Raid on Mar-A-Lago, Part V

By Rich Kozlovich

"Let’s start with the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

Although volumes have been written interpreting this short passage, the original language is reasonably clear and useful for reviewing what we know about the FBI’s intrusion into Trump’s private home."

 

Admittedly, I'm not an attorney and can't really define what's a legal or illegal search except for what we've all come to understand and believe, and that was search warrants could only be signed by a judge, or in this case a magistrate, where the search outlined why, what and where.  Search warrants weren't supposed to be issued as fishing expeditions, they certainly didn't allow for indiscriminate seizure of documents or items not listed on the warrant.  And that didn't include panty raids.

 

At least that's what I thought, but maybe I'm wrong, so let's explore this from a series of articles from people better qualified than I. And while this may be legal, which I doubt, as the saying goes:  Something stinks in Denmark.

 

First question: If this was such a huge issue regarding national security, why did the DOJ, FBI wait so many days to conduct their raid after it was approved?

Why the authorities waited several days to execute service of the warrant if the matter rose to such a serious national security issue is unclear. If what federal agents intended to obtain from the raid was such a risk to national security, the fact they decided to linger and wait for several days before executing is likely to become a major point of contention as this debate plays out in front of the public.

 

Second question, How did the Justice Department justify a search of the whole house? And why?

 

 The Constitution requires the warrant “particularly” describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. It describes the areas to be searched “include the ‘45 Office,’ all storage rooms, and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by FPOTUS (the former president of the United States) and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored.”

In other words, everything. Every drawer, every bookshelf, between mattresses, inside underwear drawers, and so on. Was the objective to retrieve official records or to intimidate and humiliate the former president by desecrating every private corner of his personal home? 

Third question: Did the FBI really exhaust all of the less-intrusive alternatives?

Trump willingly cooperated with investigators to ensure mutual agreement on a process for securing the records during negotiations over the materials that should be returned to the National Archives.......Nothing in the search warrant or property receipt indicates that the FBI found the records in any location other than the dedicated basement room to which the FBI had already been given access. Did the warrant affidavit claim the records were in imminent danger of being destroyed or shared with foreign adversaries? We don’t know because the FBI is predictably keeping its justifications secret.

Fourth question:  What did the FBI take and where did it find it?

Although the FBI had exclusive access to Mar-a-Lago from 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., it apparently scooped up documents indiscriminately without bothering to ascertain whether the records were the target of the search. The receipt of property contains 39 separate entries. With 30 agents working for over 9 hours, there should have been more than enough time and manpower to describe in particular detail what it needed to seize, and to leave behind materials not relevant to the search. What we hoped to see is a detailed description of documents gathered demonstrating that the FBI had reasonably calculated those to be the records sought.

This is disturbing since they can claim they found evidence of wrongdoing that really wasn't there, since it appears whatever was taken wasn't documented before they left the house.  In short, there could be planted evidence after the fact.

Fifth question: Why would the Justice Department seek  all records from the Trump presidency in Mar-a-Lago Raid?

 The warrant confirms recent reports that federal authorities were searching Trump’s residence for boxes of White House documents Trump may have brought with him from the White House. The warrant also authorized the FBI agents to seize “information, including communications in any form, regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material.” However, it also appears the search warrant contained a catch-all provision that allowed federal authorities to seize any documents found from the Trump White House. The search warrant authorized FBI agents to seize “any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021.”

 “The demeanor of the three Justice Department lawyers who accompanied the FBI was described by one eyewitness as ‘arrogant,’ and they repeatedly told Trump representatives: ‘We have full access to everything. We can go everywhere.’”

That's a question and an attitude that I think will come back to haunt them.  

Sixth Question:  What is their argument for "ransacking" the home of a former President of the United States?

The fallout from the Department of Justice’s raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home continues as the search warrant was unsealed. ..... The document was an avalanche of nonsense about obstruction of justice, a retread allegation from former attempts to indict Trump, and violations of the Espionage Act... FBI agents were reportedly rummaging for related to classified nuclear secrets. The Justice Department’s crusade against this former president has overreach layered upon overreach, and this raid topped it off. 

The National Archives received 15 or so boxes in January containing items like cocktail napkins and dinner menus, which might have been the impetus for this more extensive operation on Monday. Yes, a cocktail napkin might have played a part in this fiasco. .........Mike Davis, a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, took an ax to the crux of the legal arguments justifying the raid. And this isn’t some new interpretation; the Supreme Court affirmed it in 1987.

Seventh Question:  And while this isn't about the raid, it's a pattern of concern related to the raid.   Why did they Rep. Scott Perry: FBI seize Rep. Scott Perry's phone? 

Perry described the seizing of his phone by the FBI as “an incredible violation” of his constitutional rights and privacy. “I have an official phone and I have my personal phone,” he stated. “Just to be clear, they seized my personal phone, which unfortunately, and so oftentimes unwittingly, you kind of go back and forth. I talk to my wife and my family almost exclusively on my personal phone. There are texts, emails, photographs of my children playing and growing up, pictures of our pets, and the dog, and all those kind of things on there, but there are also conversations, emails, etcetera, with other legislators and other constituents, and I think that’s a point that needs to be made.”

Eighth Question:  Why did they sieze Trump's passports?

The law enforcement agency will have to return the travel documents to Trump, one of the lawyers said. Their comments come after the former Republican president took to social media Aug. 15 to complain that the FBI “stole” his passports during the recent raid. “Wow! In the raid by the FBI of Mar-a-Lago, they stole my three Passports (one expired), along with everything else,” Trump wrote on his @realDonaldTrump page at Truth Social in a post that was time-stamped 1:22 p.m. “This is an assault on a political opponent at a level never seen before in our Country. Third World!” he added.

The Justice Department then claimed that didn't happen, but again, that backfired on the DOJ, and those passports they didn't steal, they're now returned them.  How can you trust anything they say and do, or the spin the media puts on their actions?  It is incompetence, corruption or a combination of both?

 Ninth Question:  How could the DOJ and the FBI become so diminished in the public's confidence?    

Let’s put Garland’s decision to approve the raid on Mar-a-Lago in the context of the past seven years. The Justice Department and FBI in 2016 interfered in a presidential election in two major ways: They exonerated Hillary Clinton’s clearly illegal use of a private server and her destruction of subpoenaed data. The FBI hired Clinton operative Christopher Steele as an informant and gave its “Crossfire Hurricane” imprimatur to the entire Russian collusion hoax, feeding a 2016 left-wing mantra that Trump was a Russian “asset.”

In this piece Victor Davis Hanson outlines the history of the lies, misdirection, election interference, and double standards of the DOJ and the FBI, and the nation noticed it was happening.  How did the Justice Department's credibility drop in eyes of the nation:  They "did it the old fashioned way, they earned it."

Tenth Question:  If the warrant has been released, why is the "Department of Justice opposing the release of the underlying affidavit justifying its unprecedented raid of Mar-a-Lago, just days after it agreed to unseal the warrant approving the FBI search of former President Donald Trump's Florida resort." 

The DOJ claims:

 “Disclosure at this juncture of the affidavit supporting probable cause would, by contrast, cause significant and irreparable damage to this ongoing criminal investigation,” the DOJ argued, saying the affidavit contains “highly sensitive” information about witnesses, specific investigative techniques, and information “required by law” to be kept under seal.

 Reality is:

“Number one, it was all declassified. Number two, they didn’t need to ‘seize’ anything,” Trump said on Truth Social, his social media website, last week when condemning the search. “They could have had it anytime they wanted without playing politics and breaking into Mar-a-Lago. It was in secured storage, with an additional lock put on as per their request.”  The property to be seized included documents constituting “evidence” of violations of the listed criminal statutes, including “any physical documents with classification markings” along with any boxes containing that information and any other containers stored with those records. The FBI also looked for “any government and/or Presidential Records” from Trump's presidency.

More will come on this since "a host of congressional Republicans have condemned the raid and called on Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and the National Archives to provide answers. Senior members of the Republican Party have also said they believe a double standard was on display with the DOJ’s handling of its investigation into Hunter Biden when compared to the Trump raid. "  

•  DOJ Begs a Judge to Keep the Details of the Mar-a-Lago Raid Secret
• Republicans Call for Release of Affidavit That Justified FBI Mar-a-Lago Raid
• House Judiciary Republicans Hit DOJ, FBI with Preservation Notices After Trump Raid, Demand ‘Complete Cooperation’

While Matt Vesta claims the "Latest Update on FBI's Trump Raid Is Beyond Laughable", we have it on the best of authority for integrity in government, Peter Strzok, who while being interviewed by Joe Scarborough, a paragon of journalistic integrity, who says “the American public should trust what the FBI is doing” in seizing documents from Trump’s home, in spite of the evidence of corruption such as:

  

The Russian collusion hoax, the fake kidnapping plot against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the fabrication of evidence to secure spy warrants on Trump campaign officials, and the actual spy operation, Crossfire Hurricane, on the Trump campaign itself has degraded the DOJ's credibility with conservatives for years. .........The Russian collusion hoax was a slaughter, a total mess for the DOJ and the integrity of the FBI. Stripping a former president's home might ruin them for good, especially with their blocking of the affidavit. I'm guessing the evidence itemized in that document does not justify the show of force last week.

 

As the kid in the Little Rascals said:  Remarkable!!!