A former assistant director for the FBI has concluded that the Department of Justice and FBI have “no case” against President Donald Trump.
And Kevin R. Brock, formerly the assistant director of intelligence for the FBI and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, wrote in an opinion piece that that conclusion is drawn from the federal government’s documents, including the affidavit in support of a search warrant for Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home.
Brock’s comments were published in the Hill, where he noted, “Everyone in America, from a plumber to the president, is constitutionally protected from a government search that lacks adequate cause.”
He continued, “We now know why the DOJ wanted the affidavit — which is supposed to articulate the probable cause needed for a legitimate search — to be kept under seal. After the magistrate who authorized the search forced the DOJ to unseal a redacted version, two realities came into better focus.”
He said, “First, the affidavit confirmed that the FBI’s investigation was triggered in January 2022 at the request of the National Archives, which wanted certain documents, especially classified documents, that it considered to be presidential records to be turned over to it by Trump. Second, from what I have seen, I don’t believe the affidavit articulates how a federal law was or is being broken. For those who hold out hope that the affidavit’s redacted sections fill that gap, there is almost no chance that they do.”
Further, he said, it shows a “document dispute” was “chugging along” and the government’s claim does not assert “a refusal by Trump to cooperate.”
In fact, there have been claims made that the FBI raid on Trump’s home was mainly to try to find documents he may have that implicate the FBI in its involvement in a scheme set up by Democrats during the 2016 race to falsely suggest Trump’s campaign was “colluding” with Russia.
Those claims, in fact, have been debunked, but it is known that the FBI submitted false information to a court to obtain permission to spy on Trump’s campaign. FBI employees at that election were boasting to each other they would prevent Trump’s election.
Brock said any claims that the FBI had “pulverizing” evidence of any sort of crime, “can – I think – be considered dashed.”
“The pipe dream that Trump was engaged in espionage, actively providing secrets to an enemy I think is as fanciful as the Steele dossier’s Moscow hotel bed reverie,” he pointed out, citing one of the more egregious – and fabricated – claims made against Trump by the DOJ and Democrats in 2016.
He explained the second point is more important. While there are claims regarding government documents being in the custody of Trump, “a criminal violation of those statutes only exists if it can be established that the person being investigated was not authorized to possess, store, transfer or copy those documents.”
“This is an easy element to establish against anyone in America. Except for one person,” he said.
In fact, there’s no government attempt to “articulate cause that Trump was not authorized to have these documents in his home.”
It’s because as president he had vast authority, from the law and court precedent, to declassify any documents, and determine what a presidential record is.
He said the redacted portions unlikely were to detail some “novel” legal strategy that would undercut a president’s authority.
“The situation does not look good for the government. The Ivy League-educated attorneys of the DOJ had to know this adventure had little chance of eventual successful prosecution. The use, therefore, of a highly intrusive search of a home simply as a forcing function to retrieve documents for the National Archives — and then not follow through with actual charges — spikes the potential abuse needle dramatically and will not help quiet the growing suspicion that this was more of a political hitjob to take Trump off the chessboard than it was the pursuit of blind justice,” he said.
To the oft-repeated claim from Democrats that “No one is above the law,” he said, “We know that’s not true. The last time the Democrats controlled the DOJ, Hillary Clinton was set high aloft and placed out of reach of ‘reasonable’ prosecution by then-FBI Director James Comey with the concurrence of the DOJ.”