Image 01 Image 03

New Order In Mar-a-Lago Raid Case: Feds Proved “Compelling Interest” In Keeping Warrant Affidavit Sealed, But Court Still Requires Proposed Redactions

New Order In Mar-a-Lago Raid Case: Feds Proved “Compelling Interest” In Keeping Warrant Affidavit Sealed, But Court Still Requires Proposed Redactions

Magistrate Judge leaves open the possibility he may change his mind =: “I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the Government.”

On August 18, 2022, after a hearing that was open to the public but not livestreamed, Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart denied the governments position that the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant should not be released even in redacted form: ““Government has not met its burden of showing that the entire affidavit should remain sealed.” The Magistrate set up a process for the feds to submit proposed redactions to the Magistrate.

Today, the Magistrate issued a second Order on the same topic, going into more detail (13 pages) as to the basis for his ruling. Why would the Magistrate do this? To create a record on appeal. The feds are pissed big time that they even have to go through the redaction process, fearing (1) they may not like the result, and (2) it sets a precedent for other cases, where the feds typically don’t have to reveal such an affidavit unless and until criminal charges are filed. So the Magistrate is anticipating this will go up on appeal.

Here are excerpts from the new Order:

On August 5, 2022, the Court issued a search warrant for the Premises after finding probable cause that evidence of multiple federal crimes would be found at the Premises (“the Warrant”). An FBI Special Agent’s sworn affidavit (“the Affidavit”) provided the facts to support the probable cause finding….

I do not need to resolve whether the First Amendment right of access applies here. As a practical matter, the analyses under the common law and the First Amendment are materially the same. Both look to whether (1) the party seeking sealing has a sufficiently important interest in secrecy that outweighs the public’s right of access and (2) whether there is a less onerous (or, said differently, a more narrowly tailored) alternative to sealing. As discussed more fully below, in this case, both tests lead to the same conclusion….

Protecting the integrity and secrecy of an ongoing criminal investigation is a well-recognized compelling governmental interest….

In the context of an ongoing criminal investigation, the legitimate governmental concerns include whether: (1) witnesses will be unwilling to cooperate and provide truthful information if their identities might be publicly disclosed; (2) law enforcement’s ability to use certain investigative techniques in the future may be compromised if these techniques become known to the public; (3) there will be an increased risk of obstruction of justice or subornation of perjury if subjects of investigation know the investigative sources and methods; and (4) if no charges are ultimately brought, subjects of the investigation will suffer reputational damage….

As the Government aptly noted at the hearing, these concerns are not hypothetical in this case. One of the statutes for which I found probable cause was 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which prohibits obstructing an investigation. Also, as some of the media Intervenors have reported, there have been increased threats against FBI personnel since the search….

Given the public notoriety and controversy about this search, it is likely that even witnesses who are not expressly named in the Affidavit would be quickly and broadly identified over social media and other communication channels, which could lead to them being harassed and intimidated….

The Magistrate then went through the factors in favor of the government:

Balancing the Government’s asserted compelling need for sealing against the public’s interest in disclosure, I give great weight to the following factors:

• There is a significant likelihood that unsealing the Affidavit would harm legitimate privacy interests by directly disclosing the identity of the affiant as well as providing evidence that could be used to identify witnesses. As discussed above, these disclosures could then impede the ongoing investigation through obstruction of justice and
witness intimidation or retaliation. This factor weighs in favor of sealing.
• The Affidavit discloses the sources and methods used by the Government in its ongoing investigation. I agree with the Government that the Affidavit “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).” ECF No. 59 at 8. Disclosure of these facts would detrimentally affect this investigation and future investigations. This factor weighs in favor of sealing.
• The Affidavit discusses physical aspects of the Premises, which is a location protected by the United States Secret Service. Disclosure of those details could affect the Secret Service’s ability to carry out its protective function. This factor weighs in favor of sealing.
• As the Government concedes, this Warrant involves “matters of significant public concern.” ECF No. 59 at 7. Certainly, unsealing the Affidavit would promote public understanding of historically significant events. This factor weighs in favor of disclosure….

No one disputes that there has been much public discourse aboutthis Warrant and the related investigation. ECF No. 67 at 7-9 (summarizing issues of public discussion). Nevertheless, much of the information being discussed is based on anonymous sources, speculation, or hearsay; the Government has not confirmed its accuracy.

In any event, these arguments ignore that the contents of the Affidavit identify not just the facts known to the Government, but the sources and methods (i.e., the witnesses and the investigative techniques) used to gather those facts. That information is not known to the public. For the reasons discussed above, the Government has a compelling reason not to publicize that information at this time….

After weighing all the relevant factors, I find that the Government has met its burden of showing good cause/a compelling interest that overrides any public interest in unsealing the full contents of the Affidavit.

The Magistrate then ruled that redaction would be most appropriate, but reserved the option of holding back the entirety of the affidavit:

I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the Government.

The Government argues that even requiring it to redact portions of the Affidavit that could not reveal agent identities or investigative sources and methods imposes an undue burden on its resources and sets a precedent that could be disruptive and burdensome in future cases. I do not need to reach the question of whether, in some other case, these concerns could justify denying public access; they very well might. Particularly given the intense public and historical interest in an unprecedented search of a former President’s residence, the Government has not yet shown that these administrative concerns are sufficient to justify sealing.

I therefore reject the Government’s argument that the present record justifies keeping the entire Affidavit under seal.

What to read into this? It seems the Magistrate may be going wobbly. By holding out the possibility that he may change his mind, the Magistrate has incentivized the feds to engage in almost complete redaction to render the released document meaningless.

Don’t expect much at the end of this process.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Shocking. Not.

E Howard Hunt | August 22, 2022 at 11:25 am

This was not an evolution in thinking as more information was introduced. This was planned from the beginning to allow the situation to cool down due to delay and the appearance of favorable developments. Why anyone would think otherwise, given the circumstances, is beyond me.

    Confidence level that Reinhart got a “friendly call” from DOJ before issuing his order: 99%.

      taurus the judge in reply to MarkJ. | August 22, 2022 at 12:14 pm

      Actually, what information revealed in the second order points more toward the opposite.

      I think the Judge has realized (I’m sure he knows what was found by now) that this will likely be appealed and eventually released ( even if by bringing the charge)

      The end of that will be a hindsight judgement that his opinion was probably biased from the beginning and not go well.

      So, to buffer that, he is leaving a paper trail of “following the process” to lessen his culpability when that time comes.

      Mainly, I believe the search ( and affidavit) were “Hail Mary’s” to “get the goods” and it failed miserably and eventually this is going to come out. (probably why Trump is being so defiant and wants the affidavit released)

      The DOJ is now in too far and they have tied this judge to it (he may have acted in good faith in sealing it in the first place and now is regretting it because they didn’t get the goods)

      Barry in reply to MarkJ. | August 22, 2022 at 1:35 pm

      you forgot the decimal place, 99.9999%

      gonzotx in reply to MarkJ. | August 22, 2022 at 2:06 pm


Russia Hoax redux/sequel. Such a brazen abuse of power. The goal quite obviously is to smear President Trump and keep him mired in a contrived miasma of alleged lawbreaking, illegality, impropriety, controversy, negative light, etc.

Just look at the perennially shifting rationales that the vile and lawless Dumb-o-crats have proffered in order to justify this despotic, amateurish, thuggish and indefensible stunt — first, the rationale was that Trump allegedly had improperly withheld documents from the National Archives. Then, that already farcical claim (farcical because Trump and his attorneys were already cooperating with the Archives’ requests) was laughably “beefed-up” by claiming that nuclear secrets were allegedly at issue and that national security was implicated. Then, January 6th was cited as a rationale. Now, the latest claim is that documents pertaining to the Russia Hoax needed to be reclaimed.

The entire episode is appalling and reveals the Dumb-o-crats’ increasingly brazen totalitarianism and lawlessness.

    randian in reply to guyjones. | August 22, 2022 at 7:48 pm

    Now, the latest claim is that documents pertaining to the Russia Hoax needed to be reclaimed

    Well, yes. How else is DoJ going to prevent Trump from publishing said documents to prove it was a hoax?

smalltownoklahoman | August 22, 2022 at 11:50 am

I like Robert Barnes take on this: they were actually after documents that would be very embarrassing for the deep state should they ever see the light of day. That certainly explains the secrecy and desperation behind all of this.

law enforcement’s ability to use certain investigative techniques in the future may be compromised if these techniques become known to the public;
This one has always bothered me. Secret “techniques” as relates to overseas intelligence I can get behind. But in law enforcement against citizens? No. Every technique must be made publicly known, or none of us will have confidence in it, or its protection of our civil rights.

    taurus the judge in reply to GWB. | August 22, 2022 at 12:27 pm

    That is a double edged sword but the US Govt has proven its full inability to be trusted.

    Look up Law Enforcement Fusion Center and read up, LOL

    Now you will see why that Black Box is in your car and they all want you to use vehicle bluetooth.

Raid first, justify later, if at all. Guilty until proven innocent. Inability to face accusers. Selective prosecutions/persecutions.

Yeah, a real bunch of constitutional patriots here…

the Government has not confirmed its accuracy
Yes, and that’s one of the big problems here.

but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the Government.
I’d like to give the man the benefit of the doubt, but that sure sounds like “I’m making a show of seeming reasonable so I can later say, ‘Yeah, the whole thing needs to remain sealed’ and you won’t be mad at me.”

imposes an undue burden on its resources and sets a precedent that could be disruptive and burdensome in future cases
Tough noogies. That’s the burden on a PUBLIC OFFICIAL who is trying to railroad collect evidence against a US citizen.

This magistrate RECUSED himself from the Trump RICO case.

How can he possibly justify continuing to preside over this case.

It’s insanity.

    buck61 in reply to Olinser. | August 22, 2022 at 1:54 pm

    I know that if was on an appeals court and the case came before me I would certainly point that out in a formal writing. I don’t care if calling a fellow judge unethical is acceptable, now is not the time play nice.
    He had zero business considering the application in the first place no matter the circumstances.

It really doesn’t look like this judge will ever let us have anything meaningful.

I don’t think Magistrate Judge Reinheart realized just exactly how deep a pool he was stepping in when he signed this warrant on Friday right before quitting time. The *practical* approach would have been to immediately appoint a special master and require the FBI to turn over all items seized into secure storage *not* under their control, then break the affadavit into individual sections and require the FBI to justify two conditions: Redaction of the whole section vs redaction of just the *names* of the individuals listed in the section. I can see redacting certain names because of the media circus that will drop on them, but I can’t see (mostly) redacting *why* the FBI needed to do this totally unprecedented raid on what seems to be flimsy evidence with no great deadline demands.

I suspect that “almost complete redaction” won’t go over too well politically for the Democrats, versus demonstrating a good reason for doing what they did.

    taurus the judge in reply to jb4. | August 22, 2022 at 1:35 pm

    I expect that to play right into Trump’s hand and I think this judge realizes that now as @Georgfelis pointed out above

      I think that if you wanted to sucker a magistrate judge into signing something without reading it, dropping it on their desk on Friday afternoon mixed in with another giant pile of search warrants would be an *excellent* way to go about it. “I know you have tee time in about an hour, but if we could just get you to sign a few things first….”

        taurus the judge in reply to georgfelis. | August 22, 2022 at 2:41 pm

        Or it could be even simpler.

        This judge doesn’t like Trump so the DOJ could have played up to that and really “embellished” (lies and misrepresented) their case and the judge bought it.

        Now that the smoke is clearing, the judge realizes that he was had.

        I don’t rule that possibility out either.

    lichau in reply to jb4. | August 22, 2022 at 2:25 pm

    The principle question is to what extent we are self governed vs ruled.

    Rulers don’t give a rat’s axe what the ruled think.

What a shock, a deep state hand selected and compromised judge continues the same charade the government has been playing since 2015.

It saddens me to see how many are dupes, thinking this judge or any part of the government deserves any opportunity to play things out.

They are corrupt to the core. Everything they say is an outright lie. They fabricate evidence and lie to the courts. The courts know it and stay silent.

I have heard that this judge was Epstein’s defense lawyer. Is that true?

Even so, Trump wins. No one can possibly believe that this exonerates the FBI. If they had found anything incriminating that was not first revealed by Trump and then confirmed by the FBI last June, we would already know about it and Trump would have been arrested by now.

So what was the urgency? And why did they replace the agents who conducted the first search in June (who are the same agents involved in Russiagate and operating with Biden in the WH) with new agents? Was there a change in leadership in this investigation?

I believe they have given up any pretense that this is a fishing expedition and are just buying time to get past the elections and regroup. This was such a major boost to Trump that according to Bongino this morning, Trump is now outpolling the GOP in popularity. This is the same GOP that has a generic 4-5% lead over the Dems. Things just keep getting worser and worser for the Uniparty.

    taurus the judge in reply to Pasadena Phil. | August 22, 2022 at 2:28 pm


    >>>So what was the urgency?

    We still need the full answer to that. There’s still pieces missing.

    The more this goes- the more its clear this “warrant” was not a part of the original process and timeline. (if it were they would have set it up better and had a cover story /narrative prepared for the media in advance)

    “Something” got them off their game and schedule.

      ““Something” got them off their game and schedule.”

      Some interesting speculation, which would explain Trump’s lawyer being on site. Did Trump figure out who the mole was? We keep hearing about an insider told us this or that….Might also be why he didn’t ask for a special moderator right away. If you are feeding info trying to find out which one is the mole expecting someone to “break down” your front door looking for “the stuff” I would have nothing of value there.

    randian in reply to Pasadena Phil. | August 22, 2022 at 7:52 pm

    So what was the urgency?

    They needed to take anything Trump has in his possession that, if published, might tank the Democrats in November’s election, and the 90-day gentlemen’s agreement that DoJ won’t do anything that affects elections was about to trigger.

I am so sick of this shit version of Game of Throne’s

So freaking sick

I’ve got grandchildren I would like to see a world not so corrupt, someplace they can be proud of, stand tall, feel safe

We are living in the end of America I fear

BierceAmbrose | August 22, 2022 at 2:23 pm

Does one not have an enumerated right to face one’s accusers? Reason to believe “multiple crimes.” Seems like affy-guy is an accuser, and the statement an accusation.

The afffy amounts to an accusation, it’s made in secret-ish until later if ever revealed, and in case we didn’t know that “the process is the punishment”, we have viddy of 30-some tooled up operatives tossing Melania’s underwear drawer for 9-ish hours. (I don’t judge. One’s kink is whatever it is — no accounting for taste.)

Then, they took Orange Man Bad’s *passport* which sure looks like both a taking and other actual harm, like you need an ID to get a zillion places, and do a million things (other than vote at a polling place you don’t have to go to.)

The govt positively took action, creating positive harm and distress, without the benefit of an accusation they’re willing to make in public, let alone conviction after trial. There’s a reason they stormed into people’s offices, and raided homes at 06:00 — making sure CNN was there to make sure we rest go the message.

Or am I wrong: that didn’t happen?

I’m also not so sure of the argument behind the argument: the govt ought to be able to conduct it’s persecutions prosecutions investigations unfettered.

Seems like some fettering might be in order. Didn’t we have a few years’ riots across the country about occupation policing, and summary punishment?

Or maybe I just hallucinated that, too.

    taurus the judge in reply to BierceAmbrose. | August 22, 2022 at 2:36 pm

    Casting the emotionalism and melodramatics aside,

    You do NOT have any “right” to know about or be informed about an INVESTIGATION and its never been any different in the history of the USA.

    If charges are brought then those rights are triggered.

    They HAVE also made the suspected violations public (That’s not an accusation- its a SUSPICION)

    Your points and case might make more sense if you learn a bit more on how the system actually works and tone down the emotional hyperbole.

      BierceAmbrose in reply to taurus the judge. | August 22, 2022 at 3:11 pm

      Ooooo, calumny. Thank you. I must have a point, and it only took me one round.

      Emotional? An interpretative PoV I toss out there, which raises some interesting questions, n’est pas? (You wanna play personal? Our kind hosts have asked that we play nice. Kinda un-mannerly, toward them — Try to insult me all you like. You don’t owe me a thing: it’s not my salon.)

      On-point, perhaps it has ever been so. Parts of the doco n declarations of how things shall be don’t track with other parts, and visible actions, so, “What’s up with that?” is more than fair. As an exercise in governing ourselves, really the question is: “Is this what we want?”

      “You do NOT have any “right” to know about or be informed about an INVESTIGATION and its never been any different in the history of the USA.”

      You are right about not knowing about an investigation. I don’t think anybody is really arguing that point. The point is that they have executed a search warrant so the investigation is no longer secret. If you can’t articulate what he was accused of how can you justify seizing anything LEGALLY?

        taurus the judge in reply to gmac124. | August 23, 2022 at 8:04 am


        I’ll explain this

        >>>If you can’t articulate what he was accused of how can you justify seizing anything LEGALLY?

        I know lots of people here don’t like hearing the truth but I didn’t write the Constitution, the legislated laws and following decisions- I’m just explaining them as my training and experience has shown. (I personally don’t always agree with the law but that also changes nothing)

        In Layman’s English…..

        Its the difference between “suspicion” and “accusation”

        Nobody under US law is “accused” of anything until a formal charge is presented (The “people” v. Little Johnny on the crime of “being an orange man”)- THATS when all the major right kick in.

        PRIOR to that point, one is merely under “suspicion” ( suspect, person of interest) and since “suspicion is not grounds for injury ( removal of life, liberty, property other than de minimis stuff like a traffic stop) then it has a LOW bar. ( basically a reasonableness standard)

        The SW

        BY THE BOOK.. items taken in a warrant are considered EVIDENCE to support the charge. ( to find evidence, examine evidence or to point toward other evidence among the many uses)- the justification is to “preserve” the evidence from being adulterated or destroyed until disposition of the case.

        SECRECY- Until a charge is formally presented, a citizen’s “rights” are NOT in jeopardy so there is no Constitutional protection or mandate for “revelation” and honestly, if there were- our legal system could never function.

        That’s the short 1000 ft. answer.

    “Does one not have an enumerated right to face one’s accusers?”

    They should, but this is soviet style justice where the accusers are liars that must be protected less the lies be discovered.

    This is what you get from those that wish to protect the corrupt system rather than promote freedom and liberty with justice for all:

    “You do NOT have any “right” to know about or be informed about an INVESTIGATION and its never been any different in the history of the USA.”

    Get that? You have no rights because the state says you have no rights. It’s as wrong now as it has always been, and exists to protect the state, not the citizens.

IANAL. Just an ordinary schmuck. What I find curious/infuriating is that Government agencies under “investigation” get to choose what we see and what we don’t.

I put investigation in scare quotes because we don’t really have them. They are purely show. The Jan 6 committee as Exhibit A.

if all this does proceed to some “criminal” investigation hasn’t doj’s /fbi’s refusal to even reveal whose testimony established “probable cause” for the affidavit/warrant violated DJT’s 6th amendment rights ?

Can hearsay / “anonymous sources” actually be sufficient for probable cause?

    taurus the judge in reply to texansamurai. | August 22, 2022 at 2:50 pm

    No Tex it doesn’t.

    There is no “right” regarding being the subject of any investigation- only if charged with violation.

    In context, it ALREADY IS a “criminal investigation” and the SW was issued in FURTHERENCE of this “alleged” investigation (witch hunt)

    In terms of a SEARCH WARRANT, technically some “hearsay” can be ( there are special cases) grounds but anonymous sources are used everyday everywhere to obtain search warrants

      I get what your saying in relation to us, normal people. However when it’s an action specifically targeted at your political opponent who WILL be running against you in the 2024 PRESIDENTIAL elections then the evidence your actions are based on had better be fucking tighter than a Nunns pussy cat!

      Let’s be honest here, these dumb fucks have opened a huge massive can of worms and I for one would be hugely interested in what Barry was getting up to with the Iranians leading up to the last presidential elections. And thanks to Democrats, we now know that sending in an FBI raiding party to troll through a former Presidents residence with impunity is all OK.

      No honest person believes that “anonymous sources” actually exist in most cases.

        taurus the judge in reply to randian. | August 23, 2022 at 8:06 am

        And I am among those who don’t believe they do as well in most cases but unfortunately our beliefs don’t change a thing.

      healthguyfsu in reply to taurus the judge. | August 22, 2022 at 10:30 pm

      It’s true what he says, but in a country that doesn’t have a political aristocracy trying such tactics against an elected former POTUS would be grounds for a revolution.

      The problem is that Trump is short on friends in both parties, so he is fair game for swamp tactics. I don’t buy into most of the conspiracies, but this is obvious stuff that is known to be true. If he were in bed with the GOP aristocrats, they wouldn’t dare try this crap.

    “Can hearsay / “anonymous sources” actually be sufficient for probable cause?”

    Yes, because 75% of the citizens of this country are stupid dolts that do not and will not stand up for freedom and the rule of law.

Of course

Head FBI agent that oversaw the Whitmer fiasco, leads the Mara Lago fiasco

    Barry in reply to gonzotx. | August 22, 2022 at 6:57 pm

    Yes, because as I just noted above, “Yes, because 75% of the citizens of this country are stupid dolts that do not and will not stand up for freedom and the rule of law.”

    Remember this every time someone justify’s what they do.

Falls under the scope of Durham investigation. Nothing is coming out.

They don’t want to reveal the sources:
Christopher Steele
Hillary Clinton
James Comey
Peter Strzok
Liz Cheney
Paul Krugman
Brian Stelter
and other “Reliable Sources”

The Fix Is In

Maybe I’m simple but any judge that donates to the opposing party could and should recuse themselves from the start in a clearly potentially political case. There is no shortage of judges to rotate into the case. I know many/most judges could judge fairly regardless but it is the APPEARANCE of potential partiality that is to be avoided. Or else, you will get the mistrust we all so clearly have.

threats: How about the threats that have been made by members of congress on air*Why does that not come into play*I agree that threats are made*In the context of the entire time the DOJ/FBI has tried to convict Trump of anything even a misdemeanor since 2014/2015*Before he announced his candidacy the DOJ*et al* decided that he was an imminent danger to the status quo. All courts that have FBI appear before them should question everything based on what the public knows about their FISA court pleadings*We have seen publicly how easily they lie and continue to be outright lie and use smear tactics Even the books that have been written by these same people say they lied. I want the names of the informants all the names of the FBI. It should be our right as we have seen their 2tier system with SCOTUS death threats as well as J6 treatment. It is time for the public to know. If they are so sure charge him today*This is indeed a smear campaign!!!

Interesting thing that recently came out on this. The *current* administration decided that they can waive claims of Executive Privilege for the *previous* administration, something no other President has ever done. They have no idea how this will come back to bite them. I swear, the current administration is like leaving a toddler loose in a nuclear control room, giggling as they flip switches and watch the blinking lights.

2nd Ammendment Mother | August 23, 2022 at 12:05 pm

I’d like to see a whole lot more being made on the power the DoJ and FBI wield over this particular magistrate through his personal connections to Epstein and his former clients who were employees of Epstein.

“What to read into this? It seems the Magistrate may be going wobbly. By holding out the possibility that he may change his mind, the Magistrate has incentivized the feds to engage in almost complete redaction to render the released document meaningless.”

By design. I doubt the TDS-addled Magistrate wants the world to know he rubber-stamped a general warrant so the FBI/DoJ could go on an ass-covering fishing expedition based upon an obviously fraudulent affidavit anymore than the DoJ wants the world to know they are trying to cover up their own lawbreaking and they can’t articulate an actual legal argument that can provide a fig leaf.

There is simply no possibility anyone involved in this is acting in good faith. And this isn’t the first time the Biden administration has knowingly violated the law, the Constitution, and those sacred “norms” and “values” that the lyin’ left told us good ol’ Scranton Joe was supposed to restore as he also restored all that respect we lost on the world stage due to the “Orange Man Bad.”

You know, that world in which countries wouldn’t dare to ignore a phone call from Trump, but won’t answer Biden’s.

“However, now a document has surfaced as part of discovery by the Bader Family Foundation in its lawsuit against the Agriculture Department. The June 2 email from Lawrence Lucas of Justice for Black Farmers Group ends with an intriguing statement “Please remember it was the Biden/Harris transition team that you headed up that told us that debt relief for Black farmers was ‘unconstitutional.’” That agriculture transition team was headed by now Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.”

So, the Biden/Harris transition team knew that excluding White farmers from their Covid-tied debt relief program was blatantly unconstitutional. But they did it anyway. As Turley points out in the same piece, Biden chose to knowingly violate the Constitution with his CDC eviction moratorium. Turley goes into more detail here:

“On the minority side of the vote, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett wanted to suspend the eviction moratorium as unconstitutional. Yet the CDC’s original order was about to expire anyway, so — in a somewhat baffling concurrence — Justice Brett Kavanaugh supplied the fifth vote in favor of the CDC to allow the law to simply expire and thereby enable an “additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance.” Thus, Kavanaugh voted with the majority in this case — but also indicated that he agreed with his conservative colleagues on the larger point that the CDC never had the authority to issue the nationwide eviction moratorium in the first place without a congressional act.

Biden acknowledged the obvious — that any new order to extend the moratorium would be unconstitutional. Indeed, he admitted that legal experts overwhelmingly told him so: ‘The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that it’s not likely to pass constitutional muster.’ Yet he added that he was able to find ‘several key scholars who think that it may and it’s worth the effort.’”

Kavanaugh, who should have known better after seeing who Democrats really are during his confirmation hearings, didn’t vote to immediately declare the CDC’s eviction moratorium unconstitutional, even though he knew it was, I guess for some bizarre reason thinking if he offered an olive branch the left would play nice. What a fool! And who cares about what opinions Biden’s pet “key scholars” held. Five of nine SCOTUS justices told him this scheme was unconstitutional, and only their opinions count. Naturally, Biden reinstated it knowing he was violating the Constitution. Leftists hate the Constitution. Biden’s reasoning for doing so, befitting a head of an organized crime family, was criminal. Specifically, it involved larceny.

“What is particularly alarming was Biden’s reason for why it may be ‘worth the effort’ — that ‘at a minimum, by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give some additional time while we’re getting that $45 billion out to people.’ In other words, with appeals, the Biden administration could rush out money before the courts could shut it down.”

Biden’s calculations for waiving Trump’s claim of privilege is equally criminal. He, or at least his handlers, know perfectly well that this won’t stand. While poorly defined the courts recognize that executive privilege exists, and like an attorney’s client it exists to protect the executive asserting it. Even if as an ex-President. If a sitting President can waive a predecessor’s privilege then executive privilege no longer exists at all.

Biden knows he’ll be an ex-President one day. Even if he’s dead by then his advisors/handlers/puppet masters know they’ll be vulnerable for any crimes they committed in office under color of Biden’s presidential authority.

Basically, they not only know what Biden did to Trump was illegal they’re counting on courts to agree with that assessment.

How can anyone naively believe that anyone complicit in the Biden administration’s home invasion/smash-and-grab robbery at MAL is acting in good faith. Including the Magistrate.

This isn’t a case that is supposed to ever see the inside of a court room. It is a raid so brazenly illegal it could only be intended be thrown out. It’s a crime committed in plain sight intended to intimidate witnesses, destroy evidence, and obstruct justice.