# FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024 **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [August 8, 2022, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329 "2022-08-08T23:18:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 408
**Author:** ![Horatius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/horatius/32/3572_2.png) [@Horatius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatius)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8166 "2024-05-16T14:11:17Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This is a singular situation, and I think a reasonable argument can be made specific to the election. The trials are about the abuse of presidential powers, for Pete’s sake. This would not be gaming the system for base political reasons, IMO. I don’t see the need to keep to vague generalities. There’s the old adage, “Hard cases make bad law”. But yes, this is a unique case so far in US history. I don’t think it’s out of order to remind the courts that _they are a part of society too_, and so must, at times, consider the needs of that society in extreme circumstances. Sometimes things really are time-critical, and the court should act accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8167 "2024-05-16T14:24:50Z")
What I don’t get is why it’s political to make the trial happen before the election and therefore illegitimate for the justice system but it’s apolitical to delay until after and therefore hunky-dory. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8168 "2024-05-16T14:56:18Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > There’s the old adage, “Hard cases make bad law”. But yes, this is a unique case so far in US history. I don’t think it’s out of order to remind the courts that _they are a part of society too_, and so must, at times, consider the needs of that society in extreme circumstances. Sometimes things really are time-critical, and the court should act accordingly. Yes! The constant, “You have to understand, this is how we do things” refrain in the judiciary is absolutely infuriating. Well, do this one differently. There are zero similarly situated defendants in the record to use as a frame of reference. There are no trials like this, there is no previous public interest so crucial. I’ll paraphrase: judicial tradition and protocol are not a suicide pact! ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8169 "2024-05-16T15:46:02Z")
It’s political to do either _because of_ the election. If you want to speed up the trial because you want Trump to be convicted and have that out there for the voters, that’s political. If you want to delay the trial so that Trump gets elected and can then direct the DOJ to make the case go away, that’s political. If you want to speed up the trial to make way for other cases or to ensure that a defendant’s right to a speedy trial is maintained or anything else unrelated to the election, that’s apolitical. If you want to delay the trial because you’re trying to settle something procedural and unprecedented, or something else unrelated to the election, that’s apolitical. I believe that’s the prevailing opinion on the issue. It’s also possible that the trial is being delayed because Cannon is inexperienced and incompetent and screwing everything up. It does seem suspicious that her “mistakes” keep benefiting Trump though. (And I don’t think it’s simply because he appointed her; countless Trump appointees have made rulings that don’t favor him.) ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8170 "2024-05-16T16:20:12Z")
I think you left one out: If you want to speed up the trial because it’s an absurd slow walk and there’s a tremendous public interest in resolving the matter as quickly as possible, whatever that resolution is, that’s not inherently political. This is the current GOP nominee, accused of egregious abuses of his presidential authority. “Let’s make sure there’s not even an appearance of politics in the calculus” is an objective lost at the start, no matter how virtuous are the motives of the prosecution. Our republic is in peril. I honestly don’t understand the gnashing of teeth over treating an unprecedented trial and defendant in a manner that recognizes the unique circumstances and the existential jeopardy the current process places us in. “But the system doesn’t work that way.” Well, then the system is failing us. We can all take comfort in our allegiance to protocol when Trump starts rounding up brown people and arresting his enemies. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8171 "2024-05-16T16:26:32Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I think you left one out: If you want to speed up the trial because it’s an absurd slow walk and there’s a tremendous public interest in resolving the matter as quickly as possible, whatever that resolution is, that’s not inherently political. Note that I said: > [@Atamasama](#): > > anything else unrelated to the election So I really wasn’t leaving that out, unless the “tremendous public interest” is specifically relating to the election, in which case that’s a political consideration. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8172 "2024-05-16T16:47:40Z")
It’s based on politics, but it’s not political in the common use of that word to mean doing something to benefit one side. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8173 "2024-05-16T16:57:49Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > So I really wasn’t leaving that out, unless the “tremendous public interest” is specifically relating to the election, in which case that’s a political consideration. Yes. In this case, a legitimate consideration. “That’s a public interest related to politics” is, IMO, an absurd disqualifier when the trial we’re faced with is for the current GOP nominee accused of horrible abuses of his presidential powers. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8174 "2024-05-16T16:59:17Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > “That’s a public interest related to politics” is, IMO, an absurd disqualifier when the trial we’re faced with is for the current GOP nominee accused of horrible abuses of his presidential powers. I am absolutely not in disagreement with you on this. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8175 "2024-05-16T17:00:14Z")
My confusion then, apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8176 "2024-05-16T17:02:58Z")
Speaking personally, the idea that Trump might be able to avoid prosecution by getting elected should make the cases a priority. But I’m not King of America so all I can do is gnash my teeth and hope for the best. 😃 (Though I’m also glad I’m not King of America, I have enough stress in my life already.) ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8177 "2024-05-16T17:09:05Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > (Though I’m also glad I’m not King of America, I have enough stress in my life already.) Well, if you change your mind, you have my vote. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8178 "2024-05-16T18:09:35Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This is the current GOP nominee, Current _presumptive_ GOP nominee, please. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8179 "2024-05-16T21:22:53Z")
That’s a good and fair point. I still think it should be kept separate. The politics can be dealt with by voting on election day. The crimes will be dealt with at trial - certainly Smith should not wade into the politics. Two different timelines for two different things (but clearly related as you indicate). For voting purposes, there is plenty of good information out there for the public to inform themselves on this issue and Trump’s conduct in it. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2024, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8180 "2024-05-16T23:04:26Z")
True, but there are those who refuse to consider looking at information that might disturb their world-view. For them, the image of Trump in the pokey, even for six months or a year, might just pierce that bubble. And further, might give the both-sides-do-it crowd a thought to consider. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2024, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8181 "2024-05-18T20:16:40Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > This is a singular situation, and I think a reasonable argument can be made specific to the election. Certainly the Court chose to act in a way “specific to the election” of 2000, when they acted with unusual and unprecedented speed to take up and rule on Bush v Gore. The claim that they _cannot_ do so again, or that it would be wrong to do so because it would be ‘unprecedented’ (or the like) is pure right-wing propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2024, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8182 "2024-05-18T20:42:02Z")
Oh, come on, don’t you remember them specifically saying that Bush v. Gore didn’t count as a precedent? ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2024, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8183 "2024-05-18T20:47:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Oh, come on, don’t you remember them specifically saying that Bush v. Gore didn’t count as a precedent? . Yeah, that was super-convincing. A Pro-Publica writer mentions: > [@](#): > > But Bush v. Gore has never been the dead letter it’s popularly perceived to be, and it could be a factor in a number of election battles this year. Before 2020, the Supreme Court had mentioned the case only once in two decades. But **in the state courts and lower federal courts, it’s quietly but repeatedly taken on new roles over the years, serving to resolve everything from how ballot signatures are reviewed to the deadline for mail-in ballots to reach election officials**. … > > … Is Bush v. Gore Precedent? > The prevailing view has been no. In that interpretation, Bush v. Gore is a one-off that judges and lawyers are free to ignore. A binding precedent, by contrast, requires that lower courts (and the high court itself) abide by it. > > Despite that view, the ruling’s influence appears to be very much alive: **It has been cited in hundreds of federal and state cases, dating from the years just after the 2000 election to this week.** … My bolding in the quote. > **[Why Bush v. Gore Still Matters in 2020](https://www.propublica.org/article/why-bush-v-gore-still-matters)** > > The Supreme Court decision that handed the 2000 election to George W. Bush is widely believed not to be a precedent, yet it’s been cited in hundreds of federal and state cases since. It could play a role in this year’s election, too. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2024, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8184 "2024-05-18T20:53:23Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Certainly the Court chose to act in a way “specific to the election” of 2000, when they acted with unusual and unprecedented speed to take up and rule on Bush v Gore. Or when when Scalia died just before an election and they wouldn’t even look at any of Obama’s nominees for reasons, but those reasons were tossed out the window when it was time for Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett under a similar timeline. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2024, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329/8185 "2024-05-18T20:54:44Z")
That wasn’t the court; that was the Senate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329.md?page=407) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-august-8-2022-case-dismissed-july-15-2024/969329.md?page=409)