Late Monday, the Wall Street Journal revealed that US Attorney General Merrick Garland deliberated for weeks before signing the application for a search warrant of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. The claims came from an unidentified source, which was published in writing by the WSJ
Attorney General Merrick Garland deliberated for weeks over whether to approve the application for a warrant to search former President Donald Trump’s Florida home, people familiar with the matter said, a sign of his cautious approach that will be tested over the coming months.
People said that the FBI officials and senior Justice Department officials met several times over weeks to reach this decision. The warrant allowed agents last Monday to seize classified information and other presidential material from Mar-a-Lago.
The WSJ article goes on to say that Garland’s next deliberative test is to consider if the DOJ should bring charges against Trump. Which is one way to set up a pretext — As ifGarland is a creditable person MercifulWe are not able to identify the evidence or allegations. Much of everythingTo this end.
In fact, Garland’s DOJ has opposed releasing the affidavit where the DOJ lays out their case for probable cause for the judge to issue the search warrant. Because it could compromise their investigation, the DOJ would prefer to keep the affidavit closed or to heavily edit it.
This is a good example of how this can be viewed in context.
DOJ Refuses to Open the Trump Raid Affidavit
Trump Was Accused Of Lying about FBI-Seized Travel Passports. He then Dropped the Receipts
Adam Schiff Was Flustered When He was Asked Why 18 Months They Waited for a FBI Raid if It Was So Necessary
If there’s one theme here it’s that we can’t get a straight answer from the agencies. How much evidence did the DOJ possess? Oh, we can’t know that because it will impair their investigation. Why did they take Trump’s passports? Well, they don’t have his passports because they are returning the passports and played semantics instead of outright saying that to make Trump’s claim look dishonest. They waited 18 months to do this if it was necessary for national security. Schiff: “I don’t know, but if…”
The AG could have weeks of deliberation. RealWhat could a potential emergency or threat be? Why did Garland take so long to think about it? Why are they hiding a strong probable cause from the public? The WSJ suggests that he may have to think about the prosecution of a crime in the future. Really? He didn’t think about that in the weeks he took to ponder a raid on a former president’s home?
There is no doubt that the DOJ has been on an optics-driven fishing expedition. The facts are less important than their opinions. Brooding for weeks about matters of national security sounds a lot like waiting for the administration to say “lights, camera, action!”
About Post Author
