FBI Affiant for MAL Warrant Caught in One Lie Already

[excalibur]

So, as should have been expected, Trump has a SCIF at MAL. Yet the affiant says otherwise.

Oops!

 

[excalibur]

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Makes no difference.
Americans were fed corruption and swallowed it all.

Game over.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That Obama donor affiant will say, "I didn't know, who knew? Garsh!"

 

[johngaltshrugged]

So you're saying the FBI lied to everyone & used misinformation to attack DT, an enemy of the UNiparty?
Seems I've heard this story before.

Anybody who buys into the BS coming from DC & their Pravda lackeys has donkey brains

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Gestapo Chief Garland's illegal raid on Mar a lago is banana republic thuggery.
They violated Trump's 4th amendment rights.

 

[MisterBeale]

The important thing is, they got a peak at things he is in discussion with his political allies and his attorneys. . . .

 

[Curried Goats]

Gestapo Chief Garland's illegal raid on Mar a lago is banana republic thuggery.
They violated Trump's 4th amendment rights.

Sure they did. When are you clowns going to get tired of being grifted?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Gestapo Chief Garland's illegal raid on Mar a lago is banana republic thuggery.
They violated Trump's 4th amendment rights.

 

[Thunk]

 

[excalibur]

More.

DEVELOPING: The unsealed FBI affidavit contains several oddities:
1. No where does it flat-out say “classified information” was found in Trump’s 15 boxes. On page 2, it refers only to docs “with classification markings,” which raises the specter they were no longer classified

2. It states the docs “appear” to contain National Defense Information. But agents “triaged” the boxes; they would know if they contain NDI or not

3. The affiant claimed “there is probable cause to believe evidence of obstruction will be found at the premises,” yet there’s no “obstruction” header or section spelling out why he believes this

4. He said he doesn’t believe “any spaces” w/in Mar-a-Lago are “currently” authorized for storage of classified info. So they were, but not “currently”?

This analysis appears to be accurate according to a former federal magistrate (name withheld by request) who reviewed both the redacted affidavit and Sperry’s claims.

It’s odd that the FBI would include such an easily debunked claim about appropriately secure storage areas on the premises on their affidavit. It should not have been necessary for their case if we are to believe they are trying to indict Trump for taking classified documents. By including it, they run the risk of tainting the predicate for the search warrant which could make evidence they collected during the raid inadmissible.​

"Critical Factual Error" by FBI Raid Affiant Could Blow Up the DOJ's Case Against Trump - 🔔 The Liberty Daily

If you love the news, check out The Liberty Daily's homepage. The sworn affidavit presented to secure the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago used by the FBI to raid Donald Trump’s home had what appears to be a crucial error in it, one that could be easily debunked. If the facts detailed by...

thelibertydaily.com

 

[Marener]

More.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

This analysis appears to be accurate according to a former federal magistrate (name withheld by request) who reviewed both the redacted affidavit and Sperry’s claims.​

​

It’s odd that the FBI would include such an easily debunked claim about appropriately secure storage areas on the premises on their affidavit. It should not have been necessary for their case if we are to believe they are trying to indict Trump for taking classified documents. By including it, they run the risk of tainting the predicate for the search warrant which could make evidence they collected during the raid inadmissible.​

"Critical Factual Error" by FBI Raid Affiant Could Blow Up the DOJ's Case Against Trump - 🔔 The Liberty Daily

If you love the news, check out The Liberty Daily's homepage. The sworn affidavit presented to secure the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago used by the FBI to raid Donald Trump’s home had what appears to be a crucial error in it, one that could be easily debunked. If the facts detailed by...

thelibertydaily.com

The fact that there was a SCIF at Mar a Lago does not mean that there still is a SCIF there. Trump isn’t president. Lots of things go away when you leave office.

For that matter, even if it was a SCIF, surely you’re not saying the closet he was keeping them in was the SCIF, right?

 

[excalibur]

 

[Lesh]

The fact that there was a SCIF at Mar a Lago does not mean that there still is a SCIF there. Trump isn’t president. Lots of things go away when you leave office.

For that matter, even if it was a SCIF, surely you’re not saying the closet he was keeping them in was the SCIF, right?

A. Scifs are dismantled when a President leaves office (as there is no longer a need for them.
B. Why were top secret docs in closets and store rooms if there was a SCIF?
C. The affidavit says “I do not believe…”
Not “there is no…”
D. SS upgrades not not mean that a SCIF was installed or upgraded. And $600,000 ain’t gonna build one

 

[struth]

Xiden lied..not surprised

 

[Marener]

Xiden lied..not surprised

This reeks of desperation.

 

[struth]

This reeks of desperation.

agreed lying to the court is desperate

 

[Marener]

agreed lying to the court is desperate

The FBI knows a lot more than you halfwits.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, as should have been expected, Trump has a SCIF at MAL. Yet the affiant says otherwise.

Oops!

Wow! Close the FBI!! How did they not know that? Defund the FBI

 

[struth]

The FBI knows a lot more than you halfwits.

and now we know they lied…once again