I’ve pasted in some Twitter comments by two of my go-to legal guys, SWC and Jonathan Turley. I think SWC’s bottom line is exactly what was to be expected: From a legal standpoint the unredacted portions of the affidavit provide little meaningful information. Beyond that, however SWC makes a number of important points regarding classification and declassification, including that 1) classification markings are not dispositive as to whether the docs are still classified, and 2) there is evidence that Trump regarded the docs as declassified—and that’s all that really matters.
From Andrew McCarthy’s latest column:
“If the former president continues to assail the integrity of law-enforcement officials, however, they might well decide that only a public trial can show who was breaking the law and who was protecting national security.”
Rope a dope?
Trump calling Biden a criminal:
Biden calling Trump and Maga semi Fascist:
I guess ultra Maga failed.
Of course Biden compared Trump to Hitler before the election:
Perhaps this is Biden’s attempt to change the subject from the Trump FBI Raid?
Or change the subject from Zuckerberg’s admission on the Fbi on the Hunter Biden laptop?
Or just a 2 minutes of hate distraction, or rally the base?
Lots of projection by the Dems going on with an amazing amount of hypocrisy. Seems to be standard fir the Dems to accuse their opponent as a distraction, of what themselves are guilty of.
Interesting that Tucker broadcast the FBI’s partisanship with his megaphone:
Matt Taibbi writes in the non paid intro the media is trying to ignore the raid story:
Multiple sources criticize MaL as an “unauthorized” depository of sensitive or classified material. But, in view of its status as a residential location of a then-current President on the date of receipt and storage, how would MaL not qualify as appropriate?
This is thought provoking - was it all a pretense to recover the goods on Russia/Spygate?
Add a bit of fishing for J6, and it's a toxic mess.
But if Trump declassified it (the binder full of Russiagate docs) there's no reason he didn't make copies, scan, upload some place, and wait for the right time to disclose.
We hate Trump! We're going to get him before he has a chance to get us. We dare to try to stop us!
Sundance is right--homerun Mike Davis. The Fox anchorette--Sandra Smith?--asks all the wrong questions. Someone didn't prepare her. Davis is absolutely right--Garland should have asked for an OLC opinion, just like Bluto DID ask for an OLC on obstruction. The fact that he didn't while he confesses to having deliberated for weeks tells you everything you need to know.
These two paragraphs at Breitbart give a very clear picture of how flimsy the affidavit and the magistrate's thinking was. Again, nothing of this sort gets submitted--EXCEPT against Trump. The only real justification is GET TRUMP. This simply isn't specific enough or tied closely enough to evidence of a crime. There is no other possible justification of a search warrant. Saying that there's probable cause doesn't make it so--you need specific relevant evidence. All of this looks conclusory to me.
In the affidavit, submitted by an FBI special agent, the DOJ argued that based on 15 boxes of materials voluntarily submitted by Trump, which were disorganized and allegedly included documents that had some classified markings, there was probable cause to believe that there were other such documents on the premises, and that they were not being properly, securely stored.
In addition, the DOJ stated that “there is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified NDI [National Defense Information] or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the PREMISES.” The key word is “or”; the DOJ did not know exactly what it was looking for. (It added that it might find “evidence of obstruction” — that is, of deliberate refusal to comply with past requests for documents from the White House.)
Thus the DOJ could not state with certainty whether it was seeking to enforce the criminal law against mishandling defense information, or whether it was seeking to enforce the Presidential Records Act, which does not have criminal enforcement.
Later in the affidavit, the FBI special agent admitted that he (or she) did not actually know whether documents with alleged classified markings actually had defense information; however, he (or she) merely asserted that “[b]ased on my training and experience, I know that documents classified at these levels typically contain NDI.”
If you feel like you just can't get enough reading about this disgraceful episode, here's a good article:
For me, this simply confirms that--reading between the lines--this was a setup job from the get go. It was never legitimately about presidential records. It was always about Trump, and Trump alone. And about CYA for the FBI especially.