<Left-wing commentator Briahna Joy Gray recently argued that the call from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., to “defund the FBI” over its search of Mar-a-Lago could end up being fruitful for America. In a monologue addressed to conservatives on The Hill’s “Rising,” an internet show that has explored how populism can bridge gaps between the left and the right, Gray contends that this is a moment in which the right is awakening to how problematic the FBI is, something leftists and civil libertarians have tried to sound the alarm about for decades. And so she sees an opening for conservatives to become sustained critics of the FBI, which, theoretically, makes them potential allies for the left on the issue.

There is no evidence that the right is opposed to the idea of a repressive FBI.

I’m no fan of the FBI, but count me skeptical of this analysis. There is no evidence that the right is opposed to the idea of a repressive FBI; right-wing calls to do away with the FBI are in reality an unserious and ad hoc attempt to buttress the untenable theory that there is a conspiracy to destroy Trump within the organs of the state. What the right actually wants is an FBI that does more of what it has done historically — repress the left.....>

<At the moment, there’s still far more we don’t know about the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence on Monday than we do know. Not that this ambiguity has imposed caution on the cast of characters who arbitrate our political discourse.

Trump’s fans on social media took these assaults on the legitimacy of American law enforcement to their logical conclusion: “Civil war coming to America.”

In their telling, the plainclothes agents who executed a federal warrant to search for yet-unknown materials are either the harbingers of the republic’s downfall or liberators who will free us from the former president’s grip. This is sophistry. The search’s unknowable (at this stage) effect on the former president’s future or the health of our legal and governing institutions is pure speculation. More relevant now is what the instant reaction to this event reveals about the future of the Republican coalition.

Well before any of the details of the warrant or its predicates were publicly available, Republican politicians with an interest in preserving their truck with GOP primary voters lashed out at the government with scene-chewing indignation.

“This is what happens in third world countries,” the GOP’s House Judiciary Committee insisted. “The FBI raid on President Trump’s home is an unprecedented political weaponization of the Justice Department,” declared South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. “Using government power to persecute political opponents is something we have seen many times from 3rd world Marxist dictatorships,” Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida mourned. “Biden has taken our republic into dangerous waters,” Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri fretted on Twitter, calling the raid “an unprecedented assault on democratic norms.”

As is his talent, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis channeled the most aggrieved sentiments of the Republican base. “The raid of MAL is another escalation in the weaponization of federal agencies against the Regime’s political opponents,” he wrote. “Now the Regime is getting another 87k IRS agents to wield against its adversaries? Banana Republic.”

Trump’s fans on social media took these assaults on the legitimacy of American law enforcement to their logical conclusion: “Civil war coming to America,” read the all-too-common refrain.

Critics of the FBI’s conduct may have a point, though they’re filling in the blanks with inferences derived from the agency’s conduct in other politically charged investigations into Trump and those in his orbit. The agency’s reliance on the Christopher Steele dossier as a predicate for opening an investigation into the former president and securing a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page should give any good government advocate pause before giving the agency the benefit of the doubt. The FBI’s decision not to prosecute or even execute a search of Hillary Clinton’s effects despite being under investigation for a similar mishandling of government documents lends credence to Republicans' suspicions.

A consuming persecution complex has always been a feature of Trump’s movement.

The proper response to the FBI’s precedent-setting search of a former president’s residence over an allegation that had not previously justified such extraordinary measures is not, however, to attack the legitimacy of America’s governing institutions — not without evidence justifying this equally extraordinary charge. It would be to demand investigations, depositions, even resignations depending on what is uncovered. These are the sorts of measures that can only be sought by other competing, equally legitimate federal institutions. Jealous stewards of that legitimacy would not fan the flames of popular resentment, which have the potential to fuel a mob.

A consuming persecution complex has always been a feature of Trump’s movement. “In reality, they’re not after me. They’re after you,” read a meme the then-president himself tweeted in 2019. “I’m just in the way.” If this is what you believe — that powerful yet unseen forces are at work, depriving you of your due — an unavoidable corollary is that it is necessary and just to fight fire with fire. It’s this mentality that is contributing to the right’s abandonment of one of the chief tenets of conservatism: the virtue of limited government....>

<In the immediate aftermath of the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago, the smart move for Republicans would’ve been to exercise great caution. The party had no idea what Donald Trump took, what the FBI found, or what the court-approved search warrant said.

GOP officials had no use for the smart move.

Instead, Republicans responded in the most knee-jerk, reactionary way possible, lashing out at the Justice Department, the FBI, and its leaders. The party condemned the attorney general, the FBI director, and President Joe Biden — without evidence, without reason, and without any regard for propriety.

Many in the party even abandoned any interest in the rule of law, insisting that holding Trump accountable — even trying to hold Trump accountable — represented an unforgivable abuse that left the United States as little more than a “banana republic.”

Then Attorney General Merrick Garland endorsed disclosing the search warrant. The Washington Post reported soon after that nuclear secrets were among the materials the former president kept at his unsecured golf resort.

It was against this backdrop that the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee held a press conference this morning to once again defend Trump, floating some newly crafted arguments. The Washington Post highlighted one of my favorites:

Sure, the former president may have improperly taken nuclear secrets to his golf club. And sure, he didn’t give them back when asked. And sure, he and his team didn’t comply with a subpoena. And sure, Trump gave the FBI no choice but to execute a search warrant.

But let’s not assume, Turner suggested, that just because the nuclear secrets Trump allegedly took are classified that they’re, you know, classified.

Politico added, “Republicans who days ago were near-united in blasting the Justice Department are allowing that nuclear weapons-related materials at Mar-a-Lago might be problematic.”

Yes. Problematic. How generous of them.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy added that holding onto documents relating to nuclear weapons “doesn’t seem like that’s something [Trump] would be doing.”

Perhaps not, but this is the point at which we find ourselves.

House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, meanwhile, urged the public this morning not to “jump to conclusions” — despite the fact that the New York congresswoman has spent the week jumping to conclusions, and despite the fact that at the same press conference, Stefanik again accused the Biden administration of “weaponizing“ federal law enforcement, despite the fact that there’s literally no evidence that this has happened.

All of which leaves us with a couple of inescapable truths. The first is that GOP officials feel the need to remain loyal to Trump, even if he did mishandle national security materials and illegally take nuclear secrets to his resort.

It’s the exact kind of black-and-white court case that Trump managed to avoid for his entire time in public life. I don’t doubt that he’ll come up with a Plan D, E, and F in the coming days and weeks as we wait to see if charges result from Monday’s search. But there’s nothing he or his team can say or do to change the fact that Trump’s future could shift dramatically based on what the DOJ chooses to do about the 11 boxes of classified materials its agents brought home from Florida.>

<Law enforcement officials in Garfield County, Colorado, have released audio recordings of 911 calls they received from neighbors of Rep Lauren Boebert (R-CO), complaining her kids were speeding on the street, her husband was driving drunk and he drove over their mailbox and was trying to start a fight.

According to the report from the Denver Post, the altercation happened on Aug 4, and led to a spate of calls requesting deputies respond.

As the Post's Conrad Swanson wrote, "Garfield County Sheriff’s deputies decided to let neighbors of U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert settle a dispute between themselves and the congresswoman’s husband after he reportedly threatened them and destroyed their mailbox. But 911 calls from the incident, obtained by The Denver Post, show just how upset and nervous the neighbors were over their run-in with Boebert’s husband, Jayson Boebert."

According to the report, a neighbor asked one of Boebert's sons to stop speeding down the street in a dune buggy, which set off a dispute that then escalated.

One caller to 911 stated, "He's going like 50 miles an hour and this is a residential lane, there's kids. We tried to stop him, and he'd just freakin' cuss at us and just left."

Another complained about Boebert's husband and the GOP lawmaker, telling the dispatcher, "I’m sure he’s loaded to the hilt. Do you know who his wife is? Lauren Boebert. She’s loaded. They all have guns. He just got chest to chest, face to face, looking to fight.”

The report adds, "Jayson Boebert did not respond to a message seeking comment, nor did the second neighbor. However, over the phone, the second neighbor told the 911 dispatcher that Jayson Boebert had driven to their house with his son 'trying to claim that someone took a swing at his kid and nobody did.'" adding, "He calls Jayson Boebert 'dumb as a post' and 'irrational,' then expresses concern about the being threatened and more.">

Just another excursion through white trash land....

<That’s [sic] is, my posts don’t break the guidelines, but you delete them and suspend me <just because> you disagree>

Bring it on, <boy>.

<Former President Donald Trump seems to believe that running for president again might allow him to wriggle out of possible criminal charges, but one national security expert argued that only makes him more likely to be indicted.

The twice-impeached former president appears likely to announce a third White House campaign, and he reportedly thinks that might help him escape criminal charges for the Jan. 6 insurrection and other efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, but conservative Paul Rosenzweig argued in a column for The Bulwark that running for office puts more pressure on the Department of Justice to prosecute him.

"In many ways Trump is an idiot savant," wrote Rosenzweig, a former deputy assistant secretary for policy in the Department of Homeland Security. "Despite his manifest flaws he has shown an uncommonly effective ability to define a political movement and capture its energy to his own political benefit. His continuing control of Republican primaries is evidence of his ongoing influence over American politics."

"But even idiot savants make mistakes," he added.

Richard Nixon was pardoned by his predecessor Gerald Ford on the assumption he would leave politics for good, and Bill Clinton also evaded prosecution by agreeing to step back from public life, but Trump instead has remained the unquestioned leader of the Republican Party and its frontrunner for the 2024 nomination.

"If Trump had chosen to retire to Mar-a-Lago and play golf or even if he had retreated to his resort and continued to exercise influence over the Republican party but chosen not to run again for office," Rosenzweig wrote, "I suspect that Attorney General Merrick Garland would have welcomed the excuse to forgo a prosecution of Trump."

"Garland would likely have judged the precedent be too significant and the risks to civil society to extreme," he added.

Trump mistakenly thinks becoming a presidential candidate will immunize him from prosecution, but Rosenzweig believes the opposite is true.

"By refusing to forswear ambition, he exacerbates the conditions of social conflict that make it almost mandatory for the attorney general to exercise his discretion in favor of charging Trump," Rosenzweig wrote. "Without the benefit of civil peace, the rule of law must prevail."

"Trump doesn’t have it in him to fade from public view," Rosenzweig added, "and, in the end, that compulsion may make it impossible to excuse his misconduct.">

<MSNBC's Joe Scarborough knocked down Donald Trump's excuses for taking home classified documents to his home at Mar-A-Lago.

The FBI searched the former president's home last week and removed around a dozen boxes of materials he had refused to turn over to the Department of Justice, and the "Morning Joe" host sorted through a litany of shifting justifications for Trump's possession of those documents.

"I didn't take the documents, but if I did take the documents, they weren't classified, and if they were classified, then they were planted, and if they weren't, I declassified them, and if I didn't, then it's a hoax," Scarborough said. "If it is not a hoax, Obama did it. He keeps changing, he keeps going through the lies. You know, first, he said he was working and cooperating with government agents, then, when we found out the truth about that, he said the agents planted it. Finally, he started lying -- and you're going to talk about this in a second -- saying he declassified them."

"Then on Sunday, on the Sunday shows, after all of these different stories didn't line up, after all of the lies that he had thrown out there and all of the you know what thrown against the wall didn't line up, then he had former aides go on TV and start a new round of lies," Scarborough continued. "One saying, well, he was in a rush, he was packing, he didn't know whether he was going to leave or not. Then when he found out he was going to leave the White House -- I'm not sure why he didn't know that he was leaving the White House. He lost by millions and millions of votes, lost by what he called his own victory, lost by the same number, which he said was one of the greatest landslides in American history, the Electoral College count."

"He's just making sh -- stuff up," Scarborough added. "It shows a real level of desperation. We all know he is lying. There has been, I guess if you count it, seven, eight, nine, 10 different lies.">

We have heah a charter member of <liarsrus>.

Ain't that so, <quisling, heart attack giver>?

It appears that, while often unable to come to terms on what is best for the hoi polloi, pols on both sides of the aisle have divergent views on limiting trading.

<Two congressional Republicans have violated a federal conflict-of-interest and transparency law, an Insider review of new financial disclosures found.

Rep. Brian Mast and Sen. Rick Scott — both of Florida — violated the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012. The law, in part, requires members of Congress to file disclosures within 45 days of making a stock transaction or other financial trade by the member or their spouse.

Scott, estimated by Insider to be the wealthiest member of Congress, reported on Monday that he and his wife sold up to $450,000 in stock in Emida Corporation in September 2021 — but he didn't report the trade until more than a year after a federal deadline. Lawmakers are not required to provide the specific value of their trades, and instead, report them in broad ranges.

Based in California, Emida is a privately held company that provides technology support for the prepaid wireless and digital payments industries.

Scott's communications director, McKinley Lewis, told Insider that the office immediately notified the Senate Ethics Committee once it noticed the disclosure error, and that "in accordance with the Committee's instructions, the proper reports have been filed."

Scott's office confirmed that the US Senate Select Committee on Ethics has not, at present, assessed a fine — standard penalty: $200 — for a late STOCK Act disclosure.

Mast sold stock worth up to $50,000 in Ideal Power, a company that develops power switches for electric vehicles and other machinery, in February 2021. But he didn't properly report the sale to the US House of Representatives until August 12.

This is the second time in two years Insider has found Mast crosswise with the STOCK Act, as the congressman was previously late disclosing a purchase of up to $100,000 of stock in an aerospace company.

Mast's communications director, AnnMarie Graham, told Insider that the Ideal Power transaction "slipped through the cracks due to an administrative error" and that no fine has been levied against Mast as of yet.

Since 2021, Insider's "Conflicted Congress" project and other publications have together uncovered 70 lawmakers, now including Scott, who have violated the STOCK Act by disclosing their trades late.

Both Republicans and Democrats alike continue to violate the STOCK Act, which Congress passed in 2012 in an attempt to curb conflicts of interest, insider trading, and bring to light public officials' financial dealings. Insider found four Democrats in violation of the STOCK Act this week alone.

Insider additionally found at least 182 senior congressional staffers who also violated provisions of the STOCK Act....>

<Sen. Lindsey Graham faces his courthouse moment of truth.

On Aug. 15, Atlanta federal District Court judge Leigh Martin May ordered Graham to testify before the special Fulton County grand jury investigating then-President Donald Trump's Jan. 2, 2021, phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

In that call, Trump asked Raffensperger to "find 11,780 votes," which he asserted was one vote more than he needed to overturn Joe Biden's electoral victory in Georgia. Graham had himself made two phone calls to Raffensperger after the November 2020 election but before Trump's call. It's not hard to imagine what those calls were about.

Graham has three choices on how to proceed. Only one can redeem him as someone committed to the rule of law. That choice, by the way, would also be the safest way to avoid the kind of prosecutorial suspicion that could lead to Graham becoming a target of the Georgia investigation, as Rudy Giuliani became on Monday.

First, Graham could appeal, continuing his blanket resistance based on the almost certainly inapplicable "speech or debate" clause of the Constitution. That provision states that in all cases "except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace," senators and representatives "shall not be questioned" outside of Congress "for any Speech or Debate in either House."

Second, Graham could appear before the grand jury and answer some of the prosecutor's questions, but continue to object on a question-by-question basis, asserting that the queries implicate his constitutional immunity, an avenue the Supreme Court has made quite narrow. He might try playing that card if continuing to hide the truth and remaining a Trump loyalist are his most important priorities.

Finally, he could comply with the court's order and testify, asserting his right not to incriminate himself if he needs to, but otherwise providing the information prosecutors seek. That option is the one any American genuinely committed to the rule of law would take. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has good reasons to hear what Graham has to say.

Those reasons explain why Graham lost the first round in his battle to stay home and avoid a grand jury's questions: Willis is focused on the content of the two unrecorded phone calls Graham made in late 2020 to Raffensperger. She also wants to know whether Graham coordinated his calls with the Trump campaign or even with Trump himself....>

<....Raffensperger and his deputy, Gabe Sterling, claim that Graham pressured them to assist Trump by tossing out ballots due to assertions about whether the voters' signatures matched those on file. Sterling and Raffensperger allege that Graham wanted Raffensperger to disqualify the entire vote in counties — such as Fulton, where roughly 525,000 votes were cast, more than 10% of the state's total — with high numbers of questioned signature matches.

Graham denied any such intent. He told the media that he just wanted to improve the process going forward, with the upcoming Jan. 5, 2021, U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia, ultimately won by two Democrats, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff.

Graham's current claim that he was exploring possible future election legislation is undercut by the fact that, in his calls, he appears not to have mentioned any such potential legislation.

Thus, it is hardly surprising that Judge May rejected Graham's blanket reliance on the Constitution's "speech and debate" clause. One of us (Gerson) successfully represented the government in the D.C. federal court of appeals in Brewster v. United States, one of two Supreme Court cases on which Judge May relied. Brewster held that the clause "does not prohibit inquiry into activities that are casually or incidentally related to legislative affairs but not a part of the legislative process itself."

The question Judge May addressed was whether Graham was seeking to shield from scrutiny truly legislative activity or activity that was "political" or otherwise non-legislative in nature. As the Supreme Court has held, the Constitution does not shield such matters from a grand jury's inquiry.

For reasons that are apparent to laymen and lawyers alike, the Atlanta federal court rebuffed Graham's claim that his calls were entirely legislative information-gathering exercises. They instead involved a "Senator from South Carolina making personal phone calls to state-level election officials in Georgia concerning Georgia's election processes and the results of the state's 2020 election." The court wrote, "On its face, such conduct is not 'a manifestly legislative act.'"

Graham could now appear before the grand jury and object to whatever questions he claims intrude on his "speech and debate" clause immunity. While he could then return to federal court to litigate any dispute over his individual objections, the range of such objections would be limited, given that legitimate "legislative" matters obviously wouldn't include attempting to overturn state-based election results.

So the question for the gentleman from South Carolina at this juncture is whether he is to be seen as a full-throated MAGA-right ally, as a sophisticated politician employing the judicial process to try to protect Trump, or as someone who actually believes in the rule of law.>

<“It has just been learned that the FBI, in its now famous raid of Mar-a-Lago, took boxes of privileged ‘attorney-client’ material, and also ‘executive’ privileged material, which they knowingly should not have taken.”>

<“This Break In was a sneak attack on democracy (our Republic!), and was both unannounced and done at a time when the President was not even present. It was for political, not legal reasons.”>

<“They could have had it anytime they wanted—and that includes LONG ago. ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS ASK.”>

<“Number one, it was all declassified.”>

<“What happened to the 30 million pages of documents taken from the White House to Chicago by Barack Hussein Obama?”>

< “Just learned that agents went through the First Lady’s closets and rummaged through her clothing and personal items. Surprisingly, left area in a relative mess. Wow!”>

Hahahahaha!

Should we believe yet more lies from that self-styled truth-giver?

<Fulton County District had harsh words for an attorney representing Georgia GOP Gov. Brian Kemp as he tries to quash a subpoena to appear before a special grand jury.

Attorney Brian F. McEvoy filed a 121-page motion in Fulton County Superior Court on Wednesday seeking to negate or delay the subpoena.

An email from Willis in the one-hundred-plus pages of attachments, Atlanta Journal-Constitution correspondent Greg Bluestein reported.

"Fulton County DA Fani Willis isn’t messing around," Bluestein noted.

Willis began the email by writing, "my special counsel, in an effort to be a gentleman and an officer of the court, has been far too polite."

"The email you have sent is offensive and beneath an officer of the court," Willis wrote. "You are both wrong and confused."

"Let's discuss some of the ways you are wrong," she continued, listing three bullet points.

"Now let's discuss your confusion," Willis said, listing two bullet points.

"We have been working with you in good faith for months," she explained. "You have been rude and even disparaging to my staff. You have been less than honest about conversations that have taken place. Despite the way you have behaved, we have continued to work with you out of deference not for you, but out of deference for my governor. This is an old adage that people take kindness for weakness. You have taken my kindness as weakness and you have continually treated with disdain."

"Despite your disdain, this investigation continues and will not be derailed by anyone's antics," Willis wrote.>

<In Vietnam, Afghanistan and many other conflicts, the stronger power lost because it could not win, and the weaker power triumphed simply because it did not lose. So shall it be in Ukraine, where the same process is playing out rapidly.

In less than six months, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war of choice has had catastrophic consequences — for Russia itself. It has resulted in at least 60,000 Russian casualties, more than the total number of fatalities suffered during the 10-year Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It has led to a long-term Russian loss of political influence and energy leverage in the West. It has helped resuscitate the NATO alliance, which just a few years ago seemed to be on its last legs. And it has inflicted severe, long-term damage on the Russian economy, effectively erasing all of the gains made since the Soviet Union’s collapse.

And what has Russia gotten for this? Only a few more slivers of land in Ukraine — land that the Kremlin may not be able to hold for very long.

Russia’s elites already know this. As the body bags, wounded and discharged soldiers return to Russia, the Russian people are beginning to comprehend it as well. All of which increases Putin’s domestic political vulnerability — and puts him under growing pressure to find some way to declare victory.

As a result, Russia’s president has continued to double down on his campaign of aggression. Following its failure to take Kyiv, Kharkiv and other Ukrainian territories, the Kremlin retooled its strategic objectives, narrowing them to the more limited aim of fully conquering the Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, both of which had been partially occupied since 2014. At great human cost, some gains have been made toward that goal. Overall, however, Russia’s revamped offensive can be classified as a strategic failure, as more and more Russians die to temporarily hold non-strategic territory.

This failure, in turn, has caused other problems. The troops used for cannon fodder in the Kremlin’s campaign have been disproportionally not ethnically Russian — something that has caused a souring of troop morale and stoked tensions between ethnically Russian troops and those from places like Buryatia (traditionally Buddhist) and Dagestan (mostly Muslim). Some soldiers are now refusing to fight, and discontent among their families presents a growing problem for Russia’s government.

But what is perhaps Putin’s most dangerous “bad bet” is now unfolding. With the destruction of the bridges necessary to resupply and/or reinforce them, the estimated 20,000 Russian troops on the west bank of the Dnipro River are trapped, effectively surrounded by Ukrainian forces without the capability to break out or to fight for any extended period of time. Putin did not reposition these troops when he had the chance to do so, effectively leaving them stranded. As a result, some senior commanders have deserted across the river, damaging Russian troop morale in Kherson and elsewhere.

All this makes Putin’s internal situation worse, as more and more members of Russia’s power ministries focus on his ongoing — and disastrous — mistakes. Eventually, a critical mass of Russia’s decision-making elites (those with guns or money) will conclude that the country needs to cut its losses by withdrawing its forces from Ukraine, because doing so would be a precondition for the removal of Western sanctions and allowing Russia to rebuild its army and economy.

This, however, cannot be done with Putin still in power.

Although removing Russia’s president from power won’t be easy, eventually the balance will inexorably shift from the dwindling number of stalwarts who still support his war aims to those who want to cut their losses.

That point could well come if the stalemate in the Donbas continues, and Ukraine starts to recapture territory now occupied by Russia. Today, both of those outcomes are distinctly possible. As a result, so too is a possible end to the current war.>

<Questioner: Watching a four-part series on PBS called "Hacking Your Mind" was extremely instructive in explaining how Trump <<<uses fear of loss>>> to manipulate his base.

This was particularly evident in the 2020 presidential debate, where Trump said that if you vote for Biden, you will lose everything you love and care about, including your freedoms (regulations); safety for yourself and family (immigrants, taking away guns); jobs (immigrants); money (taxes); and even your windows (green regulations).

A lifelong narcissist and sociopath, he's honed his skills in manipulating others' minds through fear of loss, ultimately for his own personal power and gain.

In this manner, Trump has gained a loyal following of cult members, many of whom will commit unlawful acts at his request.

My question is: Is there a way to do some kind of mass intervention for these folks, by educating them in Trump's methods of hacking their minds?

How do we convince the Trump cult members to overcome short-term reactive brain function (fear of loss), in exchange for longer-term cognitive brain function (critical thinking)?>

<WASHINGTON – Donald Trump has blasted the Aug. 8 search of his Florida estate by questioning the justification for the unprecedented action at a former president’s home, criticizing how the FBI carried it out and questioning what was taken from Mar-a-Lago.

Since then, Trump has made a number of statements through social media posts on his website Truth Social and through public statements that often lack context and facts that rebut his own allegations.

Below we looked at what Trump said and offered important information. But first, here are some basic facts about the search:

A judge in Florida signed off on the search warrant: U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart signed off on the search warrant allowing the FBI to look for evidence of criminal violations of the Espionage Act, mishandling defense documents and obstruction of justice.

FBI agents recovered classified documents: The FBI reported finding 11 sets of classified documents marked “secret” or “top secret,” along with other records representing potential violations of the Presidential Records Act. But specific details about what was collected haven't been revealed.

Trump said the search was politically motivated: Trump called the search part of a partisan witch hunt conducted by the Justice Department. He said the search was unnecessary because he was cooperating with federal authorities and complained of agents rummaging through his belongings, which included collecting three passports that were later returned.

Garland defended his agency: But Attorney General Merrick Garland, who personally approved the search, defended the actions of Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents.

Trump said there's 'no way' to justify search, but search warrant cites Espionage Act and other crimes Trump post on Truth Social on Aug. 15:

Context:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart signed off on the FBI search warrant by finding probable cause the FBI would find evidence that three potential crimes were committed: improper handling of defense documents, obstruction of justice and possible violations of the Espionage Act.

Judges review warrants as a check on investigators who are required to present evidence they've already gathered to demonstrate what more evidence they hope to collect in a search. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects people from unreasonable searches, requires a description of the place to be searched and the items expected to be seized.

In Trump's case, the search warrant described Mar-a-Lago as a Palm Beach mansion with 58 bedrooms and 33 bathrooms on a 17-acre estate. The warrant called for a search of everywhere not occupied or rented by members of the club. The search sought documents that could serve as evidence, contraband, the fruits of a crime or items possessed illegally under the three statutes.

Trump had already run afoul of document regulations before the search. The National Archives and Records Administration obtained 15 boxes of presidential records that were being stored at Mar-a-Lago in February. Keeping the records at Mar-a-Lago violated the Presidential Records Act, which requires the government keep all forms of documents and communications related to a president's or vice president's official duties.

"As required by the Presidential Records Act the records should have been transferred to NARA from the White House at the end of the Trump Administration in January 2021,” the agency said in a statement. The documents included correspondence with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and a letter former President Barack Obama, according to news reports. Trump advisers denied "any nefarious intent" to the Washington Post and said the boxes contained "mementos, gifts, letters from world leaders and other correspondence."

Biden won the 2020 popular vote against Trump with nearly 81.3 million votes to 74.2 million votes, and the Electoral College vote with Biden's 306 votes besting Trump's 232 votes.

Trump: Search could translate into Republican wins in 2022 midterm elections Trump post on Truth Social on Aug. 15:

Context:

Trump remains a dominant figure in Republican politics, with numerous candidates at the federal and state levels seeking his endorsement ahead congressional elections this fall. Eight of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump either retired or were defeated in primaries, after Rep. Liz Cheney’s loss in Wyoming on Aug. 16.

Democrats currently control both chambers of Congress and are trying to fend of Republicans, who want retake control of the House and Senate.

But about 54.5% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, compared to about 41.5% with a favorable opinion through Aug. 11, according to an average of national polling by FiveThirtyEight....>

<....The FBI took Trump's passports, but returned them

Trump post on Truth Social on Aug. 15:

Context:

The Justice Department offered to return the passports Tuesday after agents found they were unrelated to the search for classified documents. Two of the passports were expired and a diplomatic passport was active.

Trump said the search was unannounced. But he was subpoenaed 2 months ago and was notified beforehand.

Trump post on Truth Social on Aug. 14:

Context:

While the search was unprecedented for a former president, the Justice Department had been in contact with Trump about the documents for months.

Trump was served a subpoena for sensitive government documents two months before the FBI executed the search. The subpoena followed a June visit to Mar-a-Lago by federal authorities. The Secret Service assisted the entry of federal authorities on both occasions. The FBI notified the Secret Service in advance of the search, which authorities said was not a “raid” because of the notification. Garland, called attacks against the FBI and Justice Department “unfounded.”

Trump, who appointed the FBI director, again criticizes the agency amid rising violence Trump post on Truth Social on April 14:

Context:

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who Trump nominated when he was president, warned the Senate Judiciary Committee on Aug. 4 about rising violence driven by domestic grievances such as election disputes and the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the abortion-rights decision in Roe v. Wade.

"I feel like everyday I'm getting briefed on somebody throwing a molotov cocktail at someone for some issue," Wray told the committee. "It's crazy."

The warning came a week before an armed man tried to breach the FBI’s Cincinnati field office and was killed in the wake of the search.

Trump said protected documents were taken, but courts have rejected his privilege claims Trump post on Truth Social on Aug. 14:

Context:

The Justice Department hasn’t revealed what documents were seized in the search, other than to say the materials included 11 sets of “secret” and “top secret” records. A subsequent court filing called some of the records “highly classified.”

Federal judges have rejected previous claims of attorney-client and executive privilege in investigations of Trump because the documents with attorneys didn't deal with actual trial preparation and because the investigations outweighed his claim to keep communications with aides confidential.

President Joe Biden waived Trump’s claims of executive privilege for the House committee investigating the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, when it sought documents from the National Archives and Records Administration. When Trump tried to block the release in federal court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Biden’s waiver outweighed Trump’s claim. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, ruling the investigation was more important than the claim of executive privilege.

Trump said the search was unchecked. His lawyer was onsite and the FBI gave him a receipt of what was taken.

Trump posts on Truth Social on Aug. 14:

Context:

Garland said Aug. 11 that copies of the warrant and FBI property receipt for what was collected during the search were provided to Trump’s lawyer, Christina Bobb, who was on site during the search. Bobb signed the receipt 6:19 p.m. on Aug. 8.

David Laufman, who headed the Justice Department’s counterintelligence section until 2018, told USA TODAY that having his successor Bratt leading the effort to retrieve the documents signals how serious the department is taking the investigation. Laufman said the FBI and Justice Department would have never gotten a judge to approve their application for a search warrant without ample evidence of crimes committed – and ongoing threats to U.S. national security.

“The government carries out search warrants when it becomes concerned that there is evidence of a crime that it needs to obtain in order to pursue additional logical investigative steps while protecting the integrity of that evidence,” Laufman said.

White House says Biden wasn't given heads up on Mar-a-Lago search. Trump says 'Does ANYBODY really believe that'?....>

<....Trump posts on Truth Social on Aug. 13:

Context:

President Joe Biden was not informed before the FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, according to the White House. "No, the president was not briefed, was not aware of it,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a press briefing Aug. 9. “No one at the White House was given a heads up.”

In a 2021 directive restricting Justice Department communications with the White House, Garland said the department wouldn't alert the White House to "pending or contemplated criminal or law enforcement investigations or cases unless doing so is important for the performance of the president's duties and appropriate from a law enforcement perspective."

Trump said all documents were declassified, but the law says that might not be true Trump posts on Truth Social on Aug. 12:

Context:

Constitutional powers authorizing a president to declassify documents don't apply to records classified as top-secret or higher because the information contained in them is usually protected by other federal laws designed to make sure it never falls into the wrong hands, according to experts.

"Even if, in fact, what he represents has taken place, there still can be exceedingly sensitive information that is required by law to be protected from unauthorized disclosure," said J. William Leonard, the former head of the U.S. National Archives’ Information Security Oversight Office.

The National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of records from Mar-a-Lago in February, including correspondence with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The agency said the documents should have been given to the archives under the Presidential Records Act when Trump left office. Federal investigators returned to Mar-a-Lago in June to collect classified documents and urged using a better lock for the storage area where documents were held. A Trump lawyer signed a document saying all classified documents had been turned over at that point, according to the New York Times.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issued a statement Aug. 12 stating the agency had “exclusive legal and physical custody of Obama Presidential records” when he left office in 2017.

“NARA moved approximately 30 million pages of unclassified records to a NARA facility in the Chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by NARA. Additionally, NARA maintains the classified Obama Presidential records in a NARA facility in the Washington, DC, area. As required by the (Presidential Records Act) former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the Presidential records of his Administration.”

Trump post on Truth Social on Aug. 12:

Context:

The Washington Post reported FBI agents were searching for documents related to nuclear weapons. But the search warrant doesn’t go into detail about the records sought. The Justice Department hasn’t described the documents collected....>

<....Trump wants to release the search affidavit, but DOJ wants it sealed

Trump posts on Truth Social on Aug. 11:

Context:

A consortium of press and advocacy groups led by Judicial Watch filed a motion Aug. 10 to unseal the search warrant. The Palm Beach Post, part of the USA TODAY Network, joined the request Aug. 12. Judicial Watch filed the Trump statement in the court case saying he didn’t oppose the release of the warrant. The Justice Department also filed a motion unopposed to releasing the warrant, which U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart unsealed Aug. 12.

At a hearing Thursday, Reinhart ordered the Justice Department to propose redactions to the affidavit in anticipation of its potential release. Reinhart scheduled another hearing next week to rule on the redactions.

The lock

Trump post on Truth Social on Aug. 10:

Context:

The New York Times reported that Jay Bratt, the Justice Department’s top counterintelligence official, sent a Trump lawyer, Evan Corcoran, an email after visiting June 3 that urged him to get a more secure padlock for a storage room for Trump documents and the Trump team complied. Bratt left that day with additional classified material, after Trump provided the National Archives with 15 boxes of administration records in February. A Trump lawyer signed a document June 3 saying all material marked classified had been turned over, the New York Times reported.

Trump announces search and attacks Hillary Clinton's emails. Investigation found violations. Trump statement on Aug. 8:

Context:

Trump's initial statement confirmed the search and sparked days of speculation and allegations over what the FBI was looking for and what evidence would justify such an unprecedented action. Many Republicans initially came to Trump's defense while lawmakers from both sides called for more information about the search.

A State Department internal investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of private email found violations by 38 people. The investigation determined that those people were "culpable" in 91 cases of sending classified information that ended up in Clinton's personal email, according to a letter sent to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley in October 2019. Investigators found "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." However, it also made clear that Clinton's use of the private email had increased the vulnerability of classified information.

Former President Bill Clinton and his wife returned $28,000 worth of household items they received as gifts, but were intended for the White House rather than their personal use.>

<Multiple legal experts are weighing in with their take on the chances of former President Donald Trump being indicted following the Federal Bureau of Investigations' (FBI) recent search of his Mar-a-Lago property.

According to a new report published by Business Insider, "people who have been close to his inner circle told Insider that they think he could be in serious legal trouble. In addition to reputable law firms' apprehension about representing the former president amid his mounting legal woes, there are other reasons why law firms are reportedly hesitant to work with Trump and his team.

"One lawyer familiar with the Trump team's thought process said in an interview that the ex-president 'likes to run the show' and is a 'big believer in the public relations assault,' but that he could soon face criminal charges," the news outlet also reported.

Although Trump typically appears to be unphased by the investigative probes, the lawyer insisted that he should be concerned about the mounting legal woes.

"He should be worried about all these investigations," the lawyer added. "I think he's a target of all of them and I think he'll get indicted."

While Trump is facing several federal and state investigations, the U.S. Department of Justice's inquiry is the case currently at the forefront as investigators work to determine if the former president violated laws by removing government documents when he departed the White House in January 2020.

Per Insider, Trump is also a focal point in the justice department's "sprawling criminal investigation into events surrounding the Capitol riot and subpoenaed a number of former top White House officials in recent weeks. Prosecutors have also subpoenaed the National Archives for all the White House records it turned over to the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack."

Trump is also facing a criminal investigation in Fulton County, Ga., but his former impeachment lawyer Alan Dershowitz has said that he is more concerned about the Trump Organization investigation being conducted by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

"Right now it's only civil, but you never know," he said. "Civil can always morph into criminal the way it did with Weisselberg.">