If U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland hasn’t already been sweating over the highly questionable raid of Mar-a-Lago, he should definitely be sweating in light of the brutal opinion piece released in the Wall Street Journal.
This opinion piece, written by former White House and Department of Justice lawyers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, delineates all the ways in which the raid on Mar-a-Lago most assuredly did not follow appropriate legal procedures.
Then again, the present administration has been caught openly colluding with international interests hostile to the United States, so what else is to be expected in its latest move against a highly popular former president?
“The warrant authorized the FBI to seize “all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§793, 2071, or 1519” (emphasis added),” the authors write.
Translation: Trump did not have any documents illegally obtained in his position, which already renders the raid pointless.
“These three criminal statutes all address the possession and handling of materials that contain national-security information, public records or material relevant to an investigation or other matters properly before a federal agency or the courts,” the authors continue, providing clear context for the spin the mainstream media is fixated upon.
After, the media is blithering on about “national security” risks, despite having no evident concern regarding the massive national security risk at the U.S.-Mexico border, all while conveniently forgetting the reality of laws governing these documents.
The reality highlighted by the Wall Street Journal.
“Those statutes are general in their text and application. But Mr. Trump’s documents are covered by a specific statute, the Presidential Records Act of 1978. It has long been the Supreme Court position, as stated in Morton v. Mancari (1974), that ‘where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment,’” the authors continued.
In other words, once again, the media has made a firestorm out of nothing.
There’s not even smoke to support its firestorm, so the media creates its own smoke to boot.
“The former president’s rights under the PRA trump any application of the laws the FBI warrant cites,” the Wall Street Journal authors continue, adding that “the PRA lays out detailed requirements for how the archivist is to administer the records, handle privilege claims, make the records public, and impose restrictions on access.”
However, as the opinion piece notes, Trump’s actions fall well within the realm of legal behavior.
Whereas the FBI’s … do not.
“Notably, it doesn’t address the process by which a former president’s records are physically to be turned over to the archivist, or set any deadline, leaving this matter to be negotiated between the archivist and the former president,” the opinion piece added.
Notably, the mainstream media has left out a fact rather inconvenient to their narrative.
One of the many reasons why Trump’s legal team has recently filed a motion to deal with the effective weaponization of the Department of Justice.
“Law enforcement is a shield that protects Americans. It cannot be used as a weapon for political purposes,” the motion asserted.
Especially when the judge that signed off on all the nonsense, U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart, is linked to Jeffrey Epstein.
Author: Jane Jones
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
