• 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


9 Troubling Things About DOJ’s Raid On Trump

The recent FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, 92 days before the November midterms, brought to light troubling aspects regarding the functioning of the DOJ and the investigative agencies. Here’s a close look at the key issues.


August 20, 2022 . 7:33 AM

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland delivers a statement at the U.S. Department of Justice August 11, 2022 in Washington, DC. Garland addressed the FBI’s recent search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, announcing the Justice Department has filed a motion to unseal the search warrant as well as a property receipt for what was taken. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Many lawyers believe that Attorney General Merrick Garland will indict former President Trump. Such an action would be unprecedented and likely deeply divide the country. Aside from the fact that the recent FBI raid took place just 92 days before the November midterm elections, there are numerous troubling aspects to this unparalleled action.

Here are a few key aspects that demand closer scrutiny.

1) Was Garland Pressured?

It is no secret that President Biden has been pressuring Attorney General Merrick Garland. We’ll never know if it was done face-to-face, but that is not the point.

The New York Times reported in an April 2 article: “The attorney general’s deliberative approach has come to frustrate Democratic allies of the White House and, at times, President Biden himself. As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted, according to two people familiar with his comments. And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6.”

Garland might have succumbed to intense White House pressure. The President made sure that Garland got the message by criticizing him as a “ponderous judge” and setting public expectations that he should take the decisive actions of a prosecutor.

2) Conflicts of Interest

Numerous conflicts of interest appear in the extraordinary raid of the former president’s home.

First, in 2016, Attorney General Garland was denied a seat on the Supreme Court by Republicans, a move the then-candidate Trump backed. Judge Laurence Silberman, a friend and colleague of Garland, has said Garland has “always regarded the role of a judge as a culmination of his profession.” Garland may still be nursing a wound, and his actions may be driven by long-standing disappointment.

Second, Garland reports to President Biden. President Biden and President Trump are leaders of their parties and are likely to run against each other again.

Third, the FBI team closely tied to the raid has its own conflicts of interest, which we will discuss later in this article.

Fourth, the magistrate, Judge Bruce Reinhart, who signed off on the raid, also warrants a closer look.

3) The Magistrate

Federal magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart approved the warrant authorizing the raid on President Trump’s estate.

President Trump has sued Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats over Russia collusion allegations.  On June 22, Judge Reinhart recused himself from that lawsuit, and six weeks after that, he signed off the FBI warrant. Judge Reinhart’s earlier recusal raises an interesting question: why did he recuse in the Trump vs. Clinton case, but not the raid?

During an appearance on Jesse Watters’ show last Friday, Trump’s attorney Alina Habba said, ‘They needed a little drama, so they throw this out there. They go to the judge that had recused himself in my Hillary case a month ago.’ She added, ‘I would like to know why he recused himself in that case, but then he was able to sign this warrant. I want to know that.’

We can only speculate. The Judge may have a relationship with Clinton, the Democrats, or other matters that might have presented a conflict of interest leading to the recusal. Shouldn’t the reason that caused the recusal ipso facto prohibit the signing of the Trump search warrant?

One wonders whether the underlying reason for his recusal motivated his participation in the Trump search warrant.

4) Timing Of The Raid

Attorney General Merrick Garland warned prosecutors about cases involving political figures in a memo dated May 25. He asked them to get extra approvals in the weeks and proceed carefully leading up to an election.

Also, according to news reports, Garland mulled over the decision to approve the Trump search warrant for weeks before he decided to go with it. He appears to have changed his mind between May 25 and August 1.

Further, Trump attorneys say things were copacetic with a DOJ visit to Mar-a-Lago in June. Then Trump lawyers handed over documents and surveillance footage. According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump greeted the agents at the start of the meeting, saying, “I appreciate the job you’re doing” and adding, “Anything you need, let us know.” Trump staff complied with an additional lock to the basement storage as per subsequent advice.

There was no national security emergency pressing Garland. Had there been any imminent danger, it would not have afforded Garland the luxury of time for deliberation. Further, the magistrate approved the raid on August 1, stipulating that it must occur before August 19. The FBI took seven days after the approval to conduct the raid.

The FBI raided Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 92 days before the 2022 upcoming midterm elections on November 8. That goes against Garland’s memo, cited above, about no sensitive action close to an election.

In summary, Garland changed his mind, deliberated, and changed course. There was also no national security situation. Then what pressured him to go ahead with the raid 92 days before the midterms?

5) Duration Of The Raid

Thirty FBI agents raided Mar-a-Lago for nine hours, that is 270 person-hours, an awful amount of time.

If all they wanted was some government material stored in the basement, it should not take much time to take possession and leave the premises. The sheer amount of time indicates that their objectives were not well-defined and much more expansive, a possible witch hunt. They even searched the former first lady’s closets and the President’s office and broke a safe.

The FBI agents were given carte blanche authority to seize “any government and presidential records created between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021,” Trump’s entire term in office. In short, they could take anything related to the Trump administration.

The irony was that they scooped up President Trump’s passports, unaware that they needed a special warrant to seize passports.

Former FBI assistant director Chris Swecker opined that the guidelines governing the FBI’s raid of former President Trump’s home were “pushed aside.”  Swecker said: “What you’re supposed to do when you possess these types of powers that the FBI does and Justice Department does is use the least intrusive investigative technique to get to what you need to get to, [whether] it’s information, evidence, what have you. You’re supposed to take into consideration the seriousness of the offense, and the impact on the public confidence in the FBI and law enforcement in general. These are codified in the domestic investigative operation guidelines and the attorney general guidelines. What jumps out at me is how that was completely … just shifted aside, just pushed aside. And this dramatic raid takes place over a fairly de minimis offense. Police lights flashing, dawn raid, kitted out ninja warriors outside, 30 agents inside.”

6) Tainted Investigators

The people who carried out the nine-hour drama bring baggage to the question of the fairness and credibility of the Mar-a-Lago raid. It is clear from the Russiagate investigation, which came to naught for lack of evidence, that there are agents within the bureau willing to go to great lengths to discredit the former President.

Paul Sperry, the investigative journalist, recently reported that Federal agents, who have actively promoted the Russiagate investigation and hold a deep bias against Trump, are now members of the raid searching for classified documents that allegedly “compromised” national security.

Members of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, who ran the Russia “collusion” investigation against President Trump during 2016-2017, codenamed “Crossfire Hurricane,” are being probed by Special Counsel John Durham and the bureau’s internal disciplinary arm, the Office of Professional Responsibility for “alleged abuses of power and political bias.”

Besides, Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, whose alleged labeling of evidence against Hunter Biden as “disinformation” brought the investigation to a close, is considered a top expert on Russia and nuclear warfare. Republicans fear, and justifiably so, that Auten, a man so biased against Trump, may be allowed to participate in analyzing and determining if the documents seized from Mar-a-Lago have compromised national security. Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has written to FBI Director Christopher Wray to express his concerns.

Other noted members of the raid include Jay Bratt (DNC donor and top counterintelligence official in Justice’s national security division) and Alan Kohler (FBI’s counterintelligence division head). Bratt had visited Mar-a-Lago in June to inspect the storage facility personally and had taken documents then.

7) Barrage Of Leaks

Even as Attorney General Merrick Garland did his best to defend the professionalism and integrity of the nation’s top investigative agency and its judicial system, the litany of leaked information told a completely different story.

He must have been dismayed to read the Washington Post’s assertion that Federal agents had raided the former President’s resort residence in search of “nuclear secrets” that could compromise the nation’s security.

But this isn’t the first time the former President or his family has been the target of such reports in the media based on “confidential” or “anonymous” sources.

We could go on to catalog the barrage of leaks, but Garland should know he presides over an organization with a recent checkered history. The first half of Trump’s presidency was mired in the Mueller probe, an exercise that wasted taxpayer money and amounted to nothing. Throughout the investigation, the liberal media were fed snippets that made an entire nation question its President.

James Comey, the former FBI Director, violated agency policies by keeping and leaking a set of memos he took documenting meetings with President Donald Trump early in 2017, according to a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general.

Recall DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz detailed in his report in 2018 multiple instances in which Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director, “lacked candor” about his authorization to leak sensitive information to the Wall Street Journal that revealed the existence of an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The apparent aim of McCabe’s leak was to combat the perception that he had a conflict of interest managing two Clinton investigations while Clinton allies donated to his wife’s campaign.

The FBI’s partisan views and actions are becoming clearer by the day. AG Garland will find it difficult to naysay New York Times reporter Matthew Rosenberg’s words: “There were a ton of FBI informants among the people who attacked the Capitol.”

8) The White House’s Lack of Knowledge

The White House said it learned about the raid from news reports ‘just like the American people.’

If it is true, it is shocking. We want to believe the White House prima facia but also note a pattern when denying things.

Remember, one year ago, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, President Biden denied at least three times that no one advised him to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. Though they would not divulge private deliberations, General Miley and General McKenzie said they recommended maintaining a presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The Biden veracity index is low. Those familiar with President Biden’s first half of his political career know his tendency to glorify his education accomplishments and other issues. More recently, he denied knowledge of his son’s foreign business dealings on the debate stage.

“Biden knew all about this, just like he knew all about Hunter’s ‘deals,'” President Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

President Biden also has a history with arcane laws. Going after General Flynn using the ‘Logan Act’ was his brainchild. Flynn’s legal team said “it appears” he “personally raised the idea” during a White House meeting. Using the Espionage Act in the search warrant against a former president is like using the Logan Act to go after General Flynn.

9) Hillary Clinton Standard

Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State under then Vice President Biden, had a personal email server at her home in Chappaqua, New York. She used the email address for all official and private emails during her four years as Secretary of State. She never had a state.gov email account hosted on secure servers owned and managed by the government. She claimed that she used her server out of “convenience.”

Clinton returned a partial tranche of 30,000 emails to the State Department. According to FBI director James Comey, 110 e-mails in that group had classified information. Further, seven e-mail chains concerned matters that had the Top Secret/Special Access Program level.

Comey concluded that while “there is evidence of potential violations” of criminal statutes covering the mishandling of classified information,” our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

So, what changed now?

The FBI did not raid Hillary Clinton’s Chappaqua home. If no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Clinton, what is it about Trump that is different?

President Trump recently said at CPAC that a friend had said he was the most persecuted person in modern history.

The Justice Department and FBI subjected the country to a multi-year Russia collusion hoax. The key players have either found plum jobs in the media or are still trying to get President Trump in trouble.

Where does the political persecution of Trump stop?

DOJ’s pettifoggery must end immediately, and the agency must tirelessly work to win back Americans’ trust. Otherwise, it is the beginning of the end for America that we love as the shining city on a hill.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: