The Morning Rant
The Assault on Mar-a-Lago
Dave in Fla [Guest Monkey]

Since the FBI raid on Trump's home on August 12th, there has been a great deal of speculation regarding the motive for the raid. I have seen many comments in the last 10 days saying that this is a pretext to gathering evidence as a preliminary move toward indicting, arresting, and trying Trump in order to keep him from running in 2024.

Personally, I don't believe that legal action against Trump is the motivation for the raid. I think this raid reduces the likelihood of a criminal case being brought against Trump, at least as it relates to any of the documents searched for and seized.

I think this was a Deep State operation that was targeted toward the recovery of unknown material that Trump possesses that the Deep State wants destroyed. I can think of multiple reasons why Trump would be keeping such documents, such as insurance against assassination.

Much of my thinking on this is echoed by Robert Barnes. Let me point to a discussion he had with VivaFrei on this topic last week. You can find the video on Rumble at this link, with the discussion starting at the 14:26 mark. Barnes discusses qualities of a legal search warrant, as defined by the courts in compliance with the 4th amendment.

First, there has to be probable cause of a crime for which there is specific evidence in the place that you are asking to be searched, and you can only request that which is evidence in support thereof.

Second is presentment, which means when you get to the place you are going to search you give the warrant to the person who has custody over the property so that they make sure you actually comply with what the warrant states and don't execute what is called a general warrant.

Third is particularity. This is the requirement that you specify individually which documents you are seeking and how probable cause exists both for the crime and for that document being evidence of that crime. Unlike civil discovery, which is under a general rule that if it could lead to discovery, you can request the document and get the information, that is not the case in the criminal search warrant context. You have to have particularity; you have to meet probable cause that a crime exists and probable cause that the document you are asking to search and seize is evidence of that crime.

What you can not do is say "I want to search your whole house and see if there is maybe some evidence of some kind of crime there", that is not allowed. That is a general warrant that the British was given prior to the American Revolution, which allowed the army to basically come in and ransack your home in hopes that maybe they would find something.

-Robert Barnes

While I don't even pretend to be a lawyer, it is my understanding that the three characteristics of a legal search warrant are well established throughout our country's judicial history, including firm rulings by the Supreme Court. Under judicial review, this warrant would not stand up, which would result in any evidence gained through this search to be considered inadmissible. The warrant identified any document in Trump's possession that was produced over a 4-year span of time. It is inconceivable that the courts would consider this warrant to meet the particularity requirement.

I have no illusions that the Deep State wouldn't throw Trump in jail, if they could get away with it. But they can't get away with it and they know it. The courts have not been acting in lock step to the desires of the Deep State. Just last week the courts handed down more major rulings against vaccine mandates, including the authorization of a class action suit against the Marines, and an injunction against the Marines taking any action against unvaccinated members. It isn't a power move to display their ability to "do as they want", when they know they will get shot down by the courts.

While the FBI is corrupt and venal, they aren't this stupid. They know these documents are inadmissible, and they are going to have to give them back. They've already returned some documents, proving that they didn't meet the standards for particularity and presentment. The only sensible rationale for this raid in the first place is to either find out what Trump has, or to destroy specific documents. That means this is an intelligence operation, not a legal action.

Other aspects of the raid bolster my opinion. The FBI sat on the supporting affidavit for several days, waiting for this particular magistrate to be on duty. They knew that without someone who was "in on it", they would never get a general warrant of this nature approved. They executed the warrant in plain clothes, hoping there would be no media coverage. They probably assumed that Trump would not say anything about the search to avoid embarrassment. And they are resisting the appointment of a special master, showing that they know this raid will not stand up to independent judicial review.

After the raid, the stories about the documents and their importance were leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post, not to local media as would be the case if an indictment in the Southern District of Florida was imminent. Also, the story regarding what documents were sought keeps changing. First it is some nonsense about the Archives, then it becomes nuclear secrets. The inability to identify a specific document related to a specific crime tells us that there isn't one. They are making it up as they go, trying to sow confusion to cover up the blow back that they received.

Finally, there is the blow back. People who do not want to get involved have been forced to publicly take a stand against this raid. For example, Kevin McCarthy had to come out in public and promise an investigation after Republicans take the House. He does not want to do any such thing, since he is a tool of the Deep State, but public pressure has been so high over this that he had no choice.

It is my belief that this raid has taken a criminal indictment of Trump off the table. This has been bungled so badly that any attempt to arrest Trump will only improve his electoral chances. And SCOTUS ruled a century ago that being in prison does not prevent someone from running for President.

posted by Open Blogger at 11:00 AM

| Access Comments