• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Democrats Use FBI To Broaden Their Fascist Demands

AUGUST 13, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


Thursday evening, I was on the US Report on Sky News Australia, talking about the FBI’s raid on Donald Trump’s home. The host was James Morrow, who also co-hosts the excellent Outsiders show. In addition to the raid, we briefly discussed the Democrats’ grotesque expansion of the IRS, which, apparently but unaccountably, they expect to be popular.

You can go here to view the segment, which is six and a half minutes long. I can’t figure out a way to embed it, or I would.

How The Trouble-Maker Dems Sell Their Fascisms!

Trump Raid and Garland Presser, and the Fight Against ‘Woke’ in Florida – and Hollywood

ED MORRISSEY Aug 12, 2022 6:01 at HotAir:

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

It’s been a big week in the news — and we’ve had lots of great analysis of it on The Ed Morrissey Show podcasts! That link takes you to my most recent podcast and other links of all my podcasts on Spotify and Apple for audio-only versions, but let’s do a review of this week’s podcasts to set readers up for the weekend.

The raid on Mar-a-Lago dominated the discussions with our guests over the last few days, and today’s podcast focuses especially on the legal questions. Today’s podcast features Paul Mirengoff from Ringside at the Reckoning and our as-it-happened analysis of Merrick Garland’s presser, who was as skeptical of Garland’s claims as I was. Meanwhile, we also discussed Ron DeSantis’ quiet and not-so-quiet dismantling of the bureaucratic state, and Christian Toto discussed how Hollywood may prefer not to go woke-broke any more:

Don’t miss the rest of the week’s podcasts, either:

  • The Mar-a-Lago raid dominated the Thursday podcast too, as Duane Patterson and I went over its implications. We also talked about the inflation data from the Consumer Price Index and the Producer Price Index, and the dishonest “zero inflation” spin coming out of the White House. Plus, we both laughed out loud at Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s combat pose … and his very bad political instincts in Texas.
  • Will Conservatives Get Led Astray by Klobuchar on Anti-Trust? That was Wednesday’s podcast with Robert Bork Jr, son of the legendary jurist and author of The Anti-Trust Paradox. Bob founded the Anti-Trust Education Project and has repeatedly warned Republicans that their anti-Big Tech strategy will backfire economically and politically.
  • Andrew Malcolm and I have never been mellow (nor have we really tried), but we both had massive crushes on the late, great Olivia Newton-John. We both recall ONJ on Tuesday’s podcast, as well as Brian Stelter’s sudden interest in Hunter Biden corruption stories … now that mainstream media wants Joe Biden out of the way. The Regent of RedState and I discussed the implications of Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan trip, the fading favor of woke corporations, and I reviewed the top stories of the morning — especially the raid on Mar-a-Lago.
  • Does anyone remember the Senate debate on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act? AJ Kaufman and I dissected the bill while the Senate debated in my Monday podcast. We also took a look at the outcome of Republican primaries in Missouri and Arizona and looked ahead to Wisconsin, Minnesota, and others.


AUGUST 13, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeni was the architect of the Iranian revolution and the guiding spirit of the Iranian regime that has held sway since 1979. He was the regime’s Supreme Leader. Ayatollah Ali Khameni is his successor.

Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses was published in September 1988. A few months later, on February 14, 1989, Khomeni issued a fatwa proclaiming a death sentence on Rushdie “and all those involved in [the] publication [of the novel] who were aware of its content.”

As everyone knows, Rushdie lived in hiding for years. His memoir Joseph Anton (2013) recounts the devastating impact of Khomeni’s fatwa on his life. Benjamin Balint’s excellent Claremont Review of Books review is not accessible at the moment, but our friends at the CRB are working on it.

In the wake of Khomeni’s fatwa, and understanding its significance, Daniel Pipes immediately set to work on The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, The Ayatollah, and the West (1990). Referring to “Khomeni and his ilk,” Pipes concludes the book with these words: “The West has to make it clear that the fundamentalist Muslims will gain nothing through threats and intimidation.”

A funny thing happened on its way to publication by Basic Books. Basic Books canceled its contract with Pipes and let him keep the advance. Pipes includes Edwin McDowell’s brief New York Times Book Notes story on the cancelation in an appendix.

The long arm of Khomeni’s fatwa reached out to strike Rushdie down before his talk lauding free speech at the Chautauqua Institution in New York yesterday. Today comes news that Rushdie is severely injured and on a ventilator. The AP story on the events is posted here.

The perpetrator was immediately apprehended. See Michael Doran’s tweet on the perpetrator below.


It is a humiliating and appalling abomination that this attack occurred on American soil. What is to be done? Doran reasonably anticipates the worst from Joe Biden’s clown-car administration.


George Soros…The Rich, Most Corrupt American IN THE WORLD?!!

Tablet: It’s not anti-Semitic to talk about George Soros’ criminal justice reform efforts

JOHN SEXTON Aug 12, 2022 1:39 PM ET  

(AP Photo/Francois Mori, File)

Tablet magazine published an opinion piece by James Kirchick Wednesday which points out that people on the left have been leaning a bit too eagerly into knee-jerk claims that criticism of George Soros is always automatically anti-Semitic. Soros, as many Hot Air readers will already know, is a billionaire who spends a lot of his money funding progressive groups with various goals. One of his projects in the last few years has been to elect a group of progressive DAs in cities across the country. This was not a secret. As Kirchick notes, Soros himself wrote a commentary for the Wall Street Journal in July of this year titled “Why I Support Reform Prosecutors.”

Americans desperately need a more thoughtful discussion about our response to crime. People have had enough of the demagoguery and divisive partisan attacks that dominate the debate and obscure the issues…

We spend $81 billion every year keeping around two million people in prisons and jails. We need to invest more in preventing crime with strategies that work—deploying mental-health professionals in crisis situations, investing in youth job programs, and creating opportunities for education behind bars. This reduces the likelihood that those prisoners will commit new crimes after release…

This is why I have supported the election (and more recently the re-election) of prosecutors who support reform. I have done it transparently, and I have no intention of stopping. The funds I provide enable sensible reform-minded candidates to receive a hearing from the public. Judging by the results, the public likes what it’s hearing.

So, again, there’s no secret here. Soros has a lot of money and he’s using some of it to help elect progressive prosecutors because he wants to reform the criminal justice system. And as Tablet notes, the amount of money spent on this effort isn’t small.

Through a combination of direct contributions to candidates, subventions to political action committees, and funding of other third party groups via his Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent upwards of $40 million over the past decade helping to elect some 75 prosecutors in metropolitan areas ranging from Los Angeles to Philadelphia, Manhattan to St. Louis.

As Soros bragged in his WSJ commentary, his effort has paid off, with lots of far-left DAs elected in places like Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, New York City, etc. But the impact of the changes instituted by these prosecutors is not universally loved. San Francisco just recalled DA Chesa Boudin and he has been replaced with a new DA who is promising to put an end to open air drug markets in the city. In Los Angeles, DA George Gascon is currently facing his second recall attempt, though it’s not know whether the latest one will succeed and wind up on the ballot.

The point is, the changes Soros seeks to make are very much a topic of public concern and debate. And yet, discussing Soros’ role in it seems to be forbidden.

A week after Soros published his piece in the Journal under his own name, proudly and defiantly justifying his expenditure of vast sums aimed at sparking a revolution in the administration of municipal criminal justice, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio introduced an amendment to the $750 billion climate and tax bill aimed at stymying this agenda by providing funds for local law enforcement to keep violent criminals behind bars. The measure had no chance of passing, and when the Democrat-led Senate predictably rejected it, Rubio took to Twitter. “The democrats just blocked my effort to try & force Soros backed prosecutors to put dangerous criminals in jail,” he tweeted in complaint.

What followed was the sort of Pavlovian response one has come to expect from progressive politicians, activists, journalists, and other social media impact influencers whenever the name of their benefactor is invoked.

Soros, in case you couldn’t tell, happens to be Jewish, a fact that has absolutely nothing to do with his ideas about criminal justice reform, or with Rubio’s opposition to them. Yet it was this utterly irrelevant detail of Soros’ birth that the progressive hive mind seized upon, spurring its minions to attack an unsubstantiated presumption about Rubio’s motives to the exclusion of his substantive arguments.

Kirchick points to three specific reactions to Rubio’s tweet to make the point but there’s no shortage of these.





I could go on and on because there are so many reactions like this.

Reading through these you’d be half-convinced that the phrase “Soros backed prosecutors” was some kind of fringe conspiracy theory emanating from the Q anon fever swamp. But again this came just a week after Soros described his funding of progressive prosecutors under his own name, saying he’d done so “transparently” and that he had no intention of stopping. As Kirchick points out, the reaction from the left is the worst kind of bad faith argument.

The argument that the mere mention of the name “Soros” is tantamount to antisemitism, which is effectively the position of the progressive political, media, and activist elite, is made entirely in bad faith. Stating the plain and observable fact that some prosecutors are “Soros-backed” is no more of an attack on Jews than the broadcaster Soledad O’Brien’s warning to “full-time Florida residents,” an antisemitic dog whistle about God’s waiting room…

Those engaging in this rhetorical tactic are certainly not pursuing the “thoughtful discussion” that Soros says we “desperately need,” but rather the “demagoguery and divisive partisan attacks” he denounces. Worse, they’re minimizing the threat posed by actual antisemitism by cheapening the accusation.

There is anti-Semitism in the world and it’s dangerous. But disagreeing with Soros isn’t automatically anti-Semitic. Americans can discuss the facts and can even decide they don’t like the changes Soros is trying to make in their neighborhoods. I’d like to think that George Soros understand this even if some of the fans of his criminal justice reform efforts don’t seem to get it.


How Merrick Garland turned the tables on Trump — and made Trump’s allies look foolish

After Garland’s press conference — and reports that Trump may have taken nuclear documents — will the GOP shut up?



US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland speaks about a significant firearms trafficking enforcement action during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2022. (OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)US Attorney General Merrick B. Garland speaks about a significant firearms trafficking enforcement action during a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2022. (OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images)

After Monday’s FBI search of Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, Trump blasted out the news of the unprecedented intrusion on a former president’s residence. He asserted that it was politically motivated. 

But late on Thursday, the Washington Post reported that “sources familiar with the investigation” say that “classified documents relating to nuclear weapons” were among the materials the FBI search was seeking. The Post’s sources did not say whether the agents found such materials.


Trump, Mar-a-Lago and the Fifth Amendment: A federal prosecutor’s five big takeaways

One source, however, told the Post that among the 15 boxes of materials recovered from Mar-a-Lago in January was material that included “signal intelligence,” that is, “intercepted electronic communications like emails and phone calls of foreign leaders.”

The Post report surely caught Trump’s allies off guard, after many had amplified his claims earlier this week. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted, for instance, that Garland should preserve all documents relating to the search and clear his calendar for hearings after the midterms if Republicans, as expected, take control of the House.

Sen. Marco Rubio described the warrant-based search as sponsored by “Marxists.” After the Post story, it may be awkward watching him wipe that egg off his face.

Republicans had also mounted an unrelenting public pressure campaign to force Garland into a press conference justifying the search. On Thursday, Garland did exactly that, turning the tables on his attackers with the tactical skill and aplomb of Gen. George Patton. 

Garland needed to abide by Justice Department norms, which generally preclude discussing details of an ongoing investigation while still responding to the attacks upon him, the Justice Department and the FBI.

At the same time, Garland was also eager to avoid becoming the next James Comey. As I observed in Salon on Thursday, Comey came under intense public criticism, and rightly so, for acting contrary to Justice Department norms about not revealing details about pending investigations of a candidate — Hillary Clinton, of course — during an election season.

The current attorney general rose masterfully to the challenge on Thursday. He established that the department had proceeded by the book. He recounted that, to get the warrant, the FBI’s sworn affidavit had to establish to an independent federal magistrate judge’s satisfaction that there was evidence of a crime and that the evidence would be found at Mar-a-Lago.

Even before Thursday evening’s Post report, anyone paying attention understood that this was no ordinary search warrant. Intruding on the residence of a former president is no small matter. The magistrate judge authorizing the warrant would have applied the most rigorous review to ensure that there was solid evidence of a crime. 

News reporting tells us that previous voluntary requests, followed by a grand jury subpoena, failed to produce the classified documents that the government believed had been improperly stored at Mar-a-Lago. So the DOJ took the next necessary step to protect national security.

At Garland’s press conference, he also made clear that the Justice Department had no intention to disclose Monday’s search or anything about it, until Trump revealed it himself. 

Trump evidently had his own reasons, including a perceived fundraising opportunity, for making the search public and blaring out his grievance as a purported victim of government oppression. Predictably, his congressional allies and his political base rallied to him, which may well have energized his presidential campaign hopes for 2024.

Here is where Garland turned the tables on Trump and seized the high moral ground. Acknowledging the public statements made by a Trump representative about the search, Garland announced on Thursday that the Justice Department had moved in court to unseal the search warrant and allow it to be made public, making clear that he would not have done that but for Trump’s public statements.

The attorney general was careful to say nothing more about the investigation than what the public already knew. The warrant and attached materials, should the court allow their release, will do the speaking for him.

Trump is now caught between a rock and a hard place. He is not likely to want the “inventory” of items that the FBI seized on Monday revealed or he would have done it himself; after all, the agents left a copy with his lawyer at Mar-a-Lago. On the other hand, opposing the motion to unseal the warrant and the inventory would add mightily to suspicion that he had indeed improperly kept state secrets and would prefer to keep that hidden.

He has until 3 p.m. on Friday to decide what stance to take in court.

In the meantime, the twice-impeached ex-president has chosen the safe and familiar course: distraction On his Social Truth media site, he posted: “Does anybody really believe that Joe Biden and the White House knew NOTHING about this great embarrassment to our Country?”  

Perhaps the only surprise in all this was his failure to include another familiar meme: “But her emails!”

Isn’t Chuck Schumer A Today’s Major Dem Fascist?

August 12, 2022

Is Chuck Schumer ‘the Big Guy’ over at the New York Times?

By Monica Showalter at American Thinker:

Is Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer the final word on what runs at the New York Times?

Sure looks like it, given a disturbing anecdote told by former Timeswoman Bari Weiss, who left the Times more than two years ago over its atmosphere of intolerance.

Turns out the Times isn’t just intolerant; it’s sycophantic — and these charges aren’t just right-wing hyperbole.

According to Mediaite, Republican South Carolina senator Tim Scott had sent in an op-ed to the Times laying out his views on police reform in the wake of the George Floyd riots.  On her podcast, where she had Scott on as a guest, she described this:

“Well, here’s what happened. I was at the New York Times and you or your staff sent in an op-ed about the bill and why it fell apart,” Weiss recalled. “And this is the part I’m not sure if you know. There was a discussion about the piece and whether or not we should run it. And one colleague, a more senior colleague said to a more junior colleague who was pushing for the piece, ‘Do you think the Republicans really care about minority rights?'”

“Wow,” Scott said.
“And the more junior colleagues said, ‘I think Tim Scott cares about minority rights.’ And then, and here’s the pretty shocking part. The more senior colleague said, ‘Let’s check with Senator Schumer before we run it,'” Weiss added.

Check with Sen. Schumer?

Is Schumer some kind of owner or shareholder of the Times, which might explain such deference?  I’ve been on editorial staffs myself and know that the editorial page is the voice of the paper — and, by extension, the voice of the owner, so it’s never surprising when an owner might ask for a particular message to be expressed.

But last I heard, Schumer is not the owner.

Yet, somehow, the staff know that they need to “run by” anything that might be controversial with Chuckie Schumer in the Senate.

Is that how editorial decisions are made at the New York Times?  They get clearance from Schumer?  What happens if Chuckie “Last Word” Schumer says “no”?  And how many of these permissions have been sought, not in this case, but in the past, so that a senior staffer could just casually bring up that Schumer needed to be consulted before the Times could make an editorial decision about what runs and what doesn’t run in that august paper?

The younger staffer actually refused to do it on ethical grounds, but the senior staffer is the one who brought up the procedure of running editorial decisions past Schumer first, as if such things were always the way of dealing with tough decisions in the past.

It ought to be the most embarrassing thing to anyone in the news industry, that their own paper asks politicians to determine for them what they should run or not run.  Newspapers are supposed to be independent.  They’re supposed to report and write without fear or favor.  Their editorial voices are supposedly a reflection of their stance.  But this “get permission from the Big Guy” stuff we are hearing about now?  All told, it’s public relations of the worst sort, that of a state-controlled press — and they’re no journalists.

What an insult to the memory of the Timesmen of old — Abe Rosenthal, William Safire, Hedrick Smith, David Halberstam, and many others — some, such as Andrew Malcolm, still with us, who made the Times the gold standard of journalism!

Do they just like being sycophants?  Or worse, do they fear displeasing Schumer?  Is that how they operate?  Readers will now be asking if everything the Times runs is cleared by Schumer first.  Just call it the “Schumer Times.”

Maybe these self-important “journalists” should ask themselves what they are now, given that the public is going to be wondering whether every op-ed they run was cleared with Schumer first.

Just don’t call them journalists.  Laugh at the suck-ups to Schumer, check out the nearby streetwalkers, and point at them instead.


AUGUST 12, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


On Wednesday, Congressmen Jim Jordan and Mike Johnson of the House Judiciary Committee wrote to Jill Sanborn, former Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, requesting that she provide an interview to committee staff. The subject was alleged inflating of “domestic violent extremism” cases by the FBI:

On July 27, 2022, we wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray about whistleblower disclosures that FBI officials were pressuring agents to reclassify cases as “domestic violent extremism” (DVEs) even if the cases do not meet the criteria for such a classification.

This is significant because increasingly, “domestic violent extremism” has explicitly or implicitly been cast as right-wing extremism.

Whistleblower disclosures made by multiple FBI employees from different field offices suggest that FBI agents are bolstering the number of cases of DVEs to satisfy their supervisors. For example, one whistleblower explained that because agents are not finding enough DVE cases, they are encouraged and incentivized to reclassify cases as DVE cases even though there is minimal, circumstantial evidence to support the reclassification. Another whistleblower stated that a field office Counterterrorism Assistant Special Agent in Charge and the FBI’s then-Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division pressured agents to move cases into the DVE category to hit self-created performance metrics. This whistleblower identified you as one official who exerted pressure on agents to reclassify cases as DVE matters.
We are investigating several allegations concerning the politicization of the FBI, including allegations that the FBI is padding its DVE data.

“Whistleblowers” can’t always be trusted, of course. But these claims have a ring of truth, in part because they are borne out by statistics. Two weeks ago, Assistant Attorney General for National Security Division Matthew Olsen testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the allegation that the FBI is inflating DVE numbers:

Representative Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the panel, asserted that “multiple whistleblowers” had approached House Judiciary Republicans, alleging that FBI officials were pressuring field agents to categorize cases as domestic violent extremism, even though they did not meet the criteria for such classification.

“Are you juicing the numbers?” Jordan asked.

Olsen responded that he was not aware of the accusations.

The numbers certainly raise questions:

The FBI tracks several categories of domestic violent extremists. White supremacists and anti-government militias have been responsible for most deadly attacks in recent years.

In his prepared testimony, Olsen said FBI investigations of domestic violent extremism cases have more than doubled since 2020.

Imagine that! Cases have more than doubled since the Biden administration took charge of the DOJ and the FBI. This is partly because “[h]undreds of these cases stemmed from the January 6, 2021, mob attack on the U.S. Capitol. The FBI is investigating the attack as ‘domestic terrorism.’” As opposed to misguided tourism, which in many cases it appears to have been.

Last September, [FBI Director Christopher] Wray told lawmakers that the number of active domestic violent terrorism cases had jumped from about 1,000 in early 2020 to 2,700, while the number of so-called homegrown violent extremist cases remained stable, at around 1,000.

It seems obvious that this focus on “domestic violent extremists,” real or imagined, dovetails with the Bureau’s hyping of “Militia Violent Extremism”–watch for the Betsy Ross flag!–as part of the FBI’s devotion to the political interests of the Democratic Party.

Dem America, 2022 With President Joe!

BREAKING: FBI Raid Warrant Demanded Seizure Of Literally Any Record Trump Ever Saw During 4-Year Presidential Term

BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE at the Federalist:

AUGUST 12, 2022

Merrick Garland and Marine One over Mar-a-lago

The FBI search warrant obtained by The Federalist authorizes confiscation of every record Trump ever saw as president.

Author Tristan Justice profile


The FBI search warrant authorizing a government raid of former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence sought an exhaustive list of any White House records the president ever came in contact with, according to the document obtained by The Federalist.

Outlining the “property to be seized” by the more than 30 agents who rummaged through the former president’s Mar-a-Lago mansion, the warrant demanded confiscation of any document Trump ever saw, read, or created for the entirety of his four years as commander-in-chief.

“All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation” of federal statutes governing records possession, the warrant reads, were to be seized. Records extended to “Any government and/or Presidential Records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021.”

In other words, had Trump written something down on a napkin, federal officials were authorized to raid the former president’s home and capture it.

The affidavit allegedly asserting probable cause has not been made available to the public by the DOJ or the federal court that sealed it. The search warrant was signed on Aug. 5 and gave authorities two weeks to conduct the unprecedented raid. The federal magistrate who signed the warrant previously donated thousands to former President Barack Obama. Attorney General Merrick Garland, whose Supreme Court nomination was invalidated after Donald Trump became president in 2017, acknowledged that he personally signed off on the raid in a Thursday press conference. Garland also claimed the search was conducted with a narrow scope.

“First, I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter,” Garland said. “Second, the department does not take such a decision lightly. Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search, and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken.”

On Monday, three days after the warrant was signed, FBI officials conducted the hours-long raid of the 128-room estate which reportedly included an intrusive search of former First Lady Melania Trump’s wardrobe. While ostensibly executed under the pretext of violations of the Presidential Records Act, a law that rarely results in prosecutions, the raid has become the latest episode of Democrats weaponizing the Justice Department to go after political opponents, with Trump at the top as public enemy No. 1.

According to Fox News, law enforcement officials say they confiscated classified documents. Trump, however, says documents were declassified.

“Number one, it was all declassified. Number two, they didn’t need to ‘seize’ anything,” the former president said on TruthSocial. “They could have had it anytime they wanted without playing politics and breaking into Mar-a-Lago. It was in secured storage, with an additional lock put on as per their request… They could have had it anytime they wanted–and that includes LONG ago. ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS ASK. The bigger problem is, what are they going to do with the 33 million pages of documents, many of which are classified, that President Obama took to Chicago?”

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal.