sod a lot oque franf really ine and quite frankly, startling d details. et d the devilon is inal the deo and i ll trump had no basis, no reason, no legal basis to retain those documents at mart r a lago. e there could be numerous there could be numerous just donald trumadp as well as additional crimes that coulds be charged. hee getting th is she kidding me? now, she mightat be getting tht idea from one of the smalls parts of the affidavit that was curiously left unredacted likerr on page thirty . we re referring to presidentum trump and p and those around hi quote, criminal parties, but stilstl didn t provide any evidence to prove it. it also warned that t releasinthgs team the affidavit would give trump and his team the opportunity to flee t or destroy evidence stord electronically and otherwise fleed . on really, trump s plane has hisan name on itde and destroyhing electronic evidence. do they mean doing something like, i don t know, deleting lit thirty three thousa
the doj is an impartial actor, this whole sordid affair should put that tsho rest . the affidavit alleges that t there was probable cause toth believat ee that evidence of maa obstruction was going to be found at mar largo. alall ril right, then let s see do the documents released today support? well, there s a lot ofwher allegations here, but where s the actual evidence and we keep asking this, but what the heck took so longwa to execute thisae raid if it was such an urgent no namatter of national security, why did it take so long? june. then a search warranong? june. they got a subpoena in june,afte then a search warrant in august and then three days after that they finally marched in. think about it. it actually really concerning that the doj waited so long. if there was such an immediate risk to our national security, trump waofs out of office ford over five hundred days by the time the raid happened , his team had already been in talks with the national archivesback and the fbi f