Tell us you don’t know anything about Federal Warrants without telling us you don’t know anything about Federal Warrants
In the almost 48 hours since we learned that the FBI executed a search warrant on former President Trump’s Mar A Lago hotel and residence, there have been a lot of stupid takes on it. Many come from the usual sources who appear to be circling the wagons around Trump. MTG for example wants to “Defund the FBI.” The House Republican Caucus warns that if they can serve a former president with a search warrant then they can serve anyone with a warrant (as if this is not the way our criminal legal system is supposed to work). More irresponsibly Newt Gingrich and others are speculating that the FBI was actually planting evidence. Sadly, this is par for the course with these political provocateurs.
What’s far more disappointing is when people who market themselves as outside-the-box thinkers decide to weigh in on the topic. And the worst example of this is from political revolutionary Andrew Yang:
I’m not going to address the overall “former Presidents should be above the law for the good of national harmony” aspect of this thread. Over at the National Review Kevin Williamson has done an admirably succinct job of obliterating that line of thought (seriously, it’s a quick read and worth it). I’m specifically looking at the second tweet and what it indicates about Yang’s understanding of the Federal Criminal Justice system and, potentially, his overall level of curiosity about how government actually functions.
Before I unpack everything that is wrong with that characterization, let me remind you that Yang earned a Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School in 1999. And practiced law in New York for five months before leaving the profession. He recounted the impact those studies had on his life in a article:
He said he doesn’t regret studying law, which made him more “structured and detail-oriented.
