@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Making sure no one is above the law is a cornerstone of our legal system, so I would argue it is in fact essential. Of course this is assuming there must be really strong probable cause in this case.
If "being above the law" is discretionary prosecution and investigation letting some people off the hook, then it actually is for good or ill a cornerstone of our legal system. FBI has broad discretionary ability to pick and choose who to go after, and ensuring that is done in a uniform and politically unbiased way could arguably trump priority of any particular person being prosecuted.
It may be the case this is not politically motivated. But were there cases where investigations are politically motivated, I would much rather see those people get away than political bias of investigatory agencies being used to undermine democratic system, even if the criminals themselves were also undermining the democratic system.
If our leaders can break the law without consequence, it undermines everything. The rich and powerful in the US need to be under _more_ scrutiny, not less.
There was definitely consequences. Trump was voted out of office as a result of the various crimes the people witnessed. Also there was an impeachment that failed to convict.
Also I'm not sure the prosecution of any particular individual necessarily outweighs the need to keep our justice system politically unbiased. Again I'd much prefer people go free rather than FBI and other agencies being used in a politically biased manner to undermine democracy. I'm not saying that is what is happening here, although it could be the case.
> Trump was voted out of office as a result of the various crimes the people witnessed.
That's not enough. If it's all just politics, then it's part of the game. We need law enforcement to stand up and do their job. "Some people are pretty sure I'm a criminal" isn't the same thing as a court of law saying it.
> Also there was an impeachment that failed to convict.
That's barely a consequence. It did essentially nothing.
> Also I'm not sure the prosecution of any particular individual necessarily outweighs the need to keep our justice system politically unbiased.
The justice system isn't seen as politically unbiased by the people who will yell about Trump getting prosecuted anyway. If they're going to cry bias regardless, let's drag the evidence into a court of law and shine some sunlight on it.
I understand the desire for criminals to face their crimes.
The fact that this happens in the recent aftermath of the election of the leader of the executive branch, under which the FBI is contained, against his adversary just leaves a very politically charged taste in my mouth. I wish this were applied uniformly. Pretty much all presidents have likely committed crimes so I'd at least like to see them serve warrants against Obama for his approval of drone strikes that killed children and Bush for orchestrating the lying about WMDs in Iraq and subsequent carnage. Hopefully we can use Rico charges to put all current living presidents in jail, all the way up to Biden.
It seems all too convenient and politically motivated that only the adversary of FBI's branch of government has a warrant issued. This kind of targeted attack while ignoring war crimes of former presidents IMO is even worse than no justice at all, because it creates a precedent for political targeting.
> The fact that this happens in the recent aftermath of the election of the leader of the executive branch, under which the FBI is contained, against his adversary who is now being elected just leaves a very politically charged taste in my mouth.
In practice, that's pretty close to just saying no President should ever be investigated.
> Pretty much all presidents have likely committed crimes [...]
I would definitely be in favor of a special prosecutor being set up to investigate the current President, every time. Let's not wait until they're out of office.
>In practice, that's pretty close to just saying no President should ever be investigated.
It would be if you missed my context, which is about applying this in a non-uniform way. That is if FBI goes after both Obama as a bomber of children and Trump as a <whatever the warrant was for>, then it would lend a little more credence towards a true effort to work in an unbiased fashion. Purely going after your adversary but none of the warcrimes of other presidents just comes off as politically motivated. Maybe it's not, but it certainly seems quite possible. Again IMO it undermines the nation more to convict people for political motivation rather than it does to let some criminals go free. If the option is politically motivated prosecution or none at all I would definitely prefer "none being investigated" -- but I think that would be a false dichotomy.
>I would definitely be in favor of a special prosecutor being set up to investigate the current President, every time. Let's not wait until they're out of office.
I mean that already exists, it's called congress, and they didn't convict Trump.
> It would be if you missed my context, which is about applying this in a non-uniform way. That is if FBI goes after both Obama as a bomber of children and Trump as a <whatever the warrant was for>
I don't know of any actual US crimes that Obama is legitimately suspected of. War actions are generally treated quite differently compared to non-war actions. With all likelihood, the US drone campaign is only evil, not illegal.
The FBIs actions here are uniform exactly because there is probable cause enough to start an investigation of Trump and not of Obama. What actual crime would Obama be investigated for, and what warrant would be gotten?
A search warrant was issued for Trump because he _already_ was caught keeping classified documents that he wasn't allowed to keep, and whatever followup they're doing based on that.
> > I would definitely be in favor of a special prosecutor being set up to investigate the current President, every time. Let's not wait until they're out of office.
> I mean that already exists, it's called congress, and they didn't convict Trump.
Congress isn't primarily an investigative body, they're not special prosecutors, they cannot charge people with crimes, and they cannot do a whole bunch of things that actual law enforcement can. Also, impeachment only has two possible punishments, removal from office and forbidding future office.
They also kind of suck in general at being non-political, by nature of how Congress works. For example, the J6 committee investigation really should have been a special prosecutor of some sort, but they couldn't get it done because the Republicans simply refused.
>I don't know of any actual US crimes that Obama is legitimately suspected of. War actions are generally treated quite differently compared to non-war actions. With all likelihood, the US drone campaign is only evil, not illegal.
18 U.S. Code § 2441. Not enough to convict, but definitely enough for PC. If an agent claiming a dog sniffing me was enough for a federal judge to serve a search warrant against me (true story), then by uniformity principle an order followed by blown up dead droned kids should be enough PC to investigate Obama.
>A search warrant was issued for Trump because he _already_ was caught keeping classified documents that he wasn't allowed to keep, and whatever followup they're doing based on that.
Sure again I don't doubt there was PC to get a warrant for Trump involving something. Again the issue is the possibility of using criminal system for targeted political persecution, in this case of the immediate historical adversary of the sitting lead of the branch in which the FBI sits.
>Congress isn't primarily an investigative body, they're not special prosecutors, they cannot charge people with crimes, and they cannot do a whole bunch of things that actual law enforcement can. Also, impeachment only has two possible punishments, removal from office and forbidding future office.
>They also kind of suck in general at being non-political, by nature of how Congress works. For example, the J6 committee investigation really should have been a special prosecutor of some sort, but they couldn't get it done because the Republicans simply refused.
Point taken, I can see the merits you note here and agree a less political system could be useful for investigating presidents.
Being above the law is less like discretion, and more like a pardon. If you know something is prosecutable, but you decide not to on the basis of the person (being more important than accountability), you're pardoning.
Discretion isn't just about the subject but also about greater society and even the one investigating. Sometimes a fleeing traffic violator are let go not because they individually are somehow worthy but so that a chase doesn't result in greater risk to innocents. Sometimes a cop walks away from a riot because he'll get his ass beat if he tries to seek justice. Sometimes a brutal dictator is allowed to walk away into exile in the interest of greater peace of society. It's not as simple as you say "on the basis of the person."
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.
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.
"and we have seen time and time again that they're fishing expeditions which achieve nothing"
You sure about that? There are at least eight Trump administration individuals convicted of crimes because of those "fishing expeditions", with many more under indictment. And there are others that are still in contempt of congressional subpoenas.
And I think it's been made really clear that you don't get permits for "fishing expeditions" easily. It needs approval on many levels, including judges and magistrates installed by both parties.
Funny thing, these "fishing expeditions" have been deployed against Democratic officials but come out with way less indictments and convictions. How many hours of testimony did Clinton sit down for over Bengazhi? 11? Did that result in anything? Why not?
Oh yeah, and she showed up when subpoenaed.
The party of "law and order" needs to put up or shut up.
(PS: If this search of Mar-A-Lago was an abuse of power, Trump is more than free to release a copy of the warrant which shows exactly what the FBI was searching for. Let's see if that happens.)
The irony here is that the FBI has been going after activists on the left for decades, and only goes after those on the right in the most egregiously extreme cases. So here, we've got trump flagrantly breaking the law and bragging about it on tv for years and when the FBI finally gets off its ass that's "persecution."
Dude operates like a mob boss, or a New York Democrat. Eventually, they're gonna come after you.
This article shows a barrage of Democrats not raided on similar warrants and a whole slew of Republicans raided on similarly-flimsy ground.
It's simple: the FBI is the enforcement arm of the democratic party, and it operates transparently as such. It is in no way a legitimate law enforcement agency.l, and performs no legitimate function.
I think it's noble that you wish for equality. We all do.
Let's hope you press for the same in all other aspects of your life and your vote at the ballot box. Vote for the candidates that work to represent everyone and not just wealthy white males.
Is this a hunt? There is already a large body of evidence that he attempted to destroy records that he was legally obligated to keep, and quite a few credible claims that he succeeded by flushing records down the toilet. To say nothing of the emoluments clause.
Trump was entrusted with the highest office of the land, and flagrantly violated the laws and his oaths. At the head of the party that consistently claims that "law and order" is a guiding principle, bringing him to justice should be a no-brainer, right?
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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."
@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."
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.
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.
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.
His call to Georgia asking them to "find" the precise number of votes to overturn Joe Biden's win in that state is probably the lowest hanging fruit.
That being said, based on the reporting, this search warrant appears to be related to the fifteen boxes of material that were inappropriately taken from the White House. If he were charged and convicted of crimes related to that he would potentially be barred from ever holding public office again.
> His call to Georgia asking them to "find" the precise number of votes to overturn Joe Biden's win in that state is probably the lowest hanging fruit.
He opens by saying he believes there is a large amount of fraudulent mail in ballots that would not match the signatures on record. And he keeps asking the Secretary of State to look into it as he expects to find substantial fraud.
The “find me…” line is further down where he is saying the total number needed to change the result. He never asks for anyone to change votes or the results. He asks them to look into it because he believes there’s fraud.
If there was anything remotely criminal in that conversation they’d have already charged him.
> That being said, based on the reporting, this search warrant appears to be related to the fifteen boxes of material that were inappropriately taken from the White House. If he were charged and convicted of crimes related to that he would potentially be barred from ever holding public office again.
That’s the dream but I think they’d settle for two more years of sham hearings to try to damage him as a candidate. Anything to distract from failings of the current administration.
The word describing your comments is 'obtuse'. Are you knowingly ignoring the copious evidence from Trump's own henchman about his intents and desires here?
Multiple people with direct involvement have said on the record that Trump repeatedly tried to subvert the election.
The persecution of trump is not being carried to out distract people from the current administration. That's just nonsense. If you truly believe that, I'm not going to try to convince you, and further I think you're wasting people's time on this site by pretending you're being reasonable or responsible.
I can’t wrap my head around the coup thing. Trump said peacefully go to the capitol. So a bunch of people some which were let into the capitol (there’s a recent Jan 6 defendant let go due to the judge agreeing with this defense) went in. How could this lead to a coup or taking over the government?
Is our country so fragile that occupying 1 building brings the whole system down?
If that were the _only_ thing he did, he'd be in no trouble. You need to look at the whole picture, not crop out everything incriminating if you want to actually be able to see.
He knew they were armed, knew they were violent, ramped up their anger and pointed them at the Capitol.
He also very likely worked with radical paramilitary outfits like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and a few others that planned and executed violent attacks on the Capitol.
Additionally, he refused to call off his supporters or to send in effective police or military until hours too late (or never really, last I heard only Pence did, and Trump never did).
> Is our country so fragile that occupying 1 building brings the whole system down?
Pretty much, yes. Our democracy is in many ways set up on the honor system.
Trump and his conspirators planned to delay certification of the vote past the deadline and get the outcome of the election voted on by the House (in a special one-vote-per-state vote). This goes in tandem with their recruiting false electors, pressuring state legislatures, falsely asking the DOJ to announge phony investigations, etc.
Even when asked, they cannot even cite the so-called 'evidence' that is laid out 'clearly'.
Assuming they have watched the so-called 'J6 hearings', it should be quite straightforward and easy to do so, but ever since they have started the hearings they have been struggling to mention a crime and summarize it in a single sentence.
Which leads me to believe that they haven't watched it at all or have read only as far as the headlines of mainstream media articles (clipping and cutting out the hearings) to fit their headlines for extra clicks.
Trump knowingly and willfully engaged in an attempt to defraud and deprive the American public from a free and fair election. He knew he lost the election. He supported the fake alternative Electors scheme, knew it was illegal. He supported the illegal scheme for the Vice President to unilaterally discard state certified Electors. He supported the murder of the Vice President.
“Based on the evidence the court finds that it is more likely than not that President Trump and Dr Eastman dishonestly conspired to obstruct the joint session of Congress on January 6 2021,” -Judge David Carter, March 2022.
The first clue of his autocratic tendency came just before the 2016 election when he would not agree to respecting the outcome of the election if he lost. His plan always had been, in business and then in politics, to lie about losing. In his mind its better to discredit a system of government than admit loss. He does not believe in the peaceful transition of power. And tried and succeeded in inciting a riot to try and prevent it. The attempt is the crime.
It's unlikely Trump will be prosecuted or convicted by DOJ for his actions on January 6th- except, he will be convicted (by history) for being exceptionally irresponsible. There are several personal lawsuits against Trump
That would include the Georgia AG's investigation, NY AG's investigation, and the National Archives investigation, all of which have shown credible evidence that Trump (personally, or his direct agents) carried out illegal activities.
On a personal note, I think regardless of whatever the law does to Trump, it's pretty clear at this point that he attempted to be a dictator who subverted law and common sense on advice from crazies, trying to illegally seize control of the United States instead of carrying out a legitimate transition of power. And we were able to avert it mainly because there are enough people working in the government who have the ethics to ignore their personal politics and carry out the necessary steps for a legitimate transition of power.
This doesn't make sense. It's important for the government to prosecute criminals regardless of whether they are political opposition. Probably the best thing is to be abundantly transparent when doing so.
Why wouldn't you, if you had solid evidence they'd committed a crime? In this case it's a search rather than an arrest warrant, but if the warrant is valid and the search turns up the very materials described therein, where is the problem?
That would be true if any of the members of the party in power were ever prosecuted for their crimes.
The core problem here is that the only attribute which correlates to likelihood of being prosecuted for alleged crimes is "political party affiliation"
I'm confident the federal judge who granted the warrant wouldn't sign it unless he/she is absolutely certain there is a solid case, even more since an ex-President is targeted.
