News Trump: Mar-a-Lago just raided by FBI

[Bitek]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593680034757488640

And I just watched Renato on MSNBC. He's saying different things in different formats. He still thinks there is a "difficult decision" to be made. Along with everything else I said about staff, etc.

And starting about today, the govt is essentially shut down until after the new year. Skeleton crews across the board.

Isn't it always election season?

Window on this closed when Trump announced on Tuesday.

Shame it's taken this long, but Trump running is already baked into the cake

 

[fskimospy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593680034757488640

And I just watched Renato on MSNBC. He's saying different things in different formats. He still thinks there is a "difficult decision" to be made. Along with everything else I said about staff, etc.

And starting about today, the govt is essentially shut down until after the new year. Skeleton crews across the board.

'increased the likelihood it will spill into election season' is nowhere close to what you were claiming.

Also whether or not there is a 'difficult decision' to be made means nothing as to the timing.

 

[Pens1566]

And former USA Barbara McQuade just stated on MSNBC (same panel): "if it's a close call they're going to err on the side of not bringing charges"

If the investigation were so far along or so much of a "slam dunk", this move doesn't make any sense.

 

[Pens1566]

'increased the likelihood it will spill into election season' is nowhere close to what you were claiming.

Also whether or not there is a 'difficult decision' to be made means nothing as to the timing.

"increased the ... spill into election season" kinda does point to this going on for quite some time from now. Which means A) it's not as close as you think and B) "increases" does in fact indicate a delay.

The difficult decision goes to the case not being a slam dunk.

I think the only reasonable explanation at this point is to defer the judgement to the SC and grant cover. It's pretty clear you disagree.

 

[fskimospy]

And former USA Barbara McQuade just stated on MSNBC (same panel): "if it's a close call they're going to err on the side of not bringing charges"

I agree with her as do I think most people. If it's a close call you don't indict in a situation like this.

It will...uhhhh...not be a close call.

If the investigation were so far along or so much of a "slam dunk", this move doesn't make any sense.

This move makes a lot of sense and a lot of people predicted this is what would happen well in advance.

What is your basis for thinking how close to indictment or the strength of their case would determine if they appointed a special counsel here?

 

[eelw]

And any longer than that is into primary season which gets into DoJs policy not to impact political races.

90 days. Plenty of time from now to July 2024

 

[fskimospy]

"increased the ... spill into election season" kinda does point to this going on for quite some time from now. Which means A) it's not as close as you think and B) "increases" does in fact indicate a delay.

I think you're reading way too much into that.

The difficult decision goes to the case not being a slam dunk.

Was there any part of her statement that indicated the decision would be difficult due to the strength (or lack thereof) of the case against Trump? I think there is a difficult decision to be made but is has nothing to do with the strength of the case which is in fact, a slam dunk.

I think the only reasonable explanation at this point is to defer the judgement to the SC and grant cover. It's pretty clear you disagree.

No, we are in complete agreement as that's the point of an SC. Where we do not agree is you think this will push any case out up to more than two years. The odds of that happening are zero.

I mean it, zero.

Also, the first guy you quoted thinks Trump will be indicted so there's that.

 

[fskimospy]

90 days. Plenty of time from now to July 2024

The idea that Merrick Garland is appointing a special prosecutor to delay all these investigations by two years only to say 'well it's primary season, guess we can't do anything!' is preposterous nonsense.

Garland is doing it to make accusations that Biden is prosecuting his political enemies less effective. He is doing it precisely because he knows Trump will be indicted.

 

[Pens1566]

I agree with her as do I think most people. If it's a close call you don't indict in a situation like this.

It will...uhhhh...not be a close call.

I don't disagree that is not close on the evidence. But as we've been over before, that's not the only thing that will go into the decision. I assure, it absolutely will be a close call when they finally decide based on all the considerations they have to include.

This move makes a lot of sense and a lot of people predicted this is what would happen well in advance.

What is your basis for thinking how close to indictment or the strength of their case would determine if they appointed a special counsel here?

Yes, people predicted it, but for many different reasons. Mostly politics, and mostly based around how ... indecisive Garland is.

And I didn't say that either circumstance determined the appointment. I said that the appointment wouldn't make sense if either were true. Why would Garland do this if it were close or certain? It would delay more, and put him into the awkward position of possibly having to overrule. That's not him. It's also not logical

 

[Pens1566]

90 days. Plenty of time from now to July 2024

Primaries are about a year from now.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't disagree that is not close on the evidence. But as we've been over before, that's not the only thing that will go into the decision. I assure, it absolutely will be a close call when they finally decide based on all the considerations they have to include.

I don't think that's what she was referring to. If anything everything I've seen her write indicates she thinks the case against Trump is strong. I think if the LEGAL case against Trump is uncertain they should not indict. Everything else doesn't matter. It's a hard decision to make because of what it will cause, but in the end there's only one right decision.

Yes, people predicted it, but for many different reasons. Mostly politics, and mostly based around how ... indecisive Garland is.

And I didn't say that either circumstance determined the appointment. I said that the appointment wouldn't make sense if either were true. Why would Garland do this if it were close or certain? It would delay more, and put him into the awkward position of possibly having to overrule. That's not him. It's also not logical

No, if the case is strong and indictment soon by far the most logical thing to do is appoint an SC. To use your source:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593692282695426049

Garland thinking Trump would be indicted is the reason for the appointment, not the reason not to appoint.

 

[Pens1566]

I don't think that's what she was referring to. If anything everything I've seen her write indicates she thinks the case against Trump is strong. I think if the LEGAL case against Trump is uncertain they should not indict. Everything else doesn't matter. It's a hard decision to make because of what it will cause, but in the end there's only one right decision.

We've been over this before, and I won't repeat myself. DoJ will absolutely include things outside the evidence when deciding to charge or not. In fact, it's included in their charging guidelines to do just that.

No, if the case is strong and indictment soon by far the most logical thing to do is appoint an SC. To use your source:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593692282695426049

Why? To make it appear less political? News flash, the Trump world will take any action as political, no matter the source. In fact, the campaign has already released an official statement labeling the new SC as such.

Garland thinking Trump would be indicted is the reason for the appointment, not the reason not to appoint.

"serious possibility" != slam dunk soon. I think you're reading way too much into that.

 

[fskimospy]

We've been over this before, and I won't repeat myself. DoJ will absolutely include things outside the evidence when deciding to charge or not. In fact, it's included in their charging guidelines to do just that.

Not sure how this has anything to do with what I wrote. As I've said before the DOJ takes lots of things into consideration but in this case it won't matter. If the case is strong, and it is a slam dunk, they will be compelled to indict regardless of any other factors. (if anything, external factors will force their hand on indictment)

Why? To make it appear less political? News flash, the Trump world will take any action as political, no matter the source. In fact, the campaign has already released an official statement labeling the new SC as such.

What Trump World thinks is irrelevant - nobody cares what they think and nothing here is trying to convince the Trumpkins of anything. It's for the rest of the country.

"serious possibility" != slam dunk soon. I think you're reading way too much into that.

Even if I am your own source is contradicting your position.

You said if the case were strong that would push against a special counsel. Your own source says the strength of the case (ie: Garland thinks indictment is likely) pushed in favor of the SC. Is he wrong?

 

[VRAMdemon]

In light of how the mid-terms went, this isn’t really a surprise to me. Garland is going to be very busy pushing back against the House Republicans “investigations.” He’s only one person, and he has only so much time in a day. It’s also intended to insulate him somewhat from accusations of partisanship, but in this, I imagine it’s mostly wishful thinking. I just hope the special counsel is someone who’s been part of the investigation up to this point who won’t require a lot of time to get up to speed.

IMO… you don’t appoint a special counsel except if you plan to proceed. Much easier (if not less politically fraught) to simply decline to prosecute.

 

[Pens1566]

Not sure how this has anything to do with what I wrote. As I've said before the DOJ takes lots of things into consideration but in this case it won't matter. If the case is strong, and it is a slam dunk, they will be compelled to indict regardless of any other factors. (if anything, external factors will force their hand on indictment)

Just the opposite, these cases will be given more consideration than a typical no name prosecution. They have to. To think anything else is absurd. They'd be the most highly watched federal cases ever, and also traverse lots of as currently unbounded legal areas.

What Trump World thinks is irrelevant - nobody cares what they think and nothing here is trying to convince the Trumpkins of anything. It's for the rest of the country.

See above. To ignore ~25-35% of the electorate and their response is folly. The results of that could be quite consequential. No one at DoJ is just going "eh, they'll be fine with it if we just put someone else's name on it and get the same result".

Even if I am your own source is contradicting your position.

You said if the case were strong that would push against a special counsel. Your own source says the strength of the case (ie: Garland thinks indictment is likely) pushed in favor of the SC. Is he wrong?

Again, serious possibility is kind of what everyone thinks right now. Possibility isn't probability though. It's not a contradiction. I just don't think it's as guaranteed as you do. Nothing with Trump is a guarantee. If it were, he would have been dq'd from the '16 and '20 races like 8 separate times. And he'd already be serving hard time in several jurisdictions for a list of financial crimes.

 

[VRAMdemon]

This piece explains exactly why the DOJ is proceeding with caution and deliberation. Charging him is a minefield. I still believe it will happen.

Opinion | Trump Faces Five Major Investigations. He Has Dozens of Ways Out. (Published 2022)

How Trump’s unique status as both former president and presidential candidate could bend the legal system in his favor.

www.nytimes.com

 

[fskimospy]

Just the opposite, these cases will be given more consideration than a typical no name prosecution. They have to. To think anything else is absurd. They'd be the most highly watched federal cases ever, and also traverse lots of as currently unbounded legal areas.

They will be given a lot more consideration, yes, and those considerations will increase pressure to indict, not decrease it. I think if they are genuinely unsure if they can obtain a conviction they will choose not to indict but if you've got a strong case they have no choice and all other factors will force them to indict even if they would prefer not to.

Just as a quick example: if the DOJ doesn't prosecute Trump for the clearly illegal possession of highly classified documents then this will undermine the entire classification system, threaten US intelligence abroad, and cause a huge political problem for Biden and Garland domestically. Those are all big pressures to indict. The idea that this would cause political chaos might indicate to you that it would push against indictment but I suspect their reasoning would be immunizing a criminal who may become president again would cause far more chaos so it too is another push towards indictment.

I think the only way Trump could have escaped is if he had truly ridden off into the sunset and stepped out of the political arena. The minute he didn't do that his indictment was all but certain. This is why people kept telling me the DOJ wouldn't go after him at all; they just shifted to 'no indictment!' after it was obvious they were. Once he is indicted they will switch to 'no conviction!' I'm sure.

See above. To ignore ~25-35% of the electorate and their response is folly. The results of that could be quite consequential. No one at DoJ is just going "eh, they'll be fine with it if we just put someone else's name on it and get the same result".

No, ignoring 25-35% of the electorate and their response is smart. They can't be convinced so it's pointless to base your response on what people who cannot be moved think. Much better to base your response on those who can be convinced, which is what this does.

Appointing a special counsel might make the democratic base mad and may not convince the republican base of the investigation's propriety but there are lots of people who fall into neither camp and these are the people this appeals to.

Again, serious possibility is kind of what everyone thinks right now. Possibility isn't probability though. It's not a contradiction. I just don't think it's as guaranteed as you do. Nothing with Trump is a guarantee. If it were, he would have been dq'd from the '16 and '20 races like 8 separate times. And he'd already be serving hard time in several jurisdictions for a list of financial crimes.

You said a strong case would make appointing an SC illogical. Your source says a strong case pushed towards appointing an SC. Were you wrong or is your source wrong?

 

[Pens1566]

They will be given a lot more consideration, yes, and those considerations will increase pressure to indict, not decrease it. I think if they are genuinely unsure if they can obtain a conviction they will choose not to indict but if you've got a strong case they have no choice and all other factors will force them to indict even if they would prefer not to.

Just as a quick example: if the DOJ doesn't prosecute Trump for the clearly illegal possession of highly classified documents then this will undermine the entire classification system, threaten US intelligence abroad, and cause a huge political problem for Biden and Garland domestically. Those are all big pressures to indict. The idea that this would cause political chaos might indicate to you that it would push against indictment but I suspect their reasoning would be immunizing a criminal who may become president again would cause far more chaos so it too is another push towards indictment.

I think the only way Trump could have escaped is if he had truly ridden off into the sunset and stepped out of the political arena. The minute he didn't do that his indictment was all but certain. This is why people kept telling me the DOJ wouldn't go after him at all; they just shifted to 'no indictment!' after it was obvious they were. Once he is indicted they will switch to 'no conviction!' I'm sure.



No, ignoring 25-35% of the electorate and their response is smart. They can't be convinced so it's pointless to base your response on what people who cannot be moved think. Much better to base your response on those who can be convinced, which is what this does.

Appointing a special counsel might make the democratic base mad and may not convince the republican base of the investigation's propriety but there are lots of people who fall into neither camp and these are the people this appeals to.


You said a strong case would make appointing an SC illogical. Your source says a strong case pushed towards appointing an SC. Were you wrong or is your source wrong?

Like I said earlier, OK.

 

[hal2kilo]

The idea that Merrick Garland is appointing a special prosecutor to delay all these investigations by two years only to say 'well it's primary season, guess we can't do anything!' is preposterous nonsense.

Garland is doing it to make accusations that Biden is prosecuting his political enemies less effective. He is doing it precisely because he knows Trump will be indicted.

Unfortunately, it's really just a waste. The other side is going to paint this as nothing but political, no matter what Garland thinks looks objective.

 

[rommelrommel]

I don't see this as a useful move, Republicans have been painting special counsels as being partisan hit machines for years now, I don't see this as convincing much of anyone that it's not political.

 

[interchange]

I don't see this as a useful move, Republicans have been painting special counsels as being partisan hit machines for years now, I don't see this as convincing much of anyone that it's not political.

Don't know how it's less partisan to have the AG running the show. This one is set up where Garland can't overrule the special counsel without notifying Congress. It'll be a PR shit show no matter what, but this is undoubtedly better to my eyes.

 

[Bitek]

Unfortunately, it's really just a waste. The other side is going to paint this as nothing but political, no matter what Garland thinks looks objective.

They were going to do that regardless. Garland could have appointed Jesus Christ, and they would still howl.

It's not about the crazy 25%, it's about everyone else.

 

[rommelrommel]

Don't know how it's less partisan to have the AG running the show. This one is set up where Garland can't overrule the special counsel without notifying Congress. It'll be a PR shit show no matter what, but this is undoubtedly better to my eyes.

I’m not saying it’s not potentially less partisan. What I’m saying is that it won’t change too many minds. Nothing short of appointing a Republican hack who came out tomorrow and closed the investigation outright with a full exoneration would be acceptable to the shit flingers.

 

[ivwshane]

Don't know how it's less partisan to have the AG running the show. This one is set up where Garland can't overrule the special counsel without notifying Congress. It'll be a PR shit show no matter what, but this is undoubtedly better to my eyes.

Where have you seen this? I was under the impression that at the end of the day Garland still has to make the decision to charge or not.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't see this as a useful move, Republicans have been painting special counsels as being partisan hit machines for years now, I don't see this as convincing much of anyone that it's not political.

It doesn't matter what treasonous republicans think, tbfh.