Posted on 08/27/2022 10:26:22 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
After a series of attempts by the Department of Justice to keep the affidavit used in the FBI's August raid on Mar-a-Lago sealed from the public eyes, the document was finally released on Friday afternoon just before the 12:00 p.m. ET deadline set by federal Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart.
The affidavit was supposed to provide the reasoning for the Mar-a-Lago raid.
As expected the affidavit was heavily redacted.
The following is the gist of the exposed contents of the document:
“A preliminary review of the 15 boxes indicated that they contained newspapers, magazines, printed news articles, photos, miscellaneous printouts, notes, presidential correspondence, personal and post-presidential records, and ‘a lot of classified records.’”
“The FBI’s investigation has established that documents bearing classification markings, which appear to contain National Defense Information (NDI), were among the materials contained in the FIFTEEN BOXES and were stored at the PREMISES in an unauthorized location.”
“There is probable cause to believe that additional documents that contain classified NDI or that are Presidential records subject to record retention requirements currently remain at the PREMISES. There is also probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at the PREMISES.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Because the unredacted version doesn’t make any sense.
This is so easy, there never was any probable cause. It was a lie presented to the “Court” to obtain the Warrant.
Biden’s Weaponized Banana Republic’s Enforcers had no probable cause.
By this time it should be no wonder why Anons are so excited to see that the
Derps have become desperate enough to go all in.
https://rumble.com/v1hduc3-nothing-can-stop-what-is-coming.html
https://rumble.com/v1hharj-remember-these-q-comms.html
~Easy
The grounds for the application for and the issuance of search warrant are ,generally, the same throughout most jurisdictions (state & federal). These are the requirements in California:
if the sought property was allegedly stolen
if the sought property was allegedly used as a means to commit a felony
if the sought property is evidence of the fact that a felony has occurred or that a particular person has committed a felony
if the sought property is in possession of someone who intends to use it to commit a crime or in the possession of another to whom he/she may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it or keeping it from being discovered
if the sought property reveals child pornography
if an arrest warrant has already issued.
Where’s the damned crime?
I read the he whole thing- what there was of it
What a piece of shyte. It gives almost nothing, except a few simplistic MSM headlines, which was the point of the whole exercise
Why?
In the real world an affidavit would establish the crime that is allegedly being committed, the probable cause is established and you have to state what is believed to be in the particularly described location and why it supports your probable cause.
If you lied in the affidavit, ie - made sh*t up, you don’t want the world to see your lies. As what happened during the Russian Collusion nonsense.
And, in federal court, there ain’t no such thing as a confidential source when it comes to court. The sources can be forced to testify, in court, in front of the person they “snitched” on and will be cross-examined. In this case, that would be interesting. All we hear from the feds is that everything was just tossed around and laying around. Says them. What happens when they produce a “witness/source” who says that they were here/there/everywhere and saw this/that and then President Trump shows that the person was nowhere in the vicinity.
All for a “violation” of something on paper that carries no criminal charges or penalties.
Garland and Wray don’t want to end up in Gitmo undergoing a Treason trial in 2025?
Stolen from another site: “If the affidavit was bad news for Donald Trump, it wouldn’t be redacted.”
Because they are corrupt unamerican lying sacks of shit that can go to hell.
They obviously didn’t do it because of their love for justice, fairness, and the American Way. They did it to make it easier to trash Trump and to protect their sorry derrieres.
So here’s a question for you legal experts.
Can Trump’s legal counsel see the whole text without the black lines?
There’s no point criticizing the details of this utterly un-Constitutional, TREASONOUS General Warrant submarined through the Judiciary which was also complicit.
Neither the warrant nor the raid should have ever happened much less even been considered. The remedy for some documents which were packed by others and maybe not properly redacted themselves is not armed battalions of Leftist KGB agents but merely bringing in document security people to clean up the paperwork.
They even admit this isn’t about “espionage” or any nonsense like that. It’s about document handling. Crap like this happens all the time and is normally handled as small time security procedure breaches. Usually takes like three instances to get a clearance warning or suspension, but who is going to do that to a former President who also happens to be the actually elected President?
Apparently the man he hired: Chris Wray. And the criminal Merrick Garland, a former federal judge who was in on The Steal.
Not only should this not have happened but the individuals responsible should be the ones up on charges.
Because “democracy dies in darkness” is just a phrase they use as an alternative to “shut up” - the last thing the deep state believes in is transparency.
“The deep state thrives in darkness”
“Why did the FBI redact the Mar-a-Lago raid affidavit?“
Well gee it’s just such an enigma.
To hide their felonious LIES.
Maybe for no more reason than that they could. In your eye America. Who’s gonna do anything about it or stop them?
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.