Because they could've got the documents through other, less intrusive, less spectacular legal means. Trump was already working with the National Archives for the examination and possible turn over of disputed documents. There was zero purpose to the raid except to take his private correspondence and sift through it for wrong doing. They have put their own heads in a noose. They opened the door to raiding as high up as a former POTUS. A decision that will haunt them the rest of their days. They'll be held accountable through impeachment, committee hearings and senate oversight. And they will do it whether Trump is allowed to run or not. Mind, as soon as it comes to Biden being nailed, you can expect him to become too mentally frail to understand what's going on and be questioned.
You’re completely unqualified to say this. As am I. As is anyone here. The reason I say that is because none of us have access to the sworn, sealed affidavit submitted to the court to establish grounds to believe the existence of a federal offence, and to believe evidence would be found at that location. This is not a small thing to do; the last one I wrote to go into a residence a few weeks ago was around 65 pages long. This is not an “I suspect and therefore I want”; you have to convince a judge that your grounds to believe are subjectively and objectively reasonable and are well founded on a basis of solid information. You’re way out of your depth trying to speak to this, or trying to claim that they could not have grounds, or that there would be other less intrusive means. Even if there were, the law does not require that.
If the grounds exist to believe evidence will be located, a search warrant can be granted. We cannot know if perhaps there are grounds to believe that not all material was handed over, or perhaps that copies were illegally kept. If information was kept that was classified, particularly if any was TSSA, that’s not a small deal.
Let’s define some terms.
www.nationalreview.com
"I know nothing more about the details than anyone else, but I’ll lay out my own views on this as best I can. They are:
- that the warrant must immediately be made public
- that as the head of the executive branch, Joe Biden must explain to the country what happened today (yes, it’s Biden’s concern: progressive wishes to the contrary, the DOJ is not some free-floating fourth branch of government, it is under the president’s purview)
- that, for the raid to be justified, the warrant and the explanation must clearly reveal (a) that there was an urgent need to obtain evidence that pertained to a serious crime, (b) that this evidence could not possibly have been obtained by other means, or on another occasion, or without a surprise visit, and (c) that, if the target was not named Donald Trump, a similar operation would have been launched
- that if this standard is not met, Merrick Garland must resign or be impeached, as must the head of the FBI
- that the FBI must be examined and reformed as a matter of utmost priority There will be more George Conways and David Axelrods on TV and on Twitter today. Any hot takes from them that omit the crucial “then what?” part of the equation will be next to useless."
Not sure who the author of that opinion piece is, but clearly his grasp of the law is limited. None of that he pouts about is how a search warrant or an affidavit to get one work. If Trump chooses to disclose the search warrant he can, but otherwise the warrant and the affidavit to get it are court records subject to certain handling by law. If US law works at all similarly to ours (and for something this rudimentary it probably does), the affidavit is likely sealed at least while the investigation is ongoing and before the matter goes to a grand jury or court. To reveal the specific contents of the affidavit could basically blow an ongoing investigation by virtue of what’s contained within it.
The materials should all
eventually become public, but that doesn’t happen on the basis of someone’s tantrum. It happens in the due course of judicial proceedings.
Ultimately either there is evidence to support criminal offences or not. That will most definitely become clear in the fullness of time. Probably not that much longer, as executing a search warrant on a residence is an irrevocable transition of a criminal investigation from a covert to an overt phase, and there’s only so much more you can do once the offence being investigated and some of the investigative steps become extremely public. Investigative avenues become more more limited once a case is in the open. If charges are laid, the accused, whoever they may be, will I’m sure have plenty of lawyer to throw at this and ensure due process continues as it has thus far.
