Well lookie here.......it appears there is a lack of evidence and that the government has NO CASE AGAINST DONALD J. TRUMP.
And the FBI agent who ordered the search has been escorted off of FBI property and fired. He was also the agent that suppressed the story about Hunter Biden's laptop:
Unsealed Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit reveals the government has no case against Trump
Everyone in America, from plumber to president, is constitutionally protected from a government search that lacks adequate cause.
thehill.com
"We now know why the DOJ wanted the affidavit ā which is supposed to articulate the probable cause needed for a legitimate search ā to be kept under seal. After the magistrate who authorized the search forced the DOJ to unseal a redacted version, two realities came into better focus.
First, the affidavit confirmed that the FBIās investigation was triggered in January 2022 at the request of the National Archives, which wanted certain documents, especially classified documents, that it considered to be presidential records to be turned over to it by Trump. Second, from what I have seen, I donāt believe the affidavit articulates how a federal law was or is being broken. For those who hold out hope that the affidavitās redacted sections fill that gap, there is almost no chance that they do. (More on that below.)
As to the first point, this matter is, as suspected, nothing more than a document dispute that was chugging along, appropriately, as a negotiation behind the scenes and apparently making some progress. I donāt see anything in the affidavit asserting a refusal by Trump to cooperate.
Any clinging hope ā in certain quarters ā that the affidavit possessed āpulverizingā cause to believe Trump was engaged in a truly serious federal violation can ā I think ā be considered dashed. The pipe dream that Trump was engaged in espionage, actively providing secrets to an enemy I think is as fanciful as the Steele dossierās Moscow hotel bed reverie. And, no, I donāt believe a smoking gun of espionage or something equally shocking will be in the redacted sections. If the FBI had that, it would have fronted that in the unredacted portions.
As to the second and more important point, the affidavitās probable cause statements focus on only half of what is needed to show a possible violation of the federal statutes that are cited in the warrant. The affidavit does a reasonable job of establishing cause to believe Trump possessed a range of classified materials ā or at least once-classified materials ā and that those materials were located in his residence.
But thatās not all thatās needed ā in this case in particular. A criminal violation of those statutes only exists if it can be established that the person being investigated was not authorized to possess, store, transfer or copy those documents. This is an easy element to establish against anyone in America. Except one person.
The unredacted parts of the affidavit make no attempt to articulate cause that Trump was not authorized to have these documents in his home. The reason is that, as president, he had broad, legally intimidating authority, established by law and court determinations, to declassify any and all documents and to determine what is and is not a presidential record. Trump and his legal team have asserted that this authority was exercised while he was still president. Therefore, a violation of these fairly low-level and seldom-prosecuted document-oriented statutes cannot be proven.
I donāt think thereās much chance that the affidavitās redacted portions contain some novel legal theory undercutting this broad, well-established presidential authority. Affidavits for intrusive searches of a private home ā the most extreme action the government can take against a resident of the United States, short of arrest ā are not the place for advancing theories. Probable cause must be built on facts."
