How Merrick Garland Missed Four Chances to Earn the Public Trust on Mar-a-Lago

Below is my column in the Hill on the upcoming filing of the Justice Department on proposed redactions to the affidavit that led to the Mar-a-Lago raid. It will be the fifth chance for Attorney General Merrick Garland to take a modest step to assure concerned citizens over the basis or motivation for the raid.

Here is the column:

In a three-minute press conference following the FBI raid on Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home, Attorney General Merrick Garland cut a defiant figure, condemning critics of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI: “I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked.” He then left the stage without taking questions or answering that criticism.

It was a signature moment for Garland, who often responds to controversies with belated, rote remarks. His brief comments had all of the substance of a Hallmark card that read, “Trust us, we’re the government.” Yet trust has to be earned, not simply demanded.

This coming week, Garland has another opportunity to show leadership and reassure the public by ordering substantive disclosures in the proposed redacted affidavit justifying the raid. If not, this will be the fifth missed opportunity to demonstrate that the DOJ deserves the public’s trust.

The indignation expressed by Garland in his public remarks seemed to ignore legitimate concerns over the DOJ’s motivations and record in past Trump-related investigations. Both the FBI and DOJ have documented histories of false court statements and bias against Trump, leading to the collapse of the Russia-collusion allegations and the firing of high-ranking officials.

Garland was aware of that history and the troubling context when he ordered the unprecedented raid on the home of a former president and the expected 2024 political opponent of President Biden. He may be justified in ordering it, but he cannot simply dismiss critics as unhinged extremists.

It is equally troubling that, at every earlier opportunity to make a modest step to assure such citizens, Garland has failed:

The Negotiations

It is unclear why Garland opted for a search warrant rather than a second subpoena like one used in June to seize boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago. Trump’s team claims to have communications from the FBI reflecting that they cooperated with the search, then followed the FBI’s request to reinforce security on a storage room. It is unclear what communications occurred after the June meeting — or, if remaining documents were a concern, why the DOJ did not immediately issue a second subpoena. While the DOJ claimed time was of the essence to retrieve national security material, Garland reportedly waited weeks before signing off on the search warrant application and the FBI waited a weekend to execute the search. There was plenty of time to seek a voluntary surrender or consensual search.

The Warrant

The second opportunity occurred when the DOJ sought the warrant. While knowing that every aspect of the search would be scrutinized, it adopted language so broad that it was virtually the legal version of Captain Jack Sparrow’s “Take what you can … Give nothing back.” It allowed the seizure of any box containing any document with any classification of any kind — and all boxes stored with that box; it allowed the seizure of any writing from Trump’s presidency. If Garland wanted to assure Americans of an apolitical motive, he could have crafted that warrant more narrowly. Instead, the government scooped up everything, from passports to attorney-client material.

The Raid

Garland’s third opportunity came with the raid itself. Rather than descending on Trump’s home with 30 to 40 officers and a dozen vehicles, this is a search that could have been done by a few inconspicuous agents without risk. They didn’t have to arrive by Uber, but they also didn’t need to arrive like this. Instead, as with other Trump targets from Roger Stone to Paul Manafort and Peter Navarro, the DOJ chose the most heavy-handed, overwhelming-force option.

The Review

After the raid, Garland missed his fourth opportunity. It was obvious the raid would ignite a country that is a tinderbox, particularly before a major election. Garland could have issued a statement reassuring the public and immediately secured the documents, asking for an independent special master or federal magistrate to sort out any material beyond the warrant’s scope, including attorney-client material. That would have ended speculation about a pretextual search aimed at finding incriminating evidence of other crimes, including material related to the Jan. 6 riot. Garland not only didn’t take such a precaution but reportedly refused Trump’s request for such an appointment. Garland then compounded the problem by refusing to address basic concerns in his brief presser, including the allegation of a pretextual search.

The Affidavit

Garland now has a fifth opportunity in responding to a magistrate’s order to recommend parts of the affidavit for public release. Garland initially refused to release the affidavit, then implausibly asserted that nothing in it could be released in the interests of national security. Most affidavits have sections that can be released without damaging an investigation or compromising witnesses, including information already known to the target. In this case, Garland could, at a minimum, release the account of the communications with the Trump team. It may be discomforting for DOJ officials accustomed to total control over such information, but it would reassure the public in a growing political crisis.

Obviously, after insisting no disclosures could be made, it is now doubly difficult for Garland to reverse himself. Such a bold move would be out of character for Garland, who often appears more of a passenger than the driver of his own department. But he needs now to be proactive rather than reactive to this controversy — by overruling those in the DOJ who pushed for the raid and demanded a total bar on disclosures of the affidavit.

What is clear is that Garland’s “trust us” mantra has done little to assuage concerns. Indeed, that seems almost comical to many people, given the Crossfire Hurricane debacle and the fact that this investigation is being handled by the same section.

Transparency on the search may push some at the DOJ outside of their comfort zone, but the raid has already pushed many on both sides of the political spectrum to the brink. One MSNBC host declared that the “civil war is here” while, in a shocking Rasmussen poll, 46 percent of Americans now view the FBI unfavorably and 53 percent believe it is being misused by the Biden administration. Even assuming that Rasmussen trends conservative, those numbers likely reflect the view of many of the more than 74 million people who voted for Trump in 2020.

So far, Garland has done little to earn the trust of almost half of the country. In this and other controversies, he has demanded respect but refused to take even modest measures to justify it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

493 thoughts on “How Merrick Garland Missed Four Chances to Earn the Public Trust on Mar-a-Lago”

  1. Professor Turley,

    The Rasmussen Poll you cite shows that more Americans now have a favorable view of the FBI than they did in December 2021. Compare the 46% in December 2021 (link below) with 50% in the poll you reference from last week. So why are you citing this poll as proof that Garland has eroded the public’s trust with the Mar-a-Lago search?

    Rasmussen’s “report” of the survey selectively compared numbers from December 2021 to justify its desired conservative ends. When you post these stories without doing this extra 5 minutes of research, it only serves to amplify the partisan aims of the pollster.

    At this point, the onus falls to readers to read with a healthy dose of skepticism. You cannot trust a summary report like this with cherry-picked data.

    1. Forsooth, Americans are immutably enamored of the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSC, NRO, DNI, ODNI, OI, NSD, ATF, DHS, IRS (armed), and all of the remaining components of the American communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) Deep Deep State Swamp.

      Your material is so accurate and factual that you refuse to identify yourself, to have the courage of your convictions, or post even a nom de plume, nay, a nom de guerre.

      You, sir/ma’am/it, retain absolutely no credibility and, in fact, must be banned for life as the quintessential fraud.

      Go peddle your wares on CNN; I hear Brian Stelter left a gaping hole at CNN and you may possess the facilities to sufficiently fill Stelter’s hole.

      1. Do you agree that 50 is a bigger number than 46?

        I didn’t think that was super controversial.

    2. The Rasmussen poll you cite that is discussed in the article you link to DATED JANUARY 2022, i.e., before the events being discussed by Prof. Turley in this blog entry. The popular opinion may have changed any number of times in either direction between then and now.

      1. That’s precisely the point. Support for the FBI was lower before the February announcement that NARA was seeking the return of boxes of presidential records from MAL.

        Without this context, Professor Turley uses the post-search poll numbers to suggest that the search weakened public trust from federal law enforcement. When you compare to December 21 poll, however, you see that the numbers are now slightly higher.

        Again, this shouldn’t be controversial.

  2. Turley is on a very slow progression, he has come around to acknowledging Trump’s bad behavior while assuring us that doesn’t make it a crime. He fills his blog with examples of others that weren’t prosecuted for things not the same, and tries to change the subject by pointing to Hunter Biden. To his credit he doesn’t usually grasp onto the absolute worst of the excuses. He’s currently running with the release of the affidavit, putting the public desire to know over the ongoing investigation and safety of the witnesses which he never mentions. When a redacted version comes out, it will only serve to demonstrate probable cause and that Trump didn’t act in good faith. I predict Turley will move on to bad lawyering (providing a document saying all classified materials had been returned) and throw them under the bus. When more stories come out about Trump personally refusing to turn over requested documents, Turley will try to excuse that behavior. When the likely indictment comes, Turley will no doubt find Trump innocent or at worst inept. Then if he is convicted, Turley will tell us about the harm to the nation if we send a former President to jail.

  3. I remember watching a Pink Panther cartoon as a kid about a pesky termite. During the whole episode, the Pink Panther tries to get the termite. In the end, he destroys his house and everything in it.

    In the final clip, he employs the termite as the saw blade as he begins to rebuild. People forget that Trump survived and succeeded in the NYC real estate business dealing with unions, mafia and crooked politicians. He is brash and bellicose. But he wins. It drives his opponents crazy.

    I am actually not a fan but given the malicious and relentless barrage of Emanuel Goldstein Orwellian hatred, I hope they have stepped into it. Mostly because of the ends they are willing to go in trashing the constitution of the United States in order to get their “man.”

    The biggest scandal of all is the wide open border, human trafficking, influx of dangerous drugs and giving control to the Cartel. President Biden endorses it and refuses to enforce the law. He shoulders 100% of the responsibility of the already 5 million undocumented who have come in under his watch.,

    The best way to cure a headache is to drop a brick on your foot.

    1. What BS. The Biden Admini. is capturing huge amounts of dangerous drugs that criminals attempt to bring across the border, is working against human trafficking, does not have an open border policy. If you’re going to condemn him, make it a truthful argument.

  4. This current Judge, DOJ & FBI no doubt knew what they were doing.


    According to a report, the implications of that case could have a significant bearing on some of the actions taken during the FBI raid in Mar-a-Lago. Specifically, the “decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago.”

    The case was decided against Judicial Watch in 2012 by US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in DC, and Clinton was allowed to retain possession of the audio tapes. The Judge ruled that there “was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.“

    Jackson also wrote, “Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term, and in his sole discretion.”



    1. The audio tapes were not made by the Clinton WH and were not Presidential Records, so it’s hardly analogous.

        1. That’s false.

          And your own quote — “segregate personal materials from Presidential records” — makes clear that she wasn’t addressing Presidential Records.

          1. Jackson also wrote, “Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term, and in his sole discretion.”

            And you also should go read the USC!!!

            The Executive Branch of Govt is under Who’s Authority ………… Say It!

            Trump didn’t have to say or write crap.

            The judge, DOJ & FBI need to give his stuff back like last week.

            The they should all apologize to Trump’s Wife, Melina, in Public for their improper behavior.

  5. “ What if, instead of slowly building evidence through careful investigation culminating in an indictment, the Department of Justice just told a mob boss the names and addresses of everyone wearing a wire and blasted out its working theory of the case before looking at the evidence? It’s an interesting thought experiment if you’re an absolute moron. In entirely related news, Jonathan Turley thinks the Justice Department should publicly post its whole case before getting an indictment.“

    This still begs the question. Is Turley really a competent law professor or just a tenured moron who is selling his “expertise” to Fox News for extra cash?

    1. My guess: he’s the former who chooses to act like the latter on a regular basis, but who can act like the former when he wants to.

    2. @Svelaz

      It is very, very easy to be a coward in the 21st century. You prove that here, everyday. James is my real name.

      1. James, so is mine. I’ve never posted as anonymous with the exception of hitting the post button too soon.

    3. “. . . begs the question.”

      When accusing someone of being a “moron,” don’t start with a moronic usage of an expression.

  6. The American Democratic party has morphed into a regime, with no care for the rule of law and equality between people, period. Do we have to do Robespierre again? Really? Do we literally have to behead Pelosi? That is just stupid. I do not know what to say about TDS – it should be categorized as a legitimate mental disorder, and I suspect people will study it in the future.

    In the end, it tells me that since the dawn of the mobile internet, people have ceased to be people. Get the eff OFF of Facebook and anything they own, look at your life, and decide then, when the fog has cleared. My bet is that no, in clarity, you do not actually hate that person you think you hate. Of course, if you are the lucky recipient of inherited wealth, your very much minority status in this country will never resonate with you. Lots of people have guns – not just the IRS – do you really want to go there? Are you really that deranged that the only satisfactory solution is to literally kill what makes you uncomfortable in a way that people 20 years ago wouldn’t even notice? Would love it some of the trolls would answer honestly, but since they are likely paid and don’t care, I wish myself luck. To any thinking adult, what is currently happening in America is absurd beyond the pale, and about to get serious. Thrusting the entire country into imposed poverty, and whether the dems like it or not, that includes their pet minorities, is not any kind of solution. Then again, the aristocracy have always been deluded bullies. Most of us don’t give a **** how much you spent on your shoes. Try not buying your kid yet another car on the hot, paved, much too populous streets, the second they turn 14.

    Final thought: no, Republicans aren’t all fascist Cletuses that drink moonshine and spank cows, and no, not everyone that fiercely opposes whatever the bloody heck the modern dem party and its bizarre and fascist agenda is now, is a nut job. It isn’t just ‘conservatives’. This would not have even been a question less than ten years ago. There is an explanation, but feel free to blame whomever you like. i personally blame what Obama, Silicon Valley, and Soros in combination ushered in. Tim Berners Lee, the creator of the WWW, must be punching himself in the face. Unfortunately, Steve Jobs, who is dead, but really understood people, and humanized tech in a way that we may never see again, cannot answer these questions.

    You don’t have to agree. In the end it comes down to us and whether or not we really value free lives for ourselves and our neighbors. And no, your children are not experienced enough to decide that for us. Stop asking 13 year-olds what they think and presenting it as some warped kind of evidence of anything whatsoever other than that as always throughout history, teenagers, in their current state of development when armpit hair is still a new thing, are stupid. We do not prosper by following the stupid.

    1. James,
      You make a number of good points.
      As I have stated in the past, the idea of civil war is a terrible one to consider. We should never go down that path.
      Yet, just the other day MSNBC’s Tiffany Cross declared, “It’s not like the civil war is coming, it feels like the civil war is here.”
      Last Friday, the NYT’s printed an op-ed titled The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed. The authors claim the Constitution is standing in the way of real democracy.
      What does their version of real democracy look like?
      For some reason, I have an idea that theirs would send nearly half of the population to a “re-education” camp, only to never be seen of again. And those are not some one off kooks, but people in academia, MSM calling for the camps. Others have declared anyone who voted for Trump should have their children taken away. Something tells me, unless you go all in on their version of democracy, they will “other” you.
      Actress Gina Carano made a comparison of hating a person for their political views akin to the persecution of Jews in Nazi era Germany.
      At the time, I thought it to be a bit of a stretch.
      Now, she may have been correct.

    2. James,
      After thought, the far left Dems, the deep state elites, the globalists, I now can see they would go to so far the lengths as to burn it all down to destroy the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and insert their version of democracy which would be nothing more than fascism, totalitarianism while declaring they are saving democracy.
      The fact I think that is a real possibility is frightening.
      And should frighten every American.

      Side note, is it just me, or have there been more and more ” Anonymous” and seemingly paid posters detracting from the good professors articles?
      Darren would be one to have the best visibility.
      Regardless, they seem to be desperate to try to control the narrative on the professors blog.
      As an Independent and free thinker, I see through their efforts. As do you.

    3. Umberto Eco gave this opinion about social media in an interview:
      “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community … but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It’s the invasion of the idiots.”

  7. Public opinion is well ahead of the elite members of our society. We see the rot, the corruption, the cronyism, the double-standards, the two-tiered justice system and the blatant smears and lies hurled at us. The problem is, there are too many insiders who continue giving the DOJ/FBI the benefit of the doubt. From the Democrats who hatch these schemes to the RINOs who pretend all of this is “business as usual” and who are comfortable with allowing the “process to play itself out.”

    This attitude certainly has to do with the fact they seem to all know each other, their family’s are intertwined, the Leftists are vicious to dissenters, and, seemingly their worldview is popular while the opposition’s worldview is savagely caricatured by the popular media.

  8. Uh, Turley, according to a survey of 1,000 registered voters released yesterday, 57% trust Merrick Garland, the FBI and the DOJ, so they’ve “earned” their trust. It’s only the Fox and alt-right news disciples who don’t trust the FBI and DOJ, and no quantum of proof will ever suffice for them. And, so long as the Fox paychecks keep coming, Turley will keep criticizing and finding fault, all of which overlooks the serious fact that Trump STOLE TS/SCI documents, refused to return them, lied about returning them, and had to be forced to return them. We don’t know whether national security has already been irretrievably compromised, but we DO know that Trump has literally no common sense, no semblance of patriotic duty, and exists solely to feed that massive ego of his. The majority of Americans WANT Trump investigated for stealing classified TS/SCI documents, lying about returning them, making up a lie about “declassifying” them and profiting off of his wrongdoing. Turley is simply wrong by implying that MOST Americans think Garland and the FBI have something to prove. Garland would be wrong for failing to take necessary steps to retrieve these documents.

    For those of you who subscribe to “Above the Law”, Joe Patrice has written an excellent piece entitled: “Jonathan Turley Very Upset That Merrick Garland Isn’t Cartoonishly Bad At His Job” the subtitle is “unlike Jonathan Turley”. Joe has provided outstanding criticism of Turley’s little piece that explains very clearly why the DOJ does NOT disclose sources and methods before there is an indictment, something Turley understands very well. Joe also points out that the material likely to be released will describe the efforts made by the DOJ and NARA before the search warrant was sought, all in an effort to get him to voluntarily return the documents he stole short of obtaining a search warrant. That information, sans names of individuals, would be proper to release, but it won’t mollify the disciples. These are things Trump already knows, but what he DOESN’T know is who tipped the FBI that he was lying when he said that all of them had been returned. Sadly for your hero, it’s very unlikely that the judge will allow that bit of information to be returned, given the violent tendencies of Trump’s most-rabid fans..

    In the meantime, however, Trump keeps playing the victim of a situation he created by wrongdoing, raising money and attacking the DOJ and FBI. Turley keeps taking a paycheck for ignoring the reality that a candidate who lost an election stole TS/SCI documents, only handed over a few in response to a subpoena, lied about returning them, had to have them removed by the FBI pursuant to a warrant, and is now playing the victim of a situation he created.

    1. 57% huh, and the people are always right?

      On Aug. 19, 1934, the German public voted 90% in favor of Chancellor Adolf Hitler becoming Führer und Reichskanzler (“leader and chancellor”), a new title created after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg earlier in the month.

      Ever heard that propaganda influences people’s minds? Doesn’t the Constitution protect the populace from unchecked “mob rule? Should 57% of the people decide the other 43% should wear yellow armbands?

      Therefore you must still believe getting the Covid vaccine will 100% absolutely guarantee that if you are exposed to the virus, you won’t get sick, and the virus is stopped dead, right then and there, end of story, no debate.

      Now I can see the definition of “hook, line, and sinker” put into words.

      1. When it comes to national security in the US, both political parties are in agreement that this information must be protected at all costs. The reason for classifying documents as TS or SCI is because of the degree of risk to US interests that disclosure of such information would pose if the documents and information they contain got into the wrong hands. Members of Congress who want to view TS or SCI papers must go to a SCIF, remove their cell phones, they can’t take briefcases or notes with them, and can only view the materials in this facility, in which no recording can be done. THESE are the documents Trump stole, refused to return and lied about returning. THAT should shock you and scare the hell out of you. WHY did he do this?

        What was Merrick Garland supposed to do–just let it go and hope that Trump didn’t flash these papers around Mar A Lago to show off, or sell them because he needs money? NO ONE else could steal TS/SCI documents, lie about returning them and get away with it. And, it’s not like the DOJ didn’t try to work with Trump to prevent the necessity of a search warrant. The DOJ began with a simple request that only yielded a handful of papers. Next, there was a subpoena that netted 15 boxes as well as an affidavit that all was returned. Next, a tipster told the FBI that there were still more. Then, the lying started: the FBI will plant TS/SCI documents; “I declassified them”; “I had a standing order that anything I put my hands on is automatically declassified”; “they raided my beautiful home”; “they’re mine, not theirs”.

        If the DOJ was going after Trump for political reasons, it would have publicized the seizure. It was Trump who not only publicized it, but has sought to profit from it–over a million dollars in contributions. THAT should piss you off, but instead of being upset with Trump, you are upset with the DOJ. THAT’s the effect of alt-right media, and that’s just wrong.

      2. CS, Actually that’s one of the reasonings behind the electoral college; to protect against mob rule. As I see it 57% in Congress would pass most regulations whether the 43% liked it or not. And let’s face it, propaganda influences most people’s minds.

    2. 57% trust Merrick Garland, the FBI and the DOJ, so they’ve “earned” their trust

      Do you trust a DoJ that is responsible for 85% of NSA data base (that is backward lookup for any phone, email, internet) lookups done by the DoJ are illegal? That is according to FISA Judges conducting 4 different audits done over different time spans. Natcha. do YOU trust an FBI that had a workstation in the office of Perkins Coie lawfirm, doing those NSA lookups?

  9. Here’s what they found: “… seven concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. Eight contained information that was ‘top secret’ at the time they were sent; 36 contained ‘secret’ information at the time…”

    Wow! Seven TS/SCI messages. Each one worth 10 years in prison. Make it consecutive, judge!

    Oh wait, that “find” is a direct quote from Comey’s July 5, 2016 presser exonerating Hillary Clinton from any criminal charges stemming from all the classified found on her private, unguarded server, likely hacked, he told us, by one or more adversaries. Of course, as Comey also assured us, “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case…In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”

    FBI also found TS/SCI material in the MAL raid. But given DOJ’s and FBI’s recent history of total neutrality, reliance on precedent, and repeated “trust us” assurances to do the right thing, the Teflon Don, like Hillary, has nothing to worry about after all.

        1. You should learn to quote accurately. Did your English teachers never teach you how to use ellipses?

    1. We have no reason to assume right now that Trump will be indicted.

      We also have no reason to assume that the catalogue of documents seized from Trump will look like the catalogue of documents seized from Clinton.

    2. According to interviews I’ve seen with people familiar with such documents, just one such document might fill an entire banker’s box or even two of them. Hilary Clinton did NOT steal TS/SCI documents, but was found to be negligent in allowing emails that contained classified information to be sent to her private server. However, she was not prosecuted because she didn’t INTEND to disclose classified information. Therein is all of the difference: Trump STOLE the papers, refused to return them, lied about keeping them and forced the DOJ to get a search warrant. The situations are NOT comparable.

      ANSWER ME: WHAT was Trump doing with papers disclosing our national secrets, WHY did he steal them, WHY did he lie about returning them, and WHAT has he already done with them? Have some of our assets already been comrpromised? Did he sell some of them? He became a private citizen on Jan 20, 2021, at which time he had NO more right to possess such documents than any one else. I want just one of you Trumpsters to defend what he did.

      1. just one such document might fill an entire banker’s box or even two of them.
        Meaningless. A single paragraph, a single box. Exactly the same.
        Hilary Clinton did NOT steal TS/SCI documents,
        Possesing TS/SCI documents on a server owned by Clinton and not approved by the State Dept is illegal possession.

        However, she was not prosecuted because she didn’t INTEND to disclose classified information
        The law does not require intent. (Comey lied about that)

          1. Yes I remember doing that. To point out your own hypocrisy. The Clinton circus, with Comey being the lead clown, detailed all the crimes committed by Clinton, and then declared she had no intent. Despite the fact the law does not require intent.
            So you tell me?
            Lock her up, or declare Trump is acting will within his Constitutional power.
            But that is the big difference here. Trump has final say on declassifying anything he desires, and is not bound by any procedure. Clinton? Nope, no such power

            1. You didn’t point out any hypocrisy from me. Perhaps you’re confusing me with someone else.

              Trump had power while President, but he is no longer President, and just as Trump had power to declassify — following a particular process, so that the government, including the incoming President, was aware of the declassification — Biden has the power to reclassify those documents.

        1. She didn’t take TS/SCI documents. She merely allowed e-mails considered “classified” to be sent to her home server, which was not secure. World of difference in the facts.

    3. Anonymous,

      “ Wow! Seven TS/SCI messages. Each one worth 10 years in prison. Make it consecutive, judge!”

      What that FBI memo states is not TS/SCI Which stands for Top Secret/Sensitive compartment information. It’s Top Secret/Special access. They are two very different kinds of classified material.

      Furthermore Hillary didn’t refuse to hand over information or made excuses. Trump still had THE most sensitive classified information we have and he refused and lied about not having ing it. That’s a crime with clear intent. Nice try though.

      1. Furthermore Hillary didn’t refuse to hand over information or made excuses,

        They’re were 6 Bengahzi congressional hearing that subpoenaed Clintons emails concerning Bengahzi. She failed to fullfil that request. Sent only those from her State Dept email. So yes, her private server fullfiled its purpose. Hid her grift from the public eye.

  10. The point is, Garland doesn’t care about the “trust” of the American people. If it hasn’t occurred to you by now that the Democrats have little respect for the people, the Constitution or the rule of law, let’s review the evidence: lies and fraud in the Russiagate hoax; irregular procedures (not voted on by state legislatures) in the 2020 voting and ballot collecting; large number of Biden’s executive orders overturned due to violations of the Constitution; support for “reverse” discrimination in schools, government, law and business; threatening parents with FBI surveillance; allowing agencies to impose mandates; selectively prosecuting crime; threatening the Supreme Court and its justices; and lying about the recent massive “anti-inflation” spending bill. The Democrats have made a policy of lies, discrimination and coercion, which is exactly what totalitarian governments due because their actions are so unpopular they cannot get them accepted through normal legal channels. This will only provoke blowback from citizens who are actually concerned about the Constitution and law & order. The next time the Democrats scream “insurrection,” there might actually be one.

  11. You cant change the spots on a leopard. FBI has a long history of scooping up info on Americans by lying to Judges and then going on fishing expeditions. They are defacto the enemy of Americans.

    “How the FBI Violated the Privacy Rights of Tens of Thousands of Americans”

    A recently released secret court ruling found that the government’s warrantless surveillance of emails routinely violated the Fourth Amendment.

    October 22, 2019

    In 2011, the govern­ment disclosed to the FISA Court that it had misrep­res­en­ted the nature of its “upstream” collec­tion activ­it­ies under Section 702. (“Upstream” collec­tion takes place as the commu­nic­a­tions are trans­it­ing over the Inter­net back­bone; “down­stream” collec­tion acquires stored commu­nic­a­tions, usually from the serv­ers of Inter­net Service Providers.) When conduct­ing upstream surveil­lance, the govern­ment was acquir­ing, not just commu­nic­a­tions to or from the targets of surveil­lance, but commu­nic­a­tions that simply mentioned certain inform­a­tion about them (known as “abouts” collec­tion). As a result, the govern­ment was acquir­ing pack­ets of data contain­ing multiple commu­nic­a­tions, some of which had noth­ing to do with the target. This included tens of thou­sands of wholly domestic commu­nic­a­tions.

    The court was not pleased to learn about this signi­fic­ant issue three years into the program’s oper­a­tion. It held that the govern­ment’s hand­ling of the data viol­ated the Fourth Amend­ment, and it required the govern­ment to develop special rules — approved by the court in 2012 — for segreg­at­ing, stor­ing, retain­ing, and access­ing commu­nic­a­tions obtained through “upstream” collec­tion.

  12. There are at least 2 justice systems: one system for the elites and another for the little people. The same justice system didn’t seem to apply to Obama so maybe there are 3 justice systems?

    For about 50 years Republicans were very liberal on the 4th Amendment, supporting “Stop & Frisk” searches of poor people, mostly people of color.

    Using Stop & Frisk searches, for about 50 years, there was no crime in the equation, since there was no crime there was no probable cause of a past crime (as the 4th Amendment legally mandates). Simply “Walking-While-Black” without any past crime ever happening was the basis of the search.

    Focusing on the future, it’s great that Republicans are finally being conservative on requiring “probable cause” of a past crime and officers filing affidavits to obtain warrants from judges – as the 4th Amendment has required since 1791. It’s about time!

    1. “For about 50 years Republicans were very liberal on the 4th Amendment, supporting “Stop & Frisk” searches“

      AZ, I hope you realize that such searches were found legal.

      You complain about demographics. If you sold birth control would you traveling to a nunnery to sell it to the nuns?

    1. Im a straight married man but I could kiss Mitch for blocking Merrick Garland. Note, Warner Bros new CNN CEO is likewise kicking butt and taking names. The CNN employee Marxists are terrified that they may have to look for new jobs while having no job skills!

      “New CNN chairman and CEO Chris Licht is not to be envied. He has taken over a cable news network that is bleeding profits and viewers with little prospect of improvement anytime soon. Friday morning, Licht convened a virtual editorial meeting to discuss some of the changes he wants to make at the network.

      “I want to acknowledge that this is a time of significant change, and I know that many of you are unsettled,” Licht said, according to the Hollywood Reporter, who quoted multiple people on the call. “There will be more changes, and you might not understand it or like it.”…..he said earlier in the year during an interview that he wanted CNN to “evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists.”

      Boom! Real journalists.

  13. Dear Resident Apologists for the FBI/DOJ:

    Do you not realize that you are endorsing the creation of political “criminals” in America?

    Do you just not care? Are you so drunk on “the ends justifies the means,” that you are willing to degrade a nation of laws (and not of men)? Are you so blinded by “get Trump at any cost,” that you are incapable of projecting the future of a country with political “criminals?” Are you so seething with hatred that you are numb to the destruction you abet?

    Are you so driven by a lust for power that you are willing to excuse any evil?

    Have your emotions so neutered your ability to reason, that you cannot grasp the past or see the consequences?

    1. Sam,

      “ Dear Resident Apologists for the FBI/DOJ:

      Do you not realize that you are endorsing the creation of political “criminals” in America?”

      Do you not realize Trump WANTED to jail his political opponents thru the FBI. Remember “Lock her up” chants?

      Trump often said that he will ask the DOJ to investigate Hillary for her crimes before any investigations occurred. He let his followers chant “Lock her up!” With glee. Trump started this whole “political criminal” thing. Now that he’s facing what he endorsed of his own political opponents it’s suddenly a bad thing. Hypocrites are often the last to notice they are being hypocrites.

      1. “Do you not realize Trump . . .”

        Do you not realize that deflection is a fallacy, and a defense mechanism?

    2. You while the spent 3 year on a fake Russian hoax? Rule law is dead…time for gop to fight back

      1. There was no “fake Russian hoax”. Trump cheated with Russia’s help by providing hackers with insider polling information on where to direct lies about HIllary Clinton that would most benefit him. THAT was proven, and THAT’s cheating. Every poll in 2016 predicted he would lose. He DID lose the popular vote.

  14. Trump may regret calling for the unsealing of the affidavit.

    “ Another reason to keep the affidavit sealed? Trump and his family’s personal protection by the Secret Service. Reinhart noted that the document describes the physical characteristics of Mar-a-Lago.

    “Disclosure of those details could affect the Secret Service’s ability to carry out its protective function,” he wrote. “This factor weighs in favor of sealing.”

  15. Turley assumes that Garland wants to instill TRUST but everything he does is designed to instill FEAR and to compel COMPLIANCE. At some point Turley is going to have to replace his presumption of incompetence with one of malice.

  16. Merrick Garland’s 5th chance

    After reviewing legal historical data, it all boils down to what the meaning of the word “is”….”is”

Leave a Reply