"Why include it? Patel is a Trump advisor who publicly pushed the defense that Trump had declassified the documents."
So ?
It's a search warrant affidavit.
Again. What is the point of including Patel's name, or the fact that he was quoted in a Breitbart article, in an affidavit attached to a search warrant not related to him ?
Why name the witnesses? Why name the classified documents that were previously turned over? I would imagine all that was relevant as to why they obtained the warrant -- the probable cause. That is what goes in the affidavit they present to a judge.
Gowdy didn't question why Patel was cited. It's obvious why. He questioned why Patel's name was not redacted; which is asinine.
Imagine this: The first batch of documents retrieved from Trump included sensitive classified material that had been sloppily handled.
Trump and aides, including Kash Patel, put out the word that Trump had declassified the material and was entitled to keep it. That was public knowledge.
Meanwhile, confidential informants reported that more highly sensitive material remained at Trump's residence. This posed a risk to national security if it fell into the wrong hands.
It remains unknown why Trump took these documents.
All of this is in the affidavit explaining the urgent need for the search warrant. Non-public information, such as names of confidential informants, targets of the investigation, copies of secret documents, etc were redacted when the affidavit was released.
Information that was public knowledge was not redacted.
That is my take. Anyone got a better one that fits the facts?
RecentWTF is up with this Clown... by Reacher
Total Members: 142