Can you explain how they are a joke in more than a one sentence reply?
First of all, it's so heavily redacted that we don't really learn anything from it. All it says is that they had probable cause (which is what you would expect them to say if they are going to request to do a raid). Curiously, part of this affidavit's information for probable cause came from media reports.
FBI's use of news stories in seeking the Russia FISA warrants against Trump adviser Carter Pages was sharply criticized by the internal watchdog of the Justice Department.
justthenews.com
Second, it's stated in the affidavit that NARA sent a request for the missing documents on May 6 2021 and was informed there were boxes found and could be picked up around late December. So that means there was 7-8 months in between the request for the information and cooperation. Not a year and a half. (media lie)
Third, it states that Patel made a statement that Trump declassified the material BEFORE he left. In other words, he didn't declassify anything while ex-president.
Also, there was a letter written and included in the affidavit that states:
"Dear Jay:
I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump regarding the above-referenced matter. Public trust in the government is low. At such times, adherence to the rules and long-standing policies is essential. President Donald J. Trump is a leader of the Republican Party. The Department of Justice (DOJ), as part of the Executive Branch, is under the control of a President from the opposite party. It is critical, given that dynamic, that every effort is made to ensure that actions by DOJ that may touch upon the former President, or his close associates, do not involve
politics.
There have been public reports about an investigation by DOJ into Presidential Records purportedly marked as classified among materials that were once in the White House and unknowingly included among the boxes brought to Mar-a-Lago by the movers. It is important to emphasize that when a request was made for the documents by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), President Trump readily and voluntarily agreed to their transfer to NARA. The communications regarding the transfer of boxes to NARA were friendly, open, and straightforward. President Trump voluntarily ordered that the boxes be provided to NARA. No legal objection was asserted about the transfer. No concerns were raised about the contents of the
boxes. It was a voluntary and open process.
Unfortunately, the good faith demonstrated by President Trump was not matched once the boxes arrived at NARA. Leaks followed. And, once DOJ got involved, the leaks continued. Leaks about any investigation are concerning. Leaks about an investigation that involve the residence of a former President who is still active on the national political scene are particularly troubling.
Jay I. Bratt
May 25, 2022
Page 2 of3
It is important to note a few bedrock principles:
(1) A President Has Absolute Authority To Declassify Documents.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the President is vested with the highest level of authority when it
comes to the classification and declassification of documents. See U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2 ("The
President [is] Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States[.]"). His
constitutionally-based authority regarding the classification and declassification of documents is
unfettered. See Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988) ("[The President's] authority to classify
and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this
constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit
congressional grant.").
(2) Presidential Actions Involving Classified Documents Are Not Subject To Criminal
Sanction.
Any attempt to impose criminal liability on a President or former President that involves his actions with respect to documents marked classified would implicate grave constitutional separation-of-powers issues. Beyond that, the primary criminal statute that governs the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material does not apply to the President. That statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of
documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not morethan five years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 1924(a). An element of this offense, which the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, is that the accused is "an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the
United States." The President is none of these. See Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight
Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 497-98 (2010) (citing U.S. Const., Art. II,§ 2, cl. 2) ("The people do not vote
for the 'Officers of the United States."'); see also Melcher v. Fed. Open Mkt. Comm., 644 F. Supp.
510, 518-19 (D.D.C. 1986), aff'd, 836 F.2d 561 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("[a]n officer of the United States
can only be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or by a
court of law, or the head of a department. A person who does not derive his position from one of
these sources is not an officer of the United States in the sense of the Constitution."). Thus, the
statute does not apply to acts by a President.
Jay I. Bratt
May 25, 2022
Page 3 of3
(3) DOJ Must Be Insulated From Political Influence.
According to the Inspector General of DOJ, one of the top challenges facing the Department is the public perception that DOJ is influenced by politics. The report found that "[o]ne important strategy that can build public trust in the Department is to ensure adherence to policies and procedures designed to protect DOJ from accusations of political influence or partial application of the law." See
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/top-management-and-performance-challenges- facing-depatiment-justice-2021 (last visited May 25, 2022). We request that DOJ adhere to long-standing policies and procedures regarding communications between DOJ and the White House regarding pending investigative matters which are designed to prevent political influence in DOJ decision-making.
(4) DOJ Must Be Candid With Judges And Present Exculpatory Evidence.
Long-standing DOJ policy requires that DOJ attorneys be candid in representations made to judges. Pursuant to those policies, we request that DOJ provide this letter to any judicial officer who is asked to rule on any motion pertaining to this investigation, or on any application made in connection with any investigative request concerning this investigation.
The official policy ofDOJ further requires that prosecutors present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. Pursuant to that policy, we request that DOJ provide this letter to any grand jury considering evidence in connection with this matter, or any grand jury asked to issue a subpoena for testimony or documents in connection with this matter.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
With best regards,
~4..-M-
M. Evan Corcoran
www.nbcnews.com
