If anyone can decipher Flog's gibberish, please help?
God I hope this person doesn't write as a core requirement in his profession.
Er....let me take a stab at what I think he might thinks he's saying.
Link?
Link?
"We know that four days after the raid the
Washington Post, and no other news outlet, cited “anonymous sources” to claim that the documents contained vital “nuclear secrets”—secrets so vital that the documents were not recovered for 19 months, and so “secret” that their alleged unsecured status was announced in a major national newspaper."
"Why did the DOJ wait 18 months to retrieve the sensitive documents Trump kept? “I don't know, but
if the Trump people represented that they provided all the classified or national security information and didn't, that's a serious problem,” Rep. Schiff"
"
If these documents were so important, if it was all this classified information, and it was so important, why wait 18 months? Why would Merrick Garland...if these documents were so important, why wait so long? If they were looking for specific information, why was a search warrant so broad to allow for a fishing expedition? "
Meanwhile, a man who voted twice against Trump, a pretty well known law professor...
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz on Sunday defended former President Donald Trump after the FBI seized documents from the former commander-in-chief's Mar-a-Lago home. | Clips
www.breitbart.com
Or
It appears the DOJ is on a fishing expedition and the optics are more important than the facts.
redstate.com
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 WSJ published the claims from unidentified sources, writing,
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 if Garland deserves credit for being
merciful in light of the fact nobody has been able to articulate the specific allegations, or evidence, or
much of anything to this point.
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. The DOJ wants to keep the affidavit sealed, or heavily redact it if the judge decides to release it to the media because the DOJ claims it will compromise their investigation.
To put this in perspective, consider the totality of recent reports on the Mar-a-Lago FBI raid:
If there’s one theme here it’s that we can’t get a straight answer from the agencies.
What evidence did the DOJ have? 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. Why did they wait 18 months if this was imperative to national security? Schiff:
“I don’t know, but if…”
If the AG had weeks to deliberate how
real could any potential threat or emergency be? If Garland had a legal duty to carry out, why did he take weeks to sleep on it? If he had a solid probable cause, why are they trying to hide that from the public? Why is the WSJ suggesting he will have to deliberate into the future about prosecution of a crime?
Really? He didn’t think about that in the weeks he took to ponder a raid on a former president’s home?
www.foxnews.com
www.archives.gov
www.wsj.com
