FBI Raids Mar-a-Lago: What Does it Mean?

• The search warrant is not public yet (as of time of the recording)
• Search warrants don’t reveal all the evidentiary support for the warrant: you find that in the warrant application
• The FBI does not act unilaterally in these things: a judge must approve a warrant application
• Sitting Presidents can declassify top-secret documents
• Former Presidents can’t
• If the FBI raid was related to hearings, the customary instrument for getting documents is subpoena not search warrant
• We don’t really know yet if this has anything to do with classified documents
• A large team is often required because preserving the chain of evidence requires documenting everything

(For the guts of how these things work, go to about 9 minutes in. Prosecutors with FBI PIN or FBI NSD build a case, then write sworn affidavits that go to a judge who decides if the evidence supports issuing a warrant.)

Politicians and pastors who are decrying this as an abuse of power at this point in time are only revealing their biases (or the sources of opinion they rely too much on). We don’t know why the raid occurred or whether it was in any way improper or incompetent. … we might find out it was any day now, but so far, that’s speculation.

David French: “You don’t presume the government has dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s. …. the idea … that the FBI is presumptively corrupt here is also flawed.” This is well put.

….it’s telling that the FBI got zero subpoenas when it was Hilliary Clinton holding classified documents, let alone search warrants, and received zero physical evidence in that case. In the same way, the FBI has obtained zero subpoenas in the case of Hunter Biden. On the flip side, the FBI employees in the “Russiagate” investigation put a whole range of people through the wringer on evidence that should have been discredited in a few days.

OK, prosecutorial discretion, but it seems to be all going one way here. One other note is that the White House’s claim they had nothing to do with this is either false or incredibly damning; the decision to raid a former President’s home is incredibly serious and ought to be approved at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. So either Biden is lying, or somebody was not cluing in to the seriousness of what is going on here, or Biden is not the real authority here. Scary thoughts.

I don’t believe Trump - the election denier - on anything

Whatever one’s beliefs about President Trump, the action by the FBI is unprecedented. Even President Nixon was not treated this way. Why was this particular action necessary?

Rightly or wrongly, the Justice Dept gives the perception of bias and inconsistency. Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton seem to be treated differently than President Trump. Even the rioters and protestors are treated differently.

The Justice Dept must remove any indication of using its power for political purposes/payback. Our country is so polarized that people question even honest, legitimate actions.

We are watching the slow deterioration of confidence in our gov’t, preparing the way for the antichrist. We see from all political spectrums the devotion, almost fanaticism, people can show toward a political leader.

President Trump causes many of his own problems by his careless use of words/phrases. But this unprecedented action needs to be clearly explained by the Attorney General. Whether by perception or reality, we are becoming a banana republic.

[Aaron Blumer]

• If the FBI raid was related to hearings, the customary instrument for getting documents is subpoena not search warrant
• We don’t really know yet if this has anything to do with classified documents
• A large team is often required because preserving the chain of evidence requires documenting everything

(For the guts of how these things work, go to about 9 minutes in. Prosecutors with FBI PIN or FBI NSD build a case, then write sworn affidavits that go to a judge who decides if the evidence supports issuing a warrant.)

Yeah, I think you are wrong on these points. Here is Andy McCarthy’s comment: FBI Mar-a-Lago Raid: Capitol Riot Real Reason | National Review

This is behind a paywall, so I’ll give you the opening paragraphs:

There’s a game prosecutors play. Let’s say I suspect X committed an armed robbery, but I know X is dealing drugs. So, I write a search-warrant application laying out my overwhelming probable cause that X has been selling small amounts of cocaine from his apartment. I don’t say a word in the warrant about the robbery, but I don’t have to. If the court grants me the warrant for the comparatively minor crime of cocaine distribution, the agents are then authorized to search the whole apartment. If they find robbery tools, a mask, and a gun, the law allows them to seize those items. As long as agents are conducting a legitimate search, they are authorized to seize any obviously incriminating evidence they come across. Even though the warrant was ostensibly about drug offenses, the prosecutors can use the evidence seized to charge robbery.

I believe that principle is key to understanding the FBI’s search of former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on Monday. The ostensible justification for the search of Trump’s compound is his potentially unlawful retention of government records and mishandling of classified information. The real reason is the Capitol riot.

McCarthy is no fan of Trump.

The point, however, is that this is a big deal. No one is above the law, but we should be very careful about any attempt to eliminate political opposition by using the force of the state.

On the other hand, I wonder also if the Dems are trying to ensure Trump is the nominee in 2024? They might think that is the only way they can re-elect Joe.

Don, I had the same thoughts as you this morning.

I wonder also if the Dems are trying to ensure Trump is the nominee in 2024?

Often when people think someone is being treated unfairly, it helps them in poling. I wondered if there was concern that DeSantis was moving up in the polls and that this might actually help Trump. I think Trump would be much easier to defeat in the general election that DeSantis. I sure hope our government resources are not being used for such petty purposes.

Hilary Clinton didn’t face this? This is not the same thing as Hilary on a number of levels. But regardless, has everyone forgotten James Comey announcing further investigations into Hillary just before the election that most people tie to costing her the election. That was unprecedented, and technically against the Justice Department guidelines, as well as later finding out that nothing was actually there that justified what James Comey did.

Trump is like no other president. I think putting gallows on the front lawn of Congress and actively looking for the VP to hang, while Secret Service was worried about getting him out safely is pretty unprecedented. This will all play out in court if something comes of it, but I don’t really see it that big of a deal.

Yeah, I think you are wrong on these points. Here is Andy McCarthy’s comment: FBI Mar-a-Lago Raid: Capitol Riot Real Reason | National Review

McCarthy’s opinion notwithstanding, it remains a fact that the public has not seen the warrant, or the application. Has FBI made a statement as to the reasons for the warrant? If not, we’re guessing. Simple as that.

Also, they’re not my points. A couple of lawyers at The Dispatch.

As for unprecedented, Trump has done lots of unprecedented things. Why would anyone be surprised if he made unprecedented behavior by DOJ necessary?

But I also wouldn’t be surprised if DOJ turns out to have been out of line. There just isn’t any reason to think so yet.

The true list of men who went to Jeffrey Epstein’s island. The swamp does NOT want to be drained.

[Aaron Blumer]

Yeah, I think you are wrong on these points. Here is Andy McCarthy’s comment: FBI Mar-a-Lago Raid: Capitol Riot Real Reason | National Review

McCarthy’s opinion notwithstanding, it remains a fact that the public has not seen the warrant, or the application. Has FBI made a statement as to the reasons for the warrant? If not, we’re guessing. Simple as that.

there has been some reporting from people who have seen the warrant, so I don’t think it is strictly guessing. Further, the bigger issue is the use of government power to go after political rivals. So far, that’s what it looks like, regardless of what was exactly the stated purpose of the warrant

Here

David, to be sure, Comey having a few seconds of moral coherence and re-opening the investigation possibly did cost Hilliary the Presidency, so there is that. But that noted, very few people not named “Clinton” who had classified documents on an unsecured server would have escaped the confiscation of the server, whether that confiscation was agreed upon, or whether it was by subpoena or warrant. There was simply too much information there, including likely some logs of who accessed it and for what purposes, that would have been of interest.

(my point of reference here is that I’ve worked jobs where colleagues held security clearances, and it was made very clear that you don’t mess around with this stuff, whatever your clearance status was)

Now consider here that Trump had authority to declassify documents, while Clinton did not, and that Trump’s files were stationary in boxes, while Clinton’s could be accessed by any hacker in the world. So there seems to be two very different standards for investigation depending on who’s being investigated here.

Readers might find this interesting. Appears to be open access

A Tale of Two GOP Responses to the Trump Search

Subtitle: McCarthy, McConnell strike different tones on the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago probe.

Here’s Victor Davis Hanson on what crimes the FBI does, and does not, investigate. It gets harder and harder to argue that the fix is not indeed in, in my opinion.

[Aaron Blumer]

Readers might find this interesting. Appears to be open access

A Tale of Two GOP Responses to the Trump Search

Subtitle: McCarthy, McConnell strike different tones on the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago probe.

there is very little substantive diifference between Kevin McCarthy’s response and McConnell’s. The Dispatch is reaching here. The main difference is the House has oversight responsibility and the Senate does not.

Clearly, the event raises questions and should be subject to investigation by the House. McCarthy said nothing more than that