What Does Populism Mean?

There’s this word, populism, that keeps showing up. Here’s a basic definition from an online dictionary:

Populism: A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

The word doesn’t show up in my 1980s dictionary, although Populist shows up as the name of a US political party from 1891-1904. It’s also not in the 1820s dictionary. I did some minimal research online, and definitions and examples are all over the place.

Super lawyer Robert Barnes uses the term freely to describe Donald Trump, along with others in such a category (including VP candidate J. D. Vance). I’ve noticed some anti-establishment leaders around the world, although I hadn’t attached the word to them. These would be Bolsonaro in Brazil, the entire Brexit movement (I thought Boris Johnson might be one, but he caved during COVID), a couple of Latin American leaders—Bukele in El Salvador and Milei in Argentina. There’s Meloni in Italy, and possibly Orban in Hungary. These do not necessarily represent “populist” parties in various countries, although they can. But populism seems to be more about the individual leaders than any party.

Examples are of bold, charismatic leaders, who are by definition popular. That is, the people like them, prefer them, vote for them. They are, then, democratic, in that the will of the people expresses its favor toward them. They are not installed or foisted upon the people by some behind-the-scenes cabal, or even by rising in any existing party or faction. In fact, these populist leaders seem to rise up in opposition to the powers that be. But they are not simply popular people; they are popular for what they are trying to do.

Oddly, some of the online definitions refer to them as typically authoritarian. Here’s this from a Britannica article:

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics. Populist politics, following this definition, revolve around charismatic leaders who appeal to and claim to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate their own power.

The article later lists some examples: Juan Perón (Argentina), Getúlio Vargas (Brazil), and Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). In that same paragraph it adds Donald Trump:

In the United States, according to some historians and political scholars, the administration of Republican Pres. Donald Trump (2017–21) also displayed some aspects of authoritarian populism. Among them were conspiracy mongering, racism toward African Americans and nonwhite immigrants, distrust of democratic institutions among Trump’s core supporters, and the subservient position of the national Republican Party. Perhaps the most powerful indicator of the existence of authoritarian populism under Trump was his incitement of a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election (see United States Capitol attack of 2021).

Except, at last count, every conspiracy theory attached to us Trump supporters (and anyone else who didn’t support the administrative state’s controlled narrative) has turned out to be conspiracy fact. Every example of racism was invented without actual examples—because such examples don’t exist. I’ll grant you distrust of various democratic institutions—which have given us plenty of reason to distrust them. Finally, we know that Trump did not incite a mob; the vast majority of people at the capitol on January 6, 2021, were asking for a fair look at the widespread evidence of fraud in the 2020 election, but the rioters stopped them from getting what they were asking for; and we now know the mob was infiltrated with literally hundreds of government assets. Hmm. Trump had offered National Guard and greater security simply based on the large numbers expected; Pelosi and DC Mayor Muriel Bowser refused the offer.

In short, their attempts to attach the authoritarian label to Trump—after a 4-year term in which he was for less government regulation, greater economic freedom, less foreign entanglement, etc.—is another example of their doing what they accuse their opposition of doing.

A recent example offered by the Webster’s online dictionary shows this quote from an article in Source Journal last week:

The populist positioning pitted Harris against monopolistic conglomerates, firmly entrenching her on the side of average businesses and consumers. “I believe competition is the life blood of our economy, more competition means lower prices for you and your families,” she said.

It appears the Harris campaign is “positioning” her as a “populist” to make her seem like a champion of the little people. Except, while she is authoritarian (see example here), she is—or was, until her campaign invented a suddenly “popular” version of her—vastly unpopular. It was as if she were chosen as VP as insurance that Biden would be left in to avoid having her take over. And, no, she is not in any way on the side of consumers. I think she would be hard-pressed to summon up even the most basic vocabulary for sane economic policy. She thinks taxing us on our “unrealized gains” is a good idea.

[I’m not fully going down that rabbit hole today, but here’s a good metaphor to explain her proposal, from Tom Woods’ daily email August 28:

Here's what it means (mathematical example shared with me by a friend):

(1)   January 2020, you buy 100 shares of Zoom stock at $75 per share.

(2)   That stock ends the year at $350, which means you made a gain of $27,500. But it's an unrealized gain, because you didn't sell the stock. You still have it.

(3)   Kamala would tax you 75% on that $27,500 that you don't actually have.

(4)   Since you don't have the cash to pay it (you never sold the stock, remember, so you never actually experienced this "gain"), you withdraw from your savings.

(5)   You hold the stock until August 2024, when it's only $60 a share.

(6)   You decide to sell because this is the most you think you'll ever get for the stock. You sell at a loss (remember, you bought it at $75) at $60.

(7)   Oh, and those taxes on your "unrealized capital gain"? Well, you ended up with a loss, not a gain, but Kamala keeps your money anyway.]

In short, if you want to understand actual populism today, you can’t go to the standard sources; you’ve got to ferret out the meaning yourself.

So, am I a supporter of populism—as Robert Barnes says he is? I am not. I am a skeptic. Maybe that’s a leftover suspicion of popularity from long-ago high school. Popular often meant inauthentic, unkind, and prejudicially disdainful. But, granted, popular can also mean something good, something or someone that a majority of people have discovered and express their approval of. You can’t dismiss the choices of the masses out of hand. But you also don’t have to accept them.

found on Facebook stories

One of the things about the populous is that it is susceptible to manipulation by the media. That’s what makes pure democracy so dangerous.

In our time, the current populists, particularly Trump, seem aligned with my values: I’m a constitutional conservative. That is, I want the US Constitution conserved, and its laws and principles applied as intended—as far as we can ascertain what was intended; there’s a lot of historical writings to inform us on that (The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, writings by the founders, notes from the Constitutional Convention, etc.)

That’s the standard I use for any candidate. I’ve pretty much discarded all Democrat candidates, because they do not believe in limited government, and their interference makes things worse. [While I would not have wanted RFK Jr as my president, I do see him as anti-establishment old-time Democrat, and he has, I think, integrity. We can work with such a person.] Beyond that, the current Democrat Party is unlike the sane but wrongheaded party of some decades ago, which claimed to be for working people, etc. Now they are something of a death cult, with control over the media to lie to the public to cover their real motives, which you can discern by listening carefully to what they say and what they try to do.

I haven’t written off the Republican Party as a whole. At the top, I don’t have much use for them. But at the state and local level, here in Texas, it looks to me like a majority of those active in the party support constitutional conservative principles—and we’re all about spreading that wherever we can.

So, if a populist candidate comes around—if they’re Democrat, assume they are authoritarians, since that is the standard in that party. But if they are Republican, you may have to test them somewhat deeper.

image posted by Tom Glass on Facebook

Back in 2015-16, Trump was saying things I agreed with. But I didn’t believe him. It took a couple of years of him actually abiding by the Constitution—better than I’d seen done since Reagan—and doing it under great pressure, that I finally realized he wasn’t what he’d been portrayed to be. He still may be a very rough stone, but I believe he is someone God can use for the good of our nation, and the world.

There are test questions, if you can get a chance to ask them of candidates, which I’ve shared before (2013 and 2021). But, here we are in another election season, so they might be worth repeating. These come from the Spherical Model idea that you can differentiate between freedom and tyranny in the political sphere, between prosperity and poverty in the economic sphere, and between civilization and savagery in the social sphere. I recognize some limitations to this list: you’ll hardly ever get to ask them of a national candidate, where the US Constitution is the law they need to be limited by. Maybe you’ll get lucky and ask them of a congressional candidate. But the questions will still help you get to know the mind of a more local candidate. And maybe, by listening closely to debates, press conference, and stump speeches, you might get some of these answered even by a presidential candidate. I haven’t provided the “right” answers here. Some may not have a right answer. Some definitely have a range of better answers than others. If you’re actually a constitutional conservative, you can probably imagine what those might be, so I’ll leave you to it. Or, you might want to check out the Spherical Model website and read the rather long articles there on the three spheres.

The political, economic, and social spheres of the Spherical Model

Political Sphere

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government, and what are the limits?

·        Do you have favorite portions of the US Constitution, and/or any portions that you think ought to be changed, clarified, or improved?

·        When the US Supreme Court makes a ruling that you believe is at odds with the Constitution, what do you think the executive and/or legislative branches should do in response to the ruling?

·        What do you believe is the proper balance between public safety and individual freedom, and what do you believe government needs to do to reach that balance?

·        Who are your favorite examples of a good president—since 1900—and what about them do you admire?

·        How do you define extremists, and what views do you think are examples of extreme?

 Economic Sphere

·        What do you believe is the optimum percentage of GNP that should be taken in taxes?

·        What do you believe is the government’s role in contributing to economic health? For example, if there is a sudden recession (as we were hit with in 2008), how should government react?

·        What do you believe is government’s role in the distribution of income when there’s a wide discrepancy between the poor and the wealthy?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in charitable help to the poor and suffering?

·        What do you believe are the purposes and limits of the commerce clause of the Constitution?

·        What do you believe is the role of the Federal Reserve, and how/whether it is benefiting the economy?

Civilization Sphere 

·        What do you believe about the connection between moral values and the law?

·        Which institution is most responsible for raising a generation that will benefit society, and why: schools, government, churches, nonprofit organizations, sports teams, families?

·        Which constituency’s desires is public education best accountable to, and why: US government, state government, local government, teachers, students, parents/taxpayers?

·        What do you believe should be government’s role in homeschooling, private schools, charter schools, and school choice?

·        What do you think is government’s role in defining marriage, and why? 

 

The original list (2013) included some issue-related questions. And in December 2021 I added some new questions. Let’s see if they’re still relevant (the subpoints are my current comments):

Specific Issue Questions

·        What are your feelings concerning Obamacare, and what do you think should be done?

o   I still think it’s wrong. As with just about any program that gets passed, it’s very hard to untangle and extricate ourselves afterward. No one is talking about it this year. But we do have Kamala Harris blathering about taking away private insurance from everyone—calling it Medicare for all, although she sometimes hides from that policy statement.

·        What do you believe are the motivations of people who support traditional (man/woman) marriage and family?

o   The woke agenda is receiving a lot of pushback from people who are sick of the LGBTQ agenda being shoved down our throats. But the fight against gay marriage is pretty much lost. Now it’s a matter of keeping our children safe from the indoctrination.

·        What are your beliefs about border security and immigration?

o   This is still a huge issue. Suddenly Harris, the border czar who has done nothing but facilitate illegal entry is talking about closing the border as soon as she’s elected.

·        What do you believe is the proper role of government concerning climate?

o   This is still an issue for Dems, but it’s not gaining traction among conservatives, who view the draconian rules as more about control than climate.

·        What do you see as the US role in the world, and what is your view of the UN?

o   Warmongering Dems and Republicans are on the opposite side from the populists on this issue. Trump didn’t start any wars and got us out of some. Biden/Harris are ready to give our entire military budget to Ukraine, and they are not exactly dedicated to Israel nor exactly against violent Palestinians.

·        What are your opinions on national debt, national deficit, tax increases and/or cuts, and national budget?

o   If we could just get back to some free market principles, that would be nice.

 

New Questions This Year (end of 2021, going into 2022 primary)

·        It is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade this year. How do you see Texas and the United States moving forward on this issue?

o   Something actually got done! Now it’s an issue for the states. The Dems keep claiming Trump will do more, but he has not indicated any intention of doing more at a national level.

·        In the Declaration of Independence, we dissolved political bands, not for “light and transient causes,” but for a “long train of abuses and usurpations.” Assuming that restoring and preserving our Constitution is the goal, could there be a catalyst for dissolving political bands, intended to be indivisible, and returning Texas to an independent nation? What would trigger such an action after the long train of abuses and usurpations we’re already seeing?

o   This is a Texit question. I still personally wonder what the catalyst might be. If we get through this election with a peaceful transfer of power, then maybe we won’t need to face it anytime soon.

·        One of the actual responsibilities of the federal government is protection of our national borders. When the federal government fails in that duty, what should our state do to protect our sovereignty?

o   This is another pertinent question for Texas leaders.

·        When the government deprives a person of property, such as a business, as it did during the pandemic shutdowns, what is the government’s obligation to restore that property to those who were deprived of it?

o   I’m still waiting for an answer—while the Biden/Harris administration is giving housing, income, and education to illegals. They just got shut down from using our taxes to pay off college loans (buy votes).

·        Is there anything that can/should be done about election law crimes of the past election? And what do you see as the way to restore election integrity going forward?

o   The Republicans are still concerned, with good reason. In Harris County, one judicial candidate won a lawsuit, and the judge is requiring a new election for that race; we haven’t heard when that will be. The term is now half over. And nothing was done about the other 23 or so cases from that election.

·        While conservatives generally support freedom for business, what can/should we do when large monopolies censor certain points of view on their platforms, or companies make requirements for employment or attendance based on private health decisions?

o   This is gaining in importance as the evidence of censorship and other social engineering by companies comes to the surface—along with the pressure from government on those companies.

 

 

 

Bonus Questions

Harris and Walz, image found here,
photo credit to Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Thursday night, while I was writing this, was the first interview with candidate Kamala Harris, who brought along her VP choice, Tim Walz. I won’t review that here. But in preparation, Breitbart offered “31 Questions Dana Bash Should Ask Kamala Harris, Walz in First Interview,” in categories such as the economy, immigration, freedom, foreign policy, and questions for Walz. Here’s a sampling:

17. Your party has claimed the mantle of “defending democracy,” but you were appointed as your party’s nominee despite never having received any vote as a presidential candidate in any primary. In what way did your nomination process reflect democracy?

22. Is there a fixed limit in your mind of how many U.S. taxpayer dollars should go to Ukraine, or is your sentiment “as many tax dollars as it takes?”

(for Walz) 29. You ran a hotline for Minnesotans to report their neighbors who violated your lockdown orders during the coronavirus pandemic. How is that compatible with your mantra of “Mind your own damn business?”

My guess is that Breitbart will not be tapped to host a debate or do an interview, as entertaining as that might be.

Less entertaining, but possibly effective, there’s another list, this one from Daily Mail, of 25 “Questions CNN’s Dana Bash SHOULD Ask Kamala Harris in First Interview.”   The first question is:

1.     Were you the 'last person in the room' with President Joe Biden as he prepared to enact his evacuation plan in Afghanistan, and did you voice any concerns about his strategy?

 

National Review also offered a list of questions that won’t be asked but should be, here. 

 

Ah, if only we didn’t have to invent the questions and the answers. If only real journalists could get near the candidates, as you would possibly see in a populist-led constitutional republic.

 

Unprecedented

The unprecedented raid on the former president of the United States is such a big news story, it’s totally eclipsing the promise of an additional army of 87,000 IRS agents—far more than necessary to audit every household making over $400,000. That’s a big and horrendous story. But this attack on President Trump is even more shocking. We talked about it here last week. But of course there’s more to learn about it every day.

the vague and general warrant, from here

 

Another Possible Motive

Attorney Robert Barnes has been giving his take on the Mar-a-Lago raid since that Monday afternoon, a week ago now. And as news comes out, he finds his take is still accurate. As he explains it, there are two basic narratives—on the Trump side; the FBI/DOJ side is something else altogether. These two narratives are trying to figure out what the FBI and DOJ are really up to. Barnes lays out the basic narrative first, and then his take:

The dominant narrative, this is an attempt by the Biden Justice Department to take Trump off of the 2024 election calendar by convicting him of a crime that removes—that has, as a consequence, the inability to hold federal office, and that it was based on Trump having documents he was not entitled to have, either because the archivist was entitled to them under the Presidential Records Act or that they were defense related documents and thus could not be in his private custody.

That’s basically the narrative we looked at here last Thursday. I should add that an additional scenario he doesn’t detail, and I don’t buy into either, is that they were fishing for incriminating evidence related to January 6^th. The reason they weren’t fishing for that is that they already know there isn’t any; Trump did not cause what happened at the capitol that day, nor was what happened an insurrection. But, as I said Thursday, their show inquiry is failing, so they’re moving on to the next attack.

Viva Frei (left) and Robert Barnes on their law vlog Sunday night livestream
screenshot from here

Here's Barnes’s take on their motive:

My theory was different. My theory was that this was a Deep State raid, that this was a raid not intended for the purposes of any kind of criminal prosecution or punishment, for the primary reason that the any criminal charge would require disclosure of what documents they were really, truly seeking…. Before Trump left, he asked all the agencies which documents they really wanted to keep classified. And there was speculation at the time that they basically gave him their Deep State, deep secret wish list to remain secret. And he declassified them but didn't publish them; he just took them with him. And that it would be potential insurance against indictment, insurance against assassination, insurance against other political threats that he knew he was going to be facing after leaving the presidency, particularly if he sought election again in 2024, and that they were paranoid about what was in those documents.

And so they were willing to risk the massive political blowback from an unprecedented raid of a former president and future presidential candidate’s personal residence for the purposes of getting those documents.

If I was right, what I predicted at the time was that when—this is before the warrant was released—that when the warrant is released, you'll find it to be very vague and very uncertain as to what exactly it’s seeking. It will be very elastic in what criminal statutes it claims there's probable cause of. That it will be notoriously overbroad in what it is seeking, and that they will be very bland and generic in their inventory. They won't list in detail what exactly they took, because they don't want anyone to know what exactly they were looking for. And that we would find out they would have kept the lawyers from overseeing it and anyone else in Trump world. They would ask cameras to be turned off, so nobody could know what it was they were actually seeking; that the goal wasn't to actually get these documents and restore them to their lawful owner, but to destroy them permanently and fully in the hopes that they were the only copies that existed.

It's not clear they have found such documents. They searched for a long time, you know, over 12 hours, then seized everything that was kind of there anyway. Apparently Trump had told them he kept the super secret documents in the safe. They had a safecracker there. They opened the safe, and the safe was empty, you know, Geraldo Rivera/Al Capone style.

Trump seemed unfazed and unbothered by what took place. That was outrageous and offensive, what took place. And he brought that to the court of public opinion. But he personally, by everybody who has talked to him since then, is not rattled and saw this coming at some level, understood the Deep State war that he's in the middle of—and has been ever since his candidacy rose to prominence in 2016.

In short, they are after evidence of Deep State wrongdoing—which is likely to begin to come out after the November midterm election, as soon as there is a shift in power in the House and hopefully the Senate. Such exposures will be easier and more complete with a return of Trump or a non-Deep-State Republican to the White House, but the threat to their power is much more immediate than keeping Trump from running in 2024.

What Barnes predicted turned out to be true: their warrant was vague and broad—which is not a legal warrant for a criminal investigation. Barnes lays out what we should have seen in a legal investigation, compared to what we saw:

The constitutional requirement is three-fold. There has to be probable cause of a crime for which there is specific evidence in the place that you're asking to be searched, and you can only request that which is evidence in support thereof. That's probable cause.

The second aspect is presentment, which means that when you get to the place you're going to search, you give the warrant to the person who you're—who has custody over the property, so that they can make sure you actually comply with what the warrant states and don't execute what's called a general warrant, which we'll get to in a minute.

Then the third aspect is particularity. This is the requirement that you specify individually which documents you're seeking and how probable cause exists both for the crime and for that document being evidence of the crime. Unlike civil discovery, which is under a general rule that if it could lead to discovery in America, you can request and get the information. That's not the case in a criminal search warrant context. You have to have particularity. You have to meet probable cause that both the crime exists and probable cause that the document you're asking to search and seize is evidence of that crime. What you cannot do is say, “I want to search your whole house and see if maybe there's some evidence of some kind of crime there.” That's what's not allowed.

That was the general warrants that the British were given prior to the American Revolution, which allowed the army basically to come in, and the colonial authorities, to come in and ransack your home—raid and ransack your home in search if maybe they’d find something. They could search anything, and they could seize anything, in the hopes that maybe it would be evidence of some sort of crime. That’s why we imposed the particularity, presentment, and probable cause preconditions for the execution of the search warrant.

Everything about this “criminal search warrant,” then, is bogus. Its vague and general, and the crimes they have hinted at are not possible crimes for the former president to have committed.

Other weird things about the warrant: they needed a separate, additional warrant to break into the safe, which they just happened to have a safecracker on hand to break into (it was empty). And the unprecedented gall of doing this at a former president’s residence is increased when you know that—it was supposedly urgent, but they waited three days before getting a judge to sign it—a judge who recused himself from a Trump case just six weeks ago, admitting he could not be unbiased. Hmm.

We learned today that they are fighting the request to publish what was in the affidavit requesting the search warrant—the statement of suspected crime and the reason the particular items to be searched would be evidence of such crime. However, such information might not be made public until there is an indictment. And in this case, since there is not likely to be an indictment, we may not get to see it for some time.

The reason there is not likely to be an indictment is that they do not want it known what they were searching for—which has nothing to do with any criminal lawbreaking of President Trump, because they know he didn’t do any.

One surprising thing Barnes said Sunday night was that he thought they didn’t think word would get out about the raid:

I don't think they thought this would ever become public knowledge. They went in with plainclothes. It did not leak at all until Trump himself told everybody about it. That means the Deep State didn't leak it in advance, like they do cases where they want the world to know about it.

They probably thought Trump would be too embarrassed by the fact of the raid to publicly disclose it, not understanding that Trump understands this game very well—or  well enough at this point. And so he was—Trump is the one saying, “These nuts are raiding my house; they're ransacking Melania's closet.”

Plainclothes or not, 30 FBI agents showing up anywhere is likely to raise attention. They’re doing something that egregious, and they think Trump will be embarrassed to let the world know? And yet, these are desperate times for the ones on the verge of losing their power.

  

They Can’t Be Trusted

On the Will Cain podcast today, about 20 minutes in, he talks why we should not believe the government in this case.  He says,

Will Cain on his August 15 podcast
screenshot from here

For 6 years Donald Trump has been the subject of an attack by many American people and many institutions, from the media to the national security state apparatus, who believe that he is illegitimate. That has been consistent. And that brings us to our final category: the credibility of these institutions. We’ve talked about this in the past. If there are many people that believe that Donald Trump is illegitimate, there are perhaps more who believe that the institutions of the United States are now illegitimate. And why would they believe that? Why would they have such little faith? Why would the believe the FBI, the DOJ, the media have no credibility? It might be because of this, over the past six years.

1.      The Russia collusion hoax.

2.      The Steele dossier hooker story.

3.      Russia paying bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan.

4.      Trump calling neo-Nazis, supposedly, “very fine people.”

5.      Trump suggesting drinking, injesting, injecting bleach to fight COVID.

6.      Trump overfed koi fish in Japan.

7.      Trump cleared protesters with teargas for a Bible photo op.

8.      Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation.

9.      Elections were fair, because no court found major fraud.

10.   January 6 was an insurrection to overthrow the government

11.   Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the Beast—he leaned over the Secret Service and grabbed the steering wheel of the Beast.

All of these stories are false. Cain points out that each one was debunked. (I had to look up the one about the koi fish; I hadn’t heard that one.) A lot of people still don’t know those are all lies. But a lot of us do. Cain adds, for those of us who recognize all these past lies, “We’re just going to jump on the bandwagon and believe that Donald Trump stole the nuclear codes?” I don’t think so.

By the way, nuclear codes are changed daily. Former President Trump doesn’t have them. I don’t know who’s making that up—the Washington Post story claimed it was about documents related to nuclear weapons—but there’s a scary pattern of these enemies of freedom doing whatever they’re accusing the other side of doing.

 

Attorney/Client Privilege

Over the weekend it came out that, among the documents seized by the FBI in last Monday’s raid were attorney/client privilege documents. That is, correspondence between Trump and his counsel, which the FBI had no business taking. They cannot use them against him, and they should not be able to view them; they are private. It’s a constitutional right.

What should happen isn’t what is happening. What should happen is that, as soon as it was noticed that the FBI had “accidentally” seized documents were attorney/client privilege documents, they should have arranged for them to be returned. That could have been done simply and directly by returning them. Or, to ensure security of the documents, they could have had a court-appointed person, called a special master.

But they did not do that. Instead they appointed a “filter team” of FBI agents going over the documents to decide which they should be reviewing and which they shouldn’t. Then they still wouldn’t return them; they’d send them on to a “tank team” of FBI agents, another level up, for review. It’s a fox guarding the henhouse scenario. As Jay Sekulow asks in his ACLJ broadcast, “Does anybody believe these are not being reviewed by the FBI?”

That’s multiple sets of eyes. They saw the documents when they were deciding what to box up and take from Mar-a-Lago. With anything but a general warrant, they would have recognized these as “do not take.” They had many hours at Mar-a-Lago to see them and make that decision; they took them. Then they went through them somewhere, enough to recognize they were attorney-client privilege documents, because they identified the boxes that contain them: A-13, A-14, A-26, A-33, A-43, and one labeled “set of documents.” Then there’s the “filter team,” followed by the “tank team”—all of these various FBI officials.

And remember, last Thursday DOJ Merrick Garland said it was wrong to question the FBI—which was something of a veiled threat toward anyone with common sense enough to question what this FBI is doing.

Law vlogger Robert Gouveia goes over the DOJ objection to 
warrant affidavit release, screenshot from here

We’ve never seen anything like this in America before—because the institutions that are clearly corrupt have never been this openly brazen before.

Again, I say they are desperate to maintain their power, at any cost, even at the cost of unveiling how corrupt they truly are. If they don’t succeed in maintaining their power in November, then it’s game over. So watch for more desperation in the next few months. It isn't going to be pretty. But it sure is unprecedented.