Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Manafort Search Warrant Was an FBI Stunt
According to news reports, the FBI conducted a “pre-dawn raid” at Manafort’s Virginia home, which began at 6:00 a.m. in late July. There was no legitimate reason to roust Paul Manafort and his family out of bed to serve the search warrant.
The federal search warrant form (form AO 93) gives the issuing judge two options related to the time the warrant is to be served or executed. It can be served during the daytime, which is defined as 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Or it can be executed “at any time in the day or night because good cause has been established.”
It appears that the warrant was a “documents” warrant for financial, tax, and other business records. A documents warrant is typically executed at a reasonable time during the day and not during a “pre-dawn raid.”
Examples of “good cause” for authorizing the execution of a warrant at night would be if the government established that it was necessary for officer safety, to prevent the destruction of evidence, or to prevent the flight of a suspect. Executing search warrants at night increases the danger to the officers and is usually done only in cases involving violent crimes, such as drugs, firearms, gangs, bank robberies, etc.
The fact that the agents executed the warrant at 6:00 a.m. indicates that it was a daytime warrant. The only purpose in executing the warrant before dawn was to intimidate Paul Manafort. The FBI and the Special Counsel should be called out on this.
It’s long past the point in time for the government to produce evidence of actual collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. If no such evidence exists, the investigation should be shut down.
Published in General
but, the lack of evidence just proves the need for expanded investigation! (/sarc off)
I was listening to Laura Ingraham’s podcast where she discussed this. Though I’ve felt she’s carried way, way too much water for Trump, she did a good job of reviewing the order given to Mueller by Rosenstein. Rosenstein gave Mueller way, way too much latitude/discretion in crafting that order (I actually question his appointment vs. Sessions). Not at all convinced he’s not a Deep State partisan with similar “impeccable credentials” like Comey and Mueller.
Not a lawyer and I recall some of these questions being raised on Ricochet on other threads but I wonder if 1) Sessions can amend/un-recuse himself 2) amend the order to Mueller to narrow it to the original charge of collusion 3) if a ‘change of venue’ can be requested in the case of a Grand Jury (get it out of D.C.) 4) would like to see Congressman Nunez reinstalled as head of that House oversight panel investigating this. 5) withhold funding to aspects of the investigation that exceed the original charge of collusion (while not firing Mueller).
In considering how so many of the key players have been arranged, selected & side-lined – it seems clear to me that this was orchestrated (and I’ve been pretty ‘Reluctant Trump’ since the nomination).
Financial disclosure including tax returns was needed before books like “Clinton Cash” were written and devasted her candidacy. But we conservatives allowed someone to received our nominatation without releasing his tax return. If Trump had released his taxes in June 2015, this issue could have been over in a couple of months, or we would have known what we were facing. But the RNC never stood up to Trump.
We knew better and nominated someone without a release of his taxes. We are getting what we deserve by our failure to insist upon the financial disclosure that has served us well for the last almost 50 years.
We also are getting what we deserve by not insisting on the release of medical records including lab results. Instead we let Trump get away with a one page summary that he was in good health. As we see Trump increasingly flail about, we realize that we made a huge mistake to not have a basic inquiry as to his capacity.
The problem is that Manafort is connected to the original charge, so muzzling Mueller wouldn’t protect him (and I’m not sure you’d want to do that anyway.) He and Flynn were the ones within the campaign that had ties to the Russian government in the first place.
Technically Sessions can un-recuse himself whenever he wants; his recusal was purely voluntary. Of course this would look really really bad.
Those things said, I agree with the OP’s point. In terms of optics, this was an own goal at best on Mueller’s part. To conservatives, even to Trump skeptics, it can’t help but call the Wisconsin John Doe raids to mind.
The tax returns are not going to contain anything of interest. If there was anything criminal in the tax returns, Donald Trump would have been indicted and/or jailed before announcing his candidacy. If Donald Trump was actually a Russian spy or intelligence asset, the SVR would be more than compentent enough to structure the payments such that they would not appear on the man’s personal tax return.
Also, not having tax returns released served us well for the 150 years before we started asking for tax returns. The Republic survived the Civil War and the Nixon Presidency without having tax returns released. The Republic will survive Donald Trump, but if he turns out to be a crook it will not be the result of something in his tax return.
Or they could have intended to kill him hoping he would hear them breaking through his front door and reach for a gun.
What confuses me is that all the reports identify the raid as a no-knock entry. My understanding is that requires a very similar showing of cause to a nighttime entry which was not granted.
Every former President had a history of prior government service in politics or the military where they had to answer to a superior. After Fred Trump contracted Alzheimner’s Disease when he was younger than Trump is today, Trump had not had to answer to anyone.
I made a mistake. My bad. Fred Trump was born in 1905 and died in 1999, at the age of 93 or 94. Therefore, it is unlikely that he had Altzheimer’s Disease when he was Trump’s current age of 71. Can the Administrator delete the words “when he was younger than Trump is today” from my last sentence?
This is true up to a point. The problem is that the ties to Russia by both of these two gentlemen had absolutely nothing to do with the 2016 campaign. Manafort’s connections involved his time working for a Ukrainian presidential candidate who was loved by Putin and going in halfsies with a Russian to by a Manhattan condo. The Russian appears to have some connections to the Russian intelligence services.
Flynn’s connections are more fuzzy for me to recall, but a lot of what the FBI was interested in regarding Flynn was related to his work with the Turkish government after he was let go from DIA Director by Obama. I think it had something to do with negotiating some sort of deal on behalf of Russia with Turkey.
The bottom line is that none of these activities have anything to do with Hillary losing. And I know people want to make hay out of the Flynn – Rusky Ambassador phone calls, but the FBI looked at those and said there was nothing to it. The WaPo had that story in January, late January for that matter. The infuriating thing about this story is that the Democrats have said there is nothing there–and thus we need more investigating?–and the Republicans refuse to hear the news coming from the Left (Dems, WaPo, NYT, etc.) that is telling them there is nothing to this. I have linked that WaPo/Flynn story on this website I don’t know how many times and I continue to see some of you people bring up Flynn’s contact with a Russian Ambassador.
So?
Mueller is a pig.
Thank you for elevating the discourse.
Maybe it didn’t, but a foreign power interfering in an election, even if it didn’t affect the outcome, is still something we should look into. The more I think about it, I think the excessive focus on Trump (both pro and anti) misses the point. Russian interference is bad whether Trump helped them or not.
Ctlaw mentions news reports that the warrant contained a “no knock” provision, which means the agents can enter the home without first announcing who they are and their purpose to serve a warrant. He is correct that a showing must be made to the judge that this is necessary for officer safety, etc. I’d be surprised if a “no knock” warrant was issued under these circumstances. The Special Counsel could resolve this issue by moving the court to unseal the warrant, which would also disclose the alleged crime which is being investigated. The agents are also required to leave a copy of the warrant (without the affidavit) and an inventory of items seized with Manifort.
Who did Obama answer to in government prior to becoming president? He did little at Sidley (law firm), was a back bencher in the Illinois Senate, and spent half his time in the US Senate running for the presidency.
Larry Koler has never been a NT, so it’s easy for him.
I think for a lot of people, that last sentence should be “Russian interference is bad whether it helped Trump or not”.
When Obama was in the Illinois Senate and US Senate, he was one vote out of many. There were the party leaders in both bodies to answer to. Any bill had to go through the give and take of legislation, and the Governor and/or President had to agree to it. Obama, and every other President, were forced to be team players, and to have to answer to a superior. Trump has never had to do that once his Father contracted Alzheimer’s Disease. No one has been in a position to tell him “no”. He has not had to accept limits. This is a huge problem.
I think that you unwittingly complimented NeverTrumpers like me. Thank you!
Sure, I completely agree. I thought both the House and Senate were investigating that interference. It may be politically biased but I’d argue that Mueller’s team is as well.
Agreed. However, we also need to hash out what “interference” means. Having an opinion and trying to persuade? Perpetuating false information? Propaganda? It all sounds like run of the mill politics and international relations to me. Are we talking blackmail, bribery, changing vote tallies? Alas that stuff is probably also run of the mill, but it’s definitely illegal no matter who does it. Was releasing the Billy Bush tape interference? How about broadcasting it? What about the pee pee dossier? Does it matter if the substance is true? Does it matter what the source is? Even if it were a disgruntled DNC staffer who gave the emails to Wikileaks – is that still not-ok interference since they were obtained illicitly?
We should know what the warrant is for anyway.
For me, I think I’m coming to the opinion that “interference” in this context must be about affecting the actual electoral process for it to be as serious as everyone is making it. Attempts to change vote tallies; hacking voter registration rolls; fraudulent voting; preventing people from voting.
IMO information wars generally do not count except for libel, fraud, bribery, extortion, and all that. That’s just speech, not interference. I’m all for punishing politicians and people who roll around in the mud and fling it at others, but if that’s the case then there are far worse things that need to be investigated and punished first.
It appears that some people are arguing that unless a case for collusion can be proven this instant, the entire Special Counsel should be shut down. But this would mean that Trump and his family members are above the law.
That cannot stand. The maximums that undergird our Rule of Law include that “We are a nation of laws, not men. ” (Now, “people.”) ” No man (person) is above the law.” The motto on front of the Supreme Court’s building is “Equal Justice Under Law.”
Trump and his family are now above the law. They cannot be allowed to obstruct justice. Justice must run its course. Trump choose Manafort as his second campaign manager, even though his dealings with Russia were well known.
Pretty sure that isn’t true for very many people. You had President Kennedy colluding with the Russians, and accepting their interference in his election (as well as the 1962 midterms) and people were cool with it.
Sorry, but you are mistaken. It doesn’t appear that way.
Or Senator Kennedy in 1984. But I’m sure some of those people suddenly think if it helps Trump, it’s bad.
Doesn’t appear that way to me either. Rather the special counsel should be shut down because:
1) Right now there’s no real or substantive answer to the question: collusion to do what exactly?
2) Right now there’s no real or substantive answer to the question: how exactly was the election interfered with?
3) Without any clear underlying event there is no basis for launching open ended investigations simply because partisan enemies have a bad feeling about someone.
There has to be a time limit. There has to be a point at which we say, “If you haven’t found anything by now, we feel it’s likely because there’s nothing to find.” Maybe right now is too soon, but I can’t help but suspect that four years would still be too little time for you.
This is the problem when you take an absolutist position like you have; you have no more credibility on this issue than Sean Hannity.
I resided in Illinois from 1987-2016 with a one year sojourn in California. My wife talked with Obama for about 15 minutes in her office at WBEZ circa 1997. A good friend of mine interviewed him for two hours on WGN. I know it may shock you, but it’s possible that I know more about Obama’s time in Illinois than you do, Obama was in a safe seat in Kenwood. If you listen to him talk about economics, it’s clear that he’s an ignoramus. He sponsored few bills until Emil Jones threw him a few bones when he was thinking about running for the US Senate. Remember his statement, “I won.” He never learned to compromise. His experience was very thin, almost nil, wrt making executive decisions.