FBI Doubted Probable Cause for Mar-a-Lago Raid but Pushed Ahead Because Biden's DOJ Said So, Emails Show

Happy Tuesday, dear friends. Or whatever day it is when you're reading this. Time flies when the Democrats are busy turning the Justice Department into their personal vendetta machine.

Look, we've known for years that the Democrats and their deep state pals treat Donald Trump like he's the villain in their fever-dream fan fiction. But these newly declassified emails reviewed by Fox News Digital really lay it out: The FBI didn't think they had squat for probable cause to storm Mar-a-Lago in 2022, but they went full jackboot anyway because the Biden DOJ was leaning on them harder than a drunk uncle at a wedding.

We're talking internal FBI chatter in the months before the August raid on Trump's Palm Beach pad. Agents were scratching their heads over the lack of evidence. One assistant special agent in charge emailed another: "Very little has been developed related to who might be culpable for mishandling the documents." He noted info suggesting more boxes might be at Mar-a-Lago, but it was "single source, has not been corroborated, and may be dated." Even so, "DOJ CES opines, however, that the SW’s meet the probable cause standard."

Translation: The FBI guys were like, "This is thin," but the DOJ hacks said, "Nah, it's fine; go get him."

The same official floated the idea of a "reasonable conversation" with Trump's attorney first, you know, the adult way to handle things, instead of kicking in doors like it's a no-knock on a drug cartel. He even pointed out that even if the docs were declassified (or Trump thought they were), they should still be secured properly. But no, the pressure from above was too much.

Weeks later, another agent emails: "We haven't generated any new facts, but keep being given draft after draft after draft." And then: "Absent a witness coming forward with recent information about classified on site, at what point is it fair to table this? It is time consuming for the team, and not productive if there are no new facts supporting PC (probable cause)?"

Straight up admitting they had nothing new, but the DOJ kept pushing drafts like a bad editor on deadline.

One email flat-out says the Washington Field Office "did not believe (and has articulated to DOJ CES), that we have established probable cause for the search warrant for classified records at Mar a Lago." DOJ insisted they did and wanted a broad scope covering the whole property.The FBI even thought a raid would be "counterproductive" and suggested less intrusive ways to get any docs back. But nope—full steam ahead.

Then comes the Aug. 4, 2022, email about executing the warrant. An agent stresses handling it "in a professional, low key manner, and to be mindful of the optics." He quotes a DOJ honcho, George Toscas, saying he "frankly doesn’t give a damn about the optics." Because of course the Biden crew didn't care about looking like banana republic goons.

The agent pushes back: If the FBI makes the initial contact politely, focusing on safety and professionalism, they might get cooperation. But DOJ? Nah, they'd botch it because they've already poisoned the well with Trump's lawyers.

And we all know how that turned out—the dramatic raid, complete with authorization for deadly force (same as they used for Biden's own doc search, because fairness), agents in unmarked shirts packing ammo and bolt cutters, grabbing privileged materials, and leaving Trump's team out in the cold.

This was never about national security. It was about harassing Trump, tying him up in lawfare, and trying to kneecap his political comeback. Jack Smith's witch hunt charged him with 40 felonies over this nonsense—willful retention, obstruction, all that jazz. Trump pleaded not guilty, and poof, charges dropped after he won in 2024.

Because everyone with a brain knew it was garbage from the jump.

These emails just confirm what we've suspected: The FBI had doubts, but Biden's politicized DOJ said "optics be damned" and forced it through. Classic Democrat playbook—weaponize the institutions against your enemies.

The good news? Trump won anyway, and now the reckoning is coming. Can't wait to see how Merrick Garland sleeps at night knowing his legacy is "that guy who raided a former president's house over nothing."

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. Imagine, you could be the first on your block to do that and your friends will thank you . . . for some reason.

Tweet

Fired! Kash Patel Delivers the Pink Slips to the Deep State Spies Who Stalked GOP Senators

Folks, if you thought the FBI's hall of shame under the Biden regime was bad—and let's be honest, it was a non-stop circus of politicized persecutions—this week's fireworks from Director Kash Patel should have every red-blooded American cheering. As Susie Moore laid out over at RedState on Monday, the bureau just dropped a dossier of dynamite: former Special Counsel Jack Smith and his merry band of partisan hacks were caught red-handed spying on a baker's dozen of Republican heavy-hitters in what they dubbed the "Arctic Frost" probe into January 6 and the 2020 election steal. We're talking phone taps on Sens. Lindsay Graham (SC), Marsha Blackburn (TN), Ron Johnson (WI), Josh Hawley (MO), Cynthia Lummis (WY), Bill Hagerty (TN), Dan Sullivan (AK), Tommy Tuberville (AL), and even Rep. Mike Kelly (PA) for good measure.

Patel, that no-nonsense warrior Trump tapped to drain the swamp at the FBI, didn't just file a complaint or issue a tsk-tsk memo. Instead, he swung the axe like it was personal. By Tuesday, the entire crew was shown the door, and he made it crystal clear: this is just the appetizer. The FBI has already terminated employees and abolished the CR-15 squad just one day after it was revealed that several Republicans' private communications and phone calls had been tracked. 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Patel stated: "We are cleaning up a diseased temple three decades in the making, identifying the rot, removing those who weaponized law enforcement for political purposes and those who do not meet the standards of this mission while restoring integrity to the FBI. I promised reform, and I intend to deliver it." 

He followed up in a tweet that read like a declaration of war on the weaponized bureaucracy: "As a result of our latest disclosure about the baseless monitoring of members of Congress by the prior leadership team of the FBI, we have already taken the following actions: We terminated employees, we abolished the weaponized CR-15 squad, and we initiated an ongoing investigation with more accountability measures ahead."

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino piled on in the replies, hitting all the right notes: "We promised you transparency and accountability. We will continue to deliver on those promises. You deserve better."

Is this what we voted for? Damn right we did.

One of the targets, Missouri's firebrand Sen. Josh Hawley, wasn't exactly sending thank-you notes to the Obama-Biden holdovers. But Patel shot back with the kind of reassurance that makes you believe in justice again: "We’re ON IT."

Look, the systematic sabotage of our institutions by the Biden White House and that sanctimonious hack Merrick Garland wasn't just incompetence, it was a full-throated assault on the Republic, the kind of banana-republic thuggery that makes Nixon's Watergate plumbers look like choirboys. They wiretapped, doxxed, and dragged their enemies through the courts like it was a blood sport, all while lecturing us about "democracy." In my book, and I suspect yours too, it eclipses any scandal in the postwar era for sheer audacity and rot.

Thank heaven (and about 75 million voters) that Donald Trump is back in the Oval, with lieutenants like Patel enforcing the kind of accountability the left only dreams of imposing on everyone else. No more kid gloves; we're talking real consequences, swift and severe. And brother, it's arriving fashionably late—but right on time.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me A Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

Fani Willis ordered to turn over communication with Special Counsel Jack Smith, J6 Committee

Fani [aka Fanny] Willis is to the American justice system as Al Sharpton is to Reverends.

A Georgia Superior Court on Tuesday found Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in default for not providing records requested by Judicial Watch related to her communications with Special Counsel jack "Get Trump" Smith's office or those regarding the J6 rally.

Judicial Watch (JW) sued Willis under the Open Records Act (ORA) and the court granted the default judgment motion JW filed.

The motion said the lawsuit against Willis was filed in March 2024, but by May, when Judicial Watch asked the court for a default judgment, Willis still hadn't responded. She was supposed to file an answer within 30 days of being served, which was on March 11. Although the proof of service was filed just two days after that, it didn't show up in the court's online records. Because of this, the court thought Willis hadn't been served yet, so in April, they ordered Judicial Watch to serve her again. Judicial Watch then resubmitted the proof that Willis was indeed served on March 11 (Post Millennial).

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis must forfeit any and all communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith and House Democrats' Jan. 6 Committee, a state judge ruled on Tuesday.

In his six-page order, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney ruled that Willis is "in default" for failing to file court documents responding to a legal challenge brought by Judicial Watch.

The conservative watchdog group filed a lawsuit against Willis in March after the Democrat district attorney denied having any of the records the group sought in an August 2023 open records request. That request aimed to obtain communications between her office and the special counsel and/or the Jan. 6 Committee.

“We’ve been doing this work for 30 years, and this is the first time in our experience a government official has been found in default for not showing up in court to answer an open records lawsuit,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “Judicial Watch looks forward to getting any documents from the Fani Willis operation about collusion with the Biden administration and Nancy Pelosi’s Congress on her unprecedented and compromised ‘get-Trump’ prosecution.”

Now let's hurry up and wait to see what will transpire. Many people think Willis needs to go. 

What do you think? 

Special Counsel Jack Smith moves to drop all cases against President-elect Trump

Special Counsel Jack Smith knows his days at the Justice Department are numbered. It's pretty clear that President-elect Donald Trump plans to let him go, and there's no chance his two current cases against the new administration will continue. Today, he asked to dismiss the charges related to election interference, which many see as a sign that the Democrat-led legal attacks against Mr. Trump have completely failed. He also decided to drop his appeal in the case about classified documents. This whole situation is wrapping up, according to the Washington Post:

"Special Counsel Jack Smith asked a judge on Monday to dismiss the federal election interference charges against incoming president Donald Trump, putting an end to a lengthy investigation that never made it trial.

Smith asked U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to dismiss the case without prejudice, acknowledging that Justice Department policy prohibits prosecuting a sitting president. If she does that, it leaves open the possibility that prosecutors could again bring charges once Trump leaves office after his second White House term."

Legal experts have mentioned that once in office, Trump might do something that's never been tried before: He could pardon himself to prevent any future legal trouble.

Trump is currently facing four charges linked to trying to interfere with the 2020 election results.

Since there's no upcoming election for him, it wouldn't surprise me if Trump thought about pardoning himself, but his close advisors might talk him out of it, not wanting to pull his focus from important legislative goals. However, this could also serve as a useful distraction for the media, who would likely become extremely upset over such a move, allowing Trump to push through a bunch of executive orders and laws aimed at securing the border and boosting the economy. Alternatively, Mr. Trump could decide to pardon himself in the very last moments of his presidency in 2029.

"The American People re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again. Today’s decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump and is a major victory for the rule of law," said Steven Cheung, Trump's incoming White House Communications Director. "The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system, and we look forward to uniting our country.”

Trump won, they lost and now they're trying to CYA.

Tweet

Jim Jordan opens inquiry into Jack Smith's "Latest sham indictment"

As summer came to an unofficial end on Labor Day, and the November presidential election looms large, the left is freaking out over their fear that Democrat candidate and current Vice President Kamala Harris is a garbage candidate and will somehow blow the election [no pun intended]. 

Last week Special Counsel Jack Smith filed yet a new indictment against former and possibly future President Trump regarding the Nancy Pelosi-botched January 6th clusterfrack [sic]. Several days after the filing, House Judiciary Committee Jim Jordan (R-OH) fired off a letter to the pencil-neck Attorney General Merrick Garland. Jordan was rightfully angry over the "latest sham indictment" and called Smith's move "Election interference." [H/T  Daily Wire]

If not that, then what is it?

As Jordan began by reminding, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered the Trump v. United States decision on July 1. The ruling established that the office of the president is immune from criminal prosecution. The Court's opinion explained the scope of presidential immunity and criticized Special Counsel Jack Smith for violating this Constitutional principle in his political prosecution of President Donald J. Trump, as Jordan noted.

Referring to Smith's updated indictment from August 27, Jordan expressed concerns that "Special Counsel Smith seems to have breached longstanding Department policy designed to safeguard our democratic processes. Consequently, the Committee needs to know whether you endorsed Special Counsel Smith’s indictment beforehand or if he is continuing to act with prosecutorial authority without your 'meaningful direction or supervision,'" his letter stated, once more referencing the Trump v. United States decision.

Jordan's letter specifically mentions a 60-day rule that advises against filing indictments immediately before a primary or general election. "Even though it isn't formally written into law, there is a broad consensus that the 60-day rule is essential for preserving the integrity of the electoral process," Jordan wrote, citing an op-ed from The Washington Post by Barack Obama's wingman, former Attorney General Eric Holder.

"Special Counsel Smith obtained the superseding indictment against President Trump just 10 days before early voting begins in some states," Jordan's letter continued, going on to comment on how this could affect the upcoming presidential election. "There can be little question that the superseding indictment has some effect on the election, especially coming after the Supreme Court’s opinion on presidential immunity cast significant doubt on Special Counsel Smith’s ability to prosecute the initial indictment."

The letter further criticizes the timing in relation to the Trump v. United States decision. Jordan continued. "In light of the Court’s opinion, Smith’s superseding indictment amounts to the initiation of a prosecutorial action by the Biden-Harris Administration against its opponent in the upcoming election. There is no persuasive argument why Special Counsel Smith could not wait until after the election to file this superseding indictment. It is therefore difficult to believe that the superseding indictment was filed now for any purpose other than to affect the outcome of the election," Jordan continued.

Jordan's letter asks for the following information and documents by September 13, going back from January 1, 2024 to the present:

1. All documents and communications between Main Justice, including but not limited to the Office of the Attorney General, and Special Counsel Smith’s office referring or relating to the superseding indictment filed against President Trump on August 27, 2024.

2. Did you personally approve the superseding indictment filed against President Trump on August 27, 2024? If so, please provide documentation sufficient to reflect your approval.

3. Did you evaluate the superseding indictment against President Trump in the context of the Department’s longstanding policy counseling against prosecutorial action so near an election? If so, please provide documentation sufficient to reflect your evaluation of these issues.

Jordan's letter also mentioned Judge Aileen Cannon, who in July tossed out Smith's classified documents case against Trump. Also last week, just the day before filing the superseding indictment, Smith appealed Cannon's move to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. [H/T Townhall.com]

There does not seem to be any doubt that Smith's move is desperate and politically motivated to prevent Donald Trump from seeking reelection. Allowing this to happen and by extension, jailing the former president, is nothing more than a banana republic type of move and the nation cannot allow this to happen.

Tweet

Jack Smith denounces Judge in Trump document case

Special Counsel Jack Smith made a strongly worded motion requesting Judge Aileen Cannon reconsider an order unsealing the names and statements of some witnesses in the Mar-a-Lago documents case against former President Trump. It's even possible at this point, that this will be a move to have Cannon removed from the case.

Smith, a far-left operative, claims that Judge Cannon's order would “disclose the identities of numerous potential witnesses, along with the substance of the statements they made to the FBI or the grand jury, exposing them to significant and immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment.” He goes on to say that Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, “applied the wrong legal standard” when she publicly put the information on the docket in respect to witnesses of the case--a huge mistake even for a wet-behind-the-ears jurist.

Cannon insists that the government demonstrate a “compelling interest” to keep the information redacted, while Smith insists that he must only show “good cause.”

Smith’s putting on the proverbial boxing gloves makes for what should follow quite interesting. She could admit her error, but her invite to Trump for a response by February 23 shows she probably won't admit that. Yet by not doing so, the special counsel can appeal the ruling, or go for the jugular and request she recuse herself or be removed.

While Smith's motion asks Judge Cannon to go back on her own decision, it sends a clear message to the riders of the 11th United States Appeals Circuit that if she does not do so, the appeals judges will soon be invited to overturn her. The prosecutor writes that “reconsideration is warranted” because Judge Cannon’s order would perpetrate “manifest injustice.”

Smith roundly objects to the “public identification of more than two dozen people who participated in the investigation,” among them witnesses “expected to provide important trial testimony who will likely be subject to threats, intimidation, and harassment.” 

He calls that eventuality “concrete and palpable” and asserts that disclosure of discovery is not protected by the First Amendment. Trump is likely to contend that disclosure is necessary to his constitutional right to confront his accusers.

Judge Cannon notes that Smith’s worry about danger to witnesses is too “speculative,” to which he responds that the “court’s duty is to prevent harms to the witnesses or the judicial process,” a duty in which he now suggests Judge Cannon is defaulting. He invokes a “dangerous atmosphere” for anyone involved in this case, which charges Trump with 44 crimes.

But Smith counters with the notion that there exists a “well-documented pattern in which judges, agents, prosecutors, and witnesses involved in cases involving Trump have been subject to threats, harassment, and intimidation.” He also cites a “racist death threat” made to Judge Tanya Chutkan in the January 6 case and threats and harassment directed at his own office.

Where's Alan Dershowitz just when you need him?

Tweet