C'mon man, what do you mean Biden targeted Trump? The Attorney General, Merrick Garland, said he signed off on the warrant. And the FBI conducted the search/raid. What has Biden got to do with it? What I mean is, Biden had previously said that Trump was a threat to democracy. Biden had previously said that Trump ought to be prosecuted over January 6. Biden had previously said that "he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor." (Per the New York Times) Does anyone really believe that Garland did not get the message from the Commander in Chief? Of course he did.
So let's talk about this unprecedented raid on the home of a former president of the United States of America. Is anyone really surprised by this unprecedented act? If so, permit me to remind you of Nancy Pelosi rushing a second impeachment vote against Trump after January 6 - without first having any House Judiciary Committee hearings. Unprecedented. Although they managed to get around to having the hearings 18 months later. Allow me to also remind you of the unprecedented action taken by Speaker Pelosi in denying the minority leader, Rep. McCarthy, the right to appoint the Republican members of that January 6 committee. Weren't we just told that the Supreme Court did not respect precedent? It appears that the Democrats do not care for it much either.
But why did it require dozens of FBI agents to raid Mar-a-Lago? Well, it was urgent, as there was a risk of highly classified documents being destroyed. So, "urgent" now means that the government could wait for 18 months after Trump left office to collect those documents? Urgent now means that, a warrant signed on Friday need not be carried out until Monday because...what? The agents had beach days planned? (To be clear, I have always supported law enforcement. But, to also be clear, the top echelon of the FBI has already shown themselves to be corrupt. Think James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.)
I must say, I do appreciate the coordination of talking points within the Democratic Party, and within the mainstream media. Talking point no. 1: "No one is above the law." Everyone agrees with this. Everyone. And, theoretically, it is correct. But in practice, plenty of people are above the law (see Part II. Maybe Part III.) Talking point no. 2: "This was not a raid." I know this to be true because one MSM talking head after the next told me. If they say it was a "search" and not a "raid," it must be so. Right? Talking point no. 3: "How dare those dastardly Republicans and conservatives criticize the DOJ and FBI over carrying out a lawful search warrant?" What about criticism of local police departments around the country for the last two years? Perfectly permissible. Harsh criticisms of, and even threats against, the Supreme Court must be perfectly permissible. Or, did I miss the prosecution of Senator Schumer, following his threats against Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?
Question: Does anyone really believe this raid was about classified documents? Yes, the Federal Code does have section 2071, which provides for certain punishments of those found guilty of concealing, removing, mutilating etc. any public documents. That section provides for fines and imprisonment, but the key is the provision that states the guilty party "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States." Disqualified. Some on the left were drooling over that provision. However, a number of commentators have already made the point that, even if Trump were to be found guilty under that section, he would not be disqualified from running for, and becoming president again.
The reason is simple. The Constitution states the 3 requirements for being eligible for the office of president - being a natural born citizen, being 35 years of age, and being a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. No statute can change the constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court has already ruled on similar issues, such as when a state tried to impose term limits on members of Congress. Again, the Constitution does not place any limit on the number of terms for members of Congress.
Then, if section 2071 is not the issue, what is? First, we have the 14th Amendment. That Amendment does bar someone from office if, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution, they engaged in insurrection or rebellion. That is what Biden and the DOJ and the FBI are looking for. A smoking gun that ties Trump to the events of January 6. This raid was not just about classified documents. Now we learn from the warrant that there is also a claim of possible violations of the Espionage Act. And. just to make sure that Trump is either found guilty of something, or becomes so repugnant to the voting public that he cannot possibly win reelection, someone has leaked to the Washington Post a claim that the government is concerned about nuclear secrets having been taken to Mar-a-Lago. Nuclear secrets are of great import, which, again, explains why the government waited 18 months to retrieve those documents.
Former Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, asked why, if Trump was not complying with a previously issued subpoena, the DOJ did not just seek an order compelling Trump to comply. After all, we have already shown that time was not of the essence.
Perhaps the Wall Street Journal said it best, in their 8/10/22 editorial: "The Justice Department is unleashing political furies it can't control and may not understand, and the risks for the department and the country are as great as they are for Mr. Trump." Yet, not a single person of the left with whom I have communicated, has expressed any concern about the risks to the country. Instead, I get the main talking point of the left - only Trump is a threat to the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment