Nobody has argued about the process. But the FBI has a LOT of resources. they know how to write a warrant - they probably have staff lawyers assigned just for the review and critique of draft warrants, and they probably have prosecutors review them before they go to a judge. All of that is granted.
That has nothing to do with my previous post on this subject.
In order to get a warrant approved, you must show probable cause. Now, granted, with Mannafort and everybody else changing their stories constantly over this, that goes a long way towards probable cause.
But they still have to show probable cause beyond that. What makes them truly think that there are materials in his house that are relevant to the investigation?
That's a tough question to answer.
The problem with probable cause is that it's very subjective: it really depends on who hears the argument as to whether or not it's approved as such. There is no black and white, clear line on PC.
I'm sure they used the recent shenanigans, leaks and probably more that we don't know about to get that warrant.
But many news sources are saying they came away with nothing but what they already had.
My statement is simply this: IF that is true, then they're in a world of shit. Because NOW they can't use that argument (the changing stories, etc.) to get another warrant signed.
Example: Say now they wanted to search Ivanka's apartment she was in for the same reasons. They use the same story. No judge is ever going to approve that because that argument was already used and turned out to be false.
No judge is going to ever sign another warrant based on that argument again. Ever. Because then it's just a fishing expedition and completely baseless.
In the end, you can't go through EVERYBODY'S house based on the same argument hoping you get lucky. That simply does not, never has and never will happen.
That was my point.
