FBI Searches Trump’s Home in Florida | Hacker News Reader

FBI Searches Trump’s Home in Florida

nytimes.com

60 pointskoolba73 comments

@dang, while this is getting flagged because the nature of the story is contentious, I think it's absolutely legit for HN given that it's exceptionally newsworthy (as an unprecedented event), sits at the intersection of privacy vs police power (a perennial topic on HN), and raises questions about the consistency of the legal system (ditto).

Also, it's just going to keep getting posted if people keep trying to flag it out of existence.

I've given up. HN considers any serious discussion of politics anti-intellectual to the degree HN avoids intelligent discussion about politics. It's so risk averse it's become 180 degrees from, and thus manages to be even worse than, Reddit. Like how could you possibly be worse than Reddit?! I know! Flag controversial political discussions! It's a great way to coddle those most needing accountability as if the mere existence of the topic is the problem! Imagine people so disturbed by a topic they want to ensure everyone else avoids it.

It's not risk aversion. Hacker News doesn't avoid intelligent discussion about politics, rather this community has proven time and time again that it isn't even capable of it, especially where Trump is concerned, and people are pre-emptively flagging what's likely to be a very high noise, low signal thread.

This is a community whose education on computer science comes from MIT and Stanford, but whose education on politics comes from 4chan and the Unabomber manifesto.

I mean, I would love to see intelligent political discussion on Hacker News, politics is one of the great intellectual pursuits. But it just isn't going to happen here.

but whose education on politics comes from 4chan and the Unabomber manifesto

Being very familiar with both I wish it rose to the level of the worthwhile political content in those examples, but instead seems to sink to the least interesting aspects of both. C'est la vie.

I strongly believe there is probable cause to be found that Trump committed crimes, but I can't help but ask if these hunts against former presidents are positive for the future peace and prosperity of America.

South Korea seems to be doing OK despite being ahead of the US in this particular domain.

Yep, South Korea sent four ex-presidents to prison (three were pardoned, one is still in prison). It's not a perfect solution (obviously we'd prefer if we had presidents who didn't commit crimes), but I think it's a net positive. Surprisingly, when you throw an ex-president in jail, the society doesn't break down. The stock market barely even notices.

All we can hope is that we keep enough people with integrity and apolitical viewpoints as a buffer between the political parties and the White House.

This raid was certainly signed off by Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI.

Wray was appointed by Trump.

Feel free to call it a witch hunt, but you don't go into a warrant like this unless you are fairly certain of the outcome.

I just hope this doesn't turn into a trolley problem where one side of the tracks is justice dying and the other side is mass violence and instability.

Making sure no one is above the law is a cornerstone of our legal system, so I would argue it is in fact essential. Of course this is assuming there must be really strong probable cause in this case.

If "being above the law" is discretionary prosecution and investigation letting some people off the hook, then it actually is for good or ill a cornerstone of our legal system. FBI has broad discretionary ability to pick and choose who to go after, and ensuring that is done in a uniform and politically unbiased way could arguably trump priority of any particular person being prosecuted.

It may be the case this is not politically motivated. But were there cases where investigations are politically motivated, I would much rather see those people get away than political bias of investigatory agencies being used to undermine democratic system, even if the criminals themselves were also undermining the democratic system.

If our leaders can break the law without consequence, it undermines everything. The rich and powerful in the US need to be under _more_ scrutiny, not less.

There was definitely consequences. Trump was voted out of office as a result of the various crimes the people witnessed. Also there was an impeachment that failed to convict.

Also I'm not sure the prosecution of any particular individual necessarily outweighs the need to keep our justice system politically unbiased. Again I'd much prefer people go free rather than FBI and other agencies being used in a politically biased manner to undermine democracy. I'm not saying that is what is happening here, although it could be the case.

> Trump was voted out of office as a result of the various crimes the people witnessed.

That's not enough. If it's all just politics, then it's part of the game. We need law enforcement to stand up and do their job. "Some people are pretty sure I'm a criminal" isn't the same thing as a court of law saying it.

> Also there was an impeachment that failed to convict.

That's barely a consequence. It did essentially nothing.

> Also I'm not sure the prosecution of any particular individual necessarily outweighs the need to keep our justice system politically unbiased.

The justice system isn't seen as politically unbiased by the people who will yell about Trump getting prosecuted anyway. If they're going to cry bias regardless, let's drag the evidence into a court of law and shine some sunlight on it.

I understand the desire for criminals to face their crimes.

The fact that this happens in the recent aftermath of the election of the leader of the executive branch, under which the FBI is contained, against his adversary just leaves a very politically charged taste in my mouth. I wish this were applied uniformly. Pretty much all presidents have likely committed crimes so I'd at least like to see them serve warrants against Obama for his approval of drone strikes that killed children and Bush for orchestrating the lying about WMDs in Iraq and subsequent carnage. Hopefully we can use Rico charges to put all current living presidents in jail, all the way up to Biden.

It seems all too convenient and politically motivated that only the adversary of FBI's branch of government has a warrant issued. This kind of targeted attack while ignoring war crimes of former presidents IMO is even worse than no justice at all, because it creates a precedent for political targeting.

> The fact that this happens in the recent aftermath of the election of the leader of the executive branch, under which the FBI is contained, against his adversary who is now being elected just leaves a very politically charged taste in my mouth.

In practice, that's pretty close to just saying no President should ever be investigated.

> Pretty much all presidents have likely committed crimes [...]

I would definitely be in favor of a special prosecutor being set up to investigate the current President, every time. Let's not wait until they're out of office.

>In practice, that's pretty close to just saying no President should ever be investigated.

It would be if you missed my context, which is about applying this in a non-uniform way. That is if FBI goes after both Obama as a bomber of children and Trump as a <whatever the warrant was for>, then it would lend a little more credence towards a true effort to work in an unbiased fashion. Purely going after your adversary but none of the warcrimes of other presidents just comes off as politically motivated. Maybe it's not, but it certainly seems quite possible. Again IMO it undermines the nation more to convict people for political motivation rather than it does to let some criminals go free. If the option is politically motivated prosecution or none at all I would definitely prefer "none being investigated" -- but I think that would be a false dichotomy.

>I would definitely be in favor of a special prosecutor being set up to investigate the current President, every time. Let's not wait until they're out of office.

I mean that already exists, it's called congress, and they didn't convict Trump.

> It would be if you missed my context, which is about applying this in a non-uniform way. That is if FBI goes after both Obama as a bomber of children and Trump as a <whatever the warrant was for>

I don't know of any actual US crimes that Obama is legitimately suspected of. War actions are generally treated quite differently compared to non-war actions. With all likelihood, the US drone campaign is only evil, not illegal.

The FBIs actions here are uniform exactly because there is probable cause enough to start an investigation of Trump and not of Obama. What actual crime would Obama be investigated for, and what warrant would be gotten?

A search warrant was issued for Trump because he _already_ was caught keeping classified documents that he wasn't allowed to keep, and whatever followup they're doing based on that.

> > I would definitely be in favor of a special prosecutor being set up to investigate the current President, every time. Let's not wait until they're out of office.

> I mean that already exists, it's called congress, and they didn't convict Trump.

Congress isn't primarily an investigative body, they're not special prosecutors, they cannot charge people with crimes, and they cannot do a whole bunch of things that actual law enforcement can. Also, impeachment only has two possible punishments, removal from office and forbidding future office.

They also kind of suck in general at being non-political, by nature of how Congress works. For example, the J6 committee investigation really should have been a special prosecutor of some sort, but they couldn't get it done because the Republicans simply refused.

>I don't know of any actual US crimes that Obama is legitimately suspected of. War actions are generally treated quite differently compared to non-war actions. With all likelihood, the US drone campaign is only evil, not illegal.

18 U.S. Code § 2441. Not enough to convict, but definitely enough for PC. If an agent claiming a dog sniffing me was enough for a federal judge to serve a search warrant against me (true story), then by uniformity principle an order followed by blown up dead droned kids should be enough PC to investigate Obama.

>A search warrant was issued for Trump because he _already_ was caught keeping classified documents that he wasn't allowed to keep, and whatever followup they're doing based on that.

Sure again I don't doubt there was PC to get a warrant for Trump involving something. Again the issue is the possibility of using criminal system for targeted political persecution, in this case of the immediate historical adversary of the sitting lead of the branch in which the FBI sits.

>Congress isn't primarily an investigative body, they're not special prosecutors, they cannot charge people with crimes, and they cannot do a whole bunch of things that actual law enforcement can. Also, impeachment only has two possible punishments, removal from office and forbidding future office.

>They also kind of suck in general at being non-political, by nature of how Congress works. For example, the J6 committee investigation really should have been a special prosecutor of some sort, but they couldn't get it done because the Republicans simply refused.

Point taken, I can see the merits you note here and agree a less political system could be useful for investigating presidents.

> 18 U.S. Code § 2441. Not enough to convict, but definitely enough for PC.

I don't really see it, but I'm not a lawyer either. Either way, I'd be very fine with it being investigated.

> If an agent claiming a dog sniffing me was enough for a federal judge to serve a search warrant against me (true story)

Ugh, sorry that happened to you. The war on drugs has been just the worst thing for law enforcement in this country.

> There was definitely consequences. Trump was voted out of office as a result of the various crimes the people witnessed.

The election was too close to know if it even made a difference at all, let alone count as definite consequences.

Two things are independently bad: (1) politically biased enforcement, and (2) powerful politicians not being accountable for crimes committed.

Ideally we can avoid (2) without committing (1), but concerns about (1) shouldn't be brushed aside.

Being above the law is less like discretion, and more like a pardon. If you know something is prosecutable, but you decide not to on the basis of the person (being more important than accountability), you're pardoning.

Discretion isn't just about the subject but also about greater society and even the one investigating. Sometimes a fleeing traffic violator are let go not because they individually are somehow worthy but so that a chase doesn't result in greater risk to innocents. Sometimes a cop walks away from a riot because he'll get his ass beat if he tries to seek justice. Sometimes a brutal dictator is allowed to walk away into exile in the interest of greater peace of society. It's not as simple as you say "on the basis of the person."

I'm going to suggest that to the police next time I commit a crime.

Is this a hunt? There is already a large body of evidence that he attempted to destroy records that he was legally obligated to keep, and quite a few credible claims that he succeeded by flushing records down the toilet. To say nothing of the emoluments clause.

Trump was entrusted with the highest office of the land, and flagrantly violated the laws and his oaths. At the head of the party that consistently claims that "law and order" is a guiding principle, bringing him to justice should be a no-brainer, right?

Distraction to divert attention away from the controversial "Inflation Reduction Act", perhaps?

Probable cause?

Whatever evidence was presented, it’s damning, based on a the approval chain to execute such a search (DOJ + a federal judge). Most likely it was the National Archives. Federal law bars the removal of classified documents to unauthorized locations.

Surely the President has the power to authorize locations and/or declassify documents.

Probably (not a legal scholar) but I'm sure it applies to sitting presidents, not former presidents.

But wasn't he President when he took the documents to MAL, or at the very least, when he packed them to go to MAL?

Or did he somehow take them after leaving the White House?

I don't know what charges the FBI will bring in this case, but for the sake of the nation, I hope they are something more serious than just failing to write a note saying "I authorize myself to take these documents."

@renato_mariotti: "James Comey was right when he testified that the DOJ typically does not prosecute cases involving the mishandling of classified material unless that material was deliberately transferred to a third party. That suggests to me that there is something we don't know here."

> but for the sake of the nation

It honestly does not matter at this point. Remember when Trump said “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters"? Still holds up today and he's not even running for anything. The feds can find the most damning evidence of the most heinous crimes and will still not change the minds of the MAGA crowd. We're in the post-reason context right now.

For example, from the Presidential Records Act:

> Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing. (emphasis mine)

> Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-ac...

I'm hesitant to entertain the idea of a chief executive who could do anything with impunity.

Yeah, I'm not surprised if Trump didn't follow proper procedures. Disdain for proper procedures is very on-brand.

But the PRA [1] doesn't appear to contain any penalties. What happens when someone disobeys a law that doesn't specify a penalty?

(One section, 2209, does specify a penalty for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts, but that penalty is limited to suspension or reduction in pay, and doesn't apply to the President, only his staff.)

I suspect that all they can do based on the PRA is take the records, and we won't see any further action based on that.

1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-22

> Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

> Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall 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.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2012-title18/html...

> U.S. federal agents were looking for documents relating to nuclear weapons when they searched former President Donald Trump's home in Florida this week, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com