Thread by @tolmanbrett

I’ve gone through the redacted affidavit a couple of times now. Including Attachments. I’m not impressed. There are so many concerning issues it is hard to know where to start. I’ll try.

SEE IT: DOJ's Redacted Affidavit for FBI's Trump Raid - Todd Starnes toddstarnes.com/politics/see-i…

1–it does not appear to include any exculpatory evidence or mitigating facts. While it includes a letter from Trump’s lawyers it doesn’t acknowledge potential advice of counsel defenses or even that they may lack authority to bring such a case against a former POTUS

2-It has no factual evidence attributable to the mens rea requirement —which is the burden the Gov’t must meet showing criminal intent of the target. If it’s in there it is redacted.

3-The affidavit is filled with conclusory statements “there is probable cause” is stated authoritatively but without any reference to whom the PC applies nor to sufficient facts supporting such PC

It is surprising that Reinhart signed this given that the overwhelming tenor of the unredacted facts are a civil dispute over which documents can or cannot be retained versus sent to NARA. Criminal Intent appears nowhere in the affidavit.

4–(My Favorite part) The focus of the facts is less on if FPOTUS may or may not be able to possess but whether docs are in a secure, designated room. No mention that the whole place is secured by the Secret Service.

5-There does not appear to be PC to search the safe. The safe is also not listed on places to search nor described in the factual justifications.

6-There is no set of facts revealed to show that the target transported, removed, destroyed, altered or instructed others to do so Re: classified docs.

7-The affidavit instructs the judge of the applicable law but withholds any mention of court decisions re a POTUS’ unfettered ability to declassify and fails to inform the Court that a FPOTUS may fall outside the criminal statute.

8–Shockingly, it admits that the FBI searched through boxes of documents that NARA had recovered, and did so pursuant to their “criminal investigation” but did not use a Taint Team to ensure they were not reviewing privileged documents.

9-The brief reference to the article citing Kash Patel’s statements that documents were declassified should have given the judge pause that this is not a criminal case and that requisite Mens Rea would be impossible to establish against the target.