Brane Space: Protection Of Human Intel Sources At Top Of The Redactions Peppering DOJ Affidavit

Some of the 38 redacted pages released yesterday by DOJ

"But them were my files! MINE! MINE! MINE!"

As forecast by Chris Hayes on ALL In Thursday night, the Right's media buffoons were screeching their confounded heads off about the 'glut' of redactions in the DOJ affidavit released yesterday. An affidavit is essentially a report of all the evidence and witnesses and reasoning for why agents need a search warrant to go through someone’s private stuff. The private home of a former president has a particularly high bar, so this affidavit was likely extremely thorough and detailed. Typically, affidavits that get publicly released are protective of informants as well as their personal identifying information. We now know, for example, a number of such informants may have been staff at Mar-a-Lago itself.

In addition, given the threats by Trump zombies to the FBI in the wake of the raid on Aug. 8, identifying information pertaining to agents is removed. For example the name of the FBI agent primarily responsible for writing the affidavit is withheld. In addition, all statements made by witnesses or informants is redacted. Clearly, from surveying the released pages, there are likely dozens of these. Finally, just about anything to do with a related investigations, including potential targets, subjects, can be redacted. So the amount of redacted pages in this case should not amaze anyone.

Common sense would dictate that if a case is still being prosecuted - as this one is - the methods of investigation not be disclosed, nor the identities of intelligence sources, or targets of FISA warrants. That there is so much redaction in the 38 pages - lines and lines of blacked out print - shows the DOJ is concerned with keeping its methods and sources secret no matter how loud Trump barks.

Given all that, what did the MAGA hordes expect anyway? Carte blanche revelations of (HUMINT) human intelligence sources and federal agents whose lives would then be at risk from the Trump-incited MAGA hordes? As it was there was already clear evidence of obstruction of justice, e.g.in Trump's retention of the critical files, as well as tossing some in toilets (see below).

The redactions, in fact, were well targeted and served the prime purpose of protecting sources. As former DOJ prosecutor Barb McQuade put it:

“This language suggests that people inside Trump’s former administration, or at Mar-a-Lago, are providing information to the FBI."

People inside at Trump's sea front hacienda! Or in his former administration. In other words all those who would be deemed "rats" in the parlance of this wannabe mob boss. And people who, if identified by any obsessive right wing sleuthing, would be at risk. All of the material, indeed, released thus far, disclosed the FBI had every right to get critical files, records being stored at Mar-a-Lago in a haphazard manner (see link at bottom) - again from sources on the inside seeing it all. And who also likely took the images of documents flushed down toilets by Trump as reported by Axios, e.g.

This sort of reckless treatment would clearly earn the orange fungal maggot a visit by the FBI to see what other files he'd defaced, rummaged through or even tried to sell or trade to his Russkie keepers. Barb McQuade again:

“The affidavit confirms that the documents were stored in various locations around Mar-a-Lago and that none of these locations was an approved storage facility for classified material,”

Further, as reported in the WSJ yesterday (p. A1):

"The FBI tally of classified information in those boxes found, according to the affidavit: “184 unique documents bearing classification markings, including 67 documents marked as CONFIDENTIAL, 92 documents marked as SECRET, and 25 documents marked as TOP SECRET.”

The FBI believed that the material contained what it calls “national defense information,”

Last night on ALL In, former DOJ prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg continued his cautious forbearance at pronouncing Trump guilty or Merrick Garland having a straightforward indictment path. But methinks he is overthinking it all, and Chris Hayes' ALL In follow up guest Dana Perry seemed to agree. The fact is the search warrant and affidavit mention potential crimes that don’t require information to be classified. So simply just taking the material out of the White House and refusing to give it back could be enough for prosecution. Nor does Trump Toady Kash Patel's codswallop about Trump magically declaring all files "declassified" work, for the same reason. Former DOJ Solicitor General Neal Katyal already pointed this out:

Neal Katyal: Trump’s declassification defenses won’t hold up in a criminal trial (msnbc.com)

Re: The Wall Street Journal Editorial's question today: Is That All There Is?

Asserting: "If you’re going to indict a former President, you’d better have him dead to rights on something bigger than mishandling documents."

Actually, you don't need anything more, boneheads (as Neal Katyal pointed out). The WSJ nabobs also forget that the government finally nailed gangster Al Capone om a tax fraud charge - not for any of his major violent crimes. Sometimes, as Dana Perry and Andrew Weismann have noted, it's the paper crimes that catch the arch criminal. How ironic would it be to nail the orange maggot on mishandling documents, especially if it's later discovered they do contain 'bombshells'?

It seems clear to me Trump's indictment is a no brainer as former FBI-DOJ counsel Andrew Weismann also argued last night. Not to do so, to refuse to go after this rabid orange rat, could well be the final lapse hurling this nation into perdition. We can't afford to turn a blind eye to traitors and political terrorists or give them a pass because we're terrified of how they will react to an indictment of their tin god.

See Also:

Donald Trump