Mar-A-Lago Legally Searched by FBI

[Some Schmo]

Michael Cohen thinks Trump wanted the documents as leverage against being charged, by threatening to sell them to the Saudis. That would be an alternative to his simply selling them for cash and would explain why he held onto them.

So he would threaten to do an illegal thing thinking it would help avoid being charged for an illegal thing?

Yeah, that sounds like Trump.

[Gunnar]

What makes this so maddening is that we know that if the situation were reversed and a Democrat former President had done the same thing Trump has just been caught at, leading Republicans would be demanding not only that the perpetrator be charged with high treason, but also executed if found guilty!

[Binger]

What makes this so maddening is that we know that if the situation were reversed and a Democrat former President had done the same thing Trump has just been caught at, leading Republicans would be demanding not only that the perpetrator be charged with high treason, but also executed if found guilty!

Do you have an example of this?

[Gunnar]

Or is it gazpacho time?

Marjorie Taylor Greene has the lowdown on the Gazpacho police. She says you can spot them by the high black leather boots, olive oil, garlic, vinegar, and assorted vegetables.

[doubtingthomas]

edit: Sure. Start a thread, make a case, and I'll see if I'm interested.

Sounds good enough. There's no need to follow me around to attack what I say.

[canpakes]

What makes this so maddening is that we know that if the situation were reversed and a Democrat former President had done the same thing Trump has just been caught at, leading Republicans would be demanding not only that the perpetrator be charged with high treason, but also executed if found guilty!

How about if a former President was merely accused of something that sounded less offensive and that he didn’t actually do anyway? Hmm …

Attorney General William Barr argued in an interview Wednesday that President Trump's repeated allegations of "treason" against political opponents he believes targeted his presidency is a phrase that the president uses "colloquially," rather than literally.

"Treason is a legal term," Barr told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "I think he’s using it colloquially. To commit treason, you actually have to have a state of war with a foreign enemy, but I think he feels that they were involved in an injustice, and if he feels that, he can say it."

Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution states that the legal standard for convicting a person of treason "shall consist only in levying war against [the U.S.], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

But a review of Trump's frequent past use of the term, which he primarily uses to denigrate those he believes were involved in launching the investigation of his presidential campaign's ties to Russia in 2016, shows how Trump nearly always connects the phrase directly to the prospect of sending his enemies to prison.

"If I were a Democrat, this whole thing would have been so different, people would be in jail now two years ago for 50-year terms because this was treason," Trump said in a Tuesday interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham. "This was subversion. This was the overthrow of a country."
…
"We caught President Obama and Sleepy Joe spying on our campaign. That's treason. That's illegal," Trump said to reporters in Arizona last month. "These people should take them and do something with them."

[Morley]

Sure. Start a thread, make a case, and I'll see if I'm interested.

Sounds good enough. There's no need to follow me around to attack what I say.

No one is following you around or attacking you, least of all me. If you don't want anyone answering your questions or critiquing your ideas, maybe you should think more carefully about what you post.

You seem to imagine this board is a team sport and that you and I are on the same team, so that I shouldn't do anything but agree with you. If so, I think you've misread me and misread the board.

[Binger]

Sure. Start a thread, make a case, and I'll see if I'm interested.

Sounds good enough. There's no need to follow me around to attack what I say.

No one is following you around or attacking you, least of all me. If you don't want anyone answering your questions or critiquing your ideas, maybe you should think more carefully about what you post.

You seem to think this board is a team sport and that you and I are on the same team, so that I shouldn't do anything but agree with you. If so, I think you've misread me and misread the board.

I am looking for a team.

[MeDotOrg]

The Mar-a-Lago search will ultimately be the equivalent of Al Capone's Income Tax Evasion: It ain't sexy, but it's still a crime. This would seem to be a fairly cut and dried case.

I don't think any information on the Search Warrant will be released this week. Merrick Garland's refusal to release the information foreshadows an indictment. So after Mueller, Impeachment I, Impeachment II and January 6th, is this the thing that may bring him down?

I've been burned before (the aforementioned Mueller, Impeachment I, Impeachment II and January 6th) but this case will not be presented to a highly partisan congress. It will be to a judge who should not be swayed by political opinion. Why did Trump do it? Was it blackmail? A deal with the Saudis? Or is it as simple as a Narcissist yelling MINE?

How will the country hold up during this process? A lot depends on how GOP politicians and Right Wing media portray the situation. Perhaps it's (again) wishful thinking on my part, But I'm beginning to see a little hesitance from normally stalwart GOP strongholds that could indicate some cracks forming. But in a drought, every cloud on the horizon looks like rain.

[Gunnar]

It sometimes seems to me that the more egregious or more clearly criminal the things Trump is caught in, the more strongly his Republican base rallies around him and the more they try to find excuses or rationales for what he has done. As things look worse and worse for trump, the more his supporters look like either craven cowards or accessories after the fact to Trump's crimes for continuing to support him. This is part of the problem, I think. If Republican officials and candidates turn on Trump and acknowledge his incompetence and/or criminality, they, in effect, have to either admit to having been fools and cowards for having supported him for so long, and/or have to admit to the appearance of having been accessories after the fact to his crimes. It is understandable they would be reluctant to do this.