What's all the fuss about some "affidavit" supporting the "search warrant" for the raid on Trump's home?

Back when we were a British colony it was common for ruling thugs (at that time British soldiers instead of FBI agents and Democrat politicians) to barge into homes and turn 'em inside-out searching for "stuff."

Wait...what *kind* of stuff?  Anything they wanted.  They didn't have to tell the homeowner or resident.  "We're agents of the king, and you must do as we DEMAND, peasant!" 

This was standard stuff for British subjects, where the king and his lackeys could do anything they wished--and did.

The Founders really hated that kind of behavior, so when they drafted the Bill of Rights they took care to include rules prohibiting police ("the government") from doing what the king's lackeys had always done--search your home on a whim.

Now: If you've been paying attention you know several things about the FBI raid on Trump's residence:
* The 30 FBI agents were there for 9 hours;
* The search warrant itself was ludicrously overbroad, literally demanding "every record" from the entire period of Trump's time in office;

The warrant itself is supported--theoretically justified--by a separate "affidavit" which is a sworn statement setting forth the specific legal justification for the search and seizure of your property.

The biden regime, through corrupt partisan hack Merrick Garland, released the search warrant for the Trump raid, but not the affidavit.  Margot Cleveland at the Federalist had some observations on that:

In a court filing opposing the motion to unseal the affidavit, the DOJ argued that it "considered whether the affidavit can be released subject to redactions.”  Right away you realize the DOJ is implying that they would refuse to unseal the affidavit unless they were allowed to "redact" everything they didn't ant you to know--meaning the gruberment refuses to tell you the putative reasons for the raid.

The DOJ filing quickly "concluded" that there was no point to unsealing the affidavit *because* they said “the redactions necessary to mitigate harms to the integrity of the investigation would be so extensive as to render the remaining text devoid of meaningful content…”

Oooh, yeah!  We (DOJ) are all about "mitigating harms to the integrity of the investigation," eh?  Lying sons of whores.  What sort of "integrity" do they claim remains?

This suggests that IF the "magistrate" should be so crazy as to refuse the DOJ's "suggestion" and demand that the affidavit be unsealed, and IF Garland deigns to "unseal" the affidavit (as opposed to appealing the matter to a more compliant judge), the thing will be essentially totally blacked out except for words like "a," "and" and "the."

The DOJ argued that the affidavit contained “substantial grand jury” information."  So?  Oh, now we get it: They're implying that since GJ testimony is supposed to be secret, the contents of the affidavit should be secret too.  Ah.  So if the Gestapo wants to keep something secret, just claim it's in being investigated by a grand jury.  Hmmm...

The lying sons of bitches kept mentioning “national security overtones,” wailing about their concern for “the safety of the witnesses,” with the prosecutor noting the risk that “‘amateur’ internet sleuths” might uncover their identities and contact information.  The DOJ attorney then wailed about the failed attempt by a lunatic to "attack FBI agents in Cincinnati, Ohio," using that to argue that the situation was “volatile,” justifying extreme measures.

Garland and the corruptocrats now claim EVERY issue is "volatile" and justifies "extreme measures" like secret warrants.  Star chambers.

Garland's corrupt DOJ argued that unsealing the affidavit "would create the threat of possible obstruction and interference.”  This is clutching pearls.

DOJ filing: “The court has found probable cause that there was a violation of one of the obstruction statutes, and that evidence of obstruction could be found in a redacted version of the affidavit.”   The DOJ wailed that the investigation remained in its “early stages” and that unsealing the affidavit could harm the probe.

What it would do is reveal the spy the FBLie inserted in Trump's personal residence.

The official, written DOJ court responses show that the identity of the FBLie spy must be redacted so he or she can continue to spy.  

History suggests that Garland's corrupt DOJ won't unseal the search warrant unless it's so blacked out as to be totally devoid of information.  Because the Democrats can always find Dem judges to do as they demand.