When do you think Trumpeachment will happen?

[thoreau]

More to the specifics, I would say that if there is probable cause to believe that somebody is collaborating with a foreign intelligence service then there is probable cause to believe that he would destroy evidence rather than surrender it.

[Hugh Akston]

Is there a specific reason in this specific case to believe that Manafort has or will destroy evidence? Is there a specific reason to believe that he has failed to cooperate with the subpoenas of his records?

[thoreau]

How do you think the warrant should have been served? Showing up unexpectedly is not the same as doing a no-knock once they get there. They can show up unexpectedly but announce their presence when they arrive at the door, rather than breaking down the door and shooting the dog. I see no indication that their tactics were particularly "dynamic entry", as they say.

I doubt that Manafort is a sufficiently sophisticated FSB cyber-ninja that even 5 seconds of warning is enough for him to press the button that activates some spy movie thing named PROTOCOL TABULA RASA to destroy all data, so I see no need for no-knock "dynamic entry" tactics. But I also suspect that a man who has close ties to the Russian "special services" has a few records whose existence he wouldn't admit to. Showing up and searching rather than politely asking seems to be a reasonable course of action.

And it should go without saying that I would not support searching a house without showing a judge probable cause and obtaining a warrant.

[Hugh Akston]

We don't have enough details in the case to judge whether a search warrant was justified in the first place, or whether subpoenaing records would have sufficed.

But if you're going to serve a search warrant, there is no good reason to do so pre-dawn when the person in question is a low risk of being armed, and has so far cooperated with the investigation.

[Shem]

and has so far cooperated with the investigation.

Considering he's lied repeatedly and only been found out when they uncovered yet more documents that proved he wasn't being forthcoming, I'm not sure sure where you get the idea he's been cooperating.

[Shem]

you'd figure (or i'd figure) this guy would have fed all the incriminating shit into a giant tree shredder at some point when it became clear that he was up next for the mandatory fed tickles?

I'd figure he'd have sealed most of it in an envelope and taken it to a lawyer to hold onto. You only destroy it if you're the biggest fish. Otherwise, you keep some to feed to the law to convince them to leave you alone.

[Taktix®]

We don't have enough details in the case to judge whether a search warrant was justified in the first place, or whether subpoenaing records would have sufficed.

Good thing they have actual judges who sign off on search warrants* when they determine them to be justified. Considering that has already happened, I'd sure like to see what evidence you've seen that shows this search warrant wasn't justified.

Being against abuses within the judicial system doesn't mean being against the judicial system as a whole...

*which I'll admit isn't perfect safeguard, but it is a safeguard

[thoreau]

Manafort is close enough to major figures that, while he isn't the biggest fish, he's too big to get off easy. And if he provides enough info to get off then he might wind up on an FSB target list.

I think at this point his choices are federal prison, a new identity in some small town where feds watch everything happening around him, or a Polonium-210 cocktail. He can't just gracefully retire.

[Hugh Akston]

We don't have enough details in the case to judge whether a search warrant was justified in the first place, or whether subpoenaing records would have sufficed.

Good thing they have actual judges who sign off on search warrants* when they determine them to be justified. Considering that has already happened, I'd sure like to see what evidence you've seen that shows this search warrant wasn't justified.

Being against abuses within the judicial system doesn't mean being against the judicial system as a whole...

*which I'll admit isn't perfect safeguard, but it is a safeguard

Because we've never seen law enforcement exaggerate threats or evidence when seeking search warrants and we've certainly never seen judges rubber-stamping requests because surely the cops know what they're doing.

It's not an abuse of power from a heavy handed police state because everyone's paperwork was in order and procedures were followed.

[thoreau]

I have no problem believing that judges rubber-stamp requests for disproportionately forceful searches when the guy targeted is small fry. When the target has expensive lawyers and deep political connections, I'm inclined to believe that everyone was a little more careful in scrutinizing the planned search.

[fyodor]

Kinda drifting here, but do such decisions by judges ever face any kind of public scrutiny, even well after the fact? I'm not sure if I've ever heard any discussion of such decisions (as in decisions that were actually made, one way or another, did the judge do right or err, that kind of thing).

[Shem]

Trump called for acting FBI director’s firing hours after FBI agents raided Paul Manafort’s home

Now that's an interesting bit of coincidence.

[thoreau]

Trump called for acting FBI director’s firing hours after FBI agents raided Paul Manafort’s home

Now that's an interesting bit of coincidence.

Look, Trump is just opposed to the use of state coercion to conduct searches. That's all.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

[Taktix®]

We don't have enough details in the case to judge whether a search warrant was justified in the first place, or whether subpoenaing records would have sufficed.

Good thing they have actual judges who sign off on search warrants* when they determine them to be justified. Considering that has already happened, I'd sure like to see what evidence you've seen that shows this search warrant wasn't justified.

Being against abuses within the judicial system doesn't mean being against the judicial system as a whole...

*which I'll admit isn't perfect safeguard, but it is a safeguard

Because we've never seen law enforcement exaggerate threats or evidence when seeking search warrants and we've certainly never seen judges rubber-stamping requests because surely the cops know what they're doing.

It's not an abuse of power from a heavy handed police state because everyone's paperwork was in order and procedures were followed.

Not for former presidential campaign chairs, no. Or what thoreau said.

Dude, I'm with you on the very real, systematic problems we have with abuses of power. I just don't have any good reason to suspect abuses occurred in this individual case. And no, "it happens a lot" is not enough reason, absent anything specific...

[nicole]

Kinda drifting here, but do such decisions by judges ever face any kind of public scrutiny, even well after the fact? I'm not sure if I've ever heard any discussion of such decisions (as in decisions that were actually made, one way or another, did the judge do right or err, that kind of thing).

You, uh, may be familiar with Radley Balko?

[Taktix®]

Trump called for acting FBI director’s firing hours after FBI agents raided Paul Manafort’s home

Now that's an interesting bit of coincidence.

Look, Trump is just opposed to the use of state coercion to conduct searches. That's all.

Yeah, that's just more proof that all search warrants are suspect. </Exaggerated Hugh, recently>

[Shem]

And no, "it happens a lot" is not enough reason, absent anything specific...

Especially not when he's been lying for months.

[Hugh Akston]

We don't have enough details in the case to judge whether a search warrant was justified in the first place, or whether subpoenaing records would have sufficed.

Good thing they have actual judges who sign off on search warrants* when they determine them to be justified. Considering that has already happened, I'd sure like to see what evidence you've seen that shows this search warrant wasn't justified.

Being against abuses within the judicial system doesn't mean being against the judicial system as a whole...

*which I'll admit isn't perfect safeguard, but it is a safeguard

Because we've never seen law enforcement exaggerate threats or evidence when seeking search warrants and we've certainly never seen judges rubber-stamping requests because surely the cops know what they're doing.

It's not an abuse of power from a heavy handed police state because everyone's paperwork was in order and procedures were followed.

Not for former presidential campaign chairs, no. Or what thoreau said.

Dude, I'm with you on the very real, systematic problems we have with abuses of power. I just don't have any good reason to suspect abuses occurred in this individual case. And no, "it happens a lot" is not enough reason, absent anything specific...

Absent anything specific, armed agents of the state conducting a predawn raid of a private home with unarmed occupants to retrieve paperwork and electronic records seems prima facie justified. Got it.

[thoreau]

Great moments in reading comprehension.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

[JasonL]

I get that abuses happen but I'm not gonna cry foul if a warrant was attained. Due process was followed and that's nontrivial. My objections are to warrantless searches and also to the abomination of due process that rubber stamps any search of any kind if you say "national security threat". It could be that happened here but I don't think so, this wasn't a fisa court or anything to my knowledge.

[Taktix®]

We don't have enough details in the case to judge whether a search warrant was justified in the first place, or whether subpoenaing records would have sufficed.

Good thing they have actual judges who sign off on search warrants* when they determine them to be justified. Considering that has already happened, I'd sure like to see what evidence you've seen that shows this search warrant wasn't justified.

Being against abuses within the judicial system doesn't mean being against the judicial system as a whole...

*which I'll admit isn't perfect safeguard, but it is a safeguard

Because we've never seen law enforcement exaggerate threats or evidence when seeking search warrants and we've certainly never seen judges rubber-stamping requests because surely the cops know what they're doing.

It's not an abuse of power from a heavy handed police state because everyone's paperwork was in order and procedures were followed.

Not for former presidential campaign chairs, no. Or what thoreau said.

Dude, I'm with you on the very real, systematic problems we have with abuses of power. I just don't have any good reason to suspect abuses occurred in this individual case. And no, "it happens a lot" is not enough reason, absent anything specific...

Absent anything specific, armed agents of the state conducting a predawn raid of a private home with unarmed occupants to retrieve paperwork and electronic records seems prima facie justified. Got it.

As was pointed out, there is nothing specific in this case to suspect the raid was improperly conducted. There are plenty of specifics to show the raid was necessary and justified.

[Kolohe]

The fact that it took a couple of weeks to make the news means the 'raid' wasn't flashy enough to draw anyone's attention in the physical neighborhood nor the media.

[thoreau]

The fact that it took a couple of weeks to make the news means the 'raid' wasn't flashy enough to draw anyone's attention in the physical neighborhood nor the media.

Yeah. We're talking about a low-key affair, the most remarkable factor being that it was so early in the morning.

If we assume that there are times when it is justified to do a search rather than ask somebody to hand over evidence, then the question is whether doing it so early morning can be justified. And given that this guy is suspected of collusion with an organization that specializes in hiding things, I think it is reasonable to do the search in a time that will make him deviate from his usual routine.

[Taktix®]

The fact that it took a couple of weeks to make the news means the 'raid' wasn't flashy enough to draw anyone's attention in the physical neighborhood nor the media.

Yeah. We're talking about a low-key affair, the most remarkable factor being that it was so early in the morning.

If we assume that there are times when it is justified to do a search rather than ask somebody to hand over evidence, then the question is whether doing it so early morning can be justified. And given that this guy is suspected of collusion with an organization that specializes in hiding things, I think it is reasonable to do the search in a time that will make him deviate from his usual routine.

Also, given the proximity to the time he testified which likely lead to said warrant, I'd wager the determining factor was "what is the earliest possible time we can legally take possession of these documents"...

[nicole]

Tfw Trump thinks you are being too cooperative with the Feds http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/ ... -mistress/