Live from Music Row, Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. – host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael in-studio to discuss the broad DOJ warrant permitting the FBI to raid former President Trump’s residence and the speculation of a coming indictment.
Leahy: Crom, let me just read the text of the Fourth Amendment here as we get into this question about the “probable cause” that the Department of Justice had when it obtained a search warrant signed by a U.S. magistrate who hates Donald Trump. That guy, Bruce Reinhart. Here’s what the Fourth Amendment reads.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Now, we did get a U.S. magistrate to sign a warrant, but it did not actually particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Carmichael: Correct. And we don’t even know what the affidavit says. The application for the warrant, we don’t know what that says.
Leahy: Let me just say, “no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Now, the warrant itself that’s been released doesn’t describe what probable cause is.
The claim of probable cause is included in the affidavit that the Department of Justice approved by Merrick Garland, the political hack who is now the current attorney general. They submitted to this judge, who, by the way, hates Donald Trump and had recused himself from another Donald Trump-related case six weeks earlier. That guy.
So we don’t know. And Donald Trump and other news organizations want the underlying affidavit that shows the probable cause to be released to the public. The Department of Justice is opposing making that probable-cause affidavit public. What do you make of that?
Carmichael: What’s interesting to me about everything that you’ve said, let’s add on top of that, according to Jim Jordan, there are now 14 FBI whistleblowers who have come forward … with information about the FBI and the Mar-a-Lago raid.
We don’t know what the information is, but when you have 14 FBI agents – and Merrick Garland says, don’t question the FBI, don’t question the FBI – okay, well, I’m not going to question these 14. (Leahy chuckles) I want to know what they have to say.
The Democrats are going to bury it. But here’s what’s going to be interesting, Michael. When Donald Trump was president, the Democrats and the media did everything that they possibly could to disrupt his presidency and, frankly, to get him thrown out of office.
The special counsel under the DOJ, run by [Robert] Mueller – who knew, by the way, from the very outset that what he was investigating did not happen. He knew it didn’t happen because he knew that the Steele dossier was bogus.
He knew that right from the start. He was told that. But he asked for information from the Trump administration in any event. And when he was questioned by Congress, he answered the question, did you receive every document you requested?
His answer was yes. So then the person followed up – so it is your testimony that the Trump administration did not withhold any document that you requested? And he said yes. Can you imagine a Republican Congress demanding information from Biden, which he then does everything he can to withhold?
According to Mueller, withholding documents that are requested is an obstruction of justice. That’s according to Mueller.
And so it’s going to be very interesting to see, because the obstruction of justice that could happen won’t be indicted by the Biden administration.
The Biden administration is not going to indict itself. But if they withhold information from Congress, and a Republican administration comes in, then there are a load of people – by the way, including this judge – this judge, I believe, could actually be indicted, because when a police officer does something in their job that is outside the law, they can be indicted and they can be sent to prison.
So if a judge decides to become a rogue political hack and not perform his or her duties as a judge, I believe that there is the possibility, and certainly the rationale, for appropriate [action] – and it wouldn’t be just impeachment. It could be worse than that. So we’ll see.
Leahy: Let me just follow up. I got a little meme from a group that I’ve never heard of called Politique Republic. Which version is true? Urgent or not urgent?
Here’s version A, which is out there now and has been confirmed. Attorney General Merrick Garland deliberated for weeks before authorizing the warrant to raid President Trump’s home. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that.
Version B. This is his version. In order to protect the nation’s most sensitive nuclear secrets, he ordered the immediate raid of President Trump’s home. (Makes buzzer sound) Wrong.
Carmichael: If the former is true, then what Merrick Garland did is extra-legal.
Leahy: Here’s the other. Was it narrow or broad? Here’s what Merrick Garland said. “Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that the warrant was ‘narrowly tailored’ to protect our nation’s nuclear secrets.
But actually, the warrant was so broadly tailored, that it allowed the FBI to seize anything the president might have seen during his term in office, including his passports.” And then CBS Nora O’Donnell says, oh, no, they didn’t take the passports.
And then actually they did take the passports and are returning them. This is a fishing expedition. And they’re looking to indict him. Whatever they find, they’re going to go to a grand jury in Washington, D.C. of people that hate Donald Trump and indict him on something. That’s what’s going to happen. A banana republic.
Carmichael: And then the question is, what can happen?
Listen to the discussion:
– – –