“The Whole Enchilada”: Pundits Wrongly Claim the Mar-a-Lago Raid Could Disqualify Trump from Future Office

The FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago has unleashed a familiar euphoria among critics who have longed for–agents descending upon the President’s residence in a criminal operation. One MSNBC pundit declared that day of the “orange jumpsuit” may finally be at hand while another simply exclaimed “hallelujah.” It was a tad premature since we do not even know if classified material was found and, if so, whether there is a criminal case to be made from such a discovery.

previously testified in Congress on the earlier seizure of the boxes at Mar-a-Lago under the Presidential Records Act and how criminal prosecutions have been rare under the law. Nevertheless, criminal charges are possible, including under Section 2071 which states that anyone can be prosecuted who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates or destroys … any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited … in any public office.” That crime, however, requires a showing of not just negligence but that “an act is …  done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids.”

Notably, even the most serious cases of mishandling classified records have not resulted in major charges. One example is that of former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger who was found to have secretly stuffed classified material into his pants and socks to remove them from a secure facility. He then hid them in a spot to be retrieved later. It was a flagrant and premeditated violation of federal law and put national security secrets at risk. Yet, Berger was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and did not have to serve any jail time. Indeed, his security clearance was suspended for only three years.

However, critics were not particularly interested in whether Trump might have some suspended misdemeanor sentence. Rather, even before learning if any evidence of criminal conduct was found, critics turned to the ability to use the charge to disqualify Trump from future office. Section 2071 has excited the imagination of such critics because of a line that states that a convicted party can “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.”

(MSNBC/via YouTube)

That was the enticing possibility highlighted by Marc Elias, Hillary Clinton’s campaign lawyer who was a critical player in pushing the false Russian collusion claims in the Steele dossier. In addition to accusations that he may have lied about the funding of the Steele dossier,  Elias has been sanctioned in court for his conduct.

Elias was not alone citing the possible use of a Section 2071 charge to block Trump’s expected presidential run in 2024. Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman even suggested that this could be the actual plan of the Justice Department to end Trump’s political career:  “So this could be the whole enchilada in terms of DOJ resolution.”

Consider that culinary-legal analysis for a second. The claim is that the Justice Department may be actively seeking to use a charge to block Trump as the real motivation for this raid and possible charge. There is not a hint of concern over the FBI being used to achieve such a political purpose. That is putting aside the fact that, unless there is evidence of a “willful and unlawful” effort to conceal or retain such material, the FBI could end up an enchilada short of a combination plate for prosecution.

There is also a significant constitutional hurdle facing this latest means of barring Trump from office.

This is not the first time that this disqualification argument has been made and scholars like Seth Tillman have previously raised constitutional objections to it. (Professor Josh Blackmun also has a column on this issue)

The problem is that the law would add a qualification or condition that is not stated in the Constitution. There are constitutional ways to impeach a president or to bar a former president from future office. The mishandling of official records is not one of them. In analogous cases like Powell v. McCormack and U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, the Supreme Court rejected  the authority of states to impose new qualifications for congressional seats under Article I. The same is presumably true under Article II when it comes to the chief executive.

There is ample reason to doubt that the presidency would be deemed barred by statute in this fashion. What would not be in doubt is how such novel claim of disqualification would be received by millions of citizens already skeptical of the motivations of both the Biden Administration and specifically the FBI.

The basis and even the motivation of this raid will become clear in time, including whether there is evidence of willful and unlawful conduct by the former president. However, whatever this raid produces, this “enchilada” will likely be hard for most judges to swallow as a way to keeping Trump off the ballot in 2024.

This column also appeared on Fox.com

425 thoughts on ““The Whole Enchilada”: Pundits Wrongly Claim the Mar-a-Lago Raid Could Disqualify Trump from Future Office”

  1. “Nothing to see here, folks, move along.”

    – Anonymous Policeman
    ___________________

    “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil”

    – Ancient Japanese Proverb

  2. Why doesn’t the Supreme Court put America back on the Constitution? Justices swore an oath to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution. Justices did not swear to take polls of invaders, conquerors, freaks, dependents and parasites. The Supreme Court did not swear to support an anti-American, anti-constitutional and unconstitutional, despotic and tyrannical dictatorship. The Constitution provides maximal freedom to individuals while severely and rigorously limiting and restricting government. Congress has the power to tax for only debt, defense and infrastructure, and to regulate only money, commerce and land and naval Forces, per Article 1, Section 8. The job of eliminating that which is antithetical and unconstitutional, and implementing the Constitution is too big for the Supreme Court. The Justices are effete political ideologues and simply not up to the task. The Justices perceive no duty to the literal English words of the Constitution or to America. The Justices are not even capable of grasping the profundity of the first natural and innate “Law of Nations,” to establish and enforce borders. The Justices of the Supreme Court never met an unconstitutional concomitant they didn’t like. The Justices of the Supreme Court have no concern or passion for the concept, intent or raison d’être of America. They participate in “fundamentally transforming” it.

  3. Here in the real world, this better not be about the Presidential Records Act and nothing else.

    Let’s not forget how some turned a lie about having a perfectly legal affair with Monical Lewinsky into “Perjury!.. Oh my God! He committed Perjury!” Not to mention “Obstruction of Justice!” Oh My!”

    I never bought into any of that rubbish. And in this case, there better be something bigger here than simply taking some documents. That may cut it with some partisans and the folks over at MSNBC. But it won’t with the great majority of the electorate. Nor will neurotic overly dramatic language about the “threat to the Republic” that this “unbelievable violation of such a major law” by OrangemanBad has caused.

    I’ll wait. But not for more than a month. And there better be more to it than what I’m hearing.

    1. SteveJ,

      No, Bill Clinton was charged with perjury and suborning perjury in the sexual assault trial of Paula Jones. The Lewinski affair and Clinton’s lies about it, while being distasteful, were not the charges for which Clinton was impeached and subsequently disbarred.

      1. No, the perjury was his lie to the special council about Monica Lewinsky. The special council claimed it could ask such a question because it was asked and answered in Paula Jones case during deposition. It was irrelevant to the Paula Jones case. It was a question about consensual relations — which he actually answered truthfully given the definition that was agreed to by plaintiff.

        What does a question about a perfectly legal consensual sexual relationship have to do with sexual assault? Zip. The underlying facts for the over-the-top charge of perjury were legal machinations extraordinaire.

        That is exactly what is happening with this raid. They got the warrant you know. It was perfectly “legal.” But it’s totally unacceptable.

  4. What utter desperation. When it should be Biden’s and Hunter’s houses that should be raided, they go after Trump to deflect and change the news cycle. We have come to a very dangerous point. Insider trading, funding criminals’ bail, defunding police, encouraging rioting and attacks on politicians and judges, open borders, sexualization of children, over-the-top lock-downs, censorship. $90 billion to save one of the world’s most corrupt countries who paid the Bidens. China? Have I missed anything? Oh yeah, 85,000 new IRS gestapos.

    1. When it should be Biden’s and Hunter’s houses that should be raided, they go after Trump to deflect and change the news cycle.

      Breaking News! 😁

      WEST PALM BEACH, FL — High-level Chinese asset and sex trafficker Hunter Biden breathed a sigh of relief this evening as an FBI raid team passed by his West Palm Beach vacation home to raid Donald Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago.

      “Whew! Thought they had me for a minute there,” Biden sighed, according to sources before going back to smoking crack with a hooker on a pile of cash freshly delivered by Chinese agents. “Glad to know the FBI is still working for my Dad!”

      The FBI arrived at Mar-a-Lago shortly after, but things got awkward after the FBI raid team ran into the FBI evidence planting team due to a scheduling mistake.
      https://babylonbee.com/news/hunter-biden-breathes-sigh-of-relief-as-fbi-raid-team-passes-by-his-house-on-way-to-mar-a-lago?

    2. …but it’s what the mendacious predators of the american republic want.

      Civil War…..not co operational polity.

  5. I entered law school in the fall of 1969, several months following the Supreme Court’s decision in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). I find that case determinative on the issue of potential disqualification. Whether Donald Trump is a candidate for the Presidency in 2024 will be exclusively determined by the Republican Party, as it should be.

    With respect to the lawfulness of the search conducted at Mar-a-Lago, I confess that I am at a disadvantage because it appears that I am one of the few commenters on this post who has not read the underlying affidavit in support of the warrant, did not attend the proceeding at which the federal judge considered the matter, have not perused the actual warrant itself and have not cultivated relationships within the Justice Department or the FBI sufficient to enable me to gain access to confidential records or other inside information. Therefore, I must refrain from any substantive comments until the actual facts become publicly available.

    1. Mike A:

      “With respect to the lawfulness of the search conducted at Mar-a-Lago, I confess that I am at a disadvantage because it appears that I am one of the few commenters on this post who has not read the underlying affidavit in support of the warrant, did not attend the proceeding at which the federal judge considered the matter, have not perused the actual warrant itself and have not cultivated relationships within the Justice Department or the FBI sufficient to enable me to gain access to confidential records or other inside information. Therefore, I must refrain from any substantive comments until the actual facts become publicly available.”
      *****************************
      You’re oughta also confess to being Rip VanWinkle because you must have slept through Russia-Gate, the fabricated FISA warrants, the FBI bias for Dim elites embodied in Strozky’s “smell” of Trump supporters at Walmart after explaining his insurance policy against Trump’s election and of course the unrelenting media campaign against Trump, Roger Stone and Gen. Flynn hatched by that same rotten FBI.

      Your argument is like blaming the Allies for not carefully reading Hiter’s justification for invading Poland. They didn’t and we don’t and yet the reason is simple: WE DONT BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT AND ITS WEAPONIZED BUREACRACY. And we’re fully justified in doing so. They’ve admittedly lied to FISA judges and gotten exparte warrants before for purely political reasons, persecuted conservative groups with the IRS, and used every dirty trick in the book to frame Trump in the Jan. 6th Kangaroo hearings. So why all the respect for liars from your perspective? ‘Cause you dislike the object of their wrath?

      Your careful consideration and deliberation of the search warrant (and interestingly the unreleased supporting affidavit) might carry some weight if the usual assumptions were present. You know that the perps were perceived as acting in good faith and investigating important crime. But the point is that they aren’t – bigly. (See Hunter’s laptop) “Context is everything” as the liberals say so behold the context. It’s decidely red after November.

      1. “Nothing to see here, folks, move along.”

        – Anonymous Policeman
        ___________________

        “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil”

        – Ancient Japanese Proverb

      2. LOL. Like I said. And let me add the following for the umpteenth time: 1. I have no interest in discussion involving nothing more than the exchange of ad hominem outrage; 2. I do not engage with anonymous posters for reasons I have explained on several previous occasions.

        1. What are you, like 100 years old? Geez, you need a good romp here in the pit of ad hominen outrage. Lighten up, man. Or light up a Mary Jane and chillax. LOL.

    2. Whether Donald Trump is a candidate for the Presidency in 2024 will be exclusively determined by the Republican Party, as it should be.

      Yea….that’s not in the constitution either.

    3. “Therefore, I must refrain from any substantive comments until the actual facts become publicly available.”

      I got it, Mike. It’s too early to comment on because we don’t yet have the fact. You are correct to hold back when you are uncomfortable with only part of the information.

      How about putting this event into the proper historical context where we do have the facts?
      Russia Hoax
      Steele Dossier
      Ukraine Hoax
      Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation (with 51 CIA signatures)

      Since we have a lot of information on the 5 above items and many more examples, can you see a pattern?

      Since you have considerable years behind you, do you think patterns count?

      What have you to say or will you tell us today’s story is too early and yesterday’s story is too late?

      1. “. . . the proper historical context . . .”

        Context? Patterns? Human motivation?

        When you’re on the premise (as the Left is): The ends justifies the means — all of those are to be evaded.

        When your goal is: Get Trump, at any cost — those are the cost.

    4. Hey Mike,

      What an insufferable comment. Let’s wait for the facts before making a “substantive” comment? Spare us your virtuous moral excellence from on high.

      With respect to the lawfulness of the “search” conducted at Mar-a-Lago, you can see with your own eyes the plain and obvious can’t you? Or are you blind? This “raid” is an abuse of power. Period. There’s a substantive comment for ya to chew on over din din.

    5. “Therefore, I must refrain . . .”

      Not a fan of learning from history, are you?

      Nor very astute about human motivation.

  6. Thanks, JT, for explaining to the Dim Dolts that their little ploy won’t keep Trump off the 2024 ticket. In fact, if he had a great PR person, he’d announce right now. The Federal Bureau of Intimidation just galvanized RINOs, Never Trumpers, and Independents with mainline Repubs into a Bolshevik Border Wall that will doom the Comrade Dims. And I think they are beginning to realize they’ve overplayed the hand. No matter, Director Wray ought to be given a commendation for stumbling us right back into freedom though I hardly think he even considered that before giving the go-ahead on the warrant. It’s the XYZ Affair all over again but this time the three letters are “F-B-I.”

    1. “[T]heir little ploy won’t keep Trump off the 2024 ticket.”

      Hopefully, that raid will turn out to be the greatest political blunder in American history.

  7. When the cry goes out “defund the police” does that include the DOJ and the FBI?

  8. All of this makes one question what President Susan “Barack Obama” Rice has in store for the post-fundamental-transformation, hyphenated un-America.

  9. The Republicans will fix them.

    They have Kevin McCarthy waiting in the wings.

    But wait, you say, Kevin McCarthy is a democrat.

    Shhhhh!

    It happens.

  10. Multiple issues with this post, Turley, beginning with the title. NO ONE is above the law. Trump CAN be disqualified from office if he is convicted of intentionally removing documents.You’ve cited nothing in the Constitution or any other law source exempting the president from the law, so there’s no basis for you to state that claims of disqualification upon conviction of federal law regarding documents are wrongful. It’s already been proven that he stole 15 boxes of materials that should have gone to the National Archives, and this search warrant was for additional records. Therefore, it appears that the National Archives didn’t get everything.

    Harry Litman is a political commentator, like you, and like you, he has opinions, one of which is that Trump can be disqualified from running. Litman is NOT a member of the Biden administration, so for you to imply that Litman’s comment about the warrant being some desperate political effort to prevent Trump from runing again, is baseless. Other inconvenient facts you left out: 1. a judge had to authorize the search warrant, and the petition for the warrant had to allege that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the warrant could uncover evidence of a crime; 2. a subpoena could have been used in lieu of, or in addition to, a search warrant. They are not mutually exclusive. However, we all know Trump thinks he’s above the law and fights subpoenas, and then appeals when he loses. He also politicizes any effort to get him to cooperate in legal inquiries, including the Mueller investigation, various state investigations into his taxes, his efforts to overturn the election, and the J6 investigation. We also know that Trump already stole 15 boxes of documents, some of which are marked “top secret”, not just classified. Generally speaking, if the possessor of documents is considered trustworthy and not likely to destroy or hide documents, a subpoena is used. We already know that Trump flushes documents–just yesterday, photos of toilets clogged with documents Trump tried to flush were published. 3. Biden found out about the search warrant just like the rest of us–on the news. Unlike Trump controlling Barr, Biden does NOT control Merrick Garland, who is careful, measured and apolitical. He has stated that no one is above the law. Garland had to approve the search warrant. We don’t know what was alleged in the application for the warrant, but we do know that Trump has taken and tried to conceal documents before, so the claim that this was politically-motivated falls flat; 4. Trump is deferential to Putin, sided with him in Helsinki, lobbied to try to get Russia back into the G-7, called the invasion of Ukraine, “genius” and “savvy”, and it was proven that his campaign did provide insider polling information to Russian hackers who smeared Hillary Clinton with lies as directed by the campaign. Would Trump disclose Top Secret and Classified documents to Putin? I couldn’t rule it out.

    The worst thing of all, IMHO, is the double standard: Trump should be treated with the dignity and respect attendant to the Office of the President on the one hand, but it’s OK to: 1. brag about grabbing women by the puxxy; 2. kidnap migrant children to deter other migrants from coming to America; 3. praise White Supremacists as “fine people”; 4. call migrants “criminals, rapists, vermin and animals”; 5. refuse to concede when he lost, and instead spread the Big Lie that his “landslide victory was stolen by a rigged election” knowing this wasn’t true; 6. try to gin up fake evidence of a crime by his opponent by leveraging aid to Ukraine approved by Congress; 7. After being unable to bully the VP, litigate or bully state election officials into “finding” nonexistent votes, foment an invasion of the Capitol to try to prevent the rightful election winner’s victory form being certified. The list could go on, but the point is that Trump never treated the office of the President with the dignity and respect it deserves, but wants to invoke this privilege when he’s being investigated for unlawfully removing records, something he has already proven to have done.

      1. It is cute how your comments are always posted minutes after Natacha.

        I want to see stacks of corpses.

        There is no other solution. We can sit here and circle jerk all day about voting and rule of law and bull sheet politics, but none of that matters anymore.

        The nazis and Soviets didn’t stop because people pointed out their hypocrisy or objected to their killing tens of millions of their own citizens.

        What we face now is worse than what the Germans or Russians faced when those totalitarian regimes were in their early stages.

    1. You know what is reckless? There was just an unprecedented armed FBI raid on a president’s home where they ransacked through his personal office, broke into a safe and took whatever they wanted from his home. The country is more divided than ever. The day is nearly over and we have no explanation of the warrant, no press conference with necessary comments from AG Garland, the DOJ or the FBI. Utterly disgraceful and alarming.

      1. The day is nearly over and we have no explanation of the warrant, no press conference with necessary comments from AG Garland, the DOJ or the FBI. Utterly disgraceful and alarming.

        I suspect they have to sift through everything they took before planting the evidence necessary to justify the warrant.

        1. Olly: did the FBI “plant” the 15 boxes of documents the National Archives clawed back in February?

          1. We know the used spies to spy on a political campaign, we know the lied on warrants to the FISA court. We know the FBI is corrupt and highly political

      2. Yeah, that’s what happens when a warrant for a criminal violation is executed. Did you you think everyone else is treated with kid gloves?

        Trump still had documents he wasn’t supposed to have. He was in illegal possession of government documents.

        Whatever happened to the rule of law?

        1. “Whatever happened to the rule of law?”

          you are Adorable, trying to act all Republican, Right wing and butch at the same time.
          Did Mommy buy you the matching cowboy boots with spurs for your giddyup horsey stick?

          1. Anonymous,

            “ Whatever happened to the rule of law?”

            you are Adorable, trying to act all Republican, Right wing and butch at the same time.”

            I am a Republican silly. The question is why did you turn into a raging liberal the moment Trump had his house raided by the FBI?

            Don’t you support law enforcement?

            1. Don’t you support law enforcement?

              The FBI has proven they are NOT law enforcement.

              There are 50ish women that used to be gymnasts, can explain that to you. (Not an ultra MAGA source)

      3. “The country is more divided than ever.”

        I guess when Biden said his goal is to “unify” the country, he meant under *one* party.

    2. And “Crazy Abe” Lincoln can suspend habeas corpus.

      Oops!
      _____

      “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”

      “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”

      “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”

      – Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861

    3. “Trump CAN be disqualified from office if he is convicted of intentionally removing documents.You’ve cited nothing in the Constitution or any other law source exempting the president from the law, so there’s no basis for you to state that claims of disqualification upon conviction of federal law regarding documents are wrongful. ”
      *****************************************
      As so often happens in your world, it’s arse-backwards. The Constitution sets the qualifications not your unsupported, unlettered, untethered musings on violating some federal law. (I’m guessing that Trump jaywalking on an army base would send you equally into atwitter).So long as he’s still over 35, lived here for 14 years, a natural born citizen and not previously impeached AND removed from office, he’s eligible. And what the Dims ought to fear is that when he wins in 2024 the purge of seditionists begins after the House hs investigated them to death and with the full support of the voters. I’m thinking stupid-induced exile like Basketball Griner’s fate but that’s too good for most of them. I know! A dedicated penal colony for the … well … you know the Richards. I’m hoping for Haiti but I’d settle for Afghanistan.

      1. Now you know why turnout was 11.6% in 1788, and why the Founders restricted the vote to male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
        ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

        “It’s the [Constitution], stupid.”

        – James Carville
        _____________

        You don’t vote on it; you obey it; it holds dominion.

    4. Trump CAN be disqualified from office if he is convicted of intentionally removing documents.You’ve cited nothing in the Constitution or any other law source exempting the president from the law,

      Stupid is as stupid does

      From the Prof’s post

      The problem is that the law would add a qualification or condition that is not stated in the Constitution.

      Do you want to argue this bit with a Professor of Constitutional law?

      Jr High civics covers this very simple concept. The constitution can not be amended by legislation.

      1. The constitution can not be amended by legislation.

        Exactly. Clearly that has not stopped the Democratic party from trying. Fortunately and ironically, one of President Trump’s greatest legacies is we currently do not have a SCOTUS that will go along with their efforts.

      2. Amendments must negotiate the arduous and protracted constitutional process.

        Just imagine, “Crazy Abe’s” successors improperly ratified and rammed through not one, but THREE near impossible-to-ratify constitutional amendments under the duress of brutal, post-war, military occupation.

        That is precisely why the “Reconstruction Amendments” were illegitimate as products of war, not national proffer, then, and they remain illegitimate to this day.

      3. It would be great to discuss and argue with the Professor on all sorts of legal and other issues but since he unfortunately never responds to comments it’s not much of a discussion.

  11. Stunning? No not really, this one is just the latest in a long string of exhibits that the government has turned despotic. The famous quote “First they came for…” seems to be congruous.

  12. This is obviously all being driven by fears they have no other way of winning and retaining power than trying to keep what they see as their greatest threat off the ballot.

  13. If Trump illegally removed and storing classified material then he shouldn’t be investigated and prosecuted if warranted. Yet the Republicans are ignoring that he likely committed a crime. So much for the “Law and Order” party.

    1. @Sammy,
      Did you read the blog post?

      On top of that… look at Hillary Clinton.

      One quote she said that could be of concern… she claimed she had permission. (Then that comment went dark and nothing was followed up on it.) The issue that should have been raised was who authorized it, what did Obama and Biden know and when.

      Note: This is a legal issue not a political one.

      To be clear… Hillary broke the law… not when she set up the server, but how she used it and what was on it.
      This not only impacted her, but anyone who had a security clearance and they knew of the server’s existence.
      (Cough Obama , cough cough, Biden….)

      -G

      1. After relentlessly hammering Hillary on the campaign trail about her emails and other federal records, how could Trump be so careless, negligent, or willful about his own federal records when he left office and then later when the National Archives were looking for them?

  14. What classified documents could President Trump possibly have squirreled away at his Mar-A-Lago residence, that were of such a national security concern, that the FBI needed to conduct a raid? Prior to him leaving office, he had the authority to declassify everything that was being sent to this residence. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least that this has nothing to do with concerns of national security and has everything to do with the administrative state security.

    1. The Black Book of Jeffery Epstein?

      Barnes says any Classified Docs there are supposed to be copies & are under different rules/regs so there was no Legal reason to go in on Trump.

  15. I am no fan of Trump and strongly wish he would not run in 2024; however, if it were to become a race between Trump and Biden, I would crawl over broken glass to vote for Trump. What is being done to Trump will be done to anyone who gets in the way of these thugs. This is just another example how the Garland DoJ operates like Stasi light. The gratuitous humiliation of opponents like Trump, Navarro, and Bannon are classic techniques of intimidation used by authoritarian and totalitarian dictatorships. There are no profanities strong enough to describe the evil of Garland and the thugs that oversee DoJ and the FBI. I am not even sure a Trump victory in 2024 would be sufficient to undo the damage being done to our Country. Remember Trump selected Chris Wray as well as a slew of other poor appointments. It will take a determined and methodic and very disciplined executive to purge the executive branch of these vermin. I am not sure Trump fits that description

    1. If Trump is the 2024 Republican nominee, I’d “crawl over broken glass to vote” against him.

      1. Trumps first 3 years were the best 3 years I’ve ever had under any president in my lifetime. I’m 73 years old and I’ve lived through 12 different presidents. His first 3 years were the best for me. I liked Regan and I liked John Kennedy. Trump was the best for me.

      1. But what Trump did to for the country, no big deal, huh.

        Oh, it’s a very big deal. That’s why if he is the nominee, I will vote for him.

      2. “But what Trump did to the country, no big deal, huh.”

        I know, right. I mean look what Joe Biden has done *to* the country in just a year and a half — what with bringing back ‘decency’ and ‘rule of law’ and ‘healing the soul’ of the country as he promised! Yep, the country is now poorer, weaker, more fearful, distrustful, angry, and more divided than ever! Go Brandon!

        Imagine how bad public opinion polls would be today if Biden did NOT have the corrupt media propping him up and running cover for him 24/7? Just imagine. 33%? His poll numbers are way worse than that.

      3. The Biden regime is a tyranny. Biden’s Gestapo is now using police state tactics in order to silence and intimidate vocal Trump supporters. Everything they accused Trump of doing, they ARE doing! They are now about to arrest political opponents based on trumped up, fabricated charges — and they don’t care who is watching!
        America, the Republic, is gone. Fascism is here, in case you hadn’t noticed.

        So to ask you the same question: How small minded are Biden voters and Never Trumpers like yourself?

      4. can you tell us what you think Trump did to the country?

        I guess not.

        Big talk. Little of anything else.

    1. President Trump did not refuse to comply with a subpoena.

      That’s always a reason to move directly to political persecution.

      Gee Judge, the criminal might not have complied with my orders to get out of the car, so I had the legal right to kill him.

      That’s exactly the logic of a police state.

        1. You quoted the govt source that said the raid was because President Trump might not comply with a simple subpoena. Police aren’t allowed to escalate enforcement if they “believe” a simple command will be ignored. That was why I used a hypothetical. For simpletons that cant draw straight lines of logic.

            1. So you agree the FBI has exceeded their own protocols, and this is nothing but a politically driven persecutions.

              You surprise me.

      1. The Gestapo feared that the quintessential villain, Real President Donald J. Trump, would destroy evidence and obstruct justice.

        The very same Gestapo didn’t mind Hillary using BleachBit on everything she owned or her perjury, in fact, the Gestapo just knew that absolutely no reasonable prosecutor would take her case, as salivating prosecutors formed a line two miles long outside the Robert F. Kennedy Building.

    2. Andrew Weissman, another sleazy partisan hack who would have done well in East Germany (if he had not been exterminated by the Stasi predecessors) is the no authority on ethics. Is he not the guy who accidentally erased everything on the two phones he used working for Muller. Naturally no consequences to the likes of Weissman of Hilary and the destruction of phones and computers. They should be dispatched the the inner circles of Hell as poetically and graphically described by Dante

    3. Yes, Weissman’s c.v. is quite impressive.
      https://www.seeking-justice.org/doj-defends-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-weissmann-against-serious-ethics-charges-pending-in-ny/
      https://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-obtains-doj-documents-showing-andrew-weissmann-leading-hiring-effort-for-mueller-special-counsel/
      npr.org/2019/03/14/703108073/top-mueller-prosecutor-stepping-down-in-latest-clue-russia-inquiry-may-be-ending
      observer.com/2015/01/in-andrew-weissmann-the-doj-makes-a-stunningly-bad-choice-for-crucial-role/
      independentsentinel.com/muellers-prosecutor-andrew-weissman-cited-corrupt-legal-practices/
      but wait, there’s more!

      1. lin,

        You might not be aware but this web blog only permits two or fewer hyperlinks per comment. I edited your comment above so that it would be visible. If you would like the readership to reveiew more links than two, this may be accomplished by posting multiple comments of two or fewer links each.

          1. No apology needed but thank you for the courtesy. It’s not advertised as to the limit of the number of links so unfortunately it is left to the new readers to find out the hard way. It would be good to be able to announce this next to the text “Leave a Reply” by the comment textbox. But it is hardcoded into the wordpress page’s script and I don’t have access to it.

    4. Yes, erudite Weissman’s c.v. is impressive
      ttps://www.independentsentinel.com/muellers-prosecutor-andrew-weissman-cited-corrupt-legal-practices/
      https://www.seeking-justice.org/doj-defends-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-weissmann-against-serious-ethics-charges-pending-in-ny/
      https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/08/17/the-time-andrew-weissmann-was-reversed-9-0-by-scotus-and-70000-people-still-lost-their-jobs-n251429
      lots more available for your perusal

    1. This is actually funny it is so soff the wall. While it is true that no collusion between Trump and the FSB or GRU was found, the meetings he had after inauguration with the Russian ambassador and others sure raises MUCH bigger questions than does Hunter Biden. Then we saw Trump cow towing to Putin in Helsinki when he spit on the US military and all our intelligence agencies when he took Putin’s word he did nothing to help him. Then we have Don Jr in interviews before election admitting Trump’s empire was bailed out by the Russians. The Steele dossier was originally funded by GOP who hated Trump. He also wanted to get rid of NATO, a key Russian item, So given all those FACTS, it is silly to claim Russians had nothing to do with helping Trump.

      I am also astounded that Turley thinks the FBI is behind or is conspiring to get Trump when it is led by his own appointee, plus Turley also overlooks the FACT that the FBI cannot and DOES NOT convict or indict and that disqualification come ONLY WITH CONVICTION!, NOT AT THE WHIM OF THE AG OR FBI. Then there is the sloppy view that the current law in this case is like the STATES modifying the Constitution. If Congress cannot do this, then there is no Federal law that can be enforced against any Federal office holder as to taking office.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: