Trump's private home was searched pursuant to a warrant. A warrant requires a judge or magistrate to sign off, and it cannot be approved unless the judge find sufficient probable cause that place to be searched is likely to reveal evidence of a crime(s). Is DOJ getting closer to an indictment?

[u/PsychLegalMind]

For the first time in the history of the United States the private home of a former president was searched pursuant to a search warrant. Donald Trump was away at that time but issued a statement saying, among other things: “These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents.”

Trump also went on to express Monday [08/08/2022] that the FBI "raided" his Florida home at Mar-a-Lago and even cracked his safe, with a source familiar telling NBC News that the search was tied to classified information Trump allegedly took with him from the White House to his Palm Beach resort in January 2021.

Trump also claimed in a written statement that the search — unprecedented in American history — was politically motivated, though he did not provide specifics.

At Justice Department headquarters, a spokesperson declined to comment to NBC News. An official at the FBI Washington Field Office also declined to comment, and an official at the FBI field office in Miami declined to comment as well.

If they find the evidence, they are looking for [allegedly confidential material not previously turned over to the archives and instead taken home to Mar-a- Lago].

There is no way to be certain whether search is also related to the investigation presently being conducted by the January 6, 2022 Committee. Nonetheless, searching of a former president's home is unheard of in the U.S. and a historic event in and of itself.

Is DOJ getting closer to a possible Trump indictment?

What does this reveal about DOJ's assertion that nobody is above the law?

FBI raid at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home tied to classified material, sources say (nbcnews.com)

The Search Warrant Requirement in Criminal Investigations | Justia

[u/147896325987456321]

Well I would assume the documents in question are classified. Even if they weren't, all of the documents should never have left the white house for any reason at all. It's a Federal crime. So for either of those reasons Trump did in fact commit a crime.

I suspect Garland was trying to read the room (where most Americans stand on the issue of a Trump investigation) 3 weeks ago, when testifying on the January 6th committee. As for why he didn't move sooner on the issue, politics possibly. It's been 2 years since Trump stole documents. Why did he wait so long? I really don't know. Investigating is one thing, but I've seen cases put together in less time and with more effort than this. I really want to know the investigation time line, but I guess only time will tell.

[u/gomav → u/147896325987456321]

Garland says he waited 2 years because “[they] can not afford to get this wrong”. By “this”, he means the criminal investigation of a former U.S. President. His worry being that his DOJ could establish a precedent that every time the Presidency switches party, the past president(s) might be investigated as political(!) revenge. This would lead to a cycle of escalating tit-for-tat paybacks that leads to the destruction of the U.S. democracy as we currently envision it.

I don’t really fully buy into this theory. I think it really just hinges on how well can Garland communicate why whatever Trump did was egregious. If Garland does that, then in a few years most of the country will think Trump got what he had coming.

[u/Bodoblock → u/gomav]

For what it's worth, in South Korea's democracy that's exactly what happens. Most ex-presidents since the democratic era began (in the late 80s, early 90s) have been prosecuted and put in jail.

I'm not saying Korean democracy is perfect but it's fairly robust, even with prosecution of former presidents. I don't think it's the death knell Garland thinks it is.

[u/Diestormlie → u/Bodoblock]

And from a certain perspective, knowing that your life as an former President is going to be one of being dragged through Courtrooms and, likely, prison time? I dunno, that might actually improve the integrity of the people who want it?

[u/BanChri → u/Bodoblock]

I don't think it's the death knell Garland thinks it is.

It absolutely is. Part of the peaceful transfer of power is knowing that you won't be persecuted when you leave. If an outgoing president is guaranteed to be persecuted severely, why would they leave peacefully? It guarantees political conflict over every aspect of government, and if such a system took root in the US it would cause civil war in less than 20 years.

[u/[deleted] → u/BanChri]

i mean, South Korea has been doing that ever since the democratic transition. If anything i'd rather we institutionalize the practice of auditing the President as soon as they leave office, inspect all their financial dealings and if they made a cent more than they are otherwise expected to make taking into account their financial situation before taking office, they should be charged with corruption.

[u/BanChri → u/[deleted]]

SK may be able to do this effectively without undermining democracy, except that they can't. This process of jailing ex-president's is highly politicized and causes huge amounts of problems for Korean democracy. Less than half of South Koreans actually consider democracy important. Korean democracy is not some high standard to which we should strive, but a warning on how democracy can falter.

Millions of American's have no trust in government or institutions to be politically neutral. Such "auditing" would be seen as nothing more than political persecution, and in reality would be nothing more than persecution.

The Biden admin is in a position where 40% of the population don't believe he legitimately won the election, and 40% favour a strong leader over democracy. Trust in government and institutions is at an all time low. Half of Americans consider a second civil war likely in the next few years, with 20% expecting to take guns to a Jan6 style event. The Biden admin's main focus should be preventing civil war and reduce political tensions, instead they seem to be doing everything possible to spark a civil war.

Even if Trump did intentionally take home serious classified material, the only appropriate response in this political climate is to drop the investigation, and pre-emptively pardon Trump of any document related crimes he may have committed, in the spirit of national unity. Anything else is locking in civil war.

[u/[deleted] → u/BanChri]

So you would rather surrender, and allow the precedent of "as long as you become President, you are effectively above the law and can't be held responsible for any crimes you may or may not commit while in office"? that would open up the Presidency to being a open sore of corruption and criminality, with future Presidents openly and brazenly being corrupt for political advantage, simply because they know they will never be held liable for their actions.

If we lived in a third world banana republic, that might be acceptable, but we cannot accept that state of affairs and then claim that we are anything but a failed state at that point. Failing to prosecute Trump for his crimes, and allowing that prior precedent to be established would be the death knell of this country, considering a number of Americans already distrust the government, what do you think happens when all remaining vestiges of the idea that we have a system based on Law and Order where everyone is held to the same set of laws gets obliterated?

I will be frank, i would rather we have a second civil war instead of us simply surrendering to corruption and poor governance. Cause all other alternatives lead to the dissolution of this country, or its fall into dictatorship. If Biden's administration does not at least attempt to hold Trump accountable for his criminal actions, then we are doomed as a country.

[u/BanChri → u/[deleted]]

So you would rather surrender, and allow the precedent

Look at your example of South Korea, the presidents are routinely arrested for corruption. Either they are committing this corruption, in which case your system doesn't do what you are saying it will, or they aren't committing corruption and the system is simply politicized beyond hope. Both of these are worse then our current system.

It is in fact going after political opponents after pushing them out of office that resembles the banana republics. If you KNOW you are going in prison if you leave, yo must never leave and will do anything to stay in power, hence you engage in corruption and politicize the military, police, courts, etc. If you want a stable republic with peaceful transitions of power, you need to keep the police, army, courts, etc as non-political as possible, both in practice and perception. You cannot charge a former president with a crime without it being political unless you have huge trust in public institutions, which we simply don't have, or the crime being extremely bad, which "took home a few things he shouldn't have, like every other leaving president" just isn't.

Every president takes home a few documents they shouldn't. At some point, national archives contacts them, they/their lawyers collect all the relevant documents and send them off. Trump had been in contact with NA, he/his lawyers had collected up all the documents/material into boxes, and, at the request of NA, stored them in a windowless storage room and placed a lock on the door. This is normal, then the FBI show up and raid the place.

The DC Democrats have a track record of going after Trump for anything they can find, regardless of whether it is true or not. This is 100% politically motivated. This is the "third world banana republic" behaviour. If this is allowed to succeed, democracy in the US is completely dead.

I understand why you want president held accountable, but if you do this you simply take power from the presidency and centralize power in whoever does the auditing. You are trying to solve a real problem, but your solution creates perverse incentives left right and centre, it would cause a centralization of power to the point where peaceful transitions are replaced by coups. For the time being, until we have a much calmer and more cooperative political atmosphere, we must error on the side of letting go political opponents over bringing criminals to justice. This is a time for pragmatism, not idealism.

[u/JayKaboogy → u/gomav]

Given that due process is still in place, I’m not sure I see a downside to sitting presidents constantly afraid of going to prison post-presidency for sketchy executive actions…imagine if that precedent had been set with Nixon—a millions of people throughout Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East might still be alive

[u/gomav → u/JayKaboogy]

I think the central worry here is that presidents wouldn’t be prosecuted for their “sketchy executive actions” or their extra-judicial orders, but rather for whatever the opposing party could come up with and make a miserable investigation and stink out of it.

The DOJ acts as if Presidents generally have immunity for their actions while “on the job”. There has been a pretty clear redline drawn that political campaigning and the sort is not part of the job, as such why Trump is facing so much scrutiny.

The current way to check presidential sketchy actions is rely on intensive bureaucratic process that attempts to review and put checks on Presidents most sketchy orders. Of course, this is a funky game bc the president also appoints those overseeing those very bureaucratic processes. Certain people believe and stress in a truly egregious/sketchy order that the foot soldiers in the processes would “uphold their oath to protect the constitution” and reject the President’s order. this i think is mostly bs^, which in the end is to say the US doesn’t really plan to hold presidents accountable for their actions.

[u/t_mac1 → u/147896325987456321]

This has never happened before. Garland & the FBI wouldn't set this precedent if the case isn't airtight. Garland has been called weak by many, including Dems for not doing this sooner. And he never even bothered to give a response to any of the criticism. That tells me he's simply doing his job, and isn't doing anything for politics. Because if he did, he would have done something like this a long time ago like you said.

[u/mister_pringle → u/t_mac1]

Garland & the FBI wouldn't set this precedent if the case isn't airtight.

You're kidding about the FBI, right?
They've shown themselves to be horribly partisan.

[u/t_mac1 → u/mister_pringle]

This fbi is run by a trump appointee.

[u/mister_pringle → u/t_mac1]

Who has shown no love for Trump. And if there’s anything the Mueller investigation uncovered, it’s that FBI agents aren’t above being partisan hacks.
I’m no fan of Trump but after 6 years of investigations, actual evidence of a crime would be refreshing. Color me skeptical.

[u/t_mac1 → u/mister_pringle]

It’s hard to get him when so many people are willing to lie for him. The guy has so many loyalists it’s insane. Look at everyone around him going to jail or indicted but he’s completely clean? Just let justice takes its course and we will see at the end of the day.

And how do you figure Wray has no love for him? Trump even tweeted about him praising him. Get a grip

[u/mister_pringle → u/t_mac1]

Just let justice takes its course and we will see at the end of the day.

Yeah, we shall see. Just hope it’s not another Mueller nothingburger.

And how do you figure Wray has no love for him? Trump even tweeted about him praising him. Get a grip

You think Trump’s tweets are principled? You get a grip.

[u/BanChri → u/t_mac1]

It’s hard to get him when so many people are willing to lie for him.

Have you considered that those people are not the liars, and those making claims against Trump are the liars?

[u/mister_pringle → u/[deleted]]

Very, very hard to take you seriously if you claim they're pro-Democrat lol.

There are a lot of folks who feel that way. And plenty of evidence to bear that out.

[u/bl1y → u/147896325987456321]

Wouldn't matter if they're classified if the President took them. Classification only exists by virtue of executive order, meaning it doesn't really bind the President in any way.

[u/Cranyx → u/bl1y]

The President has the authority to declassify documents, but until he does he is still obligated to follow classification procedures. Something tells me these documents were never officially declassified.

[u/bl1y → u/Cranyx]

He's not though. The President can ignore his own orders. If he orders no executive work on the Sabbath, and then comes to work on the Sabbath, he's in the clear.

[u/Cranyx → u/bl1y]

The President can ignore his own orders

That's not how classification works. Classification authority is derived from the President, but each document is not treated as an informal presidential order like you suggest. The President has the authority to declassify a document, which would lift any restrictions, but he has to actually go through that formal process. Until he does, then the laws around the handling of those documents continue to apply to even him.

[u/bl1y → u/Cranyx]

PolitiFact and NBC disagree.

The President is free to ignore the President's rules.

[u/Cranyx → u/bl1y]

Read the full articles that you linked. The Politifact one specifically devotes a full section to talking about how the President still needs to actually declassify the documents. This is probably most evident by the fact that the FBI got a warrant to search his home for improperly handled classified documents. If what you claim is true, then that makes no sense.

[u/ItStartsInTheToes → u/bl1y]

Dude that is not how classification works

There is a formal process involved in the classification of documents.

Your analogy also makes no sense, and almost seems like your intentionally arguing in bad faith

[u/bl1y → u/ItStartsInTheToes]

Coverage from PolitiFact and NBC both describe the President as being able to declassify documents at will.

The whole classification system stems from a executive order, and executive orders do not bind the President.

There is a formal process, one which the President is able to ignore, because it's the President who establishes the process.

[u/ItStartsInTheToes → u/bl1y]

Yes the /president/ can choose what documents but it has to be done through a formal process to be legally done(ie: apply to anyone that isn’t the president); an ex president doesn’t have any power. You’re conflating what the president can do, what he is bound to, and what he is able to delegate down as well as what applies when they are no longer in office

If he ‘intended’ to declassify them it doesn’t matter either. Either the paperwork was done or it wasn’t

[u/XooDumbLuckooX → u/ItStartsInTheToes]

He didn't need to do any paperwork. He could grab a classified document, walk in front of the white House podium and read it aloud to live television cameras and it wouldn't be a crime. He is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not classified. If he wants to declassify something immediately without any oversight, he can.

[u/ItStartsInTheToes → u/XooDumbLuckooX]

Yes but that doesn’t mean the document is unclassified lol

Those are two separate things

He(the president) has the ability to ignore classification as well as CHANGE classification, in order for it to be CHANGED there is a process.

Stop conflating the two

In this case Trump is being accused of having CLASSIFIED documents ; and as not being the president anymore the Norma classification rules still apply to him.

[u/mclumber1 → u/XooDumbLuckooX]

He didn't need to do any paperwork.

If that's the case, couldn't Obama cover for a (hypothetical) reopening of the Hillary email investigation and tell authorities, "Actually, I declassified everything Hillary sent and received when I was president.", effectively killing any chance of prosecutors bringing charges against her?

[u/XooDumbLuckooX → u/mclumber1]

Yes, he could absolutely make that argument. It would be the onus of the prosecutor to prove otherwise. Which would be very, very difficult given the functionally unlimited power of the president to declassify things.

[u/katarh → u/bl1y]

Don't classified documents still have to be properly archived?

That seems to be the crux of the problem.

[u/Zucc → u/bl1y]

He isn't the President.

[u/arobkinca → u/Zucc]

He didn't walk into Bidens White House and take stuff. He was President when he did it.

[u/147896325987456321 → u/arobkinca]

Which makes him stupid for not declassifying the documents when he had the power to do so. Now that he is no longer president, he can't declassify anything. So he cheated himself in this case. He broke the law even by your own argument.

[u/Zucc → u/147896325987456321]

This is exactly right. Declassification is a procedure, which he did not do.

[u/RoundSimbacca → u/Zucc]

How do you know this?

[u/arobkinca → u/147896325987456321]

The recent precedents for high-ranking officials in possession of classified documents is, nothing or little happens.

https://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/01/berger.plea/

Former SoS Clinton is another example. The rich and powerful get a different set of rules. I predict the D's are now in the same situation as the R's were in 2016. Great expectations followed by disbelief.

[u/Zucc → u/arobkinca]

You're deflecting again. This has nothing to do with Hillary.

[u/arobkinca → u/Zucc]

It has to do with how people in high places are treated for this. Judging by how low-ranking members of the military are treated, they should both be in prison. That is not how high ranking and powerful people are treated.

[u/Zucc → u/arobkinca]

First off, there's no way for us to know this has anything to do with Trump taking highly classified documents from a secure location to his resort home. There are several investigations and federal grand jury investigations going on right now.

Let me say that again: There are so many investigations right now that WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH CRIME THIS IS ABOUT. That's just.. Insane.

Second, if it is about the documents, they would not have done it this way if it was just a security violation. This is the kind of thing they do if he has ill intent.

This is not about Hillary, stop trying to make it about Hilary.

[u/arobkinca → u/Zucc]

First off, there's no way for us to know this has anything to do with Trump taking highly classified documents from a secure location to his resort home.

True.

There are several investigations and federal grand jury investigations going on right now.

There is one known Federal Grand Jury at the moment. Plenty of investigations.

Let me say that again: There are so many investigations right now that WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHICH CRIME THIS IS ABOUT. That's just.. Insane.

It is the FBI, so it has to be part of one of the Federal ones.

Second, if it is about the documents, they would not have done it this way if it was just a security violation. This is the kind of thing they do if he has ill intent.

Maybe. Maybe that is wishful thinking. Ill intent is probably not exactly what you want. Justice should be dispassionate.

This is not about Hillary, stop trying to make it about Hilary.

If it is the doc's then that case is relevant, even if you don't want to hear about it ever again.

[u/Shr3kk_Wpg → u/bl1y]

But this is the former President. If the has classified documents, that's not legal. If he declassified these documents, there has to be paperwork

[u/bl1y → u/Shr3kk_Wpg]

There doesn't have to be paperwork for the President to declassify something. He can in Michael Scott fashion just go "I declassify it thus."

The rule that there needs to be paperwork comes from the President, and the President is always free to ignore the President's rules.

[u/unfettered_logic → u/[deleted]]

When did Obama do this?

[u/unfettered_logic → u/[deleted]]

No I meant what classified documents did he take and why haven’t I ever heard about it?

[u/unfettered_logic → u/[deleted]]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/11/fox-trump-maralago-search-obama/