BRKG Trump’s home being raided by the FBI (OP Aug 2022}
- Thread starter annieosage
- Start date
-
- Tags
- deep state fascism trump 2024
TheSearcher
Are you sure about that?
This nonsense seems like a trigger for a contempt charge.
Shameful.
Shameful.
vector7
Dot Collector
Biden ██████████ the election
View: https://twitter.com/michaeldeand01/status/1563225584863305731?s=20&t=iEFlC9joLAwqEmAdZx0qhw
Freudian slip? Joe Biden he wants to "make sure no one has the opportunity to steal an election AGAIN."
View: https://twitter.com/mrctv/status/1563214691802836996?s=20&t=lf4SGTlnFenzm4VnbLaM_A
View: https://twitter.com/michaeldeand01/status/1563225584863305731?s=20&t=iEFlC9joLAwqEmAdZx0qhw
Freudian slip? Joe Biden he wants to "make sure no one has the opportunity to steal an election AGAIN."
View: https://twitter.com/mrctv/status/1563214691802836996?s=20&t=lf4SGTlnFenzm4VnbLaM_A
vector7
Dot Collector
Top Legal Scholar Goes TOTAL SCORCHED-EARTH GOBLIN MODE on Joe Biden After Release of FBI Raid Affidavit, leaves Fox host STUNNED
RT 6min
View: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1563227254590943234?s=20&t=hXQS_o3byLCu2a86TL5hbw
RT 6min
View: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1563227254590943234?s=20&t=hXQS_o3byLCu2a86TL5hbw
Buick Electra
TB2K Girls with Guns
A Review of the Big Picture and Stakeholder Interests Within FBI Affidavit Justifying Raid on Trump - The Last Refuge
The specific level of GOPe misinformation; a constructed narrative currently advocated by Karl Rove; surrounding the release of the FBI affidavit justifying the raid on President Trump’s home, is very telling. I’ll have more on that later; suffice to say, it’s clear now the republican wing of...
theconservativetreehouse.com
A Review of the Big Picture and Stakeholder Interests Within FBI Affidavit Justifying Raid on Trump
August 26, 2022 | Sundance | 224 Comments
The specific level of GOPe misinformation; a constructed narrative currently advocated by Karl Rove; surrounding the release of the FBI affidavit justifying the raid on President Trump’s home, is very telling.
I’ll have more on that later; suffice to say, it’s clear now the republican wing of the DC UniParty knew the plan all along, and yes, the downstream consequences align with the instructions to the created Trump alternative, Ron DeSantis. This is all organized.
Review Techno Fog article for the legal perspective on the affidavit [SEE HERE]. From my perspective it becomes important to talk about the bigger picture of what lies behind this entire operation.
First, as to the documents themselves, the general public is clueless about how classified documents exist. Some even believe classified documents are never copied, which is stunningly false. All source material is held at the originating agency in its original form. All versions of documents that are provided to stakeholders in government, including the President are copies.
A well-known example of multiple copies of classified documents -as assembled- is the Daily Presidential Brief. The president is never given the originating source classified document of anything. The president, like all other users of classified material, would receive a copy for review. Declassification is done by declassifying the copy and then the declassification directive travels back to the originating agency for them to change the classification status of the original.
We know now, with direct information from both media and the shape of the DOJ/FBI statements, that the documents held by President Trump in his Mar-a-Lago home are documents showing malfeasance and targeting by the DOJ and FBI surrounding the false accusations of a Trump-Russia collusion case.
[Jan 19, 2021 – Presidential Memorandum Declassifying Trump-Russia Documents] In essence, the documents are the evidence behind the Trump targeting operation, and the collusion network between Main Justice and U.S. media. This should not be a surprise.
As a result, the DOJ/FBI main justice operation from Washington DC was centered around retrieving the evidence of their own corrupt -and generally illegal- activity against Trump.
This motive explains the need for main justice to use the presidential records act, coordinated in concert with the national archives, to justify the document retrieval mission. Main Justice is trying to throw a bag over the trail of documentary evidence of their own misconduct. That is the underlying nature of this effort.
President Trump, his advisors and his lawyers, have stated unequivocally that during his administration President Trump declassified the documents in question. [SEE HERE] He declassified them from the copy he was provided to review.
However, as noted in the January 20, 2021, memo above from the office of the president, the agencies, specifically the DOJ and FBI, held a motive to not follow through on the declassification order itself.
This conflict between President Trump declassifying the evidence of DOJ and FBI misconduct, and the DOJ and FBI refusing to declassify the evidence – for obvious reasons, is the originating source of the issue. Inasmuch as the DOJ may attempt to stop Trump by using lawfare against him, ultimately in a court of law this conflict should come out.
In the biggest of big pictures, President Trump has no legal exposure. However, the FBI and DOJ need to leverage the appearance of illegal conduct in order to continue their ongoing targeting operation, which, as you can clearly see, has a very specific agenda behind it. Charging Donald Trump with any form of criminal conduct will ultimately fail.
The sunlight upon the background of the conflict is averse to the interests of the officials making the criminal accusations. The truth has no agenda and the best defense President Trump carries is just that, the truth.
It is important to remember, the presidential records act –the presented pretext for the document conflict– is not a criminal statute. An FBI raid cannot be predicated on a document conflict between the National Archives and a former president.
The FBI affidavit, which leads to the search warrant and the subsequent raid on Mar-a-Lago, could -by its very nature- only be justified if it related to records the U.S. government deems “classified” and material vital to national security interests. Hence, DOJ National Security Division involvement, and all of the documents and affidavit are framed around this pretext.
Main Justice could not conduct the operation to retrieve the evidence of their corruption, if they did not shape the operation as an investigation giving the impression that national security was compromised. The baseline is the ruse. The predicate behind the retrieval operation is false.
♦ So, what are the DOJ and FBI so desperate to retrieve?
In broad terms there are two sets of documents that intermingle and are directly related. First, documents that highlight the activity of Hillary Clinton’s team in creating the false Trump-Russia conspiracy theory (2015/2016). Second, documents that highlight the activity of government officials targeting Donald Trump within the same timeframe (Crossfire Hurricane), that continued into 2017, 2018 and 2019 (Robert Mueller).Think of the two sets of documents as evidence against two teams working in synergy. Team one (Clinton) was outside government. Team two (DOJ/FBI) was inside government. The documents pertain to both groups but are also divided. That helps to explain the wording of the memo above.
The documentary evidence against the outside group (Clinton et al) would also involve government documented evidence as the DOJ/FBI inside group interacted with them. Notes from interviews, materials provided, FBI 302 summaries of interviews, etc.
We can extract a lot of information on the first sets of evidence from the lawsuit filed by President Trump in March of this year, mostly against the outside actors. [LINK HERE]
The lawsuit was filed against specific persons and most of those persons were interviewed by the FBI as part of the originating investigation. Within the subjects of the lawsuit we find names and groups including:
Hillary Clinton, Hillary for America Campaign Committee, DNC, DNC Services Corp, Perkins Coie, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Dolan, Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robby Mook, Phillipe Reines as well as Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith and Andrew McCabe.
In addition to being named in the lawsuit, many of those names were interviewed by the FBI as part of the origination of the Trump-Russia investigation, and/or part of the ongoing investigation of the Trump-Russia fabrication. Each of those interviews would carry an FD-302 report summarizing the content of the interview, the questions and answers given.
The totality of those 302 documents is a lot of evidence likely consisting of hundreds of pages.
For the government officials on the inside, in addition to 302’s (ex Bruce Ohr) there would be documents of communication between them.
Think about the full unredacted text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok as an example. The DOJ publicly released over 600 pages of those text messages, and that wasn’t all of them. The text messages were also redacted, under claims of privacy and national security. We can assume any version of these text messages declassified by President Trump would not be redacted. Hence, you go back to the January 20th memo and see the notes about “privacy.”
We also know there are many pages of communication between DOJ lawyer Lisa Page and her boss in the FBI Andrew McCabe. Almost none of them were ever made public; but they exist. This internal communication is likely the type of material contained in both the “binder,” left for the DOJ to release, and the boxes at Mar-a-Lago to be used as evidence against the named defendants in the lawsuit.
Bruce Ohr has 302’s and emails relating to his involvement as a conduit between Fusion GPS and the FBI. Some of those were released in redacted form, and some of them were never released. Additionally, Nellie Ohr, Bruce’s wife, who worked at Fusion GPS invoked spousal privilege when called to testify before the House committee investigating the issues. However, it is almost certain the FBI interviewed her so there are likely 302’s on Nellie Ohr.
Chris Steele, Igor Danchenko and Rodney Joffe were also interviewed by the FBI. Those 302’s were never released. Presumably John Durham has stakeholder equity in that part of the Trump-Russia hoax, but the documentary evidence prior to January 20, 2021, that exists outside the special counsel could also be records at Mar-a-Lago.
Then we get to the big stuff…. The records and evidence in unredacted and declassified state, that would drive the DOJ-NSD to claim vital national security interests.
The NSA compliance officer notified NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers of unauthorized use of the NSA database by FBI contractors searching U.S. citizens during the 2015/2016 presidential primary. That 2016 notification is a classified record.
The response from Mike Rogers, and the subsequent documentary evidence of what names were being searched is again a classified record. The audit logs showing who was doing the searches (which contractors, which agencies and from what offices), as noted by Director Rogers, was preserved. That is another big-time classified record.
In addition, we would have Admiral Rogers writing a mandatory oversight notification to the FISA court detailing what happened. That’s a big and comprehensive classified record, likely contained in the documents in Mar-a-Lago… and then the goldmine, the fully unredacted 99-page FISA court opinion detailing the substance of the NSA compromise by FBI officials and contractors, including the names, frequency and dates of the illegal surveillance. That is a major classified document the Deepest Deep State would want to keep hidden.
These are the types of documents within what former ODNI John Ratcliffe called “thousands of pages that were declassified by President Trump,” and given to both John Durham and Main Justice with an expectation of public release when the Durham special counsel probe concluded.
In short, President Trump declassified documents that show how the institutions within the U.S. government targeted him. However, the institutions that illegally targeted President Trump are the same institutions who control the specific evidence of their unlawful targeting.
These examples of evidence held by President Donald Trump reveals the background of how the DC surveillance state exists. THAT was/is the national security threat behind the DOJ-NSD search warrant and affidavit.
The risk to the fabric of the U.S. government is why we see lawyers and pundits so confused as they try to figure out the disproportionate response from the DOJ and FBI, toward “simple records”, held by President Trump in Mar-a-Lago. Very few people can comprehend what has been done since January 2009, and the current state of corruption as it now exists amid all of the agencies and institutions of government.
Barack Obama spent 8 years building out and refining the political surveillance state. The operators of the institutions have spent the last six years hiding the construct.
President Donald Trump declassified the material then took evidence to Mar-a-Lago. The people currently in charge of managing the corrupt system, like Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, Chris Wray and the Senate allies, are going bananas. From their DC perspective, Donald Trump is an existential threat.
Given the nature of their opposition, and the underlying motives for their conduct, there is almost nothing they will not do to protect themselves. However, if you peel away all the layers of lies, manipulations and corruption, what you find at the heart of their conduct is fear.
What do they fear most?…
…..THIS!
People forget, and that’s ok, but prior to the 2015 MAGA movement driven by President Donald J Trump, political rallies filled with tens-of-thousands of people were extremely rare; almost nonexistent. However, in the era of Donald J Trump the scale of the people paying attention has grown exponentially. Every speech, every event, every rally is now filled with thousands and thousands of people.
The frequency of it has made us numb to realizing just how extraordinary this is. But the people in Washington DC are well aware, and that makes President Trump even more dangerous. Combine that level of support with what they attempted in order to destroy him, and, well, now you start to put context on their effort.
The existence of Trump is a threat, but the existence of a Trump that could expose their corruption…. well, that makes him a level of threat that leads to a raid on his home in Mar-a-Lago.
[Support CTH Here]
The Hammer
Has No Life - Lives on TB
For all the liberals on social media crowing about how terrible Trump is, I have yet to hear in simple English what the heck this actually says that supports their views. As we expected, it's so heavily redacted that it's usefulness is not exactly optimal...
skwentnaflyer
Veteran Member
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Yet another way the whole raid may very well have been illegal as h**l...
thefederalist.com
AUGUST 26, 2022
"The Mar-A-Lago warrant illustrates the long-standing constitutional anomaly of letting magistrate judges sign search warrants.
The Mar-a-Lago search warrant is interesting not only because of the high office of the individual whose papers were seized but also because of the low office of the person who signed it. The warrant illustrates the long-standing constitutional anomaly of letting magistrate judges sign search warrants.
Leave aside how you feel about the former president. Leave aside what you think of January 6, 2021. Leave aside whether there was a good reason to issue the warrant. A more basic question is whether the Hon. Bruce Reinhart could constitutionally issue it.
To be precise, he is not a judge of a court of the United States. The judicial power of the United States is vested in its courts. In the exercise of this power, judges of those courts can issue search warrants. But a magistrate judge is just an assistant to a court and its judges. Not being a judge of one of the courts of the United States, he cannot constitutionally exercise the judicial power of the United States. That means he cannot issue a search warrant.
The full shift of the judicial power of the United States in criminal cases to magistrate judges has been relatively recent. Only since 1968 has Congress generally authorized persons other than real judges to exercise the judicial power of the United States in trying misdemeanors (although a defendant can still insist on being tried by a real judge when charged with more than a petty offense). In addition, district courts can assign the non-judges “such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Only since 1990 have the non-judges been called “magistrate judges.”
Just how little a magistrate judge can be considered a judge is evident from the way he is appointed. Rather than be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate—as provided by the Constitution for real judges—a magistrate judge, including the one who signed the Mar-a-Lago warrant, is appointed merely by a majority of the active judges of a district court. He serves for only eight years, he can be removed for cause, and even if not removed, he always must worry that his district court will not reappoint him.
Congress, moreover, can reduce his salary. He therefore is not a judge of the court, but merely one of its servants. Like a law clerk or other assistant, he can help a judge understand the issues underlying the decision to issue a search warrant.
But he should not issue it.
Anglo-American history is illuminating. An exercise of judicial power, the issuance of a search warrant traditionally had to come from one who enjoyed that power. So, in England, search warrants had to be issued by a judge or a justice of the peace, who enjoyed elements of a judge’s authority. Similarly, in early states, search warrants had to come from a judge or justice of the peace. This already suggests a difficulty for the Mar-a-Lago warrant and any other search warrant issued by a magistrate judge or anyone else who is not really a judge, but merely an assistant or adjunct to a judge.
This problem is evident not merely from history, but from the Constitution’s very text. Whereas the English and state systems let some judicial power be exercised by justices of the peace and other judicial officers who were not judges of the courts, the federal system confined the judicial power of the United States officers to the courts and their judges.
The U.S. Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and such other courts as Congress authorizes. That is, it leaves no room for the judicial power of the United States to be exercised by any other court or any judges except those who sit on such courts. This bodes ill for federal search warrants signed by magistrate judges and other judicial officers who are not judges of the courts.
One might protest that the courts or their judges can delegate their power to subordinates. But at common law—in contrast to civil law—judges have never been able to delegate judicial power. And the Constitution does more than simply vest the judicial power of the United States in the courts, for it says that the judicial power “shall be vested” in the courts. If it had merely vested judicial power in the courts, it might have left the courts free to subdelegate their power.
In contrast, by saying that the judicial power shall be vested in the courts, it not only places judicial power in the courts but also makes that location mandatory. In other words, neither Congress nor the courts can transfer it elsewhere. So a magistrate judge’s exercise of the judicial power in issuing a search warrant cannot be excused on a theory of delegation.
At stake is whose judgment matters. The whole point of having judges nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate is to ensure that the judgment required for the exercise of judicial power will be the judgment of individuals learned in the law—ones carefully chosen to exercise mere judgment, not will.
Such individuals, moreover, are protected in salary and tenure. They need never worry that they will be removed for cause or not reappointed. So the judgment of a real judge makes a real difference. Any binding judicial act that is not merely ministerial must be an exercise of judgment by an actual judge of the courts, not anyone else.
Whereas the judicial power is very broad and potentially dangerous, the duty of judges to exercise mere judgment in accord with the law is very confining. The breadth of the institutional judicial power is tempered by the narrowness of the individual duty. It therefore is essential that the judicial power of the courts be exercised only by the judges of the courts—individuals chosen for their attachment to law and their duty of judgment. Although not a guarantee against abuses, this is a crucial protection against them.
The Constitution’s vesting of the judicial power in the courts is important for search warrants. It ensures that at least for federal search warrants, the “probable cause” required by the Fourth Amendment will be ascertained by a judge, not anyone else.
Indeed, search warrants from magistrate judges violate not only the vesting of judicial power in the courts but also the Fourth Amendment. In guaranteeing that search warrants must rest on probable cause, that amendment assumes that probable cause will be found by a judge. Moreover, the issuance of a search warrant is unreasonable when it comes from a non-judge, because he lacks salary and tenure protection and has not gone through the same rigorous selection process as a real judge. The guarantees of probable cause and reasonableness are much diminished when a non-judge can make the determination.
Of course, in addition to relying on its own judges, the federal government can work through state officers who have the authority to issue search warrants, and this traditionally has meant both state judges and state justices of the peace. In the District of Columbia or a territory, moreover, the federal government does not exercise the judicial power of the United States, but rather the judicial power of the district or the territory. In such places, justices of the peace and magistrate judges can be authorized to issue search warrants. Congress has even extended this use of non-judges to national parks—a policy that confuses federal parks with federal districts and territories.
Outside federal districts and territories, the federal government exercises the judicial power of the United States. Under that power, lower federal judicial officers, such as commissioners, might take bail and depositions and carry out other ministerial tasks. But they traditionally could not exercise the binding judgment necessary for the issuance of a search warrant.
Although Congress eventually deviated from this principle, it began to do so only after the Civil War and only very narrowly—for revenue fraud and counterfeiting. Congress occasionally added specialized spheres in which non-judges could issue search warrants under the judicial power of the United States. But only in the mid-twentieth century (as explained below) did such search warrants generally come from non-judges. Federal search warrants from magistrate judges thus have no support in early practice and, with few exceptions, are a relatively late, twentieth-century evolution.
Overall, it is difficult to understand how the Mar-a-Lago search warrant can be reconciled with the Constitution. Not being a judge of one of the courts of the United States, a magistrate judge cannot exercise the judicial power of the United States. He therefore cannot find probable cause or otherwise issue a search warrant.
The initial justification for permitting magistrate judges to exercise judicial power is that they are merely adjuncts to the judges. By locating judicial power in the courts, the Constitution requires judges, not adjuncts, to exercise any binding judgment (this being a distinctive characteristic of their office). Twentieth-century doctrine, however, is more lax. It permits adjuncts to make any decisions as long as the essential attributes of judicial power remain in the judges.
Yet even this flaccid doctrine cannot justify the Mar-a-Lago warrant. A search warrant is a binding judicial order—one that intrudes deeply into personal affairs and papers on the basis of a judgment about probable cause. It therefore is essentially and importantly judicial.
And when a search warrant comes from a magistrate judge, the majority—indeed, the entirety—of the judicial power involved in issuing it is exercised by the magistrate judge. That means the essential attributes of judicial power do not remain in a real judge. So, even under current doctrine, a search warrant cannot be left to a magistrate judge on the theory he is acting merely as an adjunct. Other excuses are necessary."
Can Magistrate Judges Constitutionally Issue Search Warrants?
The Mar-A-Lago warrant illustrates the long-standing constitutional anomaly of letting magistrate judges sign search warrants.
thefederalist.com
Can Magistrate Judges Constitutionally Issue Search Warrants Against Trump (Or Anyone Else)?
BY: PHILIP HAMBURGERAUGUST 26, 2022
"The Mar-A-Lago warrant illustrates the long-standing constitutional anomaly of letting magistrate judges sign search warrants.
The Mar-a-Lago search warrant is interesting not only because of the high office of the individual whose papers were seized but also because of the low office of the person who signed it. The warrant illustrates the long-standing constitutional anomaly of letting magistrate judges sign search warrants.
Leave aside how you feel about the former president. Leave aside what you think of January 6, 2021. Leave aside whether there was a good reason to issue the warrant. A more basic question is whether the Hon. Bruce Reinhart could constitutionally issue it.
Under the Constitution, a Search Warrant Must Be Signed by a Judge
The problem is that Reinhart is a so-called magistrate judge. Many commentators have focused on his personal history and political leanings, but much more significant is that he is not really a judge.To be precise, he is not a judge of a court of the United States. The judicial power of the United States is vested in its courts. In the exercise of this power, judges of those courts can issue search warrants. But a magistrate judge is just an assistant to a court and its judges. Not being a judge of one of the courts of the United States, he cannot constitutionally exercise the judicial power of the United States. That means he cannot issue a search warrant.
The full shift of the judicial power of the United States in criminal cases to magistrate judges has been relatively recent. Only since 1968 has Congress generally authorized persons other than real judges to exercise the judicial power of the United States in trying misdemeanors (although a defendant can still insist on being tried by a real judge when charged with more than a petty offense). In addition, district courts can assign the non-judges “such additional duties as are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Only since 1990 have the non-judges been called “magistrate judges.”
Just how little a magistrate judge can be considered a judge is evident from the way he is appointed. Rather than be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate—as provided by the Constitution for real judges—a magistrate judge, including the one who signed the Mar-a-Lago warrant, is appointed merely by a majority of the active judges of a district court. He serves for only eight years, he can be removed for cause, and even if not removed, he always must worry that his district court will not reappoint him.
Congress, moreover, can reduce his salary. He therefore is not a judge of the court, but merely one of its servants. Like a law clerk or other assistant, he can help a judge understand the issues underlying the decision to issue a search warrant.
But he should not issue it.
Anglo-American history is illuminating. An exercise of judicial power, the issuance of a search warrant traditionally had to come from one who enjoyed that power. So, in England, search warrants had to be issued by a judge or a justice of the peace, who enjoyed elements of a judge’s authority. Similarly, in early states, search warrants had to come from a judge or justice of the peace. This already suggests a difficulty for the Mar-a-Lago warrant and any other search warrant issued by a magistrate judge or anyone else who is not really a judge, but merely an assistant or adjunct to a judge.
This problem is evident not merely from history, but from the Constitution’s very text. Whereas the English and state systems let some judicial power be exercised by justices of the peace and other judicial officers who were not judges of the courts, the federal system confined the judicial power of the United States officers to the courts and their judges.
The U.S. Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and such other courts as Congress authorizes. That is, it leaves no room for the judicial power of the United States to be exercised by any other court or any judges except those who sit on such courts. This bodes ill for federal search warrants signed by magistrate judges and other judicial officers who are not judges of the courts.
One might protest that the courts or their judges can delegate their power to subordinates. But at common law—in contrast to civil law—judges have never been able to delegate judicial power. And the Constitution does more than simply vest the judicial power of the United States in the courts, for it says that the judicial power “shall be vested” in the courts. If it had merely vested judicial power in the courts, it might have left the courts free to subdelegate their power.
In contrast, by saying that the judicial power shall be vested in the courts, it not only places judicial power in the courts but also makes that location mandatory. In other words, neither Congress nor the courts can transfer it elsewhere. So a magistrate judge’s exercise of the judicial power in issuing a search warrant cannot be excused on a theory of delegation.
At stake is whose judgment matters. The whole point of having judges nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate is to ensure that the judgment required for the exercise of judicial power will be the judgment of individuals learned in the law—ones carefully chosen to exercise mere judgment, not will.
Such individuals, moreover, are protected in salary and tenure. They need never worry that they will be removed for cause or not reappointed. So the judgment of a real judge makes a real difference. Any binding judicial act that is not merely ministerial must be an exercise of judgment by an actual judge of the courts, not anyone else.
Whereas the judicial power is very broad and potentially dangerous, the duty of judges to exercise mere judgment in accord with the law is very confining. The breadth of the institutional judicial power is tempered by the narrowness of the individual duty. It therefore is essential that the judicial power of the courts be exercised only by the judges of the courts—individuals chosen for their attachment to law and their duty of judgment. Although not a guarantee against abuses, this is a crucial protection against them.
The Constitution’s vesting of the judicial power in the courts is important for search warrants. It ensures that at least for federal search warrants, the “probable cause” required by the Fourth Amendment will be ascertained by a judge, not anyone else.
Indeed, search warrants from magistrate judges violate not only the vesting of judicial power in the courts but also the Fourth Amendment. In guaranteeing that search warrants must rest on probable cause, that amendment assumes that probable cause will be found by a judge. Moreover, the issuance of a search warrant is unreasonable when it comes from a non-judge, because he lacks salary and tenure protection and has not gone through the same rigorous selection process as a real judge. The guarantees of probable cause and reasonableness are much diminished when a non-judge can make the determination.
Of course, in addition to relying on its own judges, the federal government can work through state officers who have the authority to issue search warrants, and this traditionally has meant both state judges and state justices of the peace. In the District of Columbia or a territory, moreover, the federal government does not exercise the judicial power of the United States, but rather the judicial power of the district or the territory. In such places, justices of the peace and magistrate judges can be authorized to issue search warrants. Congress has even extended this use of non-judges to national parks—a policy that confuses federal parks with federal districts and territories.
Outside federal districts and territories, the federal government exercises the judicial power of the United States. Under that power, lower federal judicial officers, such as commissioners, might take bail and depositions and carry out other ministerial tasks. But they traditionally could not exercise the binding judgment necessary for the issuance of a search warrant.
Although Congress eventually deviated from this principle, it began to do so only after the Civil War and only very narrowly—for revenue fraud and counterfeiting. Congress occasionally added specialized spheres in which non-judges could issue search warrants under the judicial power of the United States. But only in the mid-twentieth century (as explained below) did such search warrants generally come from non-judges. Federal search warrants from magistrate judges thus have no support in early practice and, with few exceptions, are a relatively late, twentieth-century evolution.
Overall, it is difficult to understand how the Mar-a-Lago search warrant can be reconciled with the Constitution. Not being a judge of one of the courts of the United States, a magistrate judge cannot exercise the judicial power of the United States. He therefore cannot find probable cause or otherwise issue a search warrant.
Not Excused by Contemporary Doctrine
But what about contemporary doctrine? Might that offer some excuse for the warrant?The initial justification for permitting magistrate judges to exercise judicial power is that they are merely adjuncts to the judges. By locating judicial power in the courts, the Constitution requires judges, not adjuncts, to exercise any binding judgment (this being a distinctive characteristic of their office). Twentieth-century doctrine, however, is more lax. It permits adjuncts to make any decisions as long as the essential attributes of judicial power remain in the judges.
Yet even this flaccid doctrine cannot justify the Mar-a-Lago warrant. A search warrant is a binding judicial order—one that intrudes deeply into personal affairs and papers on the basis of a judgment about probable cause. It therefore is essentially and importantly judicial.
And when a search warrant comes from a magistrate judge, the majority—indeed, the entirety—of the judicial power involved in issuing it is exercised by the magistrate judge. That means the essential attributes of judicial power do not remain in a real judge. So, even under current doctrine, a search warrant cannot be left to a magistrate judge on the theory he is acting merely as an adjunct. Other excuses are necessary."
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
Part II:
"A second is that, in England and some of the early states, petty offenses (a category including many misdemeanors) could be allocated to justices of the peace who were not regular judges and could not hold jury trials. The Supreme Court has relied on this history to excuse shifting minor offenses to magistrate judges sitting without juries.
But the petty offense exception is entirely unjustified. The Constitution expressly rejected the petty offense exception by guaranteeing a jury trial in all criminal cases and all criminal prosecutions. So, the petty offense argument cannot justify criminal trials by magistrate judges.
Also, with search warrants there is another problem: the Constitution assures all persons that they will get the due process of law—traditionally meaning the due process of the courts. There consequently is a due process right to have a federal search warrant issued by a judge of a court of the United States.
Topping it off, the petty offense excuse is irrelevant to search warrants issued by magistrate judges because they do not confine their warrants to petty offenses. The Mar-a-Lago search warrant, for example, was for offenses that cannot be considered petty. The petty offense explanation is therefore inapplicable here.
Another standard excuse for the criminal jurisdiction of magistrate judges is that defendants sometimes consent. But the Constitution mandates the location of the judicial power in the courts, and this is a structural limit. So it is difficult to understand how consent could justify the exercise of judicial power by persons who are not judges of the courts.
In any case, arrest warrants, including the Mar-a-Lago warrant, obviously are not consensual. Consent is yet another inadequate justification.
A fourth conventional excuse is that the exercise of judicial power by magistrate judges is subject to district court supervision. This may, perhaps, be true when magistrate judges hold trials. It sometimes may even be true (in an informal sense) when they issue search warrants.
For example, the Hon. Bruce Reinhart might have consulted a district court judge about whether to sign the Mar-a-Lago warrant. But any such prior advice by a district court judge could be viewed as an advisory opinion, and there is no reason to believe that Reinhart sought such advice. So if one leaves aside this speculative possibility, the problem is that a search warrant is unlike a trial or a portion of it, such as voir dire (jury selection).
Rather than an evolving proceeding in which the defendant can ask the magistrate judge to pause for an interlocutory appeal to a district court judge, the signing of a search warrant is a single binding act, done in secret, without the defendant’s knowledge. It therefore ordinarily cannot be subject to supervision by a real judge. The only possible supervision is an appeal after the constitutional injury has been ineradicably suffered. The supervision excuse is therefore as inapplicable as the others.
A fifth and final excuse is drawn from administrative law doctrines on neutral adjudicators—not an auspicious foundation. From this perspective, magistrate judges can be trusted to the extent they are “capable of competent and impartial performance” of judicial duties. But they are not independent in the same way as real judges.
Even if mere competence and neutrality could justify displacing the judicial power from where the Constitution says it shall be vested, there remains the difficulty that magistrate judges are institutionally compromised. They are not protected in tenure or salary; they always are vulnerable to the displeasure of Congress or their district court. Especially in criminal cases, let alone high-profile cases, they cannot be unaware of the risks of reaching unpopular decisions. However personally independent they may be, they are institutionally without independence.
These judicial doctrines—whether that magistrate judges are mere adjuncts, that they have consent, that they hear only petty offenses, that they are subject to supervision, or that they are neutral adjudicators—have different implications for trials and search warrants. Although the doctrines depart from the Constitution, they dominate judicial thinking, and according to the judges, they justify at least some of the trials held by magistrate judges. But the doctrines condemn search warrants from magistrate judges. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld such warrants against the constitutional or doctrinal objections.
The Mar-a-Lago search warrant thus seems to collide with both the Constitution and contemporary doctrine. Such a warrant could not constitutionally be issued by Reinhart. He may be honorable, but he is not a judge.
On his behalf, one might observe that, not being a regular judge, he may hesitate to hold the current system unconstitutional. Similarly, he may reasonably worry about holding against his authority to issue search warrants—inasmuch as the district court (which can decline to reappoint him) gave him this authority and expects him to exercise it.
But all of this just confirms the point. It is extraordinarily dangerous to hand over the power to issue search warrants to persons who savor being called “honorable” and “judge,” but who are not really judges and who cannot constitutionally or safely exercise the judicial power of the United States.
One might have thought judges would be cautious about predetermining the lawfulness of any question—especially a threat to civil liberties, especially in criminal law, and especially when they have an institutional interest in the outcome. Nonetheless, they have blithely assumed the constitutionality of search warrants issued by magistrate judges.
For example, after Congress authorized the Supreme Court to promulgate the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts of the United States, the Supreme Court, in 1944, in Rule 41(a), provided that a search warrant may be issued “by a United States commissioner within the district wherein the property sought is located.” What were commissioners are now called “magistrate judges.”
Even today, Congress itself does not generally authorize magistrate judges to issue search warrants, but merely authorizes district courts to assign “additional duties” to these subordinates. It thus leaves each district court to decide whether its magistrate judges can issue search warrants, and district court judges generally take this opportunity.
Why have judges been so willing to assume and even predetermine the lawfulness of search warrants from magistrate judges? One answer is their workload. As the Supreme Court puts it, without magistrate judges, “the work of the federal court system would grind nearly to a halt.” There is some truth to this, but not because of search warrants. They are only part of the burden alleviated by magistrate judges, and it would not crash the system to leave such warrants to real judges.
The workload of district courts is, at least in part, a judicially created problem. Through their own doctrines, judges have sometimes unnecessarily crowded their schedules. To this extent, it befits them to suggest that the judicial workload requires them to subject Americans to search warrants issued by magistrate judges.
For decades, the judges—the real judges—have shut their eyes to the dangers of handing off parts of the judicial power of the United States to subordinates. The judges have been all too willing to believe that some elements of their constitutional duties are beneath them. Also, of course, their co-conspirators have been the members of the bar who yearn to serve as “judges” and be addressed as “Your Honor.” Convenience and self-indulgence have swept aside concerns about constitutionality.
This evolution erodes our freedom and our safety. It is no small matter to let a non-judge find probable cause and sign a warrant. It therefore should not be permitted by a living constitution.
One may believe the living constitution must be alive to the need for governmental efficiency, but that is just an excuse for cutting corners—other people’s corners. One may reasonably assume that federal agents will never knock on your door with a search warrant, let alone barge in without a knock. But the Constitution should be alive to the injuries suffered by all Americans, regardless of their circumstances.
At Mar-a-Lago, the risks for all Americans have become painfully apparent. One danger is that a search warrant will be issued without the sort of dispassionate judgment, knowledge, or discernment one would expect from a real judge. Another peril is that magistrate judges may be too ready to comply with government requests—whether by finding probable cause, permitting overly broad searches, or allowing “no knock” searches. Finally, even if a warrant is entirely justified, it will and should be viewed as constitutionally tainted when it comes from someone who is not quite a judge.
So, think about it. How do you want your criminal rights served up: By the judges or just cafeteria-style? Straight or watered down?
The violation of the former president’s freedom illuminates the damage done to the many thousands of other Americans who have been subjected to unconstitutionally issued search warrants. Although it is widely assumed that warrants issued by magistrate judges are lawful, the Constitution and even current doctrines suggest otherwise.
Such warrants are unlawful and dangerous. And the unconstitutionality is as serious for each of us as for the former President."
"A second is that, in England and some of the early states, petty offenses (a category including many misdemeanors) could be allocated to justices of the peace who were not regular judges and could not hold jury trials. The Supreme Court has relied on this history to excuse shifting minor offenses to magistrate judges sitting without juries.
But the petty offense exception is entirely unjustified. The Constitution expressly rejected the petty offense exception by guaranteeing a jury trial in all criminal cases and all criminal prosecutions. So, the petty offense argument cannot justify criminal trials by magistrate judges.
Also, with search warrants there is another problem: the Constitution assures all persons that they will get the due process of law—traditionally meaning the due process of the courts. There consequently is a due process right to have a federal search warrant issued by a judge of a court of the United States.
Topping it off, the petty offense excuse is irrelevant to search warrants issued by magistrate judges because they do not confine their warrants to petty offenses. The Mar-a-Lago search warrant, for example, was for offenses that cannot be considered petty. The petty offense explanation is therefore inapplicable here.
Another standard excuse for the criminal jurisdiction of magistrate judges is that defendants sometimes consent. But the Constitution mandates the location of the judicial power in the courts, and this is a structural limit. So it is difficult to understand how consent could justify the exercise of judicial power by persons who are not judges of the courts.
In any case, arrest warrants, including the Mar-a-Lago warrant, obviously are not consensual. Consent is yet another inadequate justification.
A fourth conventional excuse is that the exercise of judicial power by magistrate judges is subject to district court supervision. This may, perhaps, be true when magistrate judges hold trials. It sometimes may even be true (in an informal sense) when they issue search warrants.
For example, the Hon. Bruce Reinhart might have consulted a district court judge about whether to sign the Mar-a-Lago warrant. But any such prior advice by a district court judge could be viewed as an advisory opinion, and there is no reason to believe that Reinhart sought such advice. So if one leaves aside this speculative possibility, the problem is that a search warrant is unlike a trial or a portion of it, such as voir dire (jury selection).
Rather than an evolving proceeding in which the defendant can ask the magistrate judge to pause for an interlocutory appeal to a district court judge, the signing of a search warrant is a single binding act, done in secret, without the defendant’s knowledge. It therefore ordinarily cannot be subject to supervision by a real judge. The only possible supervision is an appeal after the constitutional injury has been ineradicably suffered. The supervision excuse is therefore as inapplicable as the others.
A fifth and final excuse is drawn from administrative law doctrines on neutral adjudicators—not an auspicious foundation. From this perspective, magistrate judges can be trusted to the extent they are “capable of competent and impartial performance” of judicial duties. But they are not independent in the same way as real judges.
Even if mere competence and neutrality could justify displacing the judicial power from where the Constitution says it shall be vested, there remains the difficulty that magistrate judges are institutionally compromised. They are not protected in tenure or salary; they always are vulnerable to the displeasure of Congress or their district court. Especially in criminal cases, let alone high-profile cases, they cannot be unaware of the risks of reaching unpopular decisions. However personally independent they may be, they are institutionally without independence.
These judicial doctrines—whether that magistrate judges are mere adjuncts, that they have consent, that they hear only petty offenses, that they are subject to supervision, or that they are neutral adjudicators—have different implications for trials and search warrants. Although the doctrines depart from the Constitution, they dominate judicial thinking, and according to the judges, they justify at least some of the trials held by magistrate judges. But the doctrines condemn search warrants from magistrate judges. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never upheld such warrants against the constitutional or doctrinal objections.
The Mar-a-Lago search warrant thus seems to collide with both the Constitution and contemporary doctrine. Such a warrant could not constitutionally be issued by Reinhart. He may be honorable, but he is not a judge.
On his behalf, one might observe that, not being a regular judge, he may hesitate to hold the current system unconstitutional. Similarly, he may reasonably worry about holding against his authority to issue search warrants—inasmuch as the district court (which can decline to reappoint him) gave him this authority and expects him to exercise it.
But all of this just confirms the point. It is extraordinarily dangerous to hand over the power to issue search warrants to persons who savor being called “honorable” and “judge,” but who are not really judges and who cannot constitutionally or safely exercise the judicial power of the United States.
Judicial Complacency
Notwithstanding that judicial doctrine confirms the unconstitutionality of search warrants issued by magistrate judges, most judges assume that such warrants are unobjectionable. This is not reassuring. Indeed, it is worrisome. Far from merely acquiescing to magistrate judges and their power to issue search warrants, the judges themselves have helped to legitimize this dubious experiment on the liberties of Americans.One might have thought judges would be cautious about predetermining the lawfulness of any question—especially a threat to civil liberties, especially in criminal law, and especially when they have an institutional interest in the outcome. Nonetheless, they have blithely assumed the constitutionality of search warrants issued by magistrate judges.
For example, after Congress authorized the Supreme Court to promulgate the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts of the United States, the Supreme Court, in 1944, in Rule 41(a), provided that a search warrant may be issued “by a United States commissioner within the district wherein the property sought is located.” What were commissioners are now called “magistrate judges.”
Even today, Congress itself does not generally authorize magistrate judges to issue search warrants, but merely authorizes district courts to assign “additional duties” to these subordinates. It thus leaves each district court to decide whether its magistrate judges can issue search warrants, and district court judges generally take this opportunity.
Why have judges been so willing to assume and even predetermine the lawfulness of search warrants from magistrate judges? One answer is their workload. As the Supreme Court puts it, without magistrate judges, “the work of the federal court system would grind nearly to a halt.” There is some truth to this, but not because of search warrants. They are only part of the burden alleviated by magistrate judges, and it would not crash the system to leave such warrants to real judges.
The workload of district courts is, at least in part, a judicially created problem. Through their own doctrines, judges have sometimes unnecessarily crowded their schedules. To this extent, it befits them to suggest that the judicial workload requires them to subject Americans to search warrants issued by magistrate judges.
For decades, the judges—the real judges—have shut their eyes to the dangers of handing off parts of the judicial power of the United States to subordinates. The judges have been all too willing to believe that some elements of their constitutional duties are beneath them. Also, of course, their co-conspirators have been the members of the bar who yearn to serve as “judges” and be addressed as “Your Honor.” Convenience and self-indulgence have swept aside concerns about constitutionality.
The Living Constitution?
Of course, government evolves, and it may be thought that the evolution of search warrants issued by magistrate judges is justified by the living constitution. But not all evolution is desirable.This evolution erodes our freedom and our safety. It is no small matter to let a non-judge find probable cause and sign a warrant. It therefore should not be permitted by a living constitution.
One may believe the living constitution must be alive to the need for governmental efficiency, but that is just an excuse for cutting corners—other people’s corners. One may reasonably assume that federal agents will never knock on your door with a search warrant, let alone barge in without a knock. But the Constitution should be alive to the injuries suffered by all Americans, regardless of their circumstances.
At Mar-a-Lago, the risks for all Americans have become painfully apparent. One danger is that a search warrant will be issued without the sort of dispassionate judgment, knowledge, or discernment one would expect from a real judge. Another peril is that magistrate judges may be too ready to comply with government requests—whether by finding probable cause, permitting overly broad searches, or allowing “no knock” searches. Finally, even if a warrant is entirely justified, it will and should be viewed as constitutionally tainted when it comes from someone who is not quite a judge.
So, think about it. How do you want your criminal rights served up: By the judges or just cafeteria-style? Straight or watered down?
Not Politics or Personalities, But the Constitution
Undoubtedly, some readers will respond to this argument on the basis of their feelings for or against former President Trump. But the question rises far above politics and personalities.The violation of the former president’s freedom illuminates the damage done to the many thousands of other Americans who have been subjected to unconstitutionally issued search warrants. Although it is widely assumed that warrants issued by magistrate judges are lawful, the Constitution and even current doctrines suggest otherwise.
Such warrants are unlawful and dangerous. And the unconstitutionality is as serious for each of us as for the former President."
MinnesotaSmith
Membership Revoked
FBI Releases Docs on Raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago Home. Read It Here.
The FBI’s affidavit supporting the raid at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home appears to be based on the president possessing classified materials and messy record-keeping....
pjmedia.com
FBI Releases Docs on Raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago Home. Read It Here.
BY VICTORIA TAFT AUG 26, 2022"The FBI’s affidavit supporting the raid at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home appears to be based on the president possessing classified materials and messy record-keeping.
he raid on Trump’s home on August 8, 2022, was the first time the home of a president of the United States had ever been tossed by the feds.
According to the redacted document, the FBI believed that Trump had in his possession a variety of classified materials including materials marked with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) labels, perhaps supporting the notion that the former president was looking at documents concerning the Russia collusion hoax.
The documents the FBI claims support their raid of Mar-a-Lago will probably look ugly for former President Donald Trump. After all, these are documents used to convince a judge to approve a never-before-tried search on a former president in what looks by all appearances to be in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.
A couple of things to mention here as we read through the documents and update this story. In a memorandum explaining the search warrant affidavit, the FBI outlined that the redacted portions would remain sealed, in an apparent deal with the judge.
Here are some of the accommodations made for the FBI with Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart:
- The redacted material remains under seal
- Witness identities will remain secret
- Minor information which may out law enforcement will remain secret
- Outing certain information would allow Trump to “frustrate” their investigation
Both law professor Jonathan Turley and Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton reported the crash.
Turley observed that the speed with which these documents were released shows that the judge just went along with all recommended FBI redactions. He called it “concerning.”
We understand that the affidavit itself is heavily redacted, as expected. And, considering that the memo introducing the affidavit was itself redacted, we don’t doubt the final product will look like a blacked-out crossword puzzle.
We’ll update this breaking story as we get information.
Read the redacted document below: (is broken Scibd link)"
vector7
Dot Collector
BREAKING REPORT: FBI investigating Ukrainian immigrant who posed as an heiress of the Rothschild banking dynasty, faked massive wealth and infiltrated Mar-a-Lago and Trump's inner circle...
SO, the (DNC's) FBI paid a Ukrainian immigrant to pose as an heiress of the Rothschild dynasty and infiltrated MAL then? Sounds about right.
View: https://twitter.com/GibsonLP_/status/1563282035694678017?t=z1JxYqOleHkdkWWZk8IgxQ&s=19
Once again it always comes back to Ukraine with the DNC...
Probably another set up by the FBI.
View: https://twitter.com/JwcLousodking/status/1563261466111000577?t=kwUuAKLrjOSkJ_fjMuSfLQ&s=19
SO, the (DNC's) FBI paid a Ukrainian immigrant to pose as an heiress of the Rothschild dynasty and infiltrated MAL then? Sounds about right.
View: https://twitter.com/GibsonLP_/status/1563282035694678017?t=z1JxYqOleHkdkWWZk8IgxQ&s=19
Once again it always comes back to Ukraine with the DNC...
Probably another set up by the FBI.
View: https://twitter.com/JwcLousodking/status/1563261466111000577?t=kwUuAKLrjOSkJ_fjMuSfLQ&s=19
Last edited:
vector7
Dot Collector
Jack Posobiec responds to Alan Dershowitz’s claim that Trump will not be indicted despite “probable cause” following Mar-A-Lago raid: “They are going to indict him because they want it to be a preemptive coup.”
RT 5min
View: https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1563546007807283203?t=jvTX6dg7K7sp5DR4pa3fWQ&s=19
RT 5min
View: https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1563546007807283203?t=jvTX6dg7K7sp5DR4pa3fWQ&s=19
vector7
Dot Collector
Mark Levin goes SCORCHED EARTH on over-redacted affidavit for FBI Raid on Trump— Proves exactly why he’s THE GREAT ONE
RT 10mins
View: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1564182417740648450?t=lWQKiVAEtBhW87L5sQhkMA&s=19
RT 10mins
View: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1564182417740648450?t=lWQKiVAEtBhW87L5sQhkMA&s=19
Dobbin
Faithful Steed
Latest report is that the Ukrainian is denying the FBI take on this.
MOre information (seemingly accurate) at Inventing Anna: Ukrainian-Born Scammer Posed with Trump and Wandered Mar-a-Lago - OCCRP
I suspect she's just one of the "grifters" that the rich find themselves surrounded with - and CAN take advantage of the rich.
Not that Trump was even taken advantage...
Owner says Horse Racing (playground of the weathy) is filled with these sort of humans. Saratoga and Mary-Lou Whitney comes to Owner's mind, although my research indicates she might have been a "real deal."
Saratoga socialite, philanthropist Marylou Whitney dies at 93
Dobbin
firefly2021
Member
How can there be a "pre-emptive" coup, when there has already been a coup??
vector7
Dot Collector
FBI special agent who opened Trump investigation reportedly escorted out of Bureau headquarters | Just The News
View: https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/status/1564343072003088385?s=20&t=Ih44e-INRPADfqUocK76QA
View: https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/status/1564343072003088385?s=20&t=Ih44e-INRPADfqUocK76QA
adgal
Veteran Member
FBI special agent who opened Trump investigation reportedly escorted out of Bureau
"Mr. Thibault was seen exiting the bureau’s elevator last Friday escorted by two or three "headquarters-looking types.'"
justthenews.com
Former Washington Field Office Assistant Special Agent in Charge Tim Thibault was reportedly escorted out of the Bureau on Friday, amid whistleblower allegations that he showed political bias in his handling of politically sensitive investigations.
The Washington Times reported eyewitness accounts that "Mr. Thibault was seen exiting the bureau’s elevator last Friday escorted by two or three 'headquarters-looking types.'" The article appears to have been updated and now states that Thibault "abruptly resigned" but that he was "forced to leave his post" and cites two unnamed former FBI officials.
Just the News was unable to independently confirm the Times report.
Whistleblowers alleged that Thibault concealed the partisan nature of evidence from FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland to secure their approval to open an investigation into former President Donald Trump. That investigation culminated in the FBI's raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate earlier this month.
The public release of the affidavit that accompanied the search warrant revealed the warrant application relied heavily on information from news articles, including a CBS Miami piece titled "Moving Trucks Spotted At Mar-a-Lago" and a Breitbart News article in which former Trump adviser Kash Patel discussed the classified status of documents the bureau previously removed from the estate on behalf of the National Archives.
Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley confirmed to Just the News prior to the raid that Thibault had been removed from his post and reassigned to an unspecified position.
Just the News has reached out to the FBI press office for comment.
RELATED ARTICLES
Sweet! So nothing happened to him.
Ooooh thats super illegal under the Whistleblower protection act. You CANNOT stop someone from making a protected communication.
TheSearcher
Are you sure about that?
Blatant, white-hot fear. He CAN NOT LEGALLY order that. Congress has oversight, and whistleblowers are protected by law from EXACTLY this sort of employer abuse. It may not happen in the next few days, but Garland just screwed himself.
That's an illegal order. This is about to get real interesting........
StarryEyedLad
désespéré pour le ciel
vector7
Dot Collector
This is the play: Garland is going to indict Trump and try to force him to stand trial in front of a rigged DC jury
Bannon was the test case
Preemptive coup of 2024
This actually seems likely. Trump literally can’t get a fair trial. The whole of the country already has a preconceived notion about him.
View: https://twitter.com/philthatremains/status/1564967950070824967?t=hhFcFJDPKUIjXV-ctvGTTg&s=19
Bannon was the test case
Preemptive coup of 2024
This actually seems likely. Trump literally can’t get a fair trial. The whole of the country already has a preconceived notion about him.
View: https://twitter.com/philthatremains/status/1564967950070824967?t=hhFcFJDPKUIjXV-ctvGTTg&s=19
vector7
Dot Collector
The Biden regime not only knew about the Raid on Mar-A-Lago, they created the path that allowed it to happen
RT 1min
View: https://twitter.com/imjdsharp/status/1564657996990406659?s=20&t=cVZwemQpAmTtdD0TLNRS7w
RT 1min
View: https://twitter.com/imjdsharp/status/1564657996990406659?s=20&t=cVZwemQpAmTtdD0TLNRS7w
vector7
Dot Collector
BREAKING: Kash Patel goes GOBLIN MODE on Regime DOJ after FBI exposes themselves MISHANDLING Trump's documents at Mar-a-Lago
RT 6min
View: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1565004056250155014?s=20&t=qYHOV_F7tFhg1qWQWj7eBQ
RT 6min
View: https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1565004056250155014?s=20&t=qYHOV_F7tFhg1qWQWj7eBQ
mzkitty
I give up.
I'll just stick this here.
www.rawstory.com
Newt Gingrich new target of Jan. 6 committee
On Thursday, investigators on the House January 6 Committee sent a letter to former house speaker and Donald Trump ally Newt Gingrich, requesting testimony on his role in spreading distrust about the results of the election."The Committee has obtained information indicating that you have...
www.rawstory.com
Macgyver
Has No Life - Lives on TB
Who had the Milianas panties comment first?
www.dailymail.co.uk
Published: 10:36 EDT, 2 September 2022 | Updated: 11:53 EDT, 2 September 2022
The FBI seized empty folders with classified markings, clothes, books and government photographs during their raid on Mar-a-Lago, a new inventory list unsealed by a judge on Friday revealed.
Among the items listed in the documents released Friday are 47 empty folders that were found in Trump's office that are marked as 'classified' and more than 1,500 magazines, newspapers, press articles and other printed media from around his home.
The list shows that several folders found during the raid had classified markings on them – but there were no contents inside. Magazine and news articles were also picked up.
The Florida Southern District Court release also confirms top secret documents were among the stash of items, which were displayed in the photo of files sprawled on the floor released by the Justice Department this week.
The new details were unveiled as Trump lawyers fought to get a special master to review the documents taken during the search last month.
The listings include several documents and photographs with 'classification markings', as well as 'clothing/gift items' and unnamed books
The former president claimed last month that during the raid the FBI 'rummaged' through former first lady Melania Trump's closet at their Mar-a-Lago estate.
'The whole World was watching as the FBI rummaged through the house, including the former First Lady's closets (and clothing!), alone and unchecked,' Trump posted to his Truth Social account.
'They even demanded that the security cameras be turned off (we refused), but there was no way of knowing if what they took was legitimate, or was there a 'plant?' This was, after all, the FBI!' he added.
The new inventory list comes the same week the DOJ released an image of documents strewn across the floor of Mar-a-Lago, many including 'secret' and 'top secret' labels
- 1,673 magazines, newspapers or other printed media
- 47 empty folders marked as 'classified'
- 39 empty folders marked 'Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide'
- 14 articles of clothing or gifts
- 33 unnamed books
- 11,198 government documents or photographs without classification markings
At least 14 items found in the raid, according to the new inventory list, are clothing or gift items.
There were also 86 empty folders found with 'classified' banners and other labels like, 'Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide.'
By far the largest makeup of the materials seized were photographs and documents without classification markings, of which there were more than 11,000 found and taken from Trump’s estate.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) released an image Tuesday evening of documents marked as 'secret', 'top secret' and 'SCI', which were spread across the floor of Mar-a-Lago next to a box with a Time Magazine inside.
The department said the documents were among those seized during the FBI search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence earlier this month in relation to a case alleging he took materials from the White House when leaving office.
Trump on Wednesday morning accused the DOJ of trying to make it look like he threw the documents on the floor or was storing sensitive materials in this way at his Florida residence.
The FBI seized empty folders with classified markings, clothes, books and government photographs during their raid on Mar-a-Lago, a new inventory list unsealed by a judge on Friday has revealed
The new document release comes after a federal judge in Florida said she would unseal more inventory as Trump's lawyers sought additional information on the raid.
Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon is holding off on Trump's request to have a special master review materials seized in the FBI raid, and said Thursday that she would issue a written order on the matter.
She announced how she would proceed after pressing government lawyers on why she shouldn't grant Trump's request to have a third party review the documents – even as the DOJ said it would delay its investigation.
The in-person hearing came after a week of dueling paper filings, and came after Trump lawyer Jim Trusty compared government documents found at the president's club to an 'overdue library book.'
Coincidentally, several of the materials found that were unsealed on Friday, include magazines, printed news and unnamed books.
FBI took empty folders, photographs and clothes from Mar-a-Lago
The list shows that several empty folders found had classified markings on them and magazine and news articles were also picked up.
EXPOSED: FBI seized wardrobe items, magazines, books and 47 classified folders that were EMPTY during infamous Mar-a-Lago raid - as well as 11,000 documents and photos, newly unsealed documents reveal
- New unsealed listings show more materials that were seized from Mar-a-Lago
- Includes clothing, magazines and empty folders with classified markings
- The bureau took 47 empty folders that were marked as 'classified' and 39 empty folders marked 'Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide'
- At least 14 items found in the raid are clothing or gift items
Published: 10:36 EDT, 2 September 2022 | Updated: 11:53 EDT, 2 September 2022
The FBI seized empty folders with classified markings, clothes, books and government photographs during their raid on Mar-a-Lago, a new inventory list unsealed by a judge on Friday revealed.
Among the items listed in the documents released Friday are 47 empty folders that were found in Trump's office that are marked as 'classified' and more than 1,500 magazines, newspapers, press articles and other printed media from around his home.
The list shows that several folders found during the raid had classified markings on them – but there were no contents inside. Magazine and news articles were also picked up.
The Florida Southern District Court release also confirms top secret documents were among the stash of items, which were displayed in the photo of files sprawled on the floor released by the Justice Department this week.
The new details were unveiled as Trump lawyers fought to get a special master to review the documents taken during the search last month.
The listings include several documents and photographs with 'classification markings', as well as 'clothing/gift items' and unnamed books
The former president claimed last month that during the raid the FBI 'rummaged' through former first lady Melania Trump's closet at their Mar-a-Lago estate.
'The whole World was watching as the FBI rummaged through the house, including the former First Lady's closets (and clothing!), alone and unchecked,' Trump posted to his Truth Social account.
'They even demanded that the security cameras be turned off (we refused), but there was no way of knowing if what they took was legitimate, or was there a 'plant?' This was, after all, the FBI!' he added.
The new inventory list comes the same week the DOJ released an image of documents strewn across the floor of Mar-a-Lago, many including 'secret' and 'top secret' labels
THE LATEST ON WHAT THE FBI FOUND IN ITS MAR-A-LAGO RAID
- 1,673 magazines, newspapers or other printed media
- 47 empty folders marked as 'classified'
- 39 empty folders marked 'Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide'
- 14 articles of clothing or gifts
- 33 unnamed books
- 11,198 government documents or photographs without classification markings
At least 14 items found in the raid, according to the new inventory list, are clothing or gift items.
There were also 86 empty folders found with 'classified' banners and other labels like, 'Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide.'
By far the largest makeup of the materials seized were photographs and documents without classification markings, of which there were more than 11,000 found and taken from Trump’s estate.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) released an image Tuesday evening of documents marked as 'secret', 'top secret' and 'SCI', which were spread across the floor of Mar-a-Lago next to a box with a Time Magazine inside.
The department said the documents were among those seized during the FBI search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence earlier this month in relation to a case alleging he took materials from the White House when leaving office.
Trump on Wednesday morning accused the DOJ of trying to make it look like he threw the documents on the floor or was storing sensitive materials in this way at his Florida residence.
The FBI seized empty folders with classified markings, clothes, books and government photographs during their raid on Mar-a-Lago, a new inventory list unsealed by a judge on Friday has revealed
The new document release comes after a federal judge in Florida said she would unseal more inventory as Trump's lawyers sought additional information on the raid.
Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon is holding off on Trump's request to have a special master review materials seized in the FBI raid, and said Thursday that she would issue a written order on the matter.
She announced how she would proceed after pressing government lawyers on why she shouldn't grant Trump's request to have a third party review the documents – even as the DOJ said it would delay its investigation.
The in-person hearing came after a week of dueling paper filings, and came after Trump lawyer Jim Trusty compared government documents found at the president's club to an 'overdue library book.'
Coincidentally, several of the materials found that were unsealed on Friday, include magazines, printed news and unnamed books.
FBI took empty 'classified' folders, photographs, clothes and books from Mar-a-Lago
TheSearcher
Are you sure about that?
That sounds like they have NOTHING.Who had the Milianas panties comment first?
FBI took empty folders, photographs and clothes from Mar-a-Lago
The list shows that several empty folders found had classified markings on them and magazine and news articles were also picked up.
EXPOSED: FBI seized wardrobe items, magazines, books and 47 classified folders that were EMPTY during infamous Mar-a-Lago raid - as well as 11,000 documents and photos, newly unsealed documents reveal
By Katelyn Caralle, U.S. Political Reporter For Dailymail.com
- New unsealed listings show more materials that were seized from Mar-a-Lago
- Includes clothing, magazines and empty folders with classified markings
- The bureau took 47 empty folders that were marked as 'classified' and 39 empty folders marked 'Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide'
- At least 14 items found in the raid are clothing or gift items
Published: 10:36 EDT, 2 September 2022 | Updated: 11:53 EDT, 2 September 2022
The FBI seized empty folders with classified markings, clothes, books and government photographs during their raid on Mar-a-Lago, a new inventory list unsealed by a judge on Friday revealed.
Among the items listed in the documents released Friday are 47 empty folders that were found in Trump's office that are marked as 'classified' and more than 1,500 magazines, newspapers, press articles and other printed media from around his home.
The list shows that several folders found during the raid had classified markings on them – but there were no contents inside. Magazine and news articles were also picked up.
The Florida Southern District Court release also confirms top secret documents were among the stash of items, which were displayed in the photo of files sprawled on the floor released by the Justice Department this week.
The new details were unveiled as Trump lawyers fought to get a special master to review the documents taken during the search last month.
The listings include several documents and photographs with 'classification markings', as well as 'clothing/gift items' and unnamed books
The former president claimed last month that during the raid the FBI 'rummaged' through former first lady Melania Trump's closet at their Mar-a-Lago estate.
'The whole World was watching as the FBI rummaged through the house, including the former First Lady's closets (and clothing!), alone and unchecked,' Trump posted to his Truth Social account.
'They even demanded that the security cameras be turned off (we refused), but there was no way of knowing if what they took was legitimate, or was there a 'plant?' This was, after all, the FBI!' he added.
The new inventory list comes the same week the DOJ released an image of documents strewn across the floor of Mar-a-Lago, many including 'secret' and 'top secret' labels
THE LATEST ON WHAT THE FBI FOUND IN ITS MAR-A-LAGO RAID
- 1,673 magazines, newspapers or other printed media
- 47 empty folders marked as 'classified'
- 39 empty folders marked 'Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide'
- 14 articles of clothing or gifts
- 33 unnamed books
- 11,198 government documents or photographs without classification markings
At least 14 items found in the raid, according to the new inventory list, are clothing or gift items.
There were also 86 empty folders found with 'classified' banners and other labels like, 'Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide.'
By far the largest makeup of the materials seized were photographs and documents without classification markings, of which there were more than 11,000 found and taken from Trump’s estate.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) released an image Tuesday evening of documents marked as 'secret', 'top secret' and 'SCI', which were spread across the floor of Mar-a-Lago next to a box with a Time Magazine inside.
The department said the documents were among those seized during the FBI search of Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence earlier this month in relation to a case alleging he took materials from the White House when leaving office.
Trump on Wednesday morning accused the DOJ of trying to make it look like he threw the documents on the floor or was storing sensitive materials in this way at his Florida residence.
The FBI seized empty folders with classified markings, clothes, books and government photographs during their raid on Mar-a-Lago, a new inventory list unsealed by a judge on Friday has revealed
The new document release comes after a federal judge in Florida said she would unseal more inventory as Trump's lawyers sought additional information on the raid.
Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon is holding off on Trump's request to have a special master review materials seized in the FBI raid, and said Thursday that she would issue a written order on the matter.
She announced how she would proceed after pressing government lawyers on why she shouldn't grant Trump's request to have a third party review the documents – even as the DOJ said it would delay its investigation.
The in-person hearing came after a week of dueling paper filings, and came after Trump lawyer Jim Trusty compared government documents found at the president's club to an 'overdue library book.'
Coincidentally, several of the materials found that were unsealed on Friday, include magazines, printed news and unnamed books.
FBI took empty 'classified' folders, photographs, clothes and books from Mar-a-Lago
vector7
Dot Collector
Former first lerady Melania Trump reportedly bought a new wardrobe after the FBI “contaminated” her clothes when they searched her room as part of last month’s raid on Mar-a-Lago.
View: https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1566188012098158593?t=x7CRGDMfaT1yUoR0bcNNjA&s=19
View: https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1566188012098158593?t=x7CRGDMfaT1yUoR0bcNNjA&s=19
Dobbin
Faithful Steed
One imagines they hope to deny Trump any satisfaction for "having made a splash." Doubtless Trump had his "scrap book." And doubtless this went along with the classified items out of spite for Trump.
Like Winston Smith and the memory hole the FBI makes them "disappear."
Re-writing Trump history - beginning with Trump.
"He who controls the past, controls the future."
ONe imagines in 10 years google Trump and you'll get Hoyles Rules of Card Games.
Dobbin
Tristan
Has No Life - Lives on TB
They have no shame.