Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reading between the redacted lines: What affidavit tells us about DOJ’s Trump intentions
NY Post ^ | AUG 26, 2022 | Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted on 08/27/2022 11:09:10 AM PDT by lasereye

To what should be the surprise of no one, the Justice Department so thoroughly redacted the affidavit supporting the FBI’s raid of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate that the exercise was pointless. DOJ has given us nothing about the monumental decision to execute a search warrant at the home of a former American president — unprecedented in US history.

In the absence of information, we are left with speculation. Here are a couple things worth observing:

Interestingly, one of DOJ’s principal arguments against disclosing the FBI’s warrant affidavit, an argument that plainly persuaded Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, was the need to avoid unfair prejudice to uncharged persons. Of course, the uncharged person at issue here is former President Trump.

Now, it’s possible DOJ was just paying lip service to its oft-repeated tenet that because Americans are presumed innocent, the government should not reveal investigative information that portrays a person as a criminal unless and until prosecutors are ready to file charges.

Nevertheless, it is also possible DOJ raises the need to avoid prejudicing uncharged persons because the objective here has never to been to build a criminal case against Trump for mishandling classified information.

In a case the government intends to prosecute, search warrants are typically executed at the end of the FBI’s investigation, when arrests are made (usually based on the same probable-cause affidavit that establishes probable cause to search).

It makes little sense that Justice Department officials would be fighting so hard against revealing the sensitive information in the affidavit if they intended to prosecute. If the department indicted Trump, the affidavit would be disclosed to the defense and become public in short order. And if DOJ officials intended to prosecute, they could have charged Trump already.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: affidavit; doj; maralago; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last
Later in the piece McCarthy lays out a theory where, despite the above points, they are possibly still thinking of prosecuting.
1 posted on 08/27/2022 11:09:10 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Of course they want to charge him if they can get away with it. They’ll put him in jail if they can get away with it. If they would prefer it if we were all in jail if they could get away with it. Or they could just kill us that might be easier. They’d be pretty happy with that too.


2 posted on 08/27/2022 11:20:49 AM PDT by tinamina (Remember when Biden said that we have developed the most sophisticated voting fraud system ever )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

Let’s take an example of Michael Cohen, a former Trump lawyer. Michael Cohen was searched on April 2018. He was later charged with a crime on August 2018, 4 months after the search warrant was issued. If the author of the article is right that search warrants are only issued near the end of an investigation, then Trump could be indicted by December 2022, 4 months after the August 8, 2022 raid on Mar-a-Lago.


3 posted on 08/27/2022 11:21:20 AM PDT by convoter2016
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

There is no way any President can “mishandle” classified information. The whole system exists for the President, and he sits above the whole system.

All the laws pertaining to handling of classified documents do not apply to the President.


4 posted on 08/27/2022 11:35:44 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now its your turn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

The democrats just wanted the visual of Trump being treated as a common criminal, thus, the raid at Mar-a-Lago. Since they could do a perp-walk without actual criminal charges, the next best thing was to portray Trump as a danger to the nation.

Someone seen as a common criminal is somebody that should not run for president, but, without actual charges and an actual crime, it’s the democrats who will be seen as, again, fabricating a case where there isn’t one.

When it comes to Trump, democrats will never stop going after him, even after he gets elected for president again. Heck, they’ll go after Trump even after he is dead and buried. Can’t have a conservative being seen as heroic and serving the country as a great leader.

Trump does represent a great danger, but the danger is only to the democrats’ agenda, where, if Trump gets into office again, most of the agenda of the democrats will be dead and the conservative agenda will get implemented for decades to come. Can’t have any of that, therefore, Trump must be presented as a grave danger to the country.


5 posted on 08/27/2022 11:36:24 AM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

.
It tells us - they Needed to get in there.

They got hiring plans, political strategy, Comms with his lawyers, business plans, advice from close confidants.

.


6 posted on 08/27/2022 11:38:35 AM PDT by AnthonySoprano (Lindsey Graham: How can anyone be Mad at Joe Biden?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PIF
All the laws pertaining to handling of classified documents do not apply to the President.

But Trump isn’t President.

7 posted on 08/27/2022 11:42:34 AM PDT by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

All this “redacted affidavit” b#ll sh#t. More Leftist deflection. Boy are they good at that.

The search itself was unconstitutional and, thus, illegal and the preps should be prosecuted.

Regardless of the Shifty and Lying Delusional Left, the issue is that anything taken from this search is FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE and INADMISSABLE AS EVIDENCE because it was unreasonably and illegally obtained from an unconstitutional search that failed a show of PROBABLE CAUSE BEFORE THE SEARCH thus violating the 4th Amendment.


8 posted on 08/27/2022 11:46:37 AM PDT by Jim W N (MAGA by restoring the Gospel of the Grace of Christ (Jude 3) and our Free Constitutional Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
The affidavit includes:

... Because this affidavit is submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause in support of the application for a search warrant, it does not set forth each and every fact that I, or others, have learned during the course of this investigation...

Stuff for subsequent different investigations or just more stuff for this one?

9 posted on 08/27/2022 12:02:11 PM PDT by gloryblaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semimojo

Acquaint yourself with the Presidential records Act, which is applicable AND supersedes the Espionage Act.


10 posted on 08/27/2022 12:32:58 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lasereye

McCarthy neglects to mention the possibility that the Democratic Party aligned corrupt DOJ simply wanted to retrieve evidence of Democratic Party aligned corrupt FBI/DOJ participation in the coupe against Trump conceived bought and paid for by HRC and her supporters both in and out of Government employ. Especially since Durham is about to prosecute Danchenco.


11 posted on 08/27/2022 12:33:18 PM PDT by Rowdyone (Vigilence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: semimojo
All the laws pertaining to handling of classified documents do not apply to the President.

But Trump isn’t President.

...then you opened your mouth and removed all doubt.

12 posted on 08/27/2022 12:33:59 PM PDT by BlackbirdSST (Trump WON!!! The Gestapo closes ranks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: semimojo

Moron.


13 posted on 08/27/2022 12:44:07 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (I got the <ΙΧΘΥΣ>< variant. Catch it. John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

Specific statute in the presidential documents act says trump has a say in any agreement re the documents also that he can lock them down for up to twelve years if he feels like it t. Check out Levin on he subject.


14 posted on 08/27/2022 12:46:43 PM PDT by TalBlack (We have a Christian duty and a patriotic duty. God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: semimojo

SemiMoron.


15 posted on 08/27/2022 12:55:58 PM PDT by bosco24 (EOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST

I see you must be a member of the Lazz/Humblegunner rudeness club.


16 posted on 08/27/2022 1:11:10 PM PDT by sunny bonobo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tinamina

They jail Trump and the pin will be removed from the grenade.


17 posted on 08/27/2022 1:16:52 PM PDT by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sunny bonobo
I see you must be a member of the Lazz/Humblegunner rudeness club.

Only when around serial leftist.

18 posted on 08/27/2022 1:18:09 PM PDT by BlackbirdSST (Trump WON!!! The Gestapo closes ranks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST

Only when around serial leftist.
____________________
Didn’t know that. Duly noted.


19 posted on 08/27/2022 1:19:23 PM PDT by sunny bonobo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jim W N

I strongly suspect that part of this search was to find and bury /obfuscate what was declared unclassified when. I would not be surprised to find that Trump did order everything he had declassified, however, parties tasked with processing those orders slow-walked the formal declassification. Once Trump was out of office the info that made the FBI/DOJ look bad was promptly reclassified, but if Trump can produce the dated copies of the orders they will look like petty fools if they cannot obfuscate the timeline, or “loose” the original orders.


20 posted on 08/27/2022 1:22:34 PM PDT by Fraxinus (My opinion, worth what you paid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-43 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson