been briefed in detail and had to have approved the move to obtain a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. Even then, there was never any guarantee it would be granted."

So, you can't worry about political affiliation, but this would need to go through the head of the FBI's office because it involves someone important, i.e. political sensitivity. So, uh, it does matter?

"The warrant was issued by a federal magistrate judge in Florida. 'Even if you don’t believe politics isn’t involved in criminal investigations,' McQuade said, 'magistrate judges tend to be especially neutral and detached, because they’re selected by U.S. district court judges – entire benches – and so you end up with people who are really quite moderate.'"

Good grief. I have yet to deal with a magistrate who isn't political or biased in some direction. That idea that these people are moderate is laughable. Has this woman never been to court? Or is she lying?

I have been involved in the process from the law enforcement side. I have friends on each side. I've dealt with dozens of judges and magistrates. I've worked with FBI people. None of the claims of difficulty and lack of bias above are true. This is pretending that the existence of procedure prevents substantive bias. It does not. And the left will tell you this when it involves black guys going to jail or wiretaps against Muslims. Yet somehow, now that we are talking Trump, these same failed procedures are sacrosanct?

(5) The real disaster here is that this will save Trump. Trump was done. Outside of CPAC, not a lot of conservatives or Republicans wanted him back. This makes him a victim of the system and people will rally around him... at least until the election.

(6) Talk of this sparking a civil war is nonsense. That's theater for commentators and people trying to garner ratings.

Ug.