See all the latest videos and articles patriots need to watch and read at Discern.tv.
The sworn affidavit presented to secure the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago used by the FBI to raid Donald Trump’s home had what appears to be a crucial error in it, one that could be easily debunked. If the facts detailed by independent journalist Paul Sperry are accurate, this could be enough to obliterate the Department of Justice’s case against Trump.
In a post on Gettr, Sperry said:
BREAKING: The FBI affiant who swore to the Mar-a-Lago search warrant appears to have made a critical factual error by stating in the unsealed affidavit: “I do not believe that any spaces within the PREMISES have been authorized for the storage of classified information.” This finding, which is the linchpin of the criminal case vs. Trump, overlooks the fact that:
1) White House records confirm that a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) authorizing the briefing and storage of classified material up to the TS/SCI level had in fact been installed at Mar-a-Lago; and,
2) records show that the Secret Service had recently awarded a nearly $600,000 contract to upgrade physical security within the premises at Mar-a-Lago for Trump’s post-presidency transition
Sperry later posted:
DEVELOPING: The unsealed FBI affidavit contains several oddities:
1. No where does it flat-out say “classified information” was found in Trump’s 15 boxes. On page 2, it refers only to docs “with classification markings,” which raises the specter they were no longer classified
2. It states the docs “appear” to contain National Defense Information. But agents “triaged” the boxes; they would know if they contain NDI or not
3. The affiant claimed “there is probable cause to believe evidence of obstruction will be found at the premises,” yet there’s no “obstruction” header or section spelling out why he believes this
4. He said he doesn’t believe “any spaces” w/in Mar-a-Lago are “currently” authorized for storage of classified info. So they were, but not “currently”?
This analysis appears to be accurate according to a former federal magistrate (name withheld by request) who reviewed both the redacted affidavit and Sperry’s claims.
It’s odd that the FBI would include such an easily debunked claim about appropriately secure storage areas on the premises on their affidavit. It should not have been necessary for their case if we are to believe they are trying to indict Trump for taking classified documents. By including it, they run the risk of tainting the predicate for the search warrant which could make evidence they collected during the raid inadmissible.
Everything about the raid and the case being built by the Department of Justice reeks of sloppiness and desperation. Are we seeing a Deep State plot blowing up or are we missing a deeper, darker agenda?
Yep, if they’re up to no good, sooner or later they’ll make a bad miscalculation. Now they’re in an even bigger pickle because the rabid left is demanding an indictment.
Of course, as corrupt as they are, they could claim they found a document anywhere, or even slip documents in that were never on the premises. They didn’t allow anyone else in to observe. Who knows what in the sam hill they might’ve done.
The real reason the FBLIE and DuhJ did this RAID was to gather up all the Cross Fire Hurricane, Hitlery paid for Dossier and the Russia Hoax so it wouldn’t see the light of day. Guess what Thugs, it is highly likely there were Secret Cameras YOU didn’t know about at Mar-a-Lago and how do you know there were not copies made of those documents you’re trying to hide? Your paperwork is so full of holes it proves how incompetent you really ARE. I await your trials for Treason and your Fate for Same!
A very significant problem with this affidavit — that everybody has overlooked — is that it’s based on hearsay, which is not proper.
In fact, this affidavit is deceptively worded, because with this very carefully worded statement in paragraph 7, it gives the false impression that it’s based on the personal knowledge of the author of the affidavit: “The facts set forth in this affidavit are based on my personal knowledge . . . AND information obtained from other FBI and U.S. Government personnel.” (Emphasis of “and” added.)
Thus, by stating that some of the unspecified alleged “facts” set forth in this affidavit are based on “information obtained from other FBI and US Government personnel,” a Judge is left to guess which alleged “facts” may be based on the personal knowledge of the author of this affidavit and which alleged “facts” may be based on the impermissible hearsay “information obtained from other” unnamed and unidentified “FBI and US Government personnel.”
Therefore, 99.9% of this affidavit could be based on speculative, unverifiable gossip and contrived or imaginary “facts” allegedly provided by unnamed and unidentified “FBI and US Government personnel.”
In other words, this affidavit is rank hearsay!
Such a blatantly defective, hearsay affidavit should have been rejected by the Judge
Really…you got all that from the overly redacted affidavit….? It’s a pretty standard paragraph in 99% of affidavits….then it goes on to break down specific facts. Are the next few pages completely redacted? I imagine they are. All I had to do was research affidavit examples.
The judge and the process is a joke that guy was not appointed by the Senate but by the other 2 judges great thinking on that,
They got away with setting fire which killed dozens of people, many of them children, in Waco, TX.
Unless, they are trying to make the documents inadmissible so Trump can’t use them against them in a court of law.