Best Theory Yet on the Mar-A-Lago Raid

 

Andy McCarthy makes a good argument in the NY Post that the raid on Mar-A-Lago was an industrial-scale fishing expedition. For exactly what, I don’t know. I don’t think the DoJ knows either.

The left is terrified by the thought of PDT v2 (or PRDS, but they aren’t nearly as ready to act against him. DeSantis will have to wait, for now.) The Jan. 6 hearings are an embarrassing flop — they won’t stop Trump that way without something new.

The National Archives documents angle is an excuse. Jonathan Turley on Fox noted that custody of at least some of the documents had been resolved and the two sides were talking. That process had a long way to go before a raid was called for. Note that the Feds hauled out things indiscriminately, opened every safe, and carted all of it away to sort thru at their leisure. They weren’t looking for something specific.

No, what they want is something new to tie DJT to Jan. 6 in a way they can prosecute. It doesn’t have to be straightforward – at this point anything will do.

I know, it’s Andy McCarthy, Mr. Rear Guard for the DoJ himself. Still, read the article, it’s sound reasoning.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    McCarthy doesn’t emphasize like some lawyers that this is pretextual, which is illegal.

    • #1
  2. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Not a criminal lawyer, but from what I understand, it is the clear law that a search warrant must, first, be based on “probable cause” of an actual crime having been committed, evidence of which may reasonably be expected to be found in the area to be searched, and second, the warrant must describe “with particularity” both the areas to be searched and the items to be seized.

    Without PC, a warrant should not be issued and, if issued wrongfully, anything seized ought to be suppressed and returned to the owner. If items not listed are seized, they ought also to be suppressed and returned.

    But of course, when going after Trump by politically corrupt law enforcement, then it’s “Rules?  Schmules!”

    • #2
  3. Captain French Moderator
    Captain French
    @AlFrench

    Fritz (View Comment):

    Not a criminal lawyer, but from what I understand, it is the clear law that a search warrant must, first, be based on “probable cause” of an actual crime having been committed, evidence of which may reasonably be expected to be found in the area to be searched, and second, the warrant must describe “with paricularity” both the areas to be searched and the items to be seized.

    Without PC, a warrant should not be issued and, if issued wrongfully, anything seized ought to be suppressed and returned to the owner. If items not listed are seized, they ought also to be suppressed and returned.

    All that is correct.

    • #3
  4. Captain French Moderator
    Captain French
    @AlFrench

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    McCarthy doesn’t emphasize like some lawyers that this is pretextual, which is illegal.

    If a law enforcement officer has two reasons to take an action, he may take such action even if one of the reasons is not sufficient reason for the action. Thus, if a police officer sees  a car being driven without a license plate, and he suspects the driver is a drug dealer, he may stop the car for the license violation even if the real reason for doing so is the hope that he may gain some evidence of drug dealing. That is what is usually meant as pretextual.

    If the FBI had probable cause to believe that Trump’s residence contained evidence of a criminal violation of the presidential records act, they may, with a warrant, search the residence for evidence of that crime, even if they are hoping to find evidence of another crime. If, during that search, they discover evidence of another crime, they may seize it.

    • #4
  5. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    The principle question is whether there is a basis for the allegations in the affidavit supporting the search warrant.  I don’t think the FBI deserves the benefit of the doubt on that, but, if true, there really isn’t a problem.  McCarthy pretty much indicates that.

    • #5
  6. Ekosj Member
    Ekosj
    @Ekosj

    I’m reminded of the following …

    I started on Wall Street a few years after a firm called Drysdale Government Securities almost bankrupted Chase Manhattan Bank and nearly crashed the Government Securities market.  The whole tale is here for those so inclined.

    My first job, I worked with some former Drysdale employees.   They all told the same story about the day after TSHTF.   The Fed’s showed up and basically put the whole Drysdale operation behind crime-scene tape.   The head Fed announced  to the assembled employees: “I don’t know who, and I don’t know why, but people ARE going to jail.”

    • #6
  7. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    It has always been a fishing expedition.   From the NSA database search abuse to the FISA warrants to the Mueller whatever to the New York whatever to the J6 inquisition to the Mar-a-Lago search.   

    • #7
  8. Captain French Moderator
    Captain French
    @AlFrench

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    The principle question is whether there is a basis for the allegations in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. I don’t think the FBI deserves the benefit of the doubt on that, but, if true, there really isn’t a problem. McCarthy pretty much indicates that.

    There isn’t a legal problem. But there is still a political problem.

    • #8
  9. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Captain French (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    The principle question is whether there is a basis for the allegations in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. I don’t think the FBI deserves the benefit of the doubt on that, but, if true, there really isn’t a problem. McCarthy pretty much indicates that.

    There isn’t a legal problem. But there is still a political problem.

    Understood.

    • #9
  10. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    Captain French (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):

    Not a criminal lawyer, but from what I understand, it is the clear law that a search warrant must, first, be based on “probable cause” of an actual crime having been committed, evidence of which may reasonably be expected to be found in the area to be searched, and second, the warrant must describe “with paricularity” both the areas to be searched and the items to be seized.

    Without PC, a warrant should not be issued and, if issued wrongfully, anything seized ought to be suppressed and returned to the owner. If items not listed are seized, they ought also to be suppressed and returned.

    All that is correct.

    However, my concern is leaks. Say a judge says this is bogus and the evidence is to be suppressed and returned to Trump. I am totally sure the FBI will make copies of every page and leak the contents to their sycophants. The higher ups will say with serious looks and furrowed brows that they deplore these leaks and will investigate and punish the perpetrators but of course do no such thing. 

    • #10
  11. EODmom Coolidge
    EODmom
    @EODmom

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    It has always been a fishing expedition. From the NSA database search abuse to the FISA warrants to the Mueller whatever to the New York whatever to the J6 inquisition to the Mar-a-Lago search.

    One comment i heard was that if the 30-40 agents on site, 5-10 were there to place surveillance devices. 

    • #11
  12. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Captain French (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    The principle question is whether there is a basis for the allegations in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. I don’t think the FBI deserves the benefit of the doubt on that, but, if true, there really isn’t a problem. McCarthy pretty much indicates that.

    There isn’t a legal problem. But there is still a political problem.

    What political problem?

    • #12
  13. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    EODmom (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    It has always been a fishing expedition. From the NSA database search abuse to the FISA warrants to the Mueller whatever to the New York whatever to the J6 inquisition to the Mar-a-Lago search.

    One comment i heard was that if the 30-40 agents on site, 5-10 were there to place surveillance devices.

    Doubtful.

    • #13
  14. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    Remember the Clintons and the 900 raw FBI files?  We will never know what kind of leverage they gave them on whom; if only. We might know how we got to here.

    • #14
  15. The Cynthonian Member
    The Cynthonian
    @TheCynthonian

    I heard on Fox tonight that the agents even went through Melania’s wardrobe.  Definitely sounds like a fishing expedition.

    • #15
  16. Goddess of Discord Member
    Goddess of Discord
    @GoddessofDiscord

    All I know is that the Dems are doing everything they can to re-elect Trump. Idiots. 

    • #16
  17. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Fritz (View Comment):

    Not a criminal lawyer, but from what I understand, it is the clear law that a search warrant must, first, be based on “probable cause” of an actual crime having been committed, evidence of which may reasonably be expected to be found in the area to be searched, and second, the warrant must describe “with paricularity” both the areas to be searched and the items to be seized.

    Without PC, a warrant should not be issued and, if issued wrongfully, anything seized ought to be suppressed and returned to the owner. If items not listed are seized, they ought also to be suppressed and returned.

    But of course, when going after Trump by politically corrupt law enforcement, then it’s “Rules? Schmules!”

    The probable cause has to do with Trump’s very probable possesion of classified documents. This is ostensibly all above board, but the point McCarthy is making is that this is the camel’s nose under the tent. This is a fishing expedition.  A risky expedition at that, because if they don’t deliver some bombshell that makes it all worthwhile, it is a gross violation of norms that anyone can see – if Hillary wasn’t prosecuted for document destruction, why should Trump be prosecuted?!

    • #17
  18. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    The probable cause has to do with Trump’s very probable possesion of classified documents.

    Agreed. I just have a hard time thinking he’d hang on to incriminating classified documents. And the term “classified,” as we learned, can cover all sorts of anodyne things. And if they don’t find the documents, does that mean he destroyed them, and that’s the crime? 

    This is ostensibly all above board, but the point McCarthy is making is that this is the camel’s nose under the tent. This is a fishing expedition. A risky expedition at that, because if they don’t deliver some bombshell that makes it all worthwhile, it is a gross violation of norms that anyone can see – if Hillary wasn’t prosecuted for document destruction, why should Trump be prosecuted?!

    It would be risky if there were long memories in the majority of the electorate who noted norm-erosion. 

    • #18
  19. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    The probable cause has to do with Trump’s very probable possesion of classified documents.

    Agreed. I just have a hard time thinking he’d hang on to incriminating classified documents. And the term “classified,” as we learned, can cover all sorts of anodyne things. And if they don’t find the documents, does that mean he destroyed them, and that’s the crime?

    I doubt that Trump, in his incompetence and carelessness, did anything approaching what Hillary did in regards to deliberately destroying classified documents, which is why this event stands out so starkly. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Trump’s documents were just carelessly set around in boxes, given that he is a careless and feckless creature. If so, the strict letter of the law is satisfied in that it’s not legal to dispense of these documents willy-nilly, but it doesn’t appear at all that this is the equivalent of Hillary’s deliberate destroying of evidence. So why does she get a pass, and Trump does not? 

    This is ostensibly all above board, but the point McCarthy is making is that this is the camel’s nose under the tent. This is a fishing expedition. A risky expedition at that, because if they don’t deliver some bombshell that makes it all worthwhile, it is a gross violation of norms that anyone can see – if Hillary wasn’t prosecuted for document destruction, why should Trump be prosecuted?!

    It would be risky if there were long memories in the majority of the electorate who noted norm-erosion.

    I’m afraid you’re right.

    • #19
  20. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Captain French (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    The principle question is whether there is a basis for the allegations in the affidavit supporting the search warrant. I don’t think the FBI deserves the benefit of the doubt on that, but, if true, there really isn’t a problem. McCarthy pretty much indicates that.

    There isn’t a legal problem. But there is still a political problem.

    Understood.

    Something that’s pretty obvious, but I didn’t understand until yesterday is, the purpose of the DOJ and FBI manuals. They are supposed to operate in certain ways so the public doesn’t get angry about Stalinist tactics and stop trusting them. It’s not like some business efficiency thing, it’s literally to increase justice.

    I can’t remember the guy’s name, but it was one of the retired FBI executives they get on Fox. That’s where I got it.

    • #20
  21. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    McCarthy doesn’t emphasize like some lawyers that this is pretextual, which is illegal.

    I see this is getting a lot of likes, I obviously defer to the later analysis on this thread that is really good. 

    • #21
  22. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Goddess of Discord (View Comment):

    All I know is that the Dems are doing everything they can to re-elect Trump. Idiots.

    Or they know it does not matter.  

    • #22
  23. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    A hero to the Leftist (D)’s populating the Biden Administration  once proclaimed:

    “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime”.

    The MSM talking point buzz word de jour yesterday was “rule of law”.

    There is a limit to the citizenry’s tolerance for using the “rule of law” over and over for years in an attempt to bury one particular citizen.

    • #23
  24. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    The probable cause has to do with Trump’s very probable possesion of classified documents.

    Agreed. I just have a hard time thinking he’d hang on to incriminating classified documents. And the term “classified,” as we learned, can cover all sorts of anodyne things. And if they don’t find the documents, does that mean he destroyed them, and that’s the crime?

    This is ostensibly all above board, but the point McCarthy is making is that this is the camel’s nose under the tent. This is a fishing expedition. A risky expedition at that, because if they don’t deliver some bombshell that makes it all worthwhile, it is a gross violation of norms that anyone can see – if Hillary wasn’t prosecuted for document destruction, why should Trump be prosecuted?!

    It would be risky if there were long memories in the majority of the electorate who noted norm-erosion.

    It would be risky, if the party opposing the Dems had cajones.   It is a teeny-tiny risk. 

    • #24
  25. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Matt Margolis at PJM says Kash Patel said the documents were already declassified. I guess they didn’t meet the Goldberg standard (declassified declassified.)

    • #25
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Matt Margolis at PJM says Kash Patel said the documents were already declassified. I guess they didn’t meet the Goldberg standard (declassified declassified.)

    Yep. He went through them.

    • #26
  27. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Captain French (View Comment):

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    McCarthy doesn’t emphasize like some lawyers that this is pretextual, which is illegal.

    If a law enforcement officer has two reasons to take an action, he may take such action even if one of the reasons is not sufficient reason for the action. Thus, if a police officer sees a car being driven without a license plate, and he suspects the driver is a drug dealer, he may stop the car for the license violation even if the real reason for doing so is the hope that he may gain some evidence of drug dealing. That is what is usually meant as pretextual.

    If the FBI had probable cause to believe that Trump’s residence contained evidence of a criminal violation of the presidential records act, they may, with a warrant, search the residence for evidence of that crime, even if they are hoping to find evidence of another crime. If, during that search, they discover evidence of another crime, they may seize it.

    I have always thought one of the reason for keeping marijuana illegal for so long was that it helped put away some very dangerous criminals. (Of course there was another reason: the Assests’ Seizure program allowed police departments to keep huge inventories of RE property, cars and bank accounts. Sometimes on very flimsy grounds for doing so.)

    • #27
  28. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Matt Margolis at PJM says Kash Patel said the documents were already declassified. I guess they didn’t meet the Goldberg standard (declassified declassified.)

    Ironically, Trump has allowed Julian Assange to sit in prison, despite how Wikileaks was responsible for a huge change in the perception of who Hillary Clinton was.

    The released Wikileaks’  documents, which occurred Summer 2016, caused zero loss of life. Assange and his team had carefully vetted them and kept back any documents that might have impaired safety of military service people in Iraq.

    Even if there was some reason that Trump could not offer a Presidential pardon,  he had the ability to extend some type of public acknowledgement to Assange.

    • #28
  29. carcat74 Member
    carcat74
    @carcat74

    Haven’t read all the comments yet, so apologies if this has been mentioned. The first thing Trump needs to do after this violation is have the best damm electronic sweepers go over Mar-A-Lago from top to bottom, stem to stern, grounds, main building, storage sheds, pool, fountains—EVERYTHING! The second thing—look through every nook, book, cranny, shelf, cabinet, freezer, refrigerator, crawlspace for anything that doesn’t belong—papers, thumbdrives, CDs, DVDs, photos. Have the search team accompanied by a video crew and live stream it. His lawyers need to be there also. The left is so desperate, I would also recommend several teams of bomb-sniffing dogs be deployed.

    • #29
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    carcat74 (View Comment):

    Haven’t read all the comments yet, so apologies if this has been mentioned. The first thing Trump needs to do after this violation is have the best damm electronic sweepers go over Mar-A-Lago from top to bottom, stem to stern, grounds, main building, storage sheds, pool, fountains—EVERYTHING! The second thing—look through every nook, book, cranny, shelf, cabinet, freezer, refrigerator, crawlspace for anything that doesn’t belong—papers, thumbdrives, CDs, DVDs, photos. Have the search team accompanied by a video crew and live stream it. His lawyers need to be there also. The left is so desperate, I would also recommend several teams of bomb-sniffing dogs be deployed.

    Agree with this 100%.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.