Image 01 Image 03

Feds Oppose Unsealing Affidavit Used To Obtain Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant (UPDATE: Hearing Set For 8/18/2022)

Feds Oppose Unsealing Affidavit Used To Obtain Mar-a-Lago Search Warrant (UPDATE: Hearing Set For 8/18/2022)

“Disclosure at this juncture of the affidavit supporting probable cause would, by contrast, cause significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation.”

Numerous outlets, led initially by Judicial Watch and followed by the NY Times, Times Union, and many others, have filed motions in court seeking to have the Affidavit supporting the search warrant raid on Mar-a-Lago released.

DOJ just filed its Opposition. Unlike the warrant and inventory list, DOJ says the Affidavit is too sensitive and cannot be redacted:

The affidavit supporting the search warrant presents a very different set of considerations. There remain compelling reasons, including to protect the integrity of an ongoing law enforcement investigation that implicates national security, that support keeping the affidavit sealed.1

1 The government has carefully considered whether the affidavit can be released subject to redactions. For the reasons discussed below, the redactions necessary to mitigate harms to the integrity of the investigation would be so extensive as to render the remaining unsealed text devoid of meaningful content, and the release of such a redacted version would not serve any public interest. Nevertheless, should the Court order partial unsealing of the affidavit, the government respectfully requests an opportunity to provide the Court with proposed redactions.

The government does not oppose unsealing certain other information, like the original motion to seal the warrant, but otherwise says national security would be jeopardized:

Here, the government has a compelling, overriding interest in preserving the integrity of an ongoing criminal investigation. As the government has readily acknowledged, the circumstances here—involving a search of the premises for a former President—involve matters of significant public concern….

Disclosure at this juncture of the affidavit supporting probable cause would, by contrast, cause significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation. As the Court is aware from its review of the affidavit, it contains, among other critically important and detailed investigative facts: highly sensitive information about witnesses, including witnesses interviewed by the government; specific investigative techniques; and information required by law to be kept under seal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). If disclosed, the affidavit would serve as a roadmap to the government’s ongoing investigation, providing specific details about its direction and likely course, in a manner that is highly likely to compromise future investigative steps. In addition, information about witnesses is particularly sensitive given the high-profile nature of this matter and the risk that the revelation of witness identities would impact their willingness to cooperate with the investigation.5

5 This is not merely a hypothetical concern, given the widely reported threats made against law enforcement personnel in the wake of the August 8 search. See, e.g., Alan Feuer et al., “Armed Man Is Killed After Trying to Breach FBI’s Cincinnati Office,” N.Y. Times (Aug. 11, 2022), available at; Josh Margolin, “Authorities Monitoring Online Threats Following FBI’s Mar-a-Lago Raid,” ABC News (Aug. 11, 2022), available at

Disclosure of the government’s affidavit at this stage would also likely chill future cooperation by witnesses whose assistance may be sought as this investigation progresses, as well as in other high-profile investigations. The fact that this investigation implicates highly classified materials further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential for harm if information is disclosed to the public prematurely or improperly.6

6 Given that the Court is considering motions to unseal this affidavit merely days after reviewing these materials and approving the warrant application, the government is mindful that this Court is familiar with the highly sensitive contents of the affidavit and the specific harms that would result from its unsealing. However, if the Court would like the government to file a sealed ex parte supplement that addresses with more specificity the contents of the affidavit and the harms identified in this response, the government stands ready to do so.

Redaction is not possible, the feds say:

Unlike the Property Receipt—which the government moved to unseal subject to minor redactions, including to protect the identity of law enforcement officials—the affidavit cannot responsibly be unsealed in a redacted form absent redactions that would be so extensive as to render the document devoid of content that would meaningfully enhance the public’s understanding of these events beyond the information already now in the public record. There is simply no alternative to sealing that could ensure the integrity of the government’s investigation and that would prevent the inevitable efforts to read between the lines and discern the identities of certain individuals, dates, or other critical, case-specific information.

More to follow.

Note the feds are using the Cincinnati incident. But the NY Times article they cite does not attribute a motive to the perp, and another article says he was on the feds radar for months and also does not attribute his attack to the Mar-a-Lago raid. The ABC News article is just a “wrap up smear” where the press repeats what the feds are saying about unspecified threats, and then the feds use the press reports as proof.

There is no doubt that if names of informants and witnesses were disclosed, it might pose a threat, but why not just redact those names? It appears the feds don’t even want to try to reasonably redact the affidavits, they don’t want anything disclosed. (As an aside, I don’t know if Trump’s lawyers would have copies of the affidavits, since there is no criminal proceeding, just an “investigation”).

The feds have a problem in playing this close to the vest — this is not just any raid. Harvard Law Prof. Jack Goldsmith notes that Merrick Garland appears unprepared for the implications of what he has unleashed:

Several sensible commentators—including George Will, Damon Linker, and David Brooks—think Attorney General Merrick Garland made a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one, in executing the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. (They made these claims before the federal magistrate unsealed the warrant and the inventory of seized materials.) They worry that the search will, in Will’s sedate words, harm “social comity” and “domestic tranquility.”

Which is not to say that Garland made the wrong decision. On that question it is far too early to tell. Will is right to suggest that Garland’s decision, even if scrupulously nonpolitical in intent, is “inherently political” and should be judged by how well he “adjust[s] tidy principles to untidy realities” and “balance[s] competing objectives.” And the bar should be very high before the Justice Department in an administration run by Trump’s former and probably future political opponent, uses unprecedented criminal process against Trump—especially given our cleaved politics, upcoming elections, and the well-documented mistakes and illegalities that the Justice Department and FBI committed in pursuing Trump in the past….

Several other factors will inform how Garland’s actions here are judged. It obviously matters if Garland indicts anyone following this search. A prosecution—of either Trump or his associates—would raise the stakes significantly higher. Garland could have executed the warrant in good faith as a last-ditch effort to secure sensitive documents and yet decide, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, that any discovered criminal activity should not be prosecuted for prudential reasons—including national harmony, worries about revealing classified information at trial, or doubts about a successful prosecution.

The final factor concerns where the Mar-a-Lago action fits into the larger picture of Justice Department actions against Trump, including, for example, any criminal action related to Jan. 6….

Garland may have no way out except to prosecute. Or resign.


I just noticed the reference to Rule 6(e). That relates to grand jury secrecy. That suggests this is heading towards prosecution. Garland’s going to go for it. As I wrote when this first broke, probably after the midterms:

There’s obviously a full-on DOJ-FBI effort to get Trump on something. That’s part of what’s happening here. But there’s probably a lot that we don’t know about how that is going to happen. I think we’ll find out right after the midterms when DOJ/FBI slam  down whatever hammer they think they have.

Even More

Just saw this from Sean Davis:

UPDATE 12-16-2022

The court has set an in-person hearing:

08/16/2022 60 PAPERLESS ORDER taking under advisement 4 the Motion to Unseal the search warrant materials, including its attachments. The intervenors having requested a hearing, it is ORDERED that an IN PERSON Hearing will be held on 8/18/2022 at 1:00 PM in the West Palm Beach Division before Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart. No remote or telephonic appearances will be permitted. If any movant/intervenor wants to file a reply to the Government’s response, they may do so by 9:00 a.m. EST on 8/18/22. Note: face masks are required to enter the courthouse. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart on 8/16/2022. (hk02) (Entered: 08/16/2022)


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


More made up bullshit from the deep state scum.

National security — the first refuge of the incompetent.
(Apologies to Isaac Asimov.)

    Dimsdale in reply to henrybowman. | August 15, 2022 at 8:54 pm

    “The fact that this investigation implicates highly classified materials further underscores the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and exacerbates the potential for harm if information is disclosed to the public prematurely or improperly.”

    “Protect the integrity of the investigation?” Isn’t that what we are trying to establish; if it has any? And now it is a criminal investigation?

    How about just telling us what “national security” is threatened by President Trump’s old emails and records, almost TWO YEARS after the fact?

    Allowing partisan hacks like Garland to redact the affidavit is akin to letting Hillary purge her illegal emails.

    Edward in reply to henrybowman. | August 18, 2022 at 2:47 pm

    And the corrupt, criminal and evil.

retiredcantbefired | August 15, 2022 at 5:48 pm

There must be a lot they want to hide.

If Garland is so concerned with the investigation, why is he leaking to NYT and WAPO?

    Wisewerds in reply to MarkS. | August 15, 2022 at 6:39 pm

    This +1000

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to MarkS. | August 15, 2022 at 8:18 pm

    One could theorize that he considers the NYT and WAPO to be fellow employees of the DNC and also of the FBI, so there is no problem giving them anything classified if it serves the interests of the DNC.

    Subotai Bahadur

Leading me to believe that the Monster Under the Bed/Bait-and-Switch scenario is most likely. They’re going to run around for the next two years huffing and puffing about imaginary monsters that were in the MAL boxes and how horrible Trump papers were discovered that are so secret they can’t be shown, ending in an “And we’re not filing charges based on *this* affidavit because it would expose Ultra-Secret Government Sources and Methods.’ (leaving us to wonder just why they’d stick that stuff in if they knew it would be revealed when charges were filed)

Then they’ll pop off another quick affidavit using material picked up by their ongoing disaster and file charges based on that, most probably in October of 2024.

    The_Mew_Cat in reply to georgfelis. | August 15, 2022 at 6:11 pm

    I expect them to file charges right after Labor Day this year for this case, whatever it is. They had a Grand Jury since May, and there will be indictments. Nothing precludes them filing charges on other cases later.

    Close The Fed in reply to georgfelis. | August 15, 2022 at 6:35 pm

    I would agree, but they also took attorney-client privileged documents.

      Which they have already read and copied, so if/when they return them, it won’t matter. They’ll just pretend they got the contents from other sources.

Colonel Travis | August 15, 2022 at 5:53 pm

In other words, you need to trust us. Good one.
It would be nice if someone punished these tyrannical jackasses.

    Dathurtz in reply to Colonel Travis. | August 15, 2022 at 7:26 pm

    Settle down there with all that domestic extremist talk. Wouldn’t wanna get too riled up. We might actually solve the problem that way and we can’t have that.

Another Lawfare ‘ongoing investigation’ scheme. Until the end of time or the commie victory USA.


Trust the DOJ and the FBI

Hmm, not so much

Where is Efrem Zimbalist Jr. when you need him

And we certainly need him now…

taurus the judge | August 15, 2022 at 5:58 pm

I called that one

Seedtickinohio | August 15, 2022 at 6:15 pm

Trump’s lawyers will not have copies of the affidavit as long as it is sealed and there is no pending criminal charge.

No redactions. Publish every fucking thing.

The Gentle Grizzly | August 15, 2022 at 6:24 pm

Whose nation and whose security?

Close The Fed | August 15, 2022 at 6:37 pm

So sick of this. Now we know what citizens of communist countries felt like when the commies first started taking over.

Impeachment 3.0… If at first, second you don’t succeed, try, try again. Show us the affidavits!

Let’s do something economical and combine two words into one.

What is in those affidavits that would threaten national security more than open borders with terrorist pouring in? Or China buying national defense secrets from the Biden Family International Crime Syndicate? That Trump is cooperating with invaders from outer space to surrender the planet and only the DoJ is capable of saving us…. but it’s a very delicate matter?

Stand down Garland! I’ve got a rosary and the crucifix is pointed right at your head! Now hand over the affidavits or God help you!

Sounds to me like Merrick Himmler and his Gestapo are hiding something.

They’re trying to get Trump to declare his candidacy for 2024 before the midterms.

    gonzotx in reply to Coolpapa. | August 15, 2022 at 7:09 pm

    Because he somehow got the GOP to pay his legal fees and that stops when he declares


      Coolpapa in reply to gonzotx. | August 15, 2022 at 9:15 pm

      No, Democrats lag significantly in voter enthusiasm for the midterms. They think having Trump declare now will increase their base’s enthusiasm and help with fundraising.

Not just no, but FUCK no, you absolute clowns.

If you wanted it to be sealed you should have used the FISA court, which is EXACTLY what it is meant for.

You didn’t because you know goddamn well that it would have blown up in your faces trying to use their corruption again.

    Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | August 15, 2022 at 11:04 pm

    Nope. FISA is for foreign intelligence only. It can only be used for spying on foreign powers or terrorists, and on those reasonably suspected of being their agents. Any interception of communication with US persons can only be incidental.

    In the general case, sealing an affidavit like this is normal and unremarkable. Remember that the target of a criminal investigation is not entitled to any information at all. He’s not even entitled to know that the investigation exists, let alone to know what information the government has.

    The difference in this case is that it’s Trump, and an FBI that has completely blown its credibility. It needs to publish the affidavit, not because of some constitutional consideration but simply because if it doesn’t half the country will assume that the investigation is illegitimate. The truth is even if it does publish, and the evidence appears to justify the raid, many of us won’t believe it. Trump will certainly claim that it’s been falsified, and even if we’re skeptical we’ll have no reasonable basis on which to dismiss his claims.

    It’s the Boy Who Cried Wolf. But remember the true moral of that fable — that sometimes liars tell the truth. Who suffered in the end, because the villagers didn’t believe the boy? Not the boy. It wasn’t his sheep the wolf ate, it was theirs. They lost their sheep because they took falsus in uno to be a categorical truth, when in fact it’s merely a caution. So it’s possible that this time the FBI is acting in good faith. But that’s not the way to bet.

      Gosport in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2022 at 11:50 pm

      The FISA court can and has been abused such as when the FBI lied about Cater Page in order to get their surveillance warrant (fishing license) for him.

      All the DoJ has to do is put “evidence” in front of the court to get an American put under surveillance. History has shown that the court has a proclivity to accept them (if they are of the left) at their word and not ask questions.

      Evidence doctored or created out of whole cloth for political reasons has been signed off on by the court much too often in the past, Trump has been accused of being a foreign agent numerous times in the past by them. Russia-gate anyone?

      So no, it isn’t a stretch to think they would try it again.

        Milhouse in reply to Gosport. | August 16, 2022 at 1:34 am

        Not the point. You have completely missed the point. Did you bother reading the comment to which this was a reply, before replying?! Or did you just jump in without having a clue what is the topic of discussion? Read Olinser’s comment and you will see that your response is completely nonresponsive.

          Gosport in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2022 at 8:13 am

          YOU of all people complaining that a response is pointless, off-topic, and irrelevant has made my day.

          I thank you.

      Edward in reply to Milhouse. | August 18, 2022 at 3:03 pm

      “Remember that the target of a criminal investigation is not entitled to any information at all. ”

      I’m sure you didn’t actually mean that in relation to Search Warrants. You know that when a Search Warrant is served (raid in common LEO vernacular) a copy of the warrant and detailed list of items seized must be left with the person or at the location if unoccupied. It is true that a suspect is not entitled to the Affidavit(s) in Support, though a court may order the Affidavit(s) released.

I knew they would hide behind its too top secret crap.
Guess they are going after DJT is a Russian plant again

The left on Twitter went nuts saying Trump would oppose releasing the warrant and documents, but look how that turned out.

    mailman in reply to geronl. | August 16, 2022 at 4:39 am

    They just move on to the next thing to lose their 3 collective brain cells over (and that’s being very generous).

      Edward in reply to mailman. | August 18, 2022 at 3:06 pm

      No matter what, they just move on to the next meme. Will they ever run out of memes? Perhaps when Donald J. is dead and buried? Well, that isn’t necessarily so, look at the issue with Ivana.

Just wondering if someone with access and a conscience will leak the affidavit? Seems like leaks always run in only one direction.

Of course the ‘national security implications’ and ‘increased threat level to FBI personnel’ won’t stop future leaks to the WAPO and NYT.

minor redactions, including to protect the identity of law enforcement officials

Why should law enforcement officials get to do their work anonymously?

All this sounds perfectly reasonable, and may even be perfectly reasonable, except for one thing: We don’t believe them. What they’re saying is inherently plausible, but coming from their mouths it isn’t because they have no credibility left. They’ve blown it, and this is the result. Maybe they’re telling the truth this time, and Trump really has done something seriously wrong, but we have no reason to believe so just because they say so. Their word just isn’t any good. So they have either to release the affidavit or accept that we are all going to assume the worst of them.

    Newsflash: They don’t care what we think. They loathe us. We’re those people who don’t just cave in to whatever they demand. For that, we must pay.

      Mark Cohen in reply to georgfelis. | August 16, 2022 at 7:54 am

      I have one word in response regarding why releasing the affidavit still will not convince me of anything.


      Well, to that maybe I can add the Trump steering wheel lady and Christine Blazy Fudd…

    Observer in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2022 at 7:19 am

    It’s “inherently plausible” that Trump illegally took highly classified documents from the WH that implicate serious national security concerns, and the FBI waited TWO YEARS before it tried to get those documents back?

    That’s not “inherently plausible.” That’s complete and utter bullshit.

The feds finally admitted to being in possession of Trump’s passports. Outside the scope of the warrant, what else did they take outside of the warrant. To bad they don’t have a rule that some tainted evidence invalidates all evidence seized.

    InEssence in reply to buck61. | August 15, 2022 at 11:24 pm

    Everything taken should be ordered by the court to be given to a third party who can sort through what the FBI should have.

    Gosport in reply to buck61. | August 15, 2022 at 11:30 pm

    That one is very interesting. Passports weren’t on the warrant? Sounds like theft to me.

    Additionally, since passports are technically U.S. govt property that sounds like a violation of ’18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally’. Coincidentally, that’s one of the weak excuses they used in the warrant to raid him.

    Then we can talk about attorney-client paperwork that they stole, and which they are madly copying now before they are forced to return them…

    Book ’em Dano.

      Interested Party in reply to Gosport. | August 15, 2022 at 11:41 pm

      Anything of value is already on the way to the New York Times. That is SOP.

      Milhouse in reply to Gosport. | August 16, 2022 at 1:37 am

      Passports are US Government property, so it can’t be theft, no matter how improper it may have been. They are the US Government, part of the entity that owns the passports. The government can’t steal from itself.

        Gosport in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2022 at 8:39 am

        Individuals employed by the government can be charged, in this case with ‘removal’, which is the term that is used in the statute, 18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally.

        The passports weren’t listed on the warrant. Trump was a public officer when he received them and was in proper possession of them. Removing them from him without proper authority violates that statute.

        ss396 in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2022 at 11:32 am

        My passport says “must be surrendered upon demand….” Trump’s passport was not demanded; it did not show up in the documents solicited, not even under a broad reading of them..

        It was stolen.

          taurus the judge in reply to ss396. | August 16, 2022 at 3:50 pm

          Search Warrants are also Deuces Tecum ( with force)- legally that’s the DEMAND

          Just so you know

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2022 at 4:18 pm

        Damn you’re dense. So, ANY government employee can just demand my passport, lawfully?


        The state dept has a procedure, the FBI is not allowed to just decide to take my passport because I have called them a corrupt criminal organization.

        The 4th amendment applies or there is no value to the 4th amendment.

        Barry in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2022 at 4:20 pm

        “Passports are US Government property”

        And the US Government belongs to me, and you. You seem to think it is the other way around.

Without addressing the issue with Pres Trump, as someone who once held a TS / SBI / SCI clearance with the US Army, I am curious about something which I believe is important. Assuming that the FBI found TS / SCI material my curiosity is this; why did it take nearly 18 months for the document custodian to raise question on where the material was? All SCI material is signed out and the chain of custody is known at all times. If this material was “missing” for 18 months something is wrong with our intelligence community.

Curious. This information is so integral to national security that they filed it with a magistrate who left government to defend people in the orbit of the one who suicided himself in prison?
’cause we want critical information of that kind in the hands of just this kind of people…

    mailman in reply to Felix. | August 16, 2022 at 4:41 am

    Also…they filed with a fucking magistrate!! Couldn’t they find a real judge under Democrat control to approve this??

    Also, I wonder if someone who runs Florida may be taking a look at this guys involvement and his future as a magistrate in Florida??

The most obvious reason for hiding the affidavit is because it has a whole bunch of Clinesmiths in it.

Convince me I’m wrong.

    You’re wrong: they’re forging a new affidavit, and it’s a tough job.

    They’re hiding the affidavit because they didn’t think about the outcry this raid would raise, and the pathetic little cover memo they got the magistrate to sign is inadequate to the severity of the screw-up they inadvertently launched against themselves. They need to forge a replacement, and make sure all copies of the original get replaced by the forgery, and forge / update all the logs relating to its issuance & distribution to comply to the new story.

    It’s a tough job going back into a posted & locked logging system to change it – and then to conceal that they’ve changed it. The document and its entire paper trail & distribution will have to survive the most intense scrutiny it could conceivably be subject to. Yeah, Clinesmith got off light — but just an “innocuous” little change to an email turned out to have enough of a paper-trail to point back to him. They can’t risk that this time around.

Steven Brizel | August 16, 2022 at 8:20 am

This claim sounds far too similar to the evidence devoid Russiagate collusion claim. The deliberate stonewalling and refusal to divulge the evidentiary claim behind the search strongly suggests that there was no evidence underlying the request for the warrant whatsoever.-which is always the case in a meritless prosecution or civil case

So boxes sitting in storage over a year and a half and accessible at any time suddenly are “national security”?

    jpwcpa in reply to rscalzo. | August 17, 2022 at 4:49 pm

    And it wasn’t merely “sitting in storage”. The storage room was padlocked, and the residence where the storage room was located was protected against intruders by members of the Secret Service.

    I suspect the status of the storage room will play a role in whatever bogus charges are brought against Trump. If the records were readily accessible, quite possible the DOJ will want charges of mishandling of classified documents. On the other hand, if the room was padlocked when the FBI raid began, the DOJ will probably claim it was a deliberate attempt to foil the FBI’s duty to gather up the documents listed in the search warrant, which in the DOJ’s warped view will probably constitute obstruction of justice.

The “October Surprise” is no longer a secret. The organized crime syndicate masquerading as Democrats will bring an indictment against Trump in a last ditch effort to block the red wave.

So because one crazy guy tried to invade FBI headquarters, We The People have no right to look at what the FBI is doing to raid the house of a former President?

There is no One Crazy Guy nullification clause in the Constitution. Outrageous that any lawyer, let alone the Attorney General of the United States would even make such an argument.

Capitalist-Dad | August 16, 2022 at 9:36 am

We all know now the warrant was a general warrant—exactly the sort of thing the 4th Amendment sought to preclude. Therefore, the “fix” was in with the judge in order for him to grant a warrant that is unconstitutional on its face. If the Stasi (fka FBI) and its DOJ accomplices were to release the affidavit, we would learn just what shysterism went into it. The Democrat regime doesn’t actually conceal its tyranny and despotism, but does want to conceal the hard evidence of it.

Trump’s attorneys should ask that Judge Reinhart recuse himself for the same reason that he recused himself for a prior Trump proceeding. Then let an uncompromised Judge rule on the affidavit.

The Department of Fascism confirmed the mother of all purges to be fully needed as soon as we gain power (and while we could stop Democrats from doing their worst by retaking congress no that isn’t power without the presidency).

Lets all hope they have an actual Judge instead of one of the innumerable Democrat activists wearing robes.

I’m assuming that the affidavit will be as false and tainted as the FISA court affidavits; and of course, if they were truly looking for national security documents having to do with nuclear weapons, why wait 18 months?

It is troubling that some of the things they seized is not on the inventory–like the passports which I’m sure were not covered-it leads one to wonder what else they seized that did not make it to the inventory.

Finally, I understand that Trump is talking about releasing the videotapes of the search–I would see what the court and DOJ has to say at the hearing, and if the affidavit is not release, then they should release the videotapes and let the country see what the grubby FBI was pawing through–I doubt if it will show a serious search for nuclear weapons documents

This is still just BS I want the names of all law enforcement. Their word means nothing anymore. NO redactions on any of the supporting documents. Never thought I would see this in my lifetime. Government is coming for conservatives and*Trump supporters!

Where are all the libertarians like Prof Eugene Volokh who preach transparency of court proceedings and law enforcement?! They are oddly quiet. I guess their advocacy depends solely on if the person is politically favored or non-favored. This is why the libertarian movement is a crock.

Under these circumstances, the DOJ’s supporting affidavit should definitely be unsealed.

If this were the first attempt to use legal machinery to accomplish purely political ends, then the DOJ should be given the benefit of any doubt and it should remain sealed. But it’s not. The first was via special counsel, Robert Mueller, and achieved less than the desired outcome.

If this were the second use of legal machinery against Trump to achieve political ends, then unsealing the supporting affidavit might be a 50/50 tossup. But it’s not. The second attempt was (is) the J6 Committee. They have had prime-time hearings and Hollywood’s help to bring drama and impact to the political show.

No, this is the THIRD time they have used legal means against Trump to achieve political ends. The DOJ should not enjoy the benefit of any doubt, and this should be presumed to be what it appears to be: naked political motivation. The affidavit should be unsealed and DOJ should defend it.

Under these circumstances, the DOJ and this admin pose a much greater threat than Trump. DOJ’s actions drip with anger and political motivation. They need to bring their unredacted affidavit into the sunlight.

I wonder what the view of Garland and Wray will have on their methods if they both get “Navarro’d”?

We need a broad brush when we can ultimately throw the net over the folks in the District of Collusion who have incarcerated citizens without bail for all these months . They were fools who committed these wrongful but misdemeanor crimes. Criminal conspiracy won’t be that difficult to prove if we find a strict but fair judge across the way in West Virginia, citizens who have always taken a dim view of traitors.

This is no ordinary criminal cabal who have committed these despicable crimes against America. It’s going to take a lot of serious work to right this seemingly sinking ship of state.