FBI Raids Former President Donald Trump’s Home
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
So nothing they can charge him with?
Looking like Rhee Democrat party can’t even run a successful witch hunt.
Looking like Rhee Democrat party can’t even run a successful witch hunt.
Sure - before the raids start. Not usually after they start. If you're at the point where you're raiding a criminal org, then you're usually at the point where if you find something in that raid you can start to lay charges. You can always lay more later.
I don't blame them for taking a year to get to this point at all but once the raiding starts, it's time to make with the charges in a timely fashion if there are any to be made. I mean, has he got classified documents in contravention of the law or doesn't he? If yes then book'em danno.
So start. If they have legit charges make them. This is how it's USUALLY done. What's the delay? That sounds like a pretty easy charge to figure out, either he has them or he doesn't.
Asked and avoided more like. Not that i'd expect you'd know, that wouldn't be fair. But you literally quoted the section you feel he's in violation of. So - charge him if that's the case.
Like i said - your 'answer' applies before homes are getting raided but not after. Once the police have the evidence to support a charge they charge. So charge the guy and lets get on with it.
It kind of feels like the FBI is screwing around and playing that game where they can't get a guy directly so they go after associates and him by manufcaturing offenses through a sort of entrapment where they poke at people in questioning and such till they trip up on a detail and then ding them for 'lying to the fbi". We certainly saw enough of that during the russia inquiry and it's not a new tactic for the fbi.
BUT - thats something they do when they DON'T have enough to support a charge and want to freak the guy out and isolate him In this case it seems pretty obvious there's charges to be made, and serious ones.
From my understanding, the minute you charge someone, there are several legal mechanisms which come into play which make further evidence gathering and processing more difficult. There is no law that says when they must charge other than I think there is a statute of limitations that says you can't charge after N years. But there is no rush.
It might be different in the states but to be honest most of the time laying charges makes it easier to gather evidence.
Dragging it out in this case does a fair bit of harm. The speculation and division it's driving is dangerous. The longer this goes on the more it's going to polerize an already heavily polarized population.
If its another nothing burger Dems can kiss the midterms goodbye.
Honestly i think they can anyway. And right now they're all so convinced he's going to be charged that they're discounting him as a factor for the next election anyway.
But at some point all the parties have to start thinking about the good of the country. And this is getting people whipped up and the wrong people on both sides into a frenzy, and that has repercussions.
The notion that somebody must be charged before evidence is collected is. . . bizarre.
At it's simplest level, cops serving a warrant for drug possession don't have a charge sheet in their hands. They get the info, they get the warrant, they do the search, they find the drugs, they arrest the occupant, they take him to court for a probable-cause hearing, THEN the DA charges him.
Well, if you were the Federal judge from whom the warrant was requested, you could have denied it.
That raid on Moron Lardo was to retrieve documents the FBI had probable cause to know were there. And it turns out they were right.
So you're saying that they didn't collect any evidence during the raid?
Bizarre indeed.
No, you're saying that.
As I've said before, when you make up something in your head, attribute it to me, then argue against it, you're really just talking to yourself.
ROFLMAO - No, what I said is they have the evidence why not charge him
YOU are the one who brought up waiting for evidence But as usual - "Oh i got caught out with logic - pretend he said something he never said!! That'll fix it!!!" Everyone can see i was saying they've got evidence they should charge
But noooo what i really meant by that is that they don't have any evidence and shouldn't charge, right? As i've said before, when you lie and claim i've said something i never have, you prove you know you're wrong.
And I literally quoted you saying what i said you said. Can you quote where i said they have no evidence?
Me: So you're saying that they didn't collect any evidence during the raid?
You: No, you're saying that.
Soooo... yeah.
I think your assumption is that the minute they have any evidence they are required to lay charges immediately. They can sit on it and gather more before laying charges. Also they want to go through the whole bunch too to make sure they lay the right charges. If they lay a serious charge they lose the ability to lay a lesser change (I think) unless they do it at the same time.