Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4793
    MEMBERS
  • 114327
    MESSAGES
  • 20
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

FBI raids Trump’s home   The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You

Started Aug-8 by Showtalk; 11844 views.
In reply toRe: msg 168
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784 

Aug-30

One down... about another 120 or so to go!!!

FBI special agent who opened Trump investigation reportedly escorted out of Bureau

By Ben Whedon
Updated: August 29, 2022 - 8:30pm

"Mr. Thibault was seen exiting the bureau’s elevator last Friday escorted by two or three 'headquarters-looking types.'"
 
Former FBI Washington Field Office Assistant Special Agent in Charge Tim Thibault was reportedly escorted out of the bureau on Friday, amid whistleblower allegations that he showed political bias in his handling of politically sensitive investigations.
 
The Washington Times reported eyewitness accounts that "Mr. Thibault was seen exiting the bureau’s elevator last Friday escorted by two or three 'headquarters-looking types.'" The article appears to have been updated and now states that Thibault "abruptly resigned" but that he was "forced to leave his post" and cites two unnamed former FBI officials.
 
Just the News was unable to independently confirm the Times' report.
 
Whistleblowers alleged that Thibault concealed the partisan nature of evidence from FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland to secure their approval to open an investigation into former President Donald Trump in 2020 unrelated to the raid, according to information made public by Sen. Charles Grassley.
 
Those whistleblower allegations have raised questions about the bureau as it also deals with the fallout of the raid on Trump's home earlier this month.
 
In that matter, the public release of the affidavit that accompanied the search warrant revealed the warrant application relied heavily on information from news articles, including a CBS Miami piece titled "Moving Trucks Spotted At Mar-a-Lago" and a Breitbart News article in which former Trump adviser Kash Patel discussed the classified status of documents the bureau previously removed from the estate on behalf of the National Archives.
 
Grassley confirmed to Just the News prior to the raid that Thibault had been removed from his post and reassigned to an unspecified position.
 
The FBI declined to comment on the matter.

FBI special agent who opened Trump investigation reportedly escorted out of Bureau | Just The News

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Aug-30

The Taint Team, which is a bizarre name for a supposed investigation unit, is an arm of the FBI investigating itself.  Trump’s attorney said his privileged documents have already been read and copied and distributed, so no matter what is done now, it’s too late.

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Aug-30

Yes, they have.  His attorney confirmed it. Also, the Grand Jury is leaking like a sieve.

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784 

Aug-30

Showtalk said...

Trump’s attorney said his privileged documents have already been read and copied and distributed, so no matter what is done now, it’s too late

Yes, but they broke the attorney-client privilege with their unnecessary wide sweeping raid! They took a lot of things they shouldn't have. That should not be dismissed. Even though the intel in those documents have been seen by multiple parties, they stole something from his home they had no right to.

That is a blatant trampling of his 4th Amendment rights!

And they should pay.

FWIW

 

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784 

Aug-30

Showtalk said...

Also, the Grand Jury is leaking like a sieve.

I presume most of what the Grand Jury is leaking is fake news. But regardless, grand juries leaking things also makes the grand jury itself look bad. But that's the tactic of the Democrats. They leak what they want (including a bunch of lies) as truth all the time.

FWIW

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Aug-30

They should face serious punishment.

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784 

Aug-30

Nothing is going to happen until the GOP take back the Senate and House. And even then, they will probably attempt to stonewall as long as they can.

FWIW

In reply toRe: msg 175
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784 

Aug-31

Trump attorney pushes back on criticism following Mar-a-Lago raid

FWIW

In reply toRe: msg 176
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784 

Aug-31

Can Magistrate Judges Constitutionally Issue Search Warrants Against Trump (Or Anyone Else)?

BY: PHILIP HAMBURGER
AUGUST 26, 2022

The Mar-A-Lago warrant illustrates the long-standing constitutional anomaly of letting magistrate judges sign search warrants.
 
The Mar-a-Lago search warrant is interesting not only because of the high office of the individual whose papers were seized but also because of the low office of the person who signed it. The warrant illustrates the long-standing constitutional anomaly of letting magistrate judges sign search warrants.
 
Leave aside how you feel about the former president. Leave aside what you think of January 6, 2021. Leave aside whether there was a good reason to issue the warrant. A more basic question is whether the Hon. Bruce Reinhart could constitutionally issue it. 
 
Under the Constitution, a Search Warrant Must Be Signed by a Judge
 
The problem is that Reinhart is a so-called magistrate judge. Many commentators have focused on his personal history and political leanings, but much more significant is that he is not really a judge. 
 
To be precise, he is not a judge of a court of the United States. The judicial power of the United States is vested in its courts. In the exercise of this power, judges of those courts can issue search warrants. But a magistrate judge is just an assistant to a court and its judges. Not being a judge of one of the courts of the United States, he cannot constitutionally exercise the judicial power of the United States. That means he cannot issue a search warrant.
 
The full shift of the judicial power of the United States in criminal cases to magistrate judges has been relatively recent. Only since 1968 has Congress generally authorized persons other than real judges to exercise the judicial power of the United States in trying misdemeanors (although a defendant can still insist on being tried by a real judge when charged with more than a petty offense). In addition, district courts can assign the non-judges “such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Only since 1990 have the non-judges been called “magistrate judges.”
 
Just how little a magistrate judge can be considered a judge is evident from the way he is appointed. Rather than be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate—as provided by the Constitution for real judges—a magistrate judge, including the one who signed the Mar-a-Lago warrant, is appointed merely by a majority of the active judges of a district court. He serves for only eight years, he can be removed for cause, and even if not removed, he always must worry that his district court will not reappoint him.
 
Congress, moreover, can reduce his salary. He therefore is not a judge of the court, but merely one of its servants. Like a law clerk or other assistant, he can help a judge understand the issues underlying the decision to issue a search warrant. But he should not issue it.
 
Anglo-American history is illuminating. An exercise of judicial power, the issuance of a search warrant traditionally had to come from one who enjoyed that power. So, in England, search warrants had to be issued by a judge or a justice of the peace, who enjoyed elements of a judge’s authority. Similarly, in early states, search warrants had to come from a judge or justice of the peace. This already suggests a difficulty for the Mar-a-Lago warrant and any other search warrant issued by a magistrate judge or anyone else who is not really a judge, but merely an assistant or adjunct to a judge.
 
This problem is evident not merely from history, but from the Constitution’s very text. Whereas the English and state systems let some judicial power be exercised by justices of the peace and other judicial officers who were not judges of the courts, the federal system confined the judicial power of the United States officers to the courts and their judges.
 
The U.S. Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and such other courts as Congress authorizes. That is, it leaves no room for the judicial power of the United States to be exercised by any other court or any judges except those who sit on such courts. This bodes ill for federal search warrants signed by magistrate judges and other judicial officers who are not judges of the courts.
 
One might protest that the courts or their judges can delegate their power to subordinates. But at common law—in contrast to civil law—judges have never been able to delegate judicial power. And the Constitution does more than simply vest the judicial power of the United States in the courts, for it says that the judicial power “shall be vested” in the courts. If
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Aug-31

McConnell will. He’s despicable.

TOP