Happy Unredaction Sunday!

Unsealed filings in classified docs include FBI affidavit to get search warrant to raid Mar-a-Lago. (Left is most recent publicly available affidavit that I'm aware of)

This is how DOJ shifted investigation from classified docs to Espionage Act case:

Why would this need to be redacted?

And keep in mind--as I flagged yesterday--two pallets of Trump's boxes were transported from GSA facility in VA to MAL in early August 2021.

This affidavit makes it sound like all the boxes originated from WH in Jan 2021.

So the FBI and DOJ's degenerate midget Jay Bratt (who went to MAL on June 3, 2022 to look for boxes) thought the Biden regime was entitled to get ALL of Trump's boxes?

These people are diabolical.

John Sauer, representing Trump, gives opening statement. Already answering questions posed by Chief Judge John Roberts.

Says indictment uses vague statutes (2 of 4 in this indictment relate to 1512(c)(2) to criminalize "core authority" of the presidency.

Sotomayor already arguing what Trump did was for "personal gain" unlike what Obama did--one example used by Trump's team is could Obama be indicted for drone strikes that killed an American--bc Obama did it "to protect the country."

"The president is entitled for personal gain to use the trappings of his office without facing criminal liability." She mentions "creating false documents" as an example of committing a crime outside of scope of authority.

KBJ: Claims presidents since the beginning of time understood they could face criminal prosecution.

She then says the understanding stems from presidents being prosecuted "after impeachment."

Which is exactly what Sauer/Trump argue. Whoops.

NEW: Thanks to order by Judge Cannon, key evidence related to classified docs case is now unredacted.

On the left: What DOJ/Jack Smith wanted to conceal.

On the right: Now we know why. More proof of collaboration btw Biden White House and NARA to concoct a case.

Outrageous lies by Joe Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and DOJ/Jack Smith about "independence" from investigations into Trump.

The Biden White House and DOJ wew intimately involved in developing a criminal case against Trump for records mismanagement--it appears the first go-around related to alleged "destruction" of government papers.

Contrary to public and legal assertions, NARA was working with DOJ/White House to craft a criminal referral by Sept. 2021--FIVE MONTHS before the "official" referral by NARA to DOJ in Feb 2022.

(Govt redactions on left, newly unredacted filing on right.)

Now you know why the insiders like Andrew Weissmann and Barb McQuade are desperate to get rid of Judge Cannon. Without her courage on this matter, incriminating evidence of Biden's WH and DOJ running the investigative show behind the scenes would be buried maybe forever.

DOJ told NARA what to do to cover their tracks.

As I noted yesterday, Elizabeth Prelogar totally misrepresented (lied?) how DOJ routinely handles sentencing requests for those convicted of 1512c2.

Under questioning from Kavanaugh about prison sentences, Prelogar tried to make it sound like 1512c2 defendants with other nonviolent offenses (common misdemeanors) only get about 24 months in jail.

She quickly mentioned the "Brock" case--referring to Larry Brock, a man from Texas convicted at bench trial of 1512c2 and 5 misdemeanors--and the "enhancement" recently overturned by DC appellate court in 1512c2 convictions.

So what did DOJ ask for in Brock case? Not 24-26 months as Prelogar attempted to mislead Kavanaugh into believing.

NO--DOJ asked for 60 months in prison.

This is far more representative of what DOJ has requested in similar cases. And yes it included the now unlawful enhancement but that was the enhancement DOJ ASKED FOR.

Judge Bates, who convicted Brock, sentenced him to 24 months using 1512c2 felony as basis for the two-year prison term. Fine--but that doesn't erase how or in what manner DOJ asked for FIVE YEARS in prison.

Here is how DOJ got there...by using an "administration of justice" enhancement the appellate court last month concluded was unlawfully applied.

Prelogar forgot about that part:

Further--even after Brock's victory at the appellate court--DOJ STILL OPPOSES HIS RELEASE FROM JAIL.

Brock, who has no criminal record and is a decorated military veteran, has been in federal prison since May 2023.

Why?

Because DOJ considers him a threat to society because he is exercising his 1A rights from jail.

Here is DC US Attorney Matthew Graves just last week

We are underway at SCOTUS.

Jeffrey Green, representing Joseph Fischer, opens.

Clarence Thomas asks first question and how 2 provisions (c)(1) and "otherwise" (c)(2) are related.

The question is whether the second part--very vague--is tied or independent of the first part: "alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding."

Amy Coney Barrett asks question on a point raised by Jack Smith, which is whether 1512c2 defendants did attempt to obstruct with documents, i.e., electoral certificates.

KBJ presses Green on whether statute applies to evidence since the word "evidence" doesn't appear in the language.

Kagan: There are multiple ways the drafters of could have drawn "commonality" between c1 and c2.

1512c2 is under USC 1512: "Tampering With Victims, Witnesses, Or Informants."

Alito: "I think you may be biting off more than you can chew...that the 'otherwise' clause can only be read the only way you read it."

Green: 1512 "zeros in" on witnesses and evidence.

Govt reading of c2 is "so broad" that it would apply to anyone who influences in any way any official proceeding.

Kagan argues 1512c2 was meant as a "backstop" and catchall for Congress to encompass what 1512c1 did not address in response to Enron/Arthur Anderson.

On a day about "rule of law" and whatnot.

I have just obtained the transcript of April 5 hearing on House Judiciary Committee lawsuit against Mark Daly and Jack Morgan--2 DOJ tax attorneys involved in Hunter Biden investigation--for defying Congressional subpoena for their testimony.

It's better than reported.

Judge Ana Reyes (Biden) hammered DOJ attorneys explaining why DOJ can just ignore the subpoenas. James Gilligan represents DOJ:

Here, Reyes refers to Peter Navarro currently serving a four month prison sentence for conviction on contempt of Congress charges for defying J6 Committee subpoena:

Who would've thought a Biden appointee would be the only DC judge to hold DOJ's feet to the fire on anything.