Something Just Shifted

 

Something just shifted in the United States of America.  A former president’s home was just raided last night by “our” F.B.I.  Trump was supposedly in New York at the time.  His former wife just passed. They just had her funeral.  He and his children are still mourning.

Something I’ve just read conveys that former presidents are off limits by current presidents. They don’t criticize or bring charges.  Is this then, a first?

I’ve read, like other Americans, that they grabbed boxes from Mar-a-Lago, not even bothering to scour any contents.  What are they looking for?  The American public wants to know.  This news story is too new – too raw right now.  But there are many other pieces in play.  A midterm election is approaching.  Congress will re-convene and continue their Jan. 6th hearings.  Some, including Trump, may announce their 2024 intentions.  So what just happened?

I served on a jury years ago, as did my husband, mere months after we moved from Boston to the Panhandle of Florida.  We registered to vote, and received summons in the mail to serve – our first times experiencing serving as a juror.  My husband’s was a murder case.  Mine was just a stupid college kid who drank too much on spring break and got into trouble.  I remember there were three cases from which the attorneys had to pick from a gathering of about 300.

I was elected the “foreman.”  Prior to selection, they asked the potential jurors what books we read, what were our interests, and what was our background.  When the attorney asked me in front of everyone where I was from, I said Boston.  He said what happened — did you get onto the wrong plane?   I remembered riding in the paddy wagon to go to lunch, and was told not to talk, and a deputy was present at our lunches.

I was told I was doing my patriotic duty by serving.  But what struck me and has stuck with me was this statement repeated in court:  Innocent until proven guilty.  Not guilty until proven innocent.

For some reason, until I served, I did not realize this.  Maybe I assumed it and took it for granted.  Evidence needed to be presented first and there had to be good reason.  No one is accused on hearsay.  No one is guilty until there is undisputable proof, that a crime was committed and all must see it that way on the jury.

The DUI was shoddy. A college kid on spring break goofing off.  The police did a terrible job documenting the incident. Their breathalyzer equipment didn’t work.  They didn’t document bottles of alcohol found in the back seat.  They may have had a case, if they had they done their job.  But we were all in agreement that they did not have evidence, and I had to convince one juror that they had no case because of the crap reporting that was presented as evidence.

No one raids anyone’s home without a warrant and that takes time.  What happened that night?  Are presidents and former presidents now under deeper scrutiny?  Are former presidents who have questionable backgrounds and behaviors homes being raided?

What is the reason for invading a former president’s home while he is away?  You cannot say we are looking for something to pin on you.  I learned that serving as a juror.  You have to have that something first.  So what was it?  I read the news story and the former attorney of “Clinton” for God’s sake, a former president and spouse of seriously questionable behavior, saying a piece of paper that was classified and is removed from the White House is a crime and you cannot serve again in any way in the future and may go to jail.  Whitewater anyone?

Can you plant something and then find it?  What were they looking for?  The public has a right to know.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-disqualified-holding-office-lawyer-us-code-fbi-raid

Something changed last night for many.

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/this-republics-bananas-are-getting-ripe

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 16 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. navyjag Coolidge
    navyjag
    @navyjag

    Am starting to pay attention to the more cynical writers that Slow Joe and DOJ scared about DeSantis so want to find a way to get the Republicans so angry many of them who support DeSantis, like me, will go nuts and support Trump. Who is the only 2024 candidate the Dems think they could beat. 

    • #1
  2. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Nothing changed about the country.  A bunch of people just got Red Pilled.  While even more grabbed for a bottle of the Blue ones.  

    • #2
  3. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    If there is any proven case of criminality, President Trump should get the same penalty as the Berger Precedent set.

    NSD Sandy Burgler

     

    • #3
  4. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Was the FBI there to collect evidence clearly spelled out in the search warrant, or were they there to plant it?

     

    • #4
  5. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Was the FBI there to collect evidence clearly spelled out in the search warrant, or were they there to plant it?

    HAHAHAHA…..  I suspect they grabbed what they could.  Who cares about search warrants?  That only matters if they use them in courts which they will not.  Everything will get leaked to the media to be used as they need or smear and misrepresented as they want.  Anything Trump wants to say about  it will be stopped via a gag order.

    • #5
  6. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    I hope that I read this correctly, but I’d say Elias is wrong.  That statute does not prevent Trump from running.

    • #6
  7. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I hope that I read this correctly, but I’d say Elias is wrong. That statute does not prevent Trump from running.

    It can’t. The qualifications for POTUS/Veep/Senators/Congressmen are laid out in the Constitution and can only be changed by Amendment. A statute doesn’t cut it.

    (Learned this when some states tried to pass and enforce term limits on Congress-critters. Courts said, “Nope, you can’t pass a law to do this.”)

    • #7
  8. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I hope that I read this correctly, but I’d say Elias is wrong. That statute does not prevent Trump from running.

    It can’t. The qualifications for POTUS/Veep/Senators/Congressmen are laid out in the Constitution and can only be changed by Amendment. A statute doesn’t cut it.

    (Learned this when some states tried to pass and enforce term limits on Congress-critters. Courts said, “Nope, you can’t pass a law to do this.”)

    I think a felony conviction would stop a run.  

    • #8
  9. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I hope that I read this correctly, but I’d say Elias is wrong. That statute does not prevent Trump from running.

    Sure it does.

    so will the other stuff they make up  discover.

    • #9
  10. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I hope that I read this correctly, but I’d say Elias is wrong. That statute does not prevent Trump from running.

    Sure it does.

    so will the other stuff they make up discover.

    Well, in law, it doesn’t.  Otherwise, who knows?  You could make a case that it strengthens a run.

    • #10
  11. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    MWD B612 "Dawg" (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    I hope that I read this correctly, but I’d say Elias is wrong. That statute does not prevent Trump from running.

    It can’t. The qualifications for POTUS/Veep/Senators/Congressmen are laid out in the Constitution and can only be changed by Amendment. A statute doesn’t cut it.

    (Learned this when some states tried to pass and enforce term limits on Congress-critters. Courts said, “Nope, you can’t pass a law to do this.”)

    I think a felony conviction would stop a run.

    It might for political reasons, but there’s nothing in COTUS to say a person otherwise qualified under the Constitution couldn’t.

    • #11
  12. Timothy Landon Member
    Timothy Landon
    @TimothyLandon

    This FBI/DOJ decision ranks up there with the withdrawal from Afghanistan and shrugging off transitory inflation as the three reasons while I vote for whoever the GOP nominates in 2024 against Biden or any of his acolytes.

    • #12
  13. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Yes, it’s a first.  Rush Limbaugh did a whole monologue on “we don’t go after our ex-presidents”.  Well, until now.  President Donald Trump was the first real non-politician ever elected president.  The Administrative (Deep) State is now so powerful that they must approve all presidential candidates, and Trump was an active (but not quite active enough) threat to their hold on the federal government.  So they destroyed him from the inside, with the active help of the mainstream media, the judiciary (who stopped so many of his executive orders), and the Leftist Mob who took over the streets in 2020.  The Deep State never sleeps, and can destroy anyone they please.  With, of course, the help of the GOP(e) who are captives of the toxic atmosphere in DC.

    I think that maybe it’s a good idea that Rush didn’t live to see this.

    We are next.

    • #13
  14. WillowSpring Member
    WillowSpring
    @WillowSpring

    Several other things bother me – why was this done when Trump was gone?  Why were his lawyers not permitted to observe?  Why was the search warrant sealed?  Why did they want the security cameras turned off ?

    In a time when all of the conspiracies* are proving to be true, this seems to be a deliberate attempt to foment a response that could be called an insurrection.

    *I am beginning to think the better word than conspiracy is “Premature Truth” based on the number that have come true.

     

    • #14
  15. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    We’re seeing how things are and where they’re headed.  Do folks still believe there will be honest elections?  All they need are a few key districts and Republican states where Democrat governors have power,  so Democrats remain in control of both the Senate and the House.  Then what?  Do we go along with the story like last time?

    • #15
  16. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    No one above the law includes the FBI

    From J Edgar Hoover use of blackmail to maintain his position to FBI using phony FISA warrants and the Steele Dossier – the FBI has a long history of violating the law  – they never seem to pay a price (the building is named after the man who abused his power the most)

    • #16
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.