DOJ Submits Redacted Trump Raid Affidavit to Judge Reinhart

[MAGA Macho Man]

I imagine it'll look something like this.

DOJ Submits Redacted Trump Raid Affidavit to Judge

The Justice Department met its Thursday deadline to file under seal a submission “addressing possible redactions and providing any additional evidence or legal argument that the Government believes relevant to the pending Motions to Unseal.” Judge Bruce Reinhart on Monday formally rejected the...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Doc7505]

According to investigative reporter Paul Sperry, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago in an effort to seize documents that likely implicated the FBI in its Spy-Gate operation which explains why the government is fiercely working to keep the affidavit sealed.
So, our American STASI didn't want to act on Hunter Biden's laptop because they didn't want to affect an election. But they're okay with an unprecedented raid on President Trump's home just before an election.

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

According to investigative reporter Paul Sperry, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago in an effort to seize documents that likely implicated the FBI in its Spy-Gate operation which explains why the government is fiercely working to keep the affidavit sealed.
So, our American STASI didn't want to act on Hunter Biden's laptop because they didn't want to affect an election. But they're okay with an unprecedented raid on President Trump's home just before an election.

Exactly. The hypocrisy is astounding!

 

[easyt65]

BY the looks of what was redacted and what was left - only 'conjunctions', the DOJ & FBI appear to have used an old govt educational video as their Redaction Guide:





In response to criticism by the media, US AG Garland replied, "'And', 'But', and 'Or' - they will get you pretty far."





.

 

[Donald H]

This is how I predicted that it would be presented as redacted but still allowing a few crumbs for the sake of the FBI/DOJ appearing to be fair.

And who wants to bet against the small amount released to the public will play for the FBI's purpose?

This should have been seen as a misfire by Trump's legal team right from the beginning.

 

[berg80]

Last week, Bruce E. Reinhart, a federal magistrate judge in Florida, surprised prosecutors by saying he was inclined to release portions of the affidavit at the request of news organizations, including The New York Times, after the government proposed redactions.

Disclosing even a partial version of the affidavit would be highly unusual: Such documents, which typically include evidence gathered to justify the search, like information provided by witnesses, are almost never unsealed before the government files criminal charges. There is no indication the Justice Department plans to file charges anytime soon.

Judge Reinhart reiterated this week that he might agree to extensive redactions, acknowledging that they could be severe enough to render release of the final document meaningless.

“I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the government,” he wrote in an order issued on Monday.

Justice Dept. Submits Redacted Affidavit Used in Trump Search Warrant

In its most complete form, the document would disclose important details about the government’s justification for taking the extraordinary step of searching Mar-a-Lago this month.

www.nytimes.com

"According to investigative reporter Paul Sperry, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago in an effort to seize documents that likely implicated the FBI in its Spy-Gate operation which explains why the government is fiercely working to keep the affidavit sealed."

If there was a shred of credibility to Spy-Gate Durham would be all over it.

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

If there was a shred of credibility to Spy-Gate Durham would be all over it.

How do you know he already isn't?

 

[berg80]

How do you know he already isn't?

He's been trying, and failing, to dig up dirt for what.....about 3 years? What's he waiting for? He was appointed on 5/14/2019.

 

[Doc7505]

Ruby Ridge, 30 years ago, ​

helps explain the FBI’s ‘Gestapo’ image​

Ruby Ridge, 30 years ago, helps explain the FBI’s ‘Gestapo’ image

The FBI has always used its “good guys” image to shroud its crimes.

nypost.com

23 Aug 2022 ~~ By James Bovard

In the wake of the massive raid at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, politicians and pundits are hectoring Americans to blindly trust the FBI.
“The men and women of the FBI,” Attorney General Merrick Garland proclaimed, “are dedicated, patriotic public servants.” But the FBI would be more credible if it didn’t claim a right to secretly wield almost unlimited power.
Most Americans (53%) view the FBI as “Joe Biden‘s personal Gestapo,” a recent Rasmussen poll found. FBI actions 30 years ago at Ruby Ridge help explain the G-men’s fall from grace.
~Snip~
The FBI has always used its “good guys” image to shroud its crimes. Team Biden might claim that only pro-Trump fanatics would ever equate the FBI and the Gestapo. But back in 1945, President Harry Truman lamented, “We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction.”

Commentary:
The FBI/STASI has proven itself capable of killing anyone who doesn't cooperate with it. It has proven itself capable of lying to get a warrant. It has proven itself capable of setting up criminal activity just to imprison political opponents. Why should we believe they didn't do any of that to Trump?
Is that how things work in a free country?
When the top people running the Security Force politicize the department you get what the FBI has become. A Private Security Force for the DNC. It's been done in every Banana Republic which sadly the US has become under the Biden Administration.
The FBI/STASI have metastasized into a national police force that involves itself in every local incident of any significance. They are ubiquitous, growing and politically manipulated. This is a real problem. Now the IRS will hire 87,000 more people to conduct audits. More police again. This is how police states start.

 

[Chillicothe]

BY the looks of what was redacted and what was left....."

'By the looks of what was redacted" ?????
Well, just exactly what does it look like, poster Easyt65?

I have not seen it published in any of the online newsites I scan.
So then, Easyt65, explain to us all just exactly what you looked at.
And from which source you were able to examine it.

Can you copy it and then post to this website?

Thanx in advance.

 

[BluesLegend]

Well, just exactly what does it look like, poster Easyt65?

Dem treachery and corruption.

 

[Chillicothe]

Dem treachery and corruption.

So, is the good poster BluesLegend speaking of personal experience in viewing the document?

Or, is it merely low-cost gratuitous snark from an irresponsible narrow partisan perspective.

If you've seen the redacted document, poster Blues, then show us. Tell us where you saw it. Link us to it.

But, silly speculation about what you want it to be is.....well, it is silly speculation that signals more about your avatar than it does about Democrats.

So which is it?
You saw it and know what's in it?
Or you are just doing juvenile snark?

 

[BackAgain]

This is easy. As soon as the DOJ says that they want to keep the affidavit under seal, and that only redacting the parts that reveal confidential sources is not sufficient … that’s when we know that dirty hands are behind all of this.

Very dirty hands. I will say this: go ahead and propose the redactions you believe are required to avoid the insignificant “risk” of disclosing confidential sources. This ain’t a mafia or international spy thing. So that risk is absurd. Still. Do it. Then we want to see all of the rest of it.

And I call on the court to presume a coverup. So scrutinize the redactions, too.

 

[task0778]

“The Government argues that even requiring it to redact portions of the Affidavit that could not reveal agent identities or investigative sources and methods imposes an undue burden on its resources and sets a precedent that could be disruptive and burdensome in future cases,” Reinhart wrote. “I do not need to reach the question of whether, in some other case, these concerns could justify denying public access; they very well might.”

What this tells me is that we are not going to find out who the witnesses and sources of information were that the raid affidavit was based on. IOW, they are trying to shift the spotlight away from the real issue, which is whether or not the DOJ/FBI did have reasonable cause to conduct this raid. Was there any hard evidence provided, and is it trustworthy? Was this raid legit or was it a witch-hunt where the DOJ/FBI went after somebody for evidence of a crime without sufficient grounds to do so?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The FBI tells lies on affidavits and alters documents to back up the lies.

Not expecting any more truthfulness in the redacted version.

 

[easyt65]

'By the looks of what was redacted" ?????
Well, just exactly what does it look like, poster Easyt65?

I have not seen it published in any of the online newsites I scan.
So then, Easyt65, explain to us all just exactly what you looked at.
And from which source you were able to examine it.

Can you copy it and then post to this website?

Thanx in advance.

Does your pea-suze partisan brain tellyouthe proven criminal and treasonous FBI will allow ANYTHING potentially damaging / threatening to them be released?

Trump ordered theFBI to declassify and release ALL Crossfire Hurricane data almost 20 months ago, and the FBI 'redacted' 100% of it...
ALL of it. They have criminally refused to comply, illegally refused to release it, and have illegallly refused to comply with Federal FOIA laws.

So, again, vases on those crimes to prevent transparency, do you REALLY think the FBI is going to release any info damaging to them or that would tip off their future crominal plans to continue more 'Get Trump' ops?

 

[easyt65]

'By the looks of what was redacted" ?????
Well, just exactly what does it look like, poster Easyt65?

I have not seen it published in any of the online newsites I scan.
So then, Easyt65, explain to us all just exactly what you looked at.
And from which source you were able to examine it.

Can you copy it and then post to this website?

Thanx in advance.

Does your pea-suze partisan brain tellyouthe proven criminal and treasonous FBI will allow ANYTHING potentially damaging / threatening to them be released?

Trump ordered theFBI to declassify and release ALL Crossfire Hurricane data almost 20 months ago, and the FBI 'redacted' 100% of it...
ALL of it. They have criminally refused to comply, illegally refused to release it, and have illegallly refused to comply with Federal FOIA laws.

So, again, vases on those crimes to prevent transparency, do you REALLY think the FBI is going to release any info damaging to them or that would tip off their future crominal plans to continue more 'Get Trump' ops?

 

[easyt65]

By released documents, testimony, and evidence we already undeniably know ABOUT BIDEN

The President (then VP), DOJ, & FBI illegally and treasonously participated in a failed coup against the former President.

The current President, DOJ, & FBI collaborated against US citizens - the same citizens they illegally spied on -to label them.'Domestic terrorists'

The current President told the Bational Archives he would be willing to strip Trump - the former Presidrnt and current political opponent - of Executive Pivilege (which he doesn't even have the legal authority to do) to make it possibe for the National Archive, DOJ, & FBI to potentially have an investigation and pursue charges against Trump.

The current President made the unprecedented, historic, unwarranted, heavily armed raid against a US President AND HIS CURRENT POLITICAL OPPOSITION possible.

Biden and the WH DID know eforehand about the raid...
...but B iden. Claimed he had no knowledge of it beforehand.

 

[citygator]

You fuckers are so stupid that you deserve to get 17 years in prison for eye gouging and be conned out of your political donations by a moron… oh, we are already there. Nice job boys!

 

[Chillicothe]

"Does your pea-suze partisan brain tell you the ....... treasonous FBI will allow ANYTHING potentially damaging / threatening to them be released?

Blame it on that reputed 'pea suze' (?) brain but I was really quite sure that when the poster 'easyt65' had stated that "by the looks" of the redactions -- he was signaling that he knew what they actually looked like. After all, words have meaning. And his seemed to mean that he knew what they looked like.

But then......is poster 'easyt65' now telling us he doesn't mean what he says?