FBI Searches Trump’s Home: What Does it Mean?

Sarah and David get together for an emergency episode to discuss the FBI’s search of ...

By and
60

Sarah and David get together for an emergency episode to discuss the FBI’s search of former President Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago on Monday. What does it all mean? How does a federal investigation of a senior official work, and what happens next? Plus: some possible theories and explanations that might shed some light on the events of yesterday.

Show Notes:

You're out of free articles
Create an account to unlock 1 more articles
By signing up with your email, you agree to The Dispatch’s privacy policy and terms and conditions
Already have an account? Sign In
By and
Comments (60)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Me_and_mike_d

    Well, it appears the Attorney General isn’t going to follow Sarah’s “protocol is your friend in exceptional situations” advice.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      Actually I think he threaded the needle nicely. He didn’t comment on an ongoing investigation. He confirmed public information and stated that DOJ wouldn’t oppose unsealing the warrant if the target (trump) didn’t oppose. That all seems by the book to me.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Me_and_mike_d

        Hmm… reasonable. I guess I was just hoping maybe nobody would do anything newsworthy for a couple days.

        Collapse
  2. SHP

    Great podcast. Thanks so much for sharing your insight and knowledge on the protocols within DOJ relative to a warrant, search, need for 30 FBI agents for such a search & handling of items collected. Wait & watch.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Rebekah815

    So good, as usual. Thanks!

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Seth B

    Mama mia! That's a spicy meatball!
    https://youtu.be/48TewJlc6BA

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Jon McKinney

    Is there a penalty for not turning over discoverable documents?

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Dave T

    Super interesting, thank you!

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Will Roberts

    What is the logic of the irs auditing people who adopt? Asking because we were thinking of adopting

    Collapse
    1. Hcreedlaw

      I am guessing it is because you get a significant tax credit when adopting.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Richard Maxton

    I always enjoy the back and forth with Sarah and David, but this was a swing and miss for me. Yall got some VERY significant facts wrong (mentioned more than once below). I get that it's an emergency pod, but the world is at your fingertips via interwebs and keyboard - you could do some real-time fact checking.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      Not sure what you think we got wrong. Clinton’s server? She handed it over to the FBI. Whether she wiped it beforehand or not is irrelevant to whether they needed a search warrant to get it. Trump could have also thrown away classified documents but he refused to hand over the boxes/safe in question, which is why they needed the search warrant. That was the point I was making.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Richard Maxton

        Thank you for the clarification. Can't argue with that.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Will Roberts

    Unrelated matter. Could you discuss the Grand Jury decision not to indict the woman who accused Emmet Till and thus got him killed.

    Sort of a blast from the past but a news story I saw out of the corner of my eye and was surprised to see.

    Would make for an interesting discussion.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Will Roberts

    To reports some comments that have already been posted by 3ld3r. Sarah misrepresented the facts of the Clinton email investigation. Really journalistic malpractice.

    Sarah says Clinton turned over her private server when asked and cooperated.

    I thought it went something like this:

    1. Clinton private server is subpoenaed.

    2. Clinton lawyers review the emails and extract ones they deemed work related via their own criteria.

    3. These emails are printed and then scanned back in as PDFs (presumably to hinder an investigation by making them harder to review programmatically)

    4. Clinton then instructs her IT team to wipe the server since she had extracted all the work emails that are relevant.

    5. At this point even if she did hand over the hardware, it was wiped so was worthless. (An empty box box with Krispy Kreme on the label is not a box of doughnuts)

    6. The FBI later found multiple additional emails from Clinton private server using the recipient email inboxes. They were work related and were not in the emails PDFs Clinton's team originally provided.

    Since the email investigation was a little before A.O's time it might be good to do a deep dive and rehash the case to see if the F.B.I made the right or wrong decision to not charge Clinton. It is relevant to Trump's case because of consistency and charges of hypocrisy.

    If Clinton deserved to be charged but was not charged than what moral justification is there to charge Trump over similar behavior?

    Many media outlets have noted Trump's hypocrisy in criticizing Clinton for mishandling documents and then doing so himself. And for Trump supporters saying lock her up and then saying it is a witch hunt when Trump does the same thing. This is true. But the media are also hypocrites because the very people who want to lock Trump up over this would not have wanted to lock Hillary up over her server. I am a lock them both up person. A conservative friend convinced me of the reckless and possibly criminal nature of Hillary's server. While I was no fan of Trump my friend made a good enough argument that I didn't vote for Clinton. So I can call them out either side for hypocrisy. But I don't see how either side in this debate has any moral clarity since neither side would say lock them both up for doing the same thing.

    And why wasn't Clinton charged for obstructing justice in the email investigation? I mean having her own team go through her emails and delete the "personal ones" and only hand over the "work ones". I didn't know that was a thing to let the subject of the investigation determine what material is or is not relevant. I mean if the FBI asked Trump for all classified information and he said here is some but this other stuff wasn't classified so I burned it are we just supposed to take his word for it?

    If you have to say, "well the F.B.I needs way more certainty and evidence than if they were to charge a regular person like me" I think that does prove that the President is above the law. Because if the law was applied without fear or favor it shouldn't matter who someone is. The same standards of evidence apply to everyone. So by making his point David logically refuted his point. If the president isn't above the law you shouldn't need any more certainty to charge him or her than Captain David French. The fact that David admits that is not the reality reveals the President is above the law. As the book of Ecclesiastes says, "Since a king’s word is supreme, who can say to him, “What are you doing?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4).

    While we as Americans have tried to solve this perpetual problem of leadership and law enforcement with checks and balances there is only so far we can go. We cannot combat human nature.

    Donald Trump is no longer a mere human being to most people. He is an avatar or idol that people hang their hopes and dreams and tribal identity on. It really isn't about Donald Trump personally. There are people who are lifelong Republicans like John Bulton who personally witnessed Donald Trump as a person who is an unstable asshole. And no one cares. Because to admit that would be to admit that in some way you as a Trump supporter are a bad person. And no one is going to do that. Because if you give an inch your opponents often take a mile and run you over.

    Even if evidence arises that shows Bill Clinton did far more than fly on Jeffery Epstein's jet it doesn't matter. As long as he sticks to his guns and shows no shame people rather believe a lie than admit that they have been duped or are bad people.

    I am sure there are many people in Germany who had doubts about Hitler and knew the type of man he was. But when you invest in the idea of someone and when turning around means your own humiliation or destruction most people chose to double down rather than humble themselves.

    Politicians at higher levels are no longer humans in the public eye.

    They are avatars of their supporters spirit.

    And while they are not immune to political consequences they are above the law.


    Because the law only applies when the majority wants it to.

    Civil War or lesser domestic violence is the jury nullification of the public square.

    How do you tell the difference between a Banana Republic and a legitimate prosecution? It all depends on your point of view.

    Many people seeing Trumps example are now saying Nixon should not have resigned. That was a Banana Republic moment for them.

    The only way you can tell it is a Banana Republic is if someone remains in power in a supposed democracy as long or longer than FDR. It is unlikely that someone can win that many elections.

    Basic math and calculating turnout versus population helps.

    But as we discovered in 2020 even this is subject to bullshit and lies about stolen elections.

    I am glad they got whatever documents they were looking for.

    It is a strange case.

    But I hope Garland lets sleeping dogs lie.

    Else the mob is going to come and shoot both our dogs.

    Collapse
Load More